text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'Let $K$ be an algebraic number field. We construct an additive Markov process $X_t^{K_\mathbb A}$ on the ring of adeles $K_\mathbb A,$ whose coordinates $X_t^{(v)}$ are independent and use this process to give a probabilistic interpretation of the Dedekind zeta function $\zeta_K(s),$ for $\operatorname{Re}s>1.$ This note extends a recent work of Yasuda [@Yprob] where the case of the field $K={\mathbb{Q}}$ of rational numbers was considered.'
address: |
Institute of Mathematics\
Wroclaw University\
Plac Grunwaldzki 2/4\
50-384 Wroclaw, Poland
author:
- Roman Urban
title: 'Markov processes on the adeles and Dedekind’s zeta function'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
For definitions of number theoretical terms appearing in this Introduction see §\[prel\].
Let $K$ be an algebraic number field (i.e., a finite extension of ${\mathbb{Q}}$). Let $s=\sigma+it\in{\mathbb{C}}.$ The Dedekind’s zeta function of an algebraic number field $K$ is defined by $$\label{ds}
\zeta_K(s)=\sum_I\frac{1}{N(I)^s},$$ where the summation is over all non-zero ideals in $R_K,$ the ring of integers of $K,$ and $N(I)=[R_K:I].$ In the half-plane $\sigma>1$ the series converges absolutely, and the convergence is uniform in every compact subset of that half-plane. Moreover, by unique factorization of ideals, we have the Euler product representation for $\sigma>1,$ $$\label{ep}
\zeta_K(s)=\prod_{\mathfrak{p}}\left(1-\frac{1}{N({\mathfrak{p}})^s}\right)^{-1},$$ where the product is over all the prime ideals ${\mathfrak{p}}\subset R_K.$
The Dedekind zeta function can be continued analytically to a meromorphic function having a unique simple pole at $s=1.$ For more about $\zeta_K$ see, e.g., [@Nar; @Neu].
The aim of this note is to show some probabilistic interpretation of the Euler product of the Dedekind zeta function $\zeta_K(s).$ This will require a construction of an appropriate Markov processes on the ring of adels of $K.$ Analysis of stochastic processes on local fields and adels attracted the attention of many authors (e.g., [@Karwowski_adeles; @AK; @Ytohoku]). The reason for this interest maybe that the ultrametric spaces seem to be more suitable for description of some physical phenomena. Thus, many authors study for example $p$-adic string theory or $p$-adic quantum mechanics (see e.g., Khrennikov’s monograph [@K] and the references therein). The ultrametric analysis has also found its application in biology and social science (see [@K1]).
Our main theorem of this paper is an application of stochastic analysis on ultrametric spaces to number theory. To state this result we need to introduce the ring of adeles of $K.$
Let $\mathcal P(K)$ ($\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{f}(K),$ resp.) denote the set of places (finite places, resp.) of $K.$ By $K_v$ we denote the completion of $K$ with respect to $v,$ and let $|\cdot|_v$ be the normalized valuation (see ). The adele ring of $K$ is defined as $$K_\mathbb A=\left\{x=(x_v)\in\prod_{v\in\mathcal P(K)}K_v:|x_v|_v\leq 1\text{ for all but finitely many $v\in\mathcal P_\mathrm{f}$}\right\}.$$ Thus, the ring of adeles of $K$ is a restricted direct product, i.e, the product $\prod_{v\in\mathcal P(K)}K_v$ relative to the $$R_v=\{|x_v|_v\leq 1\},\;\;v\in\mathcal P_\mathrm{f}(K).$$
Our main result is the following theorem which extends the result of Yasuda [@Yprob Theorem 1], where $K={\mathbb{Q}}$ and the Riemann zeta function was considered.
\[main\] Let $K$ be an algebraic number field and let, for every $v\in\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{f}(K),$ $\{a_v(M)\}_{M\in{\mathbb{Z}}},$ be a sequence of real number satisfying:
- $a_v(M+1)\leq a_v(M),$
- $\lim_{M\to+\infty}a_v(M)=0,$
- $0<\sum_{v\in\mathcal P(K)}a_v(0)<+\infty,$
- $a_v(M)=c_vq^{-\alpha_vM}$ for some $c_v,\alpha_v>0.$
Then there exists an additive Markov process $X_t^{K_\mathbb A}$ on the ring of adeles $K_\mathbb A,$ whose coordinates $X_t^{(v)}$ are independent, such that for every complex number $s$ with $\operatorname{Re}s>1,$ $$\zeta_K(s)={\text{\bf E}}_0\left(\prod_{v\in\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{f}(K)}(1-q_v^{-\alpha_v})^{-1}|\pi_vX_{\tau_v}^{(v)}|_v^{-s+\alpha_v}\right),$$ where $\pi_v$ is a uniformizer, and $$\tau_v=\inf\{t\geq 0:X_t^{(v)}\not\in R_v\}$$ is the first exit time from $R_v.$
The condition (iv) implies that the coordinate processes $X_t^{(v)}$ are semi-stable. We do not use this feature in this note. For more on semi-stable process on local fields see e.g. [@Ytohoku].
We use a different construction of the Markov process $X_t^{K_\mathbb A}$ than that presented in [@Yprob]. As a result our proof is much shorter and seems to be easier.
The following functional equations for $\zeta_K$ follows easily from Theorem \[main\] We omit their proofs as they are identical with those given in [@Yprob].
Let $s=x+iy\in{\mathbb{C}}$ with $x>1.$ Let $\bar s$ be the complex conjugate. Then
- Let $X_t^{K_\mathbb A}$ be the process corresponding to the index $\alpha_v=2x$ for all $v\in\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{f}(K).$ Then $$\zeta_K(s){\text{\bf E}}_0\left(\prod_{v\in\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{f}(K)}|\pi_vX_{\tau_v}^{(v)}|_v^{ s}\right)=\zeta_K(\bar s){\text{\bf E}}_0\left(\prod_{v\in\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{f}(K)}|\pi_vX_{\tau_v}^{(v)}|_v^{\bar s}\right).$$
- Let $X_t^{K_\mathbb A}$ be the process corresponding to the index $\alpha_v=x$ for all $v\in\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{f}(K).$ Then $$\zeta_K(s)=\zeta_K(x){\text{\bf E}}_0\left(\prod_{v\in\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{f}(K)}|\pi_vX_{\tau_v}^{(v)}|_v^{-iy}\right)$$ and $$\zeta_K(s){\text{\bf E}}_0\left(\prod_{v\in\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{f}(K)}|\pi_vX_{\tau_v}^{(v)}|_v^{iy}\right)=\zeta_K(\bar s){\text{\bf E}}_0\left(\prod_{v\in\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{f}(K)}|\pi_vX_{\tau_v}^{(v)}|_v^{-iy}\right).$$
Structure of the paper {#structure-of-the-paper .unnumbered}
----------------------
In §\[prel\] we we recall some notions and elementary facts from algebraic number theory. In particular, we define ${\mathfrak{p}}$-adic fields and, for the algebraic number field $K,$ we define the main algebraic structure of this note, the locally compact adele ring of $K.$
In §\[2markov\] we define an appropriate Markov process on the adeles $K_\mathbb A.$ In order to to this first we define the coordinate Markov processes on the ${\mathfrak{p}}$-adic fields.
Finally, in §\[pmain\] we prove Theorem \[main\].
Preliminaries {#prel}
=============
${\mathfrak{p}}$-adic fields
----------------------------
The best references for this section are [@Nar; @Neu]. Let $K$ be an algebraic number field (i.e., a finite extension of ${\mathbb{Q}}$). A valuation $v$ of $K$ is a homomorphism $v:K\to{\mathbb{R}}^+\cup\{0\}$ such that $v(x)=0$ if and only if $x=0,$ and and there is a real number $c\geq 1$ such that for all $x,y\in K,$ $v(xy)=v(x)v(y)$ and $v(x+y)\leq c\max\{v(x),v(y)\}.$ The absolute value $v$ is non-trivial if $v(K)\supsetneq\{0,1\}.$ The valuation $v$ is non-Archimedean if $v$ is non-trivial and we can set $c=1,$ and is said to be Archimedean otherwise.
We say that two valuation $v_1$ and $v_2$ of $K$ are equivalent if there is an $s>0$ such that $v_1(x)=v_2(x)^s$ for every $x\in K.$ An equivalence class $v$ of a non-trivial absolute value of $K$ is called a place of $K.$ A place $v$ is finite if $v$ contains a non-Archimedean absolute value, and infinite otherwise. The set of places, finite places and infinite places of $K$ is denoted by $\mathcal P=\mathcal P(K),$ $\mathcal P_{\mathrm f}=\mathcal P_{\mathrm f}(K)$ and $\mathcal P_\infty =\mathcal P_\infty(K),$ respectively.
By Ostrovski’s theorem every non-trivial valuation of ${\mathbb{Q}}$ is either equivalent to the usual absolute value $|\cdot|_\infty,$ or to the $p$-adic absolute value $|\cdot|_p$ for some rational prime $p>1,$ defined by $|0|_p=0$ and $|p^k\frac{n}{m}|_p=p^{-k}$ for $k,n,m\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ and $p\nmid nm.$
Let $R_K$ be the ring of integers of an algebraic number field $K.$ Let ${\mathfrak{p}}$ a prime ideal of $R_K,$ $v$ the (discrete) valuation associated with ${\mathfrak{p}}$ ([@Nar Theorem 3.3]). By $K_{\mathfrak{p}}$ or $K_v$ we denote the completion of $K$ under $v,$ and we call $K_{\mathfrak{p}}$ the ${\mathfrak{p}}$-adic field. By $k$ we denote the quotient field $R_K\slash{\mathfrak{p}},$ the residue class field. The cardinality of this residue field is a very important parameter, which we denote by $q=q_{\mathfrak{p}}=q_v.$ The extension of $v$ to $K_{\mathfrak{p}}$ will be also denoted by $v.$ The ring of integers of $K_{\mathfrak{p}},$ $R_{\mathfrak{p}}=\{x\in K_{\mathfrak{p}}:v(x)\leq 1\}$ is the closure of the ring $R=\{x\in K:v(x)\leq 1\},$ and ${\mathfrak{P}}=\{x\in K_{\mathfrak{p}}:v(x)<1\}={\mathfrak{p}}R_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is a prime ideal of $R_{\mathfrak{p}},$ which is the closure of the prime ideal $\{x\in K:v(x)<1\}$ of $R.$ The invertible elements of $R_{\mathfrak{p}}$ form a group $U(R_{\mathfrak{p}})$ of units of $K_{\mathfrak{p}}.$ The quotient fields $R_K\slash{\mathfrak{p}}$ and $R_{\mathfrak{p}}\slash{\mathfrak{P}}$ are isomorphic ([@Nar Proposition 5.1]).
We define a uniformizer for $v,$ or a local parameter, to be an element $\pi,$ also denoted by $\pi_v$ or $\pi_{\mathfrak{p}}$ of $K_{\mathfrak{p}}$ of maximal $v(\pi)$ less than $1.$ If we fix a uniformizer $\pi,$ every element of $K_{\mathfrak{p}}^*$ can be written uniquely as $x=u\pi^m$ for some $u$ with $v(u)=1$ and $m\in{\mathbb{Z}}.$ Moreover, each element $x\in K_{\mathfrak{p}}^*$ can be expressed in one and only one way as a convergent series $$\label{expansion}
x=\sum_{i=m}^\infty r_i\pi^i,$$ where the coefficients $r_i$ are taken from a set $\mathcal R\subset R_{\mathfrak{p}}$ (of cardinality $q$) of representatives of the residue classes in the field $k_{\mathfrak{p}}:=R_{\mathfrak{p}}\slash{\mathfrak{P}}$ (i.e., the canonical map $R_{\mathfrak{p}}\to k_{\mathfrak{p}}$ induces a bijection of $\mathcal R$ onto $k_{\mathfrak{p}}$).
In what follows we consider the normalized valuation $$\label{normval}
v(x)=q^{-k},$$ where $k$ is the unique integer such that $x=u\pi^k$ for some unit $u.$ Let $K$ be a field with a valuation $v.$ Then $K$ is a ${\mathfrak{p}}$-adic field with the ${\mathfrak{p}}$-adic valuation if and only if $K$ is a finite extension of ${\mathbb{Q}}_p$ for a suitable $p.$ (See [@Nar Theorem 5.10].)
Adeles
------
Here we only recall a definition of the ring of adeles of $K.$ For more details see [@RV; @W]. We write $|\cdot|_v$ for the valuation $v(\cdot).$ The set $$K_\mathbb A=\left\{x=(x_v)\in\prod_{v\in\mathcal P(K)}K_v:|x_v|_v\leq 1\text{ for all but finitely many $v\in\mathcal P_\mathrm{f}$}\right\}$$ furnished with the topology in which the subgroup $$\{x=(x_v)\in K_\mathbb A:|x_v|_v\leq 1\text{ for every $v\in\mathcal P_{\mathrm f}(K)$}\}\cong\prod_{v\in\mathcal P_\infty(K)}K_v\times\prod_{v\in\mathcal P_{\mathrm f}(K)}R_v,$$ where $R_v=\{x\in K_v:|x|_v\leq 1\},$ carries the product topology and is open in $K_\mathbb A$ is the locally compact [*adele ring*]{} of $K$ and its elements are called [*adeles*]{}.
Markov process on the adele ring of $K$ {#2markov}
=======================================
Markov process on $K_{\mathfrak{p}}$
------------------------------------
In order to construct an appropriate process on $K_\mathbb A$ we need first to define the processes on the ${\mathfrak{p}}$-adic fields. Rotation-invariant additive processes on ${\mathbb{Q}}_p$ were constructed by Albeverio and Karwowski in [@AK]. Their construction was extended to all local fields by Yasuda in [@Ytokyo].
Let $K_{\mathfrak{p}}=K_v$ be a ${\mathfrak{p}}$-adic field with the ${\mathfrak{p}}$-adic valuation $|\cdot|_{\mathfrak{p}}=|\cdot|_v.$ Let $a(M)=a_{\mathfrak{p}}(M)=a_v(M),$ $M\in{\mathbb{Z}},$ be a sequence of real number satisfying $$\label{s1}
a(M+1)\leq a(M)$$ and $$\label{s2}
\lim_{M\to+\infty}a(M)=0.$$ It is shown in [@Ytokyo] that there is one-to-one correspondence between sequences satisfying and and rotation-invariant additive Markov processes $X_t$ whose Lévy measure $\nu$ is given by $\nu(B(0,q^M)^c)=a(M),$ where $B(x,q^M)$ denotes the ball with radius $q^M$ centered at $x,$ i.e., $\{z\in K_{\mathfrak{p}}:|x-z|_v\leq q^M\}.$ Moreover, the transition probabilities kernels $P_t^{({\mathfrak{p}})}=P_t^{(v)}$ of the Markov process $X_t=X_t^{({\mathfrak{p}})}=X_t^{(v)}$ on $K_{\mathfrak{p}}$ are given by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{tk}
P_t^{({\mathfrak{p}})}(x,B(y,q^M))=\\
\begin{cases}
P_M^{({\mathfrak{p}})}(t)&\text{if $|x-y|_v\leq q^M,$}\\
(q-1)^{-1}q^{1-m}(P_{M+m}^{({\mathfrak{p}})}(t)-P_{M+m-1}^{({\mathfrak{p}})}(t))&\text{if $|x-y|_v=q^{M+m},$ $m\geq 1,$}
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$ where $$P_M^{({\mathfrak{p}})}(t)=q^{-1}(q-1)\sum_{i=0}^\infty q^{-i}\exp\left(-(q-1)^{-1}(qa(M+i)-a(M+i+1))t\right)$$ and $a(M)$ satisfies and (the dependence on ${\mathfrak{p}}$ of the above function is through $q=q_{\mathfrak{p}}$ and $a=a_{\mathfrak{p}}$).
The following lemma follows easily from standard theory of continuous time Markov chains together with explicit formula for $P_t^{({\mathfrak{p}})}.$
\[exittime\] Let $X_t$ be the Markov process on $K_{\mathfrak{p}}$ starting from $0$ with the transition kernel $P_t$ defined in , and let, for $m\in{\mathbb{Z}},$ $$\tau^{(m)}=\inf\{t>0:|X_t|_v>q_v^m\}.$$ Then $${\text{\bf P}}(\tau^{(m)}>t)=e^{-a(m)t}.$$
If $K={\mathbb{Q}}$ then the prime ideals ${\mathfrak{p}}$ of $R_K={\mathbb{Z}}$ are of the form $(p)=\{pk:k\in{\mathbb{Z}}\}.$ Then $K_{\mathfrak{p}}={\mathbb{Q}}_p$ is the field of $p$-adic numbers, $R_{\mathfrak{p}}={\mathbb{Z}}_p$ is the ring of $p$-adic integers. The generator $H$ of the symmetric Markov semigroup $P_t^{(p)}$ (of the process $X_t=X_t^{(p)}$ on the state space ${\mathbb{Q}}_p$) was computed in [@AK p. 15]. The computation in the general case of $K_{\mathfrak{p}}$ for algebraic number field $K$ bears no difference – only some cosmetic changes in the notation are required – and we get the following.
\[genkp\] Let $P_t^{({\mathfrak{p}})}$ be as in , and let $$H{\mathbf 1}_{B}(x)=\lim_{t\searrow 0}t^{-1}\left(P_t^{({\mathfrak{p}})}{\mathbf 1}_{B}(x)-{\mathbf 1}_{B}(x)\right),$$ where $B=B(y,q^M),$ and ${\mathbf 1}_B$ is the indicator function of $B.$ Then, $$\begin{gathered}
H{\mathbf 1}_{B}(x)\\=
\begin{cases}
-a_v(M)&\text{if $x\in B,$}\\
q^{1-m}(q-1)^{-1}\left(a_v(M+m-1)-a_v(M+m)\right)&\text{if $d_v(x,B)=q^{M+m}.$}
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$
Markov process on $K_\mathbb A$ {#mpoa}
-------------------------------
Now we are using the stochastic processes $X_t=X_t^{({\mathfrak{p}})}$ on $K_{\mathfrak{p}}$ constructed in the previous section to induce in a componentwise way a stochastic process on $K_\mathbb A.$ We follow [@Karwowski_adeles] where the construction for ${\mathbb{Q}}_\mathbb A,$ the adele ring of ${\mathbb{Q}}$ was presented (in fact there is only restricted direct product of $\prod_{p}{\mathbb{Q}}_p,$ $p$ prime number, considered in [@Karwowski_adeles], not the whole adele ring).
For $v\in\mathcal P_{\infty}(K),$ we take any Markov process $X^{(v)}_t$ on $K_v$ with transition kernel $P_t^{(v)}.$ Now, for $x=(x_v)_{v\in\mathcal P(K)}$ and $B$ being the product of balls, of not necessarily equal radii, in $K_v,$ $v\in\mathcal P(K),$ define $$P_t(x,B)=\prod_{v\in\mathcal{P}_\infty(K)}P_t^{(v)}(x_v,B_v)\prod_{{\mathfrak{p}}\subset R_K}P_t^{({\mathfrak{p}})}(x_{\mathfrak{p}},B_{\mathfrak{p}}).$$
\[markovonadels\] Suppose that the sequences $\{a_v(M)\}_{M\in{\mathbb{Z}}},$ $v\in\mathcal P(K)$ (satisfying and ) satisfy additionally $$\label{s3}
0<\sum_{v\in\mathcal P(K)}a_v(0)<+\infty.$$ Then the kernel $P_t$ defined above obeys the Chapman-Kolmogorov equation. Furthermore, for every $x\in K_\mathbb A$ and all $t\geq 0,$ $$\label{conserv}
P_t(x,K_\mathbb A)=1.$$ Hence, we have a Markov process $X_t^{K_\mathbb A}$ on $K_\mathbb A$ with transition kernel $P_t.$
To check the Chapman-Kolmogorov equation is an easy exercise (it goes as in [@Karwowski_adeles p. 4649]). So we prove . It follows from Borel-Cantelli lemma that if $$\label{1}
\sum_{v\in\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{f}(K)}P_t^{(v)}(x_v,R_v^c)<+\infty$$ then $$P_t(x,K_\mathbb A^c)={\text{\bf P}}(\text{for infinitely many $v,$ $|X_t^{(v)}|_v>1$})=0.$$ Hence, we need to show . Since $x_v\in R_v$ for all but finitely many $v\in\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{f}(K)$ we can assume that all $x_v$ in are in $R_v.$ Thus, using we have, $$\sum_{v\in\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{f}(K)}P_t^{(v)}(x_v,R_v^c)=\sum_{v\in\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{f}(K)}\left(1-P_t^{(v)}(x_v,R_v)\right)
=\sum_{v\in\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{f}(K)}\left(1-P_0^{(v)}(t)\right).$$ The right hand side above is equal to $$\sum_{v\in\mathcal P_\mathrm{f}}
\left(q^{-1}_v(q_v-1)\sum_{i=0}^\infty q_v^{-i}\left(1-\exp\left(-(q_v-1)^{-1}(q_va_v(i)-a_v(i+1))t\right)\right)\right).$$ Since for $x\geq 0,$ $1-e^{-x}\leq x,$ we can estimate the above sum by $$\begin{gathered}
t\sum_{v\in\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{f}}\left(\sum_{i=0}^\infty q_v^{-i}(a_v(i)-q^{-1}_va_v(i+1))\right)
=t\sum_{v\in\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{f}}\left(a_v(0)+\lim_{i\to+\infty}\frac{a_v(i)}{q_v^i}\right).\end{gathered}$$ By the right side is equal to $t\sum_{v\in\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{f}(K)}a_v(0),$ and is finite by .
In order to prove Theorem \[main\] it is not necessary to consider the whole adele ring. Note that we do not use coordinates $K_v$ with $v$ belonging to the set $\mathcal{P}_\infty(K)$ of infinite places of $K$ in the formulation of Theorem \[main\].
Proof of Theorem \[main\] {#pmain}
=========================
Let $X_t^{K_\mathbb A}=(X_t^{(v)})_{v\in\mathcal{P}(K)}$ be the Markov process on $K_\mathbb A$ with transition kernel $P_t$ constructed in §\[mpoa\]. Let, for $v\in\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{f}(K),$ $$\tau_v=\inf\{t\geq 0:X_t^{(v)}\not\in R_v\}.$$ By Lemma \[exittime\], $$\label{time}
{\text{\bf P}}_0(\tau_v>t)=e^{-a_v(0)t}.$$
\[mainlemma\] Let the process $X_t^{(v)}$ be defined by the sequence satisfying , , and moreover, $$\label{exponential}
a_v(M)=c_vq^{-\alpha_vM}$$ for some $c_v,\alpha_v>0.$ Then $${\text{\bf P}}_0(|X_{\tau_v}^{(v)}|_v=q^m_v)=(q_v^{\alpha_v}-1)q_v^{-m\alpha_v}.$$
It follows from that for every $y\in K_{\mathfrak{p}},$ $M\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ and $m\geq 1$ there are $(q_v-1)q_v^{m-1}$ disjoint balls $B(x,q_v^M)=\{z\in K_{\mathfrak{p}}:|x-z|_v\leq q_v^M\}$ such that $|x-y|_v=q_v^{M+m}.$ Hence, taking $M=0,$ it follows that $$\label{wzor1}
{\text{\bf P}}_0(|X_{\tau_v}^{(v)}|_v=q^m_v)=(q_v-1)q_v^{m-1}{\text{\bf P}}_0(X_{\tau_v}^{(v)}\in B),$$ where $B$ is a ball of radius $1$ such that the distance[^2] $d_v(R_v,B)=q_v^m.$ Hence we need to compute ${\text{\bf P}}_0(X_{\tau_v}^{(v)}\in B)$ for $d_v(R_v,B)=q_v^m.$
Let $B_0,B_1,\ldots$ be the sequence of all disjoint balls of radii $1$ in $K_{\mathfrak{p}},$ with $B_0=B(0,1)=R_v.$ We associate with the process $X_t^{(v)}$ a continuous time Markov chain $M_t$ on the state space ${\mathbb{N}}_0=\{0,1,\ldots\}$ defined by the relation $$\label{relacja}
M_t=\ell\text{ if and only if }X_t^{(v)}\in B_\ell.$$ Let $L$ be its generator. Then, for $f\in\mathcal{D}(L),$ the domain of $L,$ by , $$Lf(\ell)=a_v(0)\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}_0}(f(j)-f(\ell)){\text{\bf P}}(X_{\tau_v}^{(v)}\in B_j\mid X_0^{(v)}\in B_\ell).$$ For $f=\delta_i,$ we get $$\begin{gathered}
L\delta_i(\ell)=a_v(0)(1-\delta_i(\ell)){\text{\bf P}}(X_{\tau_v}^{(v)}\in B_i\mid X_0^{(v)}\in B_\ell)\\
-a_v(0)\delta_i(\ell)\sum_{j\not=i}{\text{\bf P}}(X_{\tau_v}^{(v)}\in B_j\mid X_0^{(v)}\in B_\ell).\end{gathered}$$ Therefore, if $i=\ell,$ $$L\delta_\ell(\ell)=-a_v(0)\sum_{j\not=\ell}{\text{\bf P}}(X_{\tau_v}^{(v)}\in B_j\mid X_0^{(v)}\in B_\ell)=-a_v(0).$$ And generally, $$\label{Ldelta}
L\delta_i(\ell)
=\begin{cases}
-a_v(0)&\text{ if $i=\ell,$}\\
a_v(0){\text{\bf P}}(X_{\tau_v}^{(v)}\in B_i\mid X_0^{(v)}\in B_\ell)&\text{ if $i\not=\ell.$}
\end{cases}$$ By with $\ell=0,$ Lemma \[genkp\] and it follows that if $B_i\not=B_0=R_v$ and $d_v(R_v,B_i)=q^m,$ then $${\text{\bf P}}_0(X_{\tau_v}^{(v)}\in B_i)=a_v(0)^{-1}q_v^{1-m}(q_v-1)^{-1}\left(a_v(m-1)-a_v(m)\right)$$ Using the above probability is equal to $q_v^{1-m(\alpha_v+1)}(q_v-1)^{-1}(q_v^{\alpha_v}-1).$ This together with finish the proof.
For $v\in\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{f}}(K),$ we write $$\begin{gathered}
{\text{\bf E}}_0\left((1-q_v^{-\alpha_v})^{-1}|\pi_vX_{\tau_v}^{(v)}|_v^{-s+\alpha_v}\right)\\
=\sum_{m=1}^\infty{\text{\bf E}}_0\left((1-q_v^{-\alpha_v})^{-1}|\pi_vX_{\tau_v}^{(v)}|_v^{-s+\alpha_v}{\mathbf 1}_{|X_{\tau_v}^{(v)}|_v=q_v^m}\right)\\
=(1-q_v^{-\alpha_v})^{-1}q_v^{s-\alpha_v}\sum_{m=1}^\infty q_v^{m(-s+\alpha_v)}{\text{\bf P}}_0\left(|X_{\tau_v}^{(v)}|_v=q_v^m\right).\end{gathered}$$ By Lemma \[mainlemma\], we get $$\begin{gathered}
{\text{\bf E}}_0\left((1-q_v^{-\alpha_v})^{-1}|\pi_vX_{\tau_v}^{(v)}|_v^{-s+\alpha_v}\right)\\
=(1-q_v^{-\alpha_v})^{-1}q_v^{s-\alpha_v}\sum_{m=1}^\infty q_v^{-ms}(q_v^{\alpha_v}-1)=q_v^s\sum_{m=1}^\infty q_v^{-ms}=(1-q_v^{-s})^{-1}.\end{gathered}$$ Since the coordinates $X_t^{(v)},$ $v\in\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{f}}(K),$ are independent the result follows.
[11]{}
S. Albeverio and W. Karwowski. A random walk on $p$-adics – the generator and its spectrum. 53(1):1–22, 1994.
W. Karwowski and R.V. Mendes. Hierarchical structures and asymmetric stochastic processes on $p$-adics and adeles. 35(9):4637–4650, 1994.
A. Khrennikov. Mathematics and its Applications, 309. Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Dordrecht, 1994.
A. Khrennikov. Mathematics and its Applications, 427. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1997.
W. Narkiewicz. Third edition. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004.
J. Neukirch. [*Algebraic number theory.*]{} Translated from the 1992 German original and with a note by Norbert Schappacher. With a foreword by G. Harder. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften \[Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences\], 322. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999.
D. Ramakrishnan and R.J. Valenza. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 186. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1999.
A. Weil. Third edition. Die Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 144. Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin, 1974.
K. Yasuda. Additive processes on local fields. 3(3):629–654, 1996.
K. Yasuda. Semi-stable processes on local fields. 58(3):419–431, 2006.
K. Yasuda. Markov processes on the adeles and representations of Euler products. 23(3):748–769, 2010.
[^1]: Research supported in part by the MNiSW research grant N N201 393937.
[^2]: The distance between two balls $B_1$ and $B_2$ is defined as the distance between arbitrary $x$ and $y$ such that $x\in B_1$ and $y\in B_2,$ which is $d_v(x,y)=v(x-y).$ This is well defined due to the fact that we are working in ultrametric spaces.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Computational approaches to drug discovery can reduce the time and cost associated with experimental assays and enable the screening of novel chemotypes. Structure-based drug design methods rely on scoring functions to rank and predict binding affinities and poses. The ever-expanding amount of protein-ligand binding and structural data enables the use of deep machine learning techniques for protein-ligand scoring.
We describe convolutional neural network (CNN) scoring functions that take as input a comprehensive 3D representation of a protein-ligand interaction. A CNN scoring function automatically learns the key features of protein-ligand interactions that correlate with binding. We train and optimize our CNN scoring functions to discriminate between correct and incorrect binding poses and known binders and non-binders. We find that our CNN scoring function outperforms the AutoDock Vina scoring function when ranking poses both for pose prediction and virtual screening.
author:
- Matthew Ragoza
- Joshua Hochuli
- Elisa Idrobo
- Jocelyn Sunseri
- David Ryan Koes
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'Protein-Ligand Scoring with Convolutional Neural Networks'
---
Introduction
============
Protein-ligand scoring is a keystone of structure-based drug design. Scoring functions rank and score protein-ligand structures with the intertwined goals of accurately predicting the binding affinity of the complex, selecting the correct binding mode (pose prediction), and distinguishing between binders and non-binders (virtual screening).
Existing empirical [@sminapaper; @Eldridge1997; @Bohm1994score; @Wang2002score; @Korb2009; @Friesner2004; @Trott2009] and knowledge-based [@Huang2010; @Muegge1999; @Gohlke2000; @Zhou2011; @Mooij2005; @Ballester2010] scoring functions parameterize a predetermined function, which is usually physically inspired, to fit data, such as binding affinity values. Scoring functions that use machine learning [@Ashtawy2015; @Sato2009; @Ballester2010; @zilian2013sfcscore; @jorissen2005; @schietgat2015predicting; @sminapaper; @deng2004; @durrant2010nnscore; @chupakhin2013predicting; @durrant2011nnscore; @durrant2015ml; @gonczarek2016; @wallach2015atomnet] provide greater flexibility and expressiveness as they learn both parameters and the model structure from data. However, the resulting model often lacks interpretability, and the increased expressiveness increases the probability of overfitting the model to the data, in which case the scoring function will not generalize to protein targets or ligand chemotypes not in the training data. The risk of overfitting increases the importance of rigorous validation [@Kramer2010; @gabel2014beware], but the inherent increase in flexibility allows machine learning methods to outperform more constrained methods when trained on an identical input set [@li2014importance]. The choice of input features can limit the expressiveness of a machine learning method. Features such as atom interaction counts [@durrant2011nnscore], pairwise atom distance descriptors [@Ballester2010], interaction fingerprints [@chupakhin2013predicting], or “neural fingerprints” generated by learned atom convolutions [@gonczarek2016] necessarily eliminate or approximate the information inherent in a protein-ligand structure, such as precise spatial relationships.
Neural networks [@rojas2013neural] are a neurologically inspired supervised machine learning technique that is routinely and successfully applied to problems such as speech recognition and image recognition. A basic network consists of an input layer, one or more hidden layers, and an output layer of interconnected nodes. Each hidden node computes a feature that is a function of the weighted input it receives from the nodes of the previous layer. The outputs are propagated to each successive layer until the output layer generates a classification. The network architecture and choice of activation function for each layer determine the design of the network. The weights that parameterize the model are typically optimized to fit a given training set of data to minimize the error of the network.
Deep learning [@lecun2015deep] refers to neural networks with many layers, which are capable of learning highly complex functions and have been made practical largely by the increase in computational power provided by modern graphics cards. The expressiveness of a neural network model can be controlled by the network architecture, which defines the number and type of layers that process the input to ultimately yield a classification. The network architecture can be manually or automatically tuned with respect to validation sets to be as expressive as needed to accurately model the data and reduce overfitting [@srivastava2014dropout; @szegedy2015going]. Structure-based scoring functions that use neural networks [@durrant2010nnscore; @chupakhin2013predicting; @durrant2011nnscore; @durrant2015ml; @gonczarek2016; @wallach2015atomnet] were recently shown to be competitive with empirical scoring in retrospective virtual screening exercises while also being effective in a prospective screen of estrogen receptor ligands [@durrant2015estrogen]. Neural networks have also been successfully applied in the cheminformatics domain through creative manipulations of 2D chemical structure and construction of the network architecture [@xu2015deep; @Lusci2013; @DuvMacetal15nfp; @ramsundar:2015].
![\[lily\] A classical convolutional neural network for image recognition. The first layer applies three different convolutions to the input image to create three maps of low level features that are the input for another convolutional layer that creates five maps. Feature maps preserve the spatial locality of the features. As a last step, a traditional neural net is applied to generate a classification. ](cnnex){width="\linewidth"}
Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) [@lecun2015deep] are a type of neural network commonly used in image recognition. CNNs hierarchically decompose an image so that each layer of the network learns to recognize higher-level features while maintaining their spatial relationships as illustrated in Figure \[lily\]. For example, the first layer may learn to identify lines and corners in an image, the next may assemble these features to learn different shapes, and so on until the final layer can recognize something as high-level and complex as a dog breed. CNNs are the best performing method for image recognition [@krizhevsky2012imagenet], as epitomized by the GoogLeNet winning entry to the ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge of 2014 [@szegedy2015going] and the Microsoft ResNet entry of 2015 [@msdeepresidual], both of which perform better at classifying images than most humans [@googlenetaccuracy].
The impressive performance of CNNs at the image recognition task suggests that they are well-suited for learning from other types of spatial data, such as protein-ligand structures. Unlike previous machine learning methods, a CNN scoring method does not require the extraction of features from the structure. Instead, the method automatically identifies the most informative features required for successful scoring. This allows for the extraction of features that are not readily encoded in simplified potentials, such as hydrophobic enclosure [@Friesner2006] or surface area dependent terms [@Jain1996], as well as features that have not yet been identified as relevant by any existing scoring function.
Here we describe the development of a CNN model for protein-ligand scoring that is trained to classify compound poses as binders or non-binders using a 3D grid representation of protein-ligand structures generated through docking. We show that our CNN scoring method outperforms the AutoDock Vina [@Trott2009] scoring function that is used to generate the poses both when selecting poses for pose prediction and for virtual screening tasks. We also illustrate how our CNN score can be decomposed into individual atomic contributions to generate informative visualizations.
Methods
=======
In order to create our CNN scoring models we utilize two training sets, one focused on pose prediction and the other on virtual screening. The structural information in these sets is translated into a custom input format appropriate for CNN processing. We systematically optimize the network topology and parameters using clustered cross-validation. The optimized network is then trained on the full training set and evaluated with respect to independent test sets. The predictions from the resulting models are decomposed into atomic contributions to provide informative visualizations.
Training Sets
-------------
We utilize two training sets focused on two different goals: pose prediction and virtual screening. In all cases we generate ligand poses for actives and decoys using docking with smina[@sminapaper] and the AutoDock Vina scoring function [@Trott2009]. We use docked poses, even for active compounds with a known crystal structure, because (1) these are the types of poses the model will ultimately have to score and (2) to avoid the model simply learning to distinguish between docked poses and crystal structures (which were likely optimized with different force fields).
Ligands are docked against a reference receptor within a box centered around a reference ligand with 8[Å]{} of padding. If 3D coordinates are not available for the ligand, a single 3D conformer of the ligand is generated using RDKit [@rdkit] to provide the initial coordinates (using `rdconf.py` from <https://github.com/dkoes/rdkit-scripts>). A single conformer is sufficient since the docking algorithm will sample the degrees of freedom of the ligand. All docking is done against a rigid receptor that is stripped of water but not metal ions. Protonation states for both the ligand and receptor are determined using OpenBabel [@openbabelpaper].
### Pose Prediction: CSAR
Our pose prediction training set is based on the CSAR-NRC HiQ dataset, with the addition of the CSAR HiQ Update [@csarsel]. This set consists of 466 ligand-bound co-crystals of distinct targets. To generate the training set, we re-docked these ligands with the settings `–seed 0 –exhaustiveness 50 –num_modes 20` to thoroughly and reproducibly sample up to 20 distinct poses. We exclude targets where the ligand is annotated with a binding affinity of less than 5 pK units (a value provided as part of the CSAR dataset). This results in 337 co-crystals where the ligand has a reported binding affinity better than 10$\mu$M (where the affinity may come from a variety of sources, including IC50 measurements). For the purposes of training, poses with a heavy-atom RMSD less than 2[Å]{} from the crystal pose were labeled as positive (correct pose) examples and those with an RMSD greater than 4[Å]{} RMSD were labeled as negative examples. Poses with RMSDs between 2[Å]{} and 4[Å]{} were omitted. The final training set consists of 745 positive examples from 327 distinct targets and 3251 negative examples from 300 distinct targets (some targets produce only low or high RMSD poses).
### Virtual Screening: DUD-E
Our virtual screening training set is based off the Database of Useful Decoys: Enhanced (DUD-E) [@Mysinger2012] dataset. DUD-E consists of 102 targets, more than 20,000 active molecules, and over one million decoy molecules. Unlike the CSAR set, crystal poses of these ligands are not provided, although a single reference complex is made available. To generate poses for training, we dock against this reference receptor using smina’s default arguments for exhaustiveness and sampling and select the pose that is top-ranked by the AutoDock Vina scoring function. Top-ranked poses are used both for the active and decoy compounds. The result is an extremely noisy and unbalanced training set. The noisiness stems from cross-docking ligands into a non-cognate receptor, which substantially reduces the retrieval rate of low-RMSD poses in a highly target-dependent manner [@sminapaper], as well as the use of randomly chosen decoys in DUD-E (the dataset may contain false negatives). The unbalance is due to the much larger number of decoy molecules. The final training set contains 22,645 positive examples and 1,407,145 negative examples.
Input Format
------------
Type Ligand Receptor
-------------------------------- -------- ----------
AliphaticCarbonXSHydrophobe Y Y
AliphaticCarbonXSNonHydrophobe Y Y
AromaticCarbonXSHydrophobe Y Y
AromaticCarbonXSNonHydrophobe Y Y
Bromine Y N
Calcium N Y
Chlorine Y N
Fluorine Y N
Iodine Y N
Iron N Y
Magnesium N Y
Nitrogen Y Y
NitrogenXSAcceptor Y Y
NitrogenXSDonor Y Y
NitrogenXSDonorAcceptor Y Y
Oxygen Y N
OxygenXSAcceptor Y Y
OxygenXSDonorAcceptor Y Y
Phosphorus Y Y
Sulfur Y Y
SulfurAcceptor Y N
Zinc N Y
: \[atomtypes\] Atom types used to define protein-ligand structures for CNN scoring.
![\[aromatic\] Visualization of atom densities used as input to CNN scoring. Aromatic carbon atom densities are shown at two isosurface levels (solid and transparent surfaces) for both the receptor (purple) and ligand (lavender).](aromatic){width="0.5\linewidth"}
Traditionally, CNNs take images as inputs, where a scene is discretized into pixels with red, green, and blue values (RGB). To handle our 3D structural data, we discretize a protein-ligand structure into a grid. The grid is 24[Å]{}$^3$ and centered around the binding site with a default resolution of 0.5[Å]{}, although we evaluate alternative resolutions. Each grid point stores information about the types of heavy atoms at that point. Ligand and protein atoms have distinct atom types and each atom type is represented in a different channel (analogous to RGB channels in images) of the 3D grid. Our default is to use smina [@sminapaper] atom types for a total of 34 distinct types with 16 receptor types and 18 ligand types as shown in Table \[atomtypes\]. Only smina atom types that were present in the ligands and proteins of the training set were retained. For example, halogens are not included as receptor atom types and metals are not included as ligand atom types. Hydrogen atoms are ignored except to determine acceptor/donor atom types. We also evaluate alternative atom typing schemes. Atom type information is represented as a density distribution around the atom center. We represent each atom as a function $A(d, r)$ where $d$ is the distance from the atom center and $r$ is the van der Waals radius: $$\label{atom_gridder}
A(d, r) =
\begin{cases}
e^{-\frac{2{d}^2}{{r}^2}} & 0 \leq d < r \\
\frac{4}{e^2r^2}{d}^2 - \frac{12}{e^2r}d + \frac{9}{e^2} & r \leq d < 1.5r \\
0 & d \geq 1.5r \\
\end{cases}$$
$A$ is a continuous piecewise combination of a Gaussian (from the center to the van der Waals radius) and a quadratic (which goes to zero at 1.5 times the radius). This provides a continuous representation of the input. We also evaluate a ‘hard’ discrete boolean representation.
We generate these grids of atom density using a custom, GPU-accelerated layer, `MolGridDataLayer`, of the Caffe[@jia2014caffe] deep learning framework. This layer can process either standard molecular data files, which are read using OpenBabel [@openbabelpaper], or a compact, custom binary `gninatypes` file that contains only the atomic coordinates and pre-processed atom type information.
A visualization of our atom type volumetric representation is shown in Figure \[aromatic\] with density data rendering using isosurfaces. This input format fully represents the spatial and chemical features of the protein-ligand complex; the sole approximations are the choice of grid resolution and the atom typing scheme.
Training
--------
![\[depth3\_train\] AUC on training and test sets, with and without data augmentation. Training on CSAR without data augmentation results in classic signs of overfitting: the training set AUC approaches 1.0, but the test AUC plateaus at a much lower value. When additional random rotations and translations are included in the training set, overfitting is reduced.](depth3_train){width="0.6\linewidth"}
Our CNN models were defined and trained using the Caffe deep learning framework [@jia2014caffe]. Training minimized the multinomial logistic loss of the network using a variant of stochastic gradient descent (SGD) and backpropagation. The order of training data was shuffled and classes were balanced by sampling the same number of positive examples as negative examples per batch. Additionally, our `MolGridDataLayer` has the ability to randomly rotate and translate the input structures on-the-fly. This feature is controlled via data augmentation parameters specifying whether to randomly rotate structures and the maximum distance to randomly translate them. Enabling this data augmentation significantly improved training, as shown in Figure \[depth3\_train\].
The values for training hyperparameters were initially evaluated in ranges common for neural network training, and these values were verified to behave reasonably for our data. In general, training parameters within conventional ranges converged to similar loss values, with the main difference being the number of iterations needed to converge. The same parameters for the SGD solver (batch\_size=10, base\_lr=0.01, momentum=0.9), for learning rate decay (lr\_policy = inverse, power=1, gamma=0.001), and for regularization (weight\_decay=0.001, dropout\_ratio=0.5) were used to train all models. In all cases we manually verified that model training had qualitatively converged after 10,000 iterations.
Model Evaluation
----------------
The performance of trained CNN models were evaluated by 3-fold cross-validation for both the pose prediction and virtual screening tasks. To avoid evaluating models on targets similar to those in the training set, training and test folds were constructed by clustering data based on target families rather than individual targets. For the CSAR pose prediction training set, clusters were created using the 90% sequence identity families provided by CSAR (i.e., protein targets with greater than 90% sequence identity are always retained in the same fold to avoid testing on a target highly similar to one in the training set). For the DUD-E virtual screening dataset, we created our own clusters of proteins using the hierarchical clustering module of `scipy` and ensured that proteins with greater than 80% sequence identity were retained in the same fold. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated for each model, plotting the true positive rate against the false positive rate. The performance metric was the area under the ROC curve (AUC), with AUC = 1 representing a perfect classifier and AUC = 0.5 being no better than chance.
### Independent Test Sets
To control for any systematic bias in the training sets, we also chose to assess classification accuracy on several completely independent test sets. To evaluate pose prediction performance, we utilized the 2013 PDBbind core set[@pdbbind]. The PDBbind database consists of high quality protein-ligand complexes with no unusual atomic features, such as uncommon elements. The core set is a representative, non-redundant subset of the database and is composed of 195 protein-ligand complexes in 65 families.
To assess virtual screening performance, we utilized two datasets created from assay results. One was generated from ChEMBL by Riniker and Landrum [@riniker2013], following Heikamp and Bajorath [@heikamp2011]. They selected a set of 50 human targets from ChEMBL version 14. They chose actives that had at least 10 $\mu$M potency, had a molecular weight under 700 $g/mol$, and did not have metal ions. The actives were down sampled using the RDKit diversity picker to select the 100 most diverse compounds for each target. For each active, two decoys with a Dice similarity greater than 0.5 using a simple atom-count fingerprint (ECFC0) were randomly selected from the ZINC database to yield a total of 10,000 decoys that were shared across all targets. Our other virtual screening dataset is a subset of the maximum unbiased validation (MUV) dataset [@rohrer2009], which is based on PubChem bioactivity data. MUV consists of assay data from 17 targets, each with 30 actives and 15000 decoys. Actives were selected from confirmatory screens and were chosen to be maximally spread based on simple descriptors and embedded in decoys. The decoys were selected from a primary screen for the same target. The MUV datasets were designed to avoid analog bias and artificial enrichment, which produce overly optimistic predictions of virtual screening performance.
To avoid artificially enhancing our performance on these test sets, we enforced a maximum similarity between targets included in the test sets and targets from DUD-E and CSAR used for training. We performed a global sequence alignment for all targets from the training and proposed test sets and removed any test targets that had more than 80% sequence identity with a training target. We also performed ProBiS [@probis] structural alignment on the binding sites of all pairs of targets from the training and proposed test sets and rejected those for which a significant alignment was found using the default ProBiS parameters. Finally, since structural data were necessary for scoring, assay targets were only included if a crystal structure of a bound complex containing the target was available in the Protein Data Bank. This structure was used to generate docked poses at a known binding site. After these constraints were applied, the independent test sets consisted of a 54 complex subset of the 2013 PDBbind core set, a 13 target subset of the Riniker and Landrum ChEMBL set, and a 9 target subset of the MUV set.
For the pose prediction task, we re-docked ligands from the PDBbind core set with the settings `–seed 0 –exhaustiveness 50 –num_modes 20` (the same settings used to generate poses for the CSAR training set). The resulting PDBbind core subset had 98 low RMSD ($<2$[Å]{}) out of 897 total poses. For the virtual screening task, the active and decoy sets were docked against an appropriate reference receptor using smina’s default arguments for exhaustiveness and sampling. All generated poses were scored and the best score for each ligand was used to assess virtual screening performance. The resulting ChEMBL subset had 11,406 poses associated with 1,300 active compounds and 663,671 poses associated with 10,000 decoys. The resulting MUV subset had 1,913 poses associated with 270 active compounds and 1,177,989 poses associated with 135,000 decoys.
The ChEMBL and MUV test sets provide collections of actives and decoys associated with a target protein, but they do not provide crystal structures for the target. We only included targets with bound crystal structures available, and we used the bound ligand to identify the pocket into which to dock the assay’s actives and decoys. Table \[testset\_targets\] shows the PDB accession code for the crystal structure we used for each target, the bound ligand associated with that structure, that ligand’s experimental affinity for the target (if available), and the type of assay used to identify the actives and decoys.
MUV ID PDB ID Ligand $K_{i}$/$IC_{50}$ (nM) Assay type
-------- -------- -------- ------------------------ ------------- --
600 1yow P0E N/A cell
692 1yow P0E N/A cell
859 5cxv 0HK N/A cell
852 4xe4 NAG N/A biochemical
548 3poo S69 N/A biochemical
832 1au8 0H8 N/A biochemical
689 2y6o 1N1 25 biochemical
846 5exm 5ST N/A biochemical
466 3v2y ML5 18-77 cell
: \[testset\_targets\]Information about the PDB structures chosen to provide structural information for the selected test set targets. The PDB accession code, crystal ligand, affinity of the crystal ligand for the protein, and assay type from which the test set actives and decoys were derived are shown.
ChEMBL ID PDB ID Ligand $K_{i}$/$IC_{50}$ (nM) Assay type
----------- -------- -------- ------------------------ ------------- --
10752 4kik KSA N/A biochemical
11359 1mkd ZAR 160 biochemical
12209 4ht2 V50 150-290 biochemical
28 1hvy D16 290 biochemical
276 2qyk NPV 1-88 biochemical
10498 2xu1 424 22 biochemical
11534 1ms6 BLN 0.3 biochemical
10378 1csb EP0 N/A biochemical
219 4daj 0HK N/A biochemical
11279 3ks9 Z99 6800 biochemical
12968 4s0v SUV 0.35-12 biochemical
20014 1mq4 ADP N/A biochemical
11631 3v2y ML5 18-77 biochemical
18061 5ek0 5P2 N/A biochemical
12670 4xuf P30 1.3-8.8 biochemical
: \[testset\_targets\]Information about the PDB structures chosen to provide structural information for the selected test set targets. The PDB accession code, crystal ligand, affinity of the crystal ligand for the protein, and assay type from which the test set actives and decoys were derived are shown.
Optimization
------------
An initial CNN architecture was constructed using simple guidelines in order to limit parameterization and serve as a starting point for optimization. The preliminary model architecture consisted of five 3x3x3 convolutional layers with rectified linear activation units alternating with max pooling layers. The number of filters in each convolutional layer was doubled from the previous one so that the width of the network increased as the spatial dimensionality decreased. Following the alternating convolution and pooling layers was a single fully connected layer with two outputs and a softmax layer for binary classification.
The various parameters of the neural network model were tuned to train the most accurate model with respect to the CSAR pose prediction test set. The CSAR set was chosen as its smaller size made iterative model optimization more practical. Model optimization was performed by systematically modifying a reference model. A single parameter was varied and the resulting training times and accuracies computed. After all parameters were tested, the changes resulting in the best gain of accuracy and similar or reduced training time were combined to create a new reference model. This process was repeated until the model’s accuracy no longer increased. Several model parameters were explored.
#### Atom Types
In addition to the default smina atom types, we evaluated two simpler atom typing schemes: element-only and ligand/receptor only. Unlike smina atom types, which include aromaticity and protonation state information, element-only types only record the element, although we still provide distinct types for receptor and ligand atoms. With ligand/receptor only types, there are only two types (corresponding to two “channels” in the input 3D image): ligand atoms and receptor atoms.
#### Occupancy Type
In addition to a smoothed Gaussian distribution of atom density, we also evaluated a Boolean representation, where grid point values are one if they overlap an atom and zero otherwise. Unlike with the Gaussian scheme, in the Boolean representation individual grid point values provide no indication of the distance of the grid point from the atom center.
#### Atomic Radius Multiplier
By default, we extend atom densities beyond the van der Waals radius by a multiple of 1.5 (e.g., if the atomic radius is 1.0, the atom density decays to zero at 1.5). Additionally, we evaluated multiples of 1.0, 1.25, 1.75, and 2.0. With larger multiples, a single grid point contains more information about the local neighborhood.
#### Resolution
The default grid resolution is 0.5[Å]{} resulting in 48$^3$ grid points. We also evaluated higher (0.25[Å]{}) and lower (0.75, 1.0, and 1.5[Å]{}) resolution grids.
#### Layer Width
In our initial reference model, the first convolutional layer generates 128 feature maps, and each successive layer doubles the number of feature maps after halving the dimensions of the maps with a pooling layer. We also evaluate models that double, half, and quarter the width of these layers. Wider layers allow for a more expressive model, but at the cost of more computation.
#### Model Depth
Our initial model contained 5 convolution layers. We also evaluate models with more (up to 8) and fewer (as little as 1) convolution layers. More layers allow for a more expressive model, but take longer to process and increase the risk of suffering from vanishing gradients, which inhibit convergence [@bengio1994learning].
#### Pooling Type
Pooling layers reduce the size of their inputs by propagating a single value for each window (or kernel) of the input. The propagated value can either be the maximum value or the average value of the kernel and the kernel size can be varied. In our initial model we use max pooling with a kernel size of 2. We additionally evaluate average pooling and kernels of size 4.
#### Fully Connected Layer
After a series of convolution and pooling layers, a traditional fully connected layer reduces the final feature maps to two outputs. Our initial model contains a single fully connected layer. Additionally, we evaluate alternative models with a single hidden layer with anywhere from 6 to 50 nodes. More expressive fully connected layers allow the model to arbitrarily combine the spatial features generated by the convolution layers to generate the final prediction.
Visualization
-------------
In order to better understand the features that the neural network learns, we implemented a visualization algorithm based on masking [@szegedy2013NIPS]. In image recognition masking, pixels are systematically masked out and the image is reclassified in order to get a “heat map” of important areas. The visualization algorithm is illustrated in Figure \[vizfig\]. Atoms are colored by relative contribution to the total neural network score as determined by removing the atom and rescoring the complex.
Atoms are removed either one at a time, or as part of larger fragments. The individual and fragment removals of atoms differ significantly enough that an average of both scores is computed. The individual removals produce sharper contrasts between “good” and “bad”, compared to a more gradual effect in the fragment removals. The combination of the two methods provides a broader representation of how the model interprets functional groups, while maintaining any significant individual atom scores.
In order to reduce computational load, removals were carried out on whole residues of the protein at a time. This provided enough information to assess spatial relationships between protein and ligand, which is a key goal of visualization.
Results
=======
Our systematic optimization of network and training parameters successfully improved the performance of the CNN models in clustered cross-validation while revealing the importance, or lack thereof, of various choices of parameters. We evaluated the optimized network architecture for performance in pose prediction, virtual screening, and affinity prediction, while also considering the importance of the training set used to create the model.
![\[timevsauc\] The training time and average cross-validation AUC of various models created by systematically varying parameters. Marker shape indicates iteration of optimization and the color what parameter was varied.](timevsauc){width="0.8\linewidth"}
![\[refmodelrocs\] The ROC curves for the three reference models used during model optimization.](refmodels_comparison){width="0.5\linewidth"}
![\[depth3\] The network architecture of our final model.](depth3_visulization){width="0.2\linewidth"}
Optimization
------------
Two rounds of model optimization were performed. In each round, parameters of a reference model were individually varied. For each parameter type, the best parameter was used to define the reference model of the next iteration. Each iteration both increased the cross-validation AUC and decreased the training time of the model. The results obtained in the first two iterations are shown in Figure \[timevsauc\]. A third iteration did not result in further improvements (data not shown). The initial reference model had an AUC of 0.78 and a training time of 580ms per an iteration, and the final model increased to an AUC of 0.82 with a training time of 120ms per an iteration. The ROC curves for all three models are shown in Figure \[refmodelrocs\].
Based on the first iteration of parameter sensitivity analysis, the second reference model reduced the depth from five to four convolutional layers and quartered the widths of these layers. After another round of optimization, the final reference model further reduced the depth to three convolutional layers. The final optimized network architecture is shown in Figure \[depth3\]. Since parameters were varied individually in each optimization iteration, we can assess the relative importance of each parameter class on the overall model performance.
#### Atom Types
The best AUCs are achieved using smina atom types. However, simpler atom types are remarkably competitive, with at most a 0.05 reduction in AUC for the binary protein/ligand atom typing in the second iteration of optimization. This is consistent with previous findings with empirical scoring functions where purely steric terms were found to be the dominant terms of the scoring function [@sminapaper; @Novikov]. Additionally, although the overall AUCs were similar, smina and element-only atom types result in better early enrichment (the initial slope of the ROC curve is steeper).
#### Occupancy Type
Interestingly, changing the atom density representation from the more informative Gaussian to a simple Boolean did not reduce the AUC. The models do not seem to need the additional distance information provided by a Gaussian atomic density.
#### Atomic Radius Multiplier
The default radius multiplier of 1.5 provided the best AUC, although other multipliers were nearly equivalent with all but the 2.0 multiplier within 0.01 of the reference AUC.
#### Resolution
Predictive performance correlates with resolution, with the highest resolution (0.25[Å]{}) achieving an AUC more than 0.1 greater than the lowest (1.5[Å]{}). However, we decided against using higher resolution grids since the small increase in AUC (0.02) in increasing the resolution from 0.5[Å]{} to 0.25[Å]{} was accompanied by a more than 4X increase in training time.
#### Layer Width
We found that increasing the width of the layers resulted in significant increases in training time, but slight decreases in predictive performance, possibly due to overfitting. Reducing the width improved both the AUC and training time up to a limit. In our final model, the first convolutional layer generates 32 feature maps; reducing this number further hurts predictive performance.
#### Model Depth
Model depth behaved similarly to the layer width parameter. Our initial model topology was needlessly expressive, and by reducing the depth (ultimately to only three convolutional layers), we improved both training time and predictive performance, likely by reducing the amount of overfitting.
#### Pooling Type
Somewhat surprisingly, the use of average pooling instead of max pooling obliterated predictive performance and prevented the model from learning. Alternative kernel sizes did not improve the AUC.
#### Fully Connected Layer
Modifications to the final fully connected layer had no discernible effects on predictive performance or training time, suggesting most of the learning is taking place in the convolutional layers.
The final optimized model architecture was used to train and evaluate pose prediction, virtual screening, and affinity prediction performance. It is available at <https://github.com/gnina/models>.
Pose Prediction
---------------
Pose prediction assesses the ability of a scoring function to distinguish between low RMSD and high RMSD poses of the same compound. We assess pose prediction performance both in terms of inter-target ranking and intra-target ranking. With inter-target ranking, which is most similar to the training protocol, all poses across all targets are ranked to generate a ROC curve. Intra-target ranking better represents the typical docking scenario, and the goal is to select the the lowest RMSD pose among poses generated for each individual target. A scoring function can do well in intra-target ranking even if the low RMSD pose has a poor score as long as all other poses for that target have worse scores.
![\[depth3\_all\_roc\] Inter-target cross-validated ROC curve of CNN scoring method compared to Autodock Vina on the CSAR pose prediction data set. The CNN performs better at classifying generated poses as low or high RMSD across targets.](depth3_all_roc){width="0.5\linewidth"}
![\[ranking\_bar\] Intra-target pose ranking. The percent of targets with a low RMSD pose ranked as the top one, three, or five poses is shown. Vina and CNN have similar recovery rates among the top-5 ranked poses, but Vina more often ranks a low RMSD pose as the top-1 ranked pose.](ranking_bar){width="0.6\linewidth"}
![\[depth3\_all\_cor\] Pearson correlation between Vina score, CNN score, and RMSD from crystal pose. A logit transformation has been applied to the CNN score, mapping it from probability to linear space, in order to more easily see the relationship. All generated poses are shown, including those with RMSD between 2 and 4 which were omitted from training.](depth3_all_cor){width="1.0\linewidth"}
The CNN model performed substantially better than the Autodock Vina scoring function in its ability to perform inter-target ranking of CSAR poses as shown by the cross-validation results in Figure \[depth3\_all\_roc\]. The CNN model achieves an AUC of 0.815 while the Vina scoring function has an AUC of 0.645.
In intra-target ranking, the CNN model performed substantially worse than Autodock Vina, as shown in Figure \[ranking\_bar\]. The Autodock Vina scoring function is parameterized to excel at redocking [@Trott2009; @sminapaper] and correctly identifies a low RMSD pose as the top ranked pose for the given target for 84% of the targets compared to 64% with the CNN model. When the top 5 poses are considered, the difference between Vina and the CNN model shrinks with Vina exhibiting a success rate of 93% and the CNN model 92%. As pose selection performance is dependent on the range of poses that are selected from (e.g., some targets have highly rigid ligands in tightly constrained pockets resulting in nearly all low RMSD poses), we also show the results of random selection in Figure \[ranking\_bar\]. Both methods are substantially better than random.
The correlations between pose RMSD and scores are shown in Figure \[depth3\_all\_cor\]. The CNN scores weakly correlate with RMSD, with higher RMSD poses exhibiting lower scores as expected (a more positive CNN score is more favorable). Vina scores do not correlate with RMSD, although there is a noticeable “funnel” shape due to the best scoring poses having very low RMSDs. Interestingly, there is no correlation between CNN scores and Vina scores, indicating that they use different criteria to rank poses.
Virtual Screening
-----------------
Structure-based virtual screening assesses the ability of a scoring function to distinguish between active and inactive compounds using docked structures. In assessing virtual screening, we consider both the case where the CNN model ranks only the top-ranked (by Vina) docked pose of each ligand (single-pose prediction) and the case where the CNN model selects from all available docked poses of the ligand (multi-pose prediction).
![\[duderoc\] ROC curves for cross-validation virtual screening performance across the full DUD-E benchmark. Single-pose scoring distinguishes between active and inactive compounds using the top ranked pose identified by Vina while multi-pose scoring selects among all docked poses using the maximum CNN score.](dudecomp){width="0.4\linewidth"}
Overall cross-validation results for the entire DUD-E benchmark are shown in Figure \[duderoc\] and Table \[dudeaucs\]. Even using the exact same poses (single-pose scoring), CNN scoring substantially outperforms Vina with an AUC of 0.85 versus 0.68. Multi-pose scoring does slightly better with an AUC of 0.86. On a per-target basis, CNN scoring outperforms Vina scoring for 90% of the DUD-E targets, as shown in Figure \[bytarget\].
![\[bytarget\] Cross-validation performance of CNN models on the DUD-E virtual screening benchmark compared to the Vina scoring function. Targets are sorted by performance with Vina. Identical sets of docked poses were ranked. The score of the top ranked pose of each ligand is used to predict activity (multi-pose scoring). CNN models trained only on DUD-E training data perform best, outperforming Vina in 90% of the targets. Models trained using a mix of DUD-E and CSAR data also perform well, achieving better AUCs than Vina in 81% of the targets.](cnn_vina_bytarget_bargraph){width="1.0\linewidth"}
![\[mixed\_data\_bar\] The cross-validation performance of the CNN model when trained with different ratios of CSAR and DUD-E data and evaluated in terms of pose prediction (CSAR) and virtual screening (DUD-E).](mixed_data_bar){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Target Vina DUD-E 2:1 D/C
-------- ------ ------- ---------
aa2ar 0.65 0.94 0.87
abl1 0.75 0.93 0.89
ace 0.78 0.80 0.71
aces 0.56 0.86 0.75
ada 0.57 0.89 0.84
ada17 0.68 0.94 0.82
adrb1 0.74 0.88 0.87
adrb2 0.72 0.86 0.76
akt1 0.74 0.98 0.87
akt2 0.78 0.99 0.84
aldr 0.73 0.68 0.64
ampc 0.61 0.63 0.74
andr 0.64 0.73 0.71
aofb 0.78 0.62 0.55
bace1 0.72 0.81 0.73
braf 0.84 0.99 0.92
cah2 0.59 0.62 0.76
casp3 0.70 0.87 0.69
cdk2 0.72 0.84 0.78
comt 0.63 0.79 0.95
cp2c9 0.62 0.88 0.79
cp3a4 0.60 0.90 0.78
csf1r 0.67 0.96 0.83
cxcr4 0.60 0.71 0.53
def 0.76 0.89 0.85
dhi1 0.77 0.60 0.65
dpp4 0.63 0.74 0.67
drd3 0.75 0.77 0.71
dyr 0.77 0.87 0.83
egfr 0.63 0.97 0.91
esr1 0.81 0.93 0.91
esr2 0.79 0.92 0.90
fa10 0.78 0.90 0.86
fa7 0.91 0.94 0.96
: \[dudeaucs\] Cross-validation DUD-E AUCs for Vina and CNN models trained using either only DUD-E docked poses or a combination, at a 2:1 ratio, of DUD-E poses and CSAR poses.
Target Vina DUD-E 2:1 D/C
-------- ------ ------- ---------
fabp4 0.77 0.91 0.78
fak1 0.80 0.99 0.96
fkb1a 0.77 0.68 0.66
fnta 0.66 0.91 0.80
fpps 0.29 0.98 0.10
gcr 0.61 0.90 0.85
glcm 0.49 0.61 0.78
gria2 0.75 0.78 0.79
grik1 0.59 0.66 0.69
hdac2 0.85 0.94 0.81
hdac8 0.82 0.95 0.78
hivint 0.71 0.87 0.64
hivpr 0.72 0.89 0.68
hivrt 0.67 0.73 0.73
hmdh 0.79 0.90 0.91
hs90a 0.27 0.91 0.84
hxk4 0.57 0.87 0.75
igf1r 0.84 0.97 0.90
inha 0.71 0.81 0.79
ital 0.60 0.94 0.77
jak2 0.77 0.99 0.94
kif11 0.83 0.79 0.65
kit 0.78 0.97 0.82
kith 0.73 0.53 0.85
kpcb 0.75 0.86 0.84
lck 0.80 0.92 0.88
lkha4 0.82 0.94 0.89
mapk2 0.89 0.89 0.81
mcr 0.60 0.80 0.83
met 0.80 0.97 0.88
mk01 0.85 0.93 0.86
mk10 0.74 0.92 0.79
mk14 0.74 0.95 0.85
mmp13 0.65 0.97 0.87
: \[dudeaucs\] Cross-validation DUD-E AUCs for Vina and CNN models trained using either only DUD-E docked poses or a combination, at a 2:1 ratio, of DUD-E poses and CSAR poses.
Target Vina DUD-E 2:1 D/C
-------- ------ ------- ---------
mp2k1 0.55 0.82 0.77
nos1 0.59 0.73 0.63
nram 0.54 0.87 0.69
pa2ga 0.61 0.89 0.90
parp1 0.85 0.85 0.89
pde5a 0.62 0.93 0.90
pgh1 0.64 0.75 0.74
pgh2 0.74 0.84 0.83
plk1 0.65 0.94 0.86
pnph 0.88 0.93 0.74
ppara 0.87 0.87 0.75
ppard 0.76 0.87 0.82
pparg 0.80 0.92 0.80
prgr 0.68 0.85 0.82
ptn1 0.83 0.86 0.85
pur2 0.91 0.95 0.91
pygm 0.60 0.78 0.71
pyrd 0.77 0.92 0.83
reni 0.66 0.92 0.73
rock1 0.72 0.93 0.87
rxra 0.70 0.68 0.88
sahh 0.80 0.98 0.91
src 0.65 0.95 0.90
tgfr1 0.85 1.00 0.99
thb 0.75 0.83 0.89
thrb 0.77 0.92 0.83
try1 0.80 0.95 0.86
tryb1 0.71 0.90 0.85
tysy 0.86 0.98 0.90
urok 0.77 0.96 0.81
vgfr2 0.75 0.97 0.86
wee1 0.83 0.99 0.99
xiap 0.73 0.83 0.85
: \[dudeaucs\] Cross-validation DUD-E AUCs for Vina and CNN models trained using either only DUD-E docked poses or a combination, at a 2:1 ratio, of DUD-E poses and CSAR poses.
Combined Training
-----------------
CNN models trained on one kind of data do not generalize particularly well to another. For example, as shown in Figure \[mixed\_data\_bar\], a CNN model trained exclusively on DUD-E data achieves a cross-validation AUC of 0.56 in CSAR pose prediction. This is not unexpected as the DUD-E training data consists of noisy, likely inaccurate, docked poses. A CNN model trained on this data will be less sensitive to changes in ligand pose. In the other direction, training on CSAR data resulted in a cross-validation AUC of 0.66 at the virtual screening task. However, as shown in Figure \[mixed\_data\_bar\], combining CSAR and DUD-E training data results in models that perform nearly as well as single-task trained models. At a ratio 2:1 DUD-E to CSAR (for every two virtual screening training examples from DUD-E, one pose prediction example from CSAR is included during training), the resulting CNN model exhibits an AUC of 0.79 at pose prediction and an AUC of 0.83 at virtual screening. The inclusion of pose prediction training data accentuates the difference between single-pose and multi-pose DUD-E evaluation (e.g., 0.79 vs 0.83 at a 2:1 ratio), suggesting that such data allows the CNN model to select more accurate poses.
Although a combined training set results in a minimal reduction in overall AUC for DUD-E, on a per-target basis, shown in Figure \[bytarget\], there is a more significant reduction in performance, with only 81% of targets performing better than Vina, compared with 90% with a DUD-E-only training set. In a few cases, the difference is dramatic, such as with the fpps (farnesyl diphosphate synthase) target which goes from a 0.98 AUC with the DUD-E-only training set to a 0.10 AUC with the combined 2:1 training set. This target is also a challenge for the Vina scoring function, which also achieves a worse-than-random 0.29 AUC, suggesting that the generated poses may be highly inaccurate.
\[0.25\][ ![\[fpps\] The top ranked pose by Vina of the CHEMBL457424 ligand of the fpps DUD-E target. Visualization of a CNN model trained using only DUD-E training data. The pose is scored highly due to the polar parts of the structure regardless of the orientation of the ligand.](fpps_atom "fig:"){width="0.25\linewidth"} ]{} \[0.25\][ ![\[fpps\] The top ranked pose by Vina of the CHEMBL457424 ligand of the fpps DUD-E target. Visualization of a CNN model trained using only DUD-E training data. The pose is scored highly due to the polar parts of the structure regardless of the orientation of the ligand.](fpps_color "fig:"){width="0.25\linewidth"} ]{}
An example ligand from the fpps target is CHEMBL457424, which the DUD-E model scores as 0.99 but the combined model scores as 0.01. The DUD-E model is completely pose insensitive - all poses of this ligand score similarly despite large differences in RMSD. The pose selected with Vina is shown visualized with the DUD-E model in Figure \[fpps\]. This pose is most likely incorrect; based on the 3ZOU crystal structure, the bisphosphonate group should chelate with the magnesium ions. The DUD-E model highlights the polar and aromatic parts of the molecule and disfavors the apolar parts. It also highlights the polar residues of the binding site. It is possible that the DUD-E-only model is simply ranking polar molecules highly, having recognized the highly polar binding site. Furthermore, all the actives associated with this target in the DUD-E benchmark contain a bisphosphonate group, whereas fewer than 1% of the decoy compounds even contain phosphorous. A scoring function that favors this group regardless of the 3D interaction structure will do exceptionally well in scoring these actives. When pose quality is incorporated into the training of the model, as with the combined model, erroneous poses are penalized and non-structural properties, such as polarity, play a less dominant role. Similar trade-offs between learning non-structural cheminformatic information and enforcing structural constraints likely explain the difference in performance between the DUD-E and combined models.
Independent Test Sets
---------------------
To evaluate CNN scoring performance on our independent test sets, we trained three models using all folds of the available training data: a pose prediction model trained only on CSAR data, a virtual screening model trained only on DUD-E data, and a combined model trained on DUD-E and CSAR data at a 2:1 ratio.
![\[pdbbind\_roc\] ROC plot for discriminating low RMSD from high RMSD poses generated from the PDBbind core set. The CSAR-trained CNN performs best at classifying generated poses as low or high RMSD across targets, with a steep initial slope evincing good performance at early recognition.](pdbbind_roc){width="0.5\linewidth"}
![\[core\_cumulbest\] The best RMSD pose identified in the top ranked ligand poses averaged across all PDBbind core subset targets for each scoring method. ](pdbbind_coreset_cumulbest.pdf){width="0.5\linewidth"}
![\[core\_boxplot\] Boxplots of the best RMSD seen so far at ranks 1, 3, and 5 (shown from left to right) for all targets in the PDBbind core subset.](pdbbind_coreset_boxplot.pdf){width="0.6\linewidth"}
![\[pdbbindpercents\]The percentage of complexes with low RMSD poses identified as the top one, three or five poses for different scoring methods.](toppdbbind){width="0.6\linewidth"}
\[0.32\][ ![\[vinagood\] An example, PDB 3PE2, of a complex from the PDBbind core set where Vina correctly top-ranks a low RMSD pose (0.25[Å]{}) and the CNN model does not (5.27[Å]{}). The crystal pose is shown as magenta sticks and the two docked poses are visualized using the CSAR trained CNN model.](3pe2_atom "fig:"){width="0.32\linewidth"} ]{} \[0.32\][ ![\[vinagood\] An example, PDB 3PE2, of a complex from the PDBbind core set where Vina correctly top-ranks a low RMSD pose (0.25[Å]{}) and the CNN model does not (5.27[Å]{}). The crystal pose is shown as magenta sticks and the two docked poses are visualized using the CSAR trained CNN model.](3pe2_vina "fig:"){width="0.32\linewidth"} ]{} \[0.32\][ ![\[vinagood\] An example, PDB 3PE2, of a complex from the PDBbind core set where Vina correctly top-ranks a low RMSD pose (0.25[Å]{}) and the CNN model does not (5.27[Å]{}). The crystal pose is shown as magenta sticks and the two docked poses are visualized using the CSAR trained CNN model.](3pe2_cnn "fig:"){width="0.32\linewidth"} ]{}
\[0.32\][ ![\[vinabad\] An example, PDB 3MYG, of a complex from the PDBbind core set where the CNN model correctly top-ranks a low RMSD pose (0.96[Å]{}) and Vina does not (12.71[Å]{}). The crystal pose is shown as magenta sticks and the two docked poses are visualized using the CSAR trained CNN model.](3myg_atom "fig:"){width="0.32\linewidth"} ]{} \[0.32\][ ![\[vinabad\] An example, PDB 3MYG, of a complex from the PDBbind core set where the CNN model correctly top-ranks a low RMSD pose (0.96[Å]{}) and Vina does not (12.71[Å]{}). The crystal pose is shown as magenta sticks and the two docked poses are visualized using the CSAR trained CNN model.](3myg_vina "fig:"){width="0.32\linewidth"} ]{} \[0.32\][ ![\[vinabad\] An example, PDB 3MYG, of a complex from the PDBbind core set where the CNN model correctly top-ranks a low RMSD pose (0.96[Å]{}) and Vina does not (12.71[Å]{}). The crystal pose is shown as magenta sticks and the two docked poses are visualized using the CSAR trained CNN model.](3myg_cnn "fig:"){width="0.32\linewidth"} ]{}
### Pose Prediction
Summary results for the PDBbind core set are shown in Figures \[pdbbind\_roc\], \[core\_cumulbest\], \[core\_boxplot\], and \[pdbbindpercents\]. As with the cross-validation results, the CNN models outperform Vina in an inter-target assessment of pose ranking (Figure \[pdbbind\_roc\]) with an improvement of about 0.1 AUC. Also consistent with the cross-validation results is the finding that, on average, Vina’s top-ranked pose has a lower RMSD than the top-ranked poses of any of the CNN methods, but by the second ranked pose the CSAR and DUD-E/CSAR combined CNN models, both of which were trained on pose prediction data, have improved on Vina (Figure \[core\_cumulbest\]). As expected, the model trained on DUD-E data, which consisted of inaccurate docked poses, does poorly at pose prediction.
The distribution of best RMSD values at different ranks is shown in Figure \[core\_boxplot\]. Even for the poorly performing DUD-E-only model there is a significant cluster of low RMSD poses. The percentage of complexes where a low RMSD pose ($<2$[Å]{}) was found in the top $N$ ranked poses for each method is shown in Figure \[pdbbindpercents\]. The DUD-E trained model had similar performance to random pose selection, providing further evidence for the conclusion that models trained on this kind of data lack pose sensitivity. The models trained with pose prediction data did significantly better than random, with the CSAR-trained model correctly identifying a low RMSD pose as the top ranked pose in 46% of the complexes, compared to 57% for Vina. As with the cross-validation results, accuracy improved significantly as the number of top ranked poses considered increased. The combined DUD-E/CSAR model outperformed Vina at identifying a low RMSD pose within the first three ranked poses.
Examples of PDBbind poses visualized with the CSAR model are shown in Figures \[vinagood\] and \[vinabad\]. Figure \[vinagood\] shows human protein kinase CK2 (PDB 3PE2). For this complex, Vina correctly top-ranks a low RMSD pose while the CNN model prefers to flip the compound in the binding site. The visualization illustrates why. The CNN model correctly favors the binding of the low RMSD pose to the hinge region of the kinase (as indicated by the green highlighting on both the ligand and protein in this region), but it disfavors the position of the alkynyl. Although flipping the compound results in less favorable interactions with the hinge region, it results in what the model considers to be a better pose of the alkynyl. Figure \[vinabad\] shows an Aurora A kinase (PDB 3MYG). In this case, the CNN model correctly top-ranks a low RMSD pose while Vina prefers a pose that is flipped and more buried in the binding site. Again, the model highlights the interactions with the hinge region of the kinase. While the model slightly disfavors the solvent exposed portion of the compound, flipping the compound and burying this portion of the compound in the interior of the kinase is more strongly disfavored (as indicated by the red highlighting).
![\[chemblmuvbars\] Performance of CNN models on ChEMBL and MUV screening benchmarks compared to the Vina scoring function. Targets are sorted by performance with Vina. Identical sets of docked poses were ranked. The score of the top ranked pose of each ligand is used to predict activity (multi-pose scoring). Consistent with the cross-validation results (Figure \[bytarget\]), a CNN model trained only on DUD-E training data performs best, outperforming Vina in 86% of the ChEMBL targets and 56% of the MUV targets. Models trained using a mix of DUD-E and CSAR data performed less well compared to Vina, achieving better AUCs than Vina in 36% of the ChEMBL targets and 22% of the MUV targets. ](vstestbar){width="\linewidth"}
\[0.48\][ ![\[vsrocs\] Overall virtual screening performance represented as a combined ROC curve for the three CNN models trained on the full training set and tested on the ChEMBL and MUV independent test sets and compared to Vina.](ChEMBL_rocplot "fig:"){width="0.48\linewidth"} ]{} \[0.48\][ ![\[vsrocs\] Overall virtual screening performance represented as a combined ROC curve for the three CNN models trained on the full training set and tested on the ChEMBL and MUV independent test sets and compared to Vina.](muv_rocplot "fig:"){width="0.48\linewidth"} ]{}
![\[chembl\_bytarget\] Per-target ROC curves for Vina and the three CNN models for the ChEMBL test set.](ChEMBL_rinikerdecoys_bytarget){width="\linewidth"}
![\[MUV\_bytarget\] Per-target ROC curves for Vina and the three CNN models for the MUV test set.](MUV_bytarget){width="\linewidth"}
Target Vina DUD-E 2:1 CSAR
-------- ------- ------- ------- -------
219 0.516 0.674 0.753 0.657
10378 0.533 0.704 0.464 0.402
11279 0.536 0.828 0.501 0.213
11534 0.569 0.758 0.545 0.497
10498 0.578 0.729 0.481 0.380
12968 0.645 0.495 0.492 0.561
11631 0.668 0.796 0.727 0.54
11359 0.672 0.796 0.711 0.554
12670 0.718 0.880 0.749 0.590
10752 0.733 0.814 0.753 0.739
18061 0.740 0.722 0.662 0.531
28 0.762 0.917 0.653 0.483
20014 0.791 0.917 0.767 0.471
276 0.852 0.879 0.738 0.496
: \[chemblaucs\] ChEMBL AUCs for Vina and CNN models trained on different training sets.
Target Vina DUD-E 2:1 DUD-E/ CSAR CSAR
-------- ------- ------- ----------------- -------
692 0.413 0.480 0.447 0.505
548 0.460 0.791 0.697 0.552
852 0.515 0.348 0.501 0.491
859 0.517 0.560 0.488 0.455
600 0.578 0.559 0.489 0.422
466 0.593 0.663 0.492 0.452
689 0.596 0.514 0.377 0.381
832 0.610 0.402 0.495 0.457
846 0.655 0.384 0.504 0.461
: \[muvaucs\] MUV AUCs for Vina and CNN models trained on different training sets.
### Virtual Screening
Virtual screening results for the ChEMBL and MUV independent test sets are shown in Figures \[chemblmuvbars\], \[vsrocs\], \[chembl\_bytarget\], and \[MUV\_bytarget\] and Tables \[chemblaucs\] and \[muvaucs\]. The ChEMBL and MUV tests sets are more challenging than the DUD-E benchmark for all methods. The average AUCs for the ChEMBL benchmark are 0.67, 0.64, and 0.78 for the Vina, 2:1 DUD-E/CSAR CNN, and DUD-E CNN methods, which is consistently lower than the corresponding average cross-validation AUCs on DUD-E: 0.71, 0.80, and 0.86. Consistent with previously reported results[@riniker2013; @Tiikkainen2009], the MUV set is even more challenging with average AUCs of 0.55, 0.50, and 0.52 for Vina, 2:1 DUD-E/CSAR CNN, and DUD-E CNN. Unlike the cross-validation results (Figure \[mixed\_data\_bar\]), the CSAR-trained CNN has close to random performance at virtual screening for most targets (Figures \[vsrocs\], \[chembl\_bytarget\], and \[MUV\_bytarget\]).
Consistent with the cross-validation results, the DUD-E-trained CNN model generally outperforms the DUD-E/CSAR combined model. Since the ChEMBL and MUV sets were constructed using a methodology that differs from the DUD-E benchmark, this suggests that the DUD-E CNN model is learning genuinely useful information about features of the ligand and protein binding site that are relevant to binding, despite a lack of pose sensitivity, and is not learning an artificial artifact of the construction of the DUD-E set. Interestingly, as shown in Figure \[chemblmuvbars\], the targets with the biggest drop in performance between the DUD-E model and the pose sensitive DUD-E/CSAR model are also some of the targets with the lowest Vina performance. This would be the expected effect if docking is failing to sample accurate poses, as in this case a more cheminformatic-oriented, pose insensitive model would perform better.
Actives Decoys Vina DUD-E 2:1
--------- -------- ------- ------- -------
MUV MUV 0.593 0.663 0.492
MUV ChEMBL 0.619 0.682 0.523
ChEMBL ChEMBL 0.668 0.796 0.727
ChEMBL MUV 0.667 0.793 0.696
: \[decoyswap\] The virtual screening performance for sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor EDG-1 (PDB 3V2Y) with different choices of active and decoy sets. The active compounds were identified in different screens (biochemical for ChEMBL, cell-based for MUV) and the method used to construct the decoy sets is also different.
The MUV benchmark is particularly challenging, with no method achieving an AUC greater than 0.6 on more than two targets. The overall performance across the benchmark is essentially random for all methods, as shown in Figure \[vsrocs\]. Unlike with the ChEMBL set (Figure \[chembl\_bytarget\]), in MUV the few individual targets where methods do appreciably better than random the improvement in AUC is not driven by early enrichment (Figure \[MUV\_bytarget\]). The use of cell-based assays and the lack of structures bound to ligands of known affinity (Table \[testset\_targets\]) may make MUV a poor choice for a structure-based virtual screening assessment. Alternatively, the observed poor performance may be due to the method MUV uses to construct the active and decoy sets, which attempts to avoid analog bias and artificial enrichment by ensuring that actives are well embedded in the chemical space of the decoys. The MUV target 466, a lipid G protein-coupled receptor, is identical to ChEMBL target 11631, and we used the same structure, PDB 3V2Y, to generate poses. This allows us to compare the effect of the different decoy construction approaches between the two benchmarks. As shown in Table \[decoyswap\], for all methods, the highest performance is achieved with the ChEMBL actives. This suggests, for this target at least, that the method used to construct the decoys is not the cause of the observed poor performance and that the performance observed on the ChEMBL set is not due to artificial enrichment.
![\[mutfig\]Visualizations of protein-ligand complexes with binding affinity data for point mutations in the protein. The top three most significant changes in binding affinity from the Platinum database are shown from left to right. Any residue that was mutated experimentally is shown in stick form, while the rest of the protein is shown as a cartoon. In all three cases, the green coloring supports the experimental results that the residues in question are important for ligand binding. Visualization is performed using the 2:1 DUD-E/CSAR model.](mutants.png){width="450px"}
Visualization
-------------
Visualization is intended to provide a qualitative and easy to interpret indication of the atomic features that are driving the CNN model’s output. In order to more quantitatively assess the utility of our visualization approach, we considered single-residue protein mutation data and partially aligned poses.
### Mutation Analysis
The Platinum[@platinum] database provides measured differences in protein-ligand binding affinity upon mutation of single receptor residues. This experimental technique is a close analogue of the visualization algorithm, where whole residues are removed and the complex re-scored. For our assessment, we filtered the database to consider only experiments with single mutations to alanine or glycine in proteins that are not present in our training data and evaluated those with the largest changes in binding affinity.
The CNN was able to identify critical residues in many of the examples that were tested. The three protein-ligand pairs with the highest changes in binding affinity are shown in Figure \[mutfig\]. In all three cases, many residues had heavy green coloring, and the mutant residue is always colored green. Other highlighted residues may also be critical, but were not present in the Platinum database. It is worth emphasizing that the CNN model was not trained on protein mutational data. The fact that critical residues are highlighted suggests that the model is learning some general underlying model of the key features of protein-ligand interactions.
\[0.19\][ ![\[partials\] Visualizations of partially aligned docked poses from the PDBbind core set. The crystal pose is shown as magenta sticks and the docked pose and receptor are colored according to our visualization algorithm and the 2:1 DUD-E/CSAR model. None of these protein targets were included in training. The visualization highlights that the model assesses the part of the pose aligned to the crystal ligand as more favorable than the differing part.](partial0_3coy "fig:"){width="0.19\linewidth"} ]{} \[0.19\][ ![\[partials\] Visualizations of partially aligned docked poses from the PDBbind core set. The crystal pose is shown as magenta sticks and the docked pose and receptor are colored according to our visualization algorithm and the 2:1 DUD-E/CSAR model. None of these protein targets were included in training. The visualization highlights that the model assesses the part of the pose aligned to the crystal ligand as more favorable than the differing part.](partial1_3utu "fig:"){width="0.19\linewidth"} ]{} \[0.19\][ ![\[partials\] Visualizations of partially aligned docked poses from the PDBbind core set. The crystal pose is shown as magenta sticks and the docked pose and receptor are colored according to our visualization algorithm and the 2:1 DUD-E/CSAR model. None of these protein targets were included in training. The visualization highlights that the model assesses the part of the pose aligned to the crystal ligand as more favorable than the differing part.](partial2_2qmj "fig:"){width="0.19\linewidth"} ]{}\[0.19\][ ![\[partials\] Visualizations of partially aligned docked poses from the PDBbind core set. The crystal pose is shown as magenta sticks and the docked pose and receptor are colored according to our visualization algorithm and the 2:1 DUD-E/CSAR model. None of these protein targets were included in training. The visualization highlights that the model assesses the part of the pose aligned to the crystal ligand as more favorable than the differing part.](partial3_3pww "fig:"){width="0.19\linewidth"} ]{}\[0.19\][ ![\[partials\] Visualizations of partially aligned docked poses from the PDBbind core set. The crystal pose is shown as magenta sticks and the docked pose and receptor are colored according to our visualization algorithm and the 2:1 DUD-E/CSAR model. None of these protein targets were included in training. The visualization highlights that the model assesses the part of the pose aligned to the crystal ligand as more favorable than the differing part.](partial4_3ozt "fig:"){width="0.19\linewidth"} ]{}
### Partially Aligned Poses
We identified the high RMSD ($>4$[Å]{}) docked poses in the core PDBbind dataset that had the highest percentage of aligned atoms ($<0.1$[Å]{} distant to the corresponding crystal atoms). These are poses that are partially correct; part of the molecule matches the crystal and part does not.
The five poses with the highest percentage of congruent atoms are shown visualized using the 2:1 DUD-E/CSAR model in Figure \[partials\]. For all five poses, the CNN model ranks the crystal pose higher than the docked pose. Our visualization shows why these poses are scored lower. In all cases, the part of the docked pose that is aligned to the crystal pose is predominantly or entirely green (indicating positive contributions), but the divergent part of the ligand is entirely or partially red (indicating negative contributions).
Discussion
==========
We have provided the first detailed description and evaluation of applying deep learning and convolutional neural networks to score protein-ligand interactions using a direct, comprehensive 3D depiction of the complex structure as input. In many respects, our CNN models outperform standard approaches, exemplified here by the Autodock Vina scoring function. In inter-target evaluations of pose prediction, both using cross-validation and an independent test set, CNN models can perform substantially better (e.g., Figures \[depth3\_all\_roc\] and \[pdbbind\_roc\]). Likewise, CNN models can do well in virtual screening evaluations (e.g., Figures \[bytarget\] and \[chemblmuvbars\]). However, our results also point to weaknesses in the current method and opportunities for improvement.
Although the CNN models performed well in an inter-target pose prediction evaluation, they performed worse at intra-target pose ranking (e.g., Figures \[ranking\_bar\], \[core\_cumulbest\], and \[core\_boxplot\]), which is more relevant to molecular docking. It is likely that intra-target ranking could be improved by changing the training protocol to more faithfully represent this task. For example, currently ligands are treated identically regardless of their affinity, as long as they fall below a threshold (10$\upmu$M). It is conceivable that a high RMSD pose of a high affinity ligand should legitimately be scored better than a low RMSD pose of a low affinity ligand, a distinction the current training protocol cannot make. Incorporating the binding affinity as a component of training, or performing relation classification [@santos2015classifying], which assesses the ability of the network to *rank* rather than score poses, may significantly improve intra-target performance of CNN models.
Our models perform well in a clustered cross-validation evaluation of virtual screening on the DUD-E benchmark. However, this benchmark may be susceptible to artificial enrichment [@ramsundar:2015], resulting in overly optimistic predictions of virtual screening performance. We believe that our use of clustered cross-validation, which not only avoids training on ligands of the same target but also all similar targets, should mitigate some of the artificial enrichment issues inherent in DUD-E. Furthermore, our independent test sets both used an entirely different method of dataset construction than the DUD-E set.
Ideally the CNN models learn a generalizable model of protein-ligand binding from the training data. However, our models’ ability to generalize beyond the task inherent in the training data, while present, is limited (e.g. Figure \[mixed\_data\_bar\]). This is further highlighted by that fact that our CNN scores do not correlate ($|R|$ < 0.1) with binding affinity data when evaluating the CSAR crystal poses. In contrast, Vina exhibits a modest correlation ($R$ = 0.37) on the same benchmark. That is, training to classify poses and active/inactive compounds does not generalize to the regression problem of binding affinity prediction. We expect that CNN models trained on binding affinity data would provide substantially improved results on this task. Furthermore, our experience training combined pose prediction and virtual screening models indicates that multiple data types can be integrated to generate effective multi-task models. Unfortunately, we have not yet observed instances where including multi-task training data resulted in a synergistic effect, improving the performance of all tasks, although such an effect has been observed in other domains [@ramsundar:2015].
In total, we believe that the current work demonstrates the potential of convolutional neural network models of protein-ligand binding to outperform current state-of-the-art methods. There remain many possible avenues for improving CNN models, such as training with larger datasets spanning a range of objectives (e.g. pose ranking, affinity prediction, virtual screening, etc.) related to ligand binding. In order to aid in the development of more robust and higher performance CNN models, all of our code and models are available under an open source license as part of our gnina molecular docking software at <https://github.com/gnina>.
We thank Justin Spiriti and Alec Helbling for their input on the manuscript. This work is supported by R01GM108340 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. The TECBio REU@Pitt program is supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant DBI-1263020 and is co-funded by the Department of Defense in partnership with the NSF REU program.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We consider the Kronecker quiver $K$ and determine the relations for the specialisation to $q=0$ of the generic composition algebra as well as those for Reineke’s composition monoid. As a corollary, we deduce that the composition monoid is a proper factor of the specialisation of the composition algebra.
We also obtain a normal form for the varieties occurring in the composition monoid in terms of Schur roots.
author:
- |
Andrew Hubery\
Universität Bielefeld, Germany
title: The Composition Monoid and the Composition Algebra at $q=0$ of the Kronecker Quiver
---
[2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 16G20, 17B37.]{}
Introduction
============
It has long been known that the representation theory of quivers has many close connections with the structure theory of Kac-Moody Lie algebras. The first results in this direction appeared in Kac’s article [@Kac1], with greater insight being afforded by the work of Ringel on the Ringel-Hall algebra of a quiver [@Ringel]. Green then showed that a certain natural subalgebra of the Ringel-Hall algebra, the composition algebra, is in fact isomorphic to a twisted version of the corresponding quantum group [@Green].
In his recent article [@Rein2], Reineke introduces the concept of the extension monoid of a quiver, whose elements are the closed, irreducible $\operatorname{GL}(\alpha)$-stable subsets of the representation varieties $\operatorname{Rep}(\alpha)$ for all $\alpha$, and whose multiplication is given by taking a ‘variety of extensions’. Analogously with the Ringel-Hall algebra approach, he then considers the composition monoid, which is the submonoid generated by the simple representations.
This monoid is interesting for several reasons. Its elements can be described as those representations which have a composition series with prescribed factors in a presecribed order; there are close connections with Schur roots and the notion of canonical decomposition of a dimension vector, introduced by Kac [@Kac2] and later studied by Schofield [@Scho]; finally, it is shown in [@Rein2] that the quantum Serre relations, specialised to $q=0$, hold in the composition monoid.
Furthermore, at the end of the his article [@Rein2], Reineke poses four questions concerning the structure of the composition monoid. These relate to defining relations for the monoid and the existence of a partial normal form.
In this article we study both the composition algebra and the composition monoid in the case of the Kronecker quiver.
Using some recent results on the structure of the composition algebra for the Kronecker quiver [@Szanto] (see also [@Zhang]) we determine defining relations for the specialisation to $q=0$ of the composition algebra. In particular, we note that infinitely many such relations are needed. We also determine an alternative PBW-basis for the composition algebra which behaves particularly nicely with respect to the specialisation to $q=0$.
In the second section we concentrate on the composition monoid itself and determine its defining relations, of which there are again infinitely many. We also construct a normal form for the elements in the composition monoid, which is a special case of the partial normal form obtained in [@Rein2]. This can be expressed purely in terms of Schur roots and includes as a special case the canonical decomposition of a dimension vector.
In the final section, we bring together the previous results to conclude that, at least for the Kronecker quiver, the composition monoid is in fact a proper factor of the composition algebra at $q=0$. This extends the analogous result for Dynkin quivers, claimed in [@Rein1] and later proved in [@HR], that the composition monoid is isomorphic to the specialisation of the composition algebra at $q=0$. We are also able to answer all the questions posed by Reineke.
*Acknowledgements.* The author would like to thank M. Reineke and C.M. Ringel for interesting discussions concerning this article.
The Composition Algebra
=======================
Let $K$ be the Kronecker quiver $i\rightrightarrows j$ and let $k$ be an arbitrary field. For general notions concerning the representation theory of quivers, we refer the reader to the book [@ARS].
We recall the following list of representatives for the isomorphism classes of indecomposable representations of $K$ over $k$:
- The preprojective modules $P(m)$ of dimension vector $(m,m+1)$ for $m\geq 0$;
- The preinjective modules $I(n)$ of dimension vector $(n+1,n)$ for $n\geq 0$;
- The regular modules $R_{mx}$ of dimension vector $(md_x,md_x)$ for $m\geq 1$ and $x\in\mathbb P^1_k$. The module $R_{mx}$ has regular length $m$ and socle the regular simple $R_x$, and $d_x$ denotes the degree of $x$, or equivalently the degree of the associated homogeneous prime ideal in $k[X,Y]$.
For $k$ a finite field with $|k|=q$, we can define the Hall algebra $\operatorname{\mathcal H}(kK)$ to be the ${\mathbb Q}$-vector space with basis elements the isomorphism classes of representations, equipped with the product $[M][N]:=\sum_{[X]}F_{MN}^X[X]$, where $$F_{MN}^X:=|\{Y\leq X: X/Y\cong M, Y\cong N\}|.$$
This is generally considered ‘too big’ to study, and so we consider instead the composition algebra $\operatorname{\mathcal C}(kK)$. This is the subalgebra generated by the simples — i.e. for the Kronecker quiver, the elements $[P(0)]$ and $[I(0)]$.
N.B. The algebras $\operatorname{\mathcal H}(kK)$ and $\operatorname{\mathcal C}(kK)$ are graded by dimension vector.
Define $\operatorname{\mathcal C}'_q(K)$ to be the ${\mathbb Q}(q)$-algebra generated by two elements $i$ and $j$ subject to the relations $$i^3j-(q^2+q+1)i^2ji+q(q^2+q+1)iji^2-q^3ji^3=0$$ and $$ij^3-(q^2+q+1)jij^2+q(q^2+q+1)j^2ij-q^3j^3i=0,$$ and set $\operatorname{\mathcal C}_q(K)$ to be the ${\mathbb Q}[q]$-subalgebra generated by $i$ and $j$.
Then $\operatorname{\mathcal C}(kK)$ is isomorphic to the specialisation to $q=|k|$ of $\operatorname{\mathcal C}_q(K)$.
We therefore study the generic composition algebra $\operatorname{\mathcal C}_q(K)$.
It is shown in [@Szanto] that $\operatorname{\mathcal C}_q(K)$ contains elements ${\mathcal P}(m),{\mathcal I}(n)$ and ${\mathcal R}(s)$ for $m,n\geq 0$ and $s\geq1$, with ${\mathcal P}(0)=j$ and ${\mathcal I}(0)=i$, satisfying the relations
1. $\begin{aligned}[t]
{\mathcal P}(m+a){\mathcal P}(m) = q^{a+1}&{\mathcal P}(m){\mathcal P}(m+a)\\
&\quad\smash{+(q^{a+1}-q^{a-1})\sum_{r=1}^{\lfloor a/2 \rfloor}{\mathcal P}(m+r){\mathcal P}(m+a-r)}
\end{aligned}$\
for all $a,m\geq0$;
2. $\begin{aligned}[t]
{\mathcal I}(n){\mathcal I}(n+a) = q^{a+1}&{\mathcal I}(n+a){\mathcal I}(n)\\
&\quad\smash{+(q^{a+1}-q^{a-1})\sum_{r=1}^{\lfloor a/2 \rfloor}{\mathcal I}(n+a-r){\mathcal I}(n+r)}
\end{aligned}$\
for all $a,n\geq0$;
3. ${\mathcal I}(n){\mathcal P}(m)={\mathcal R}(m+n+1)+q^{m+n}{\mathcal P}(m){\mathcal I}(n)$;
4. $\begin{aligned}[t]
{\mathcal R}(s){\mathcal P}(m) = q^s{\mathcal P}(m){\mathcal R}(s) &+ \smash[b]{\sum_{r=1}^{s-1}(q^{s+r}-q^{s+r-2}){\mathcal P}(m+r){\mathcal R}(s-r)}\\
&\qquad\qquad +(q^{2s-1}+q^{2s-2}){\mathcal P}(m+s);
\end{aligned}$
5. $\begin{aligned}[t]
{\mathcal I}(n){\mathcal R}(s) = q^s{\mathcal R}(s){\mathcal I}(n) &+ \smash[b]{\sum_{r=1}^{s-1}(q^{s+r}-q^{s+r-2}){\mathcal R}(s-r){\mathcal I}(n+r)}\\
&\qquad\qquad +(q^{2s-1}+q^{2s-2}){\mathcal I}(n+s);
\end{aligned}$
6. ${\mathcal R}(s_1){\mathcal R}(s_2)={\mathcal R}(s_2){\mathcal R}(s_1)$.
In particular, these relations are all homogeneous with respect to the grading by dimension vector and can be thought of as defining relations for $\operatorname{\mathcal C}_q(K)$. Moreover, we obtain a PBW-type basis for $\operatorname{\mathcal C}_q(K)$.
\[CAPBW\] The generic composition algebra $\operatorname{\mathcal C}_q(K)$ has a PBW basis $${\mathcal P}(m_1)\cdots{\mathcal P}(m_a){\mathcal R}(s_1)\cdots{\mathcal R}(s_t){\mathcal I}(n_1)\cdots{\mathcal I}(n_b)$$ such that $m_1\leq\cdots\leq m_a$, $n_1\geq\cdots\geq n_b$ and $s_1\geq\cdots\geq s_t$.
We can relate this back to $\operatorname{\mathcal C}(kK)$ by specialising to $q=|k|$. Then ${\mathcal P}(m)\mapsto[P(m)]$, ${\mathcal I}(n)\mapsto[I(n)]$ and $${\mathcal R}(s)\mapsto \sum_{\substack{(x_1,m_1),\ldots,(x_t,m_t)\\ x_i \mathrm{ distinct}\\ \sum m_id_{x_i}=s}} \prod q^{(m_i-1)d_{x_i}}\frac{(q^{d_{x_i}}-1)}{q-1}[R_{m_1x_1}\oplus\cdots\oplus R_{m_tx_t}].$$
Using this PBW basis and the corresponding relations, we see that when we specialise to $q=0$, we again obtain a PBW basis and have relations
1. ${\mathcal P}(m_2){\mathcal P}(m_1)=0$ for $m_1<m_2$;
2. ${\mathcal I}(n_2){\mathcal I}(n_1)=0$ for $n_1>n_2$;
3. ${\mathcal I}(n){\mathcal P}(m)={\mathcal R}(m+n+1)$ if $m+n>0$; ${\mathcal I}(0){\mathcal P}(0)={\mathcal R}(1)+{\mathcal P}(0){\mathcal I}(0)$;
4. ${\mathcal R}(s){\mathcal P}(m)=0$ if $s>1$; ${\mathcal R}(1){\mathcal P}(m)={\mathcal P}(m+1)$;
5. ${\mathcal I}(n){\mathcal R}(s)=0$ if $s>1$; ${\mathcal I}(n){\mathcal R}(1)={\mathcal I}(n+1)$;
6. ${\mathcal R}(s_1){\mathcal R}(s_2)={\mathcal R}(s_2){\mathcal R}(s_1)$.
In particular, we deduce in turn that ${\mathcal R}(1)=ij-ji$, ${\mathcal P}(m)=(ij-ji)^mj$, ${\mathcal I}(n)=i(ij-ji)^n$ and ${\mathcal R}(s+1)=i(ij-ji)^sj$.
We now wish to rewrite these relations in a more transparent form. Let us introduce the notation $\delta_r=i^rj^r$.
We first note that ${\mathcal R}(s)j=0$ for all $s>1$, using 1) when $m_1=0$. Similarly, $iR(s)=0$ for all $s>1$. Thus the formulae for 6) when $s_1=1$ are equivalent to $\delta_1{\mathcal R}(s)={\mathcal R}(s)\delta_1$ for all $s>1$. Also, it is enough to have 1) in the case $m_2=m_1+1$.
We have that $(ij-ji)^mj=\delta_1^mj-\delta_1^{m-1}j\delta_1-\sum_{r=1}^{m-2}\delta_1^rj{\mathcal R}(m-r)$.
We have that $$\begin{aligned}
(ij-ji)^{m+1}j &= \delta_1(ij-ji)^mj-ji(ij-ji)^mj\\
&= \delta_1\big(\delta_1^mj-\delta_1^{m-1}j\delta_1-\sum_{r=1}^{m-2}\delta_1^rj{\mathcal R}(m-r)\big)-j{\mathcal R}(m+1).\end{aligned}$$ The proof now follows by induction, the case $m=1$ being clear.
We can now rewrite the relations of type 1).
The relations ${\mathcal P}(m+1){\mathcal P}(m)=0$ for all $m\geq 0$ are equivalent to $\delta_1^{m+1}j\delta_1^mj=\delta_1^mj\delta_1^{m+1}j$ for all $m\geq0$, which in turn are equivalent to $\delta_1^mj\delta_1^{m+1}j=\delta_1^{2m+1}j^2$ for all $m\geq 0$.
We proceed by induction to prove the first equivalence, the case $m=0$ being clear.
Expanding ${\mathcal P}(m+1){\mathcal P}(m)$ using the previous lemma gives $$\begin{aligned}
\big(\delta_1^{m+1}&j-\delta_1^mj\delta_1-\sum_{r=0}^{m-1}\delta_1^rj{\mathcal R}(m+1-r)\big)\big(\delta_1^mj-\delta_1^{m-1}j\delta_1-\sum_{s=0}^{m-2}\delta_1^sj{\mathcal R}(m-s)\big)\\
&= (\delta_1^{m+1}j\delta_1^mj-\delta_1^mj\delta_1^{m+1}j)-\delta_1(\delta_1^mj\delta_1^{m-1}j-\delta_1^{m-1}j\delta_1^mj)\delta_1\\
&\qquad-\sum_{r=0}^{m-1}\delta_1^rj{\mathcal R}(m+1-r)\big(\delta_1^mj-\delta_1^{m-1}j\delta_1-\sum_{s=0}^{m-2}\delta_1^sj{\mathcal R}(m-s)\big)\\
&\qquad\qquad-\sum_{s=0}^{m-2}\delta_1^{m-s}\big(\delta_1^{s+1}j\delta_1^sj-\delta_1^sj\delta_1^{s+1}j\big){\mathcal R}(m-s)\\
&=\delta_1^{m+1}j\delta_1^mj-\delta_1^mj\delta_1^{m+1}j,\end{aligned}$$ using that $\delta_1{\mathcal R}(s)={\mathcal R}(s)\delta_1$ and ${\mathcal R}(s)j=0$ for all $s>1$, and also that $\delta_1^{r+1}j\delta_1^rj=\delta_1^rj\delta_1^{r+1}j$ for all $0\leq r\leq m$.
Now, we have that $$\delta_1^{m+1}j\delta_1^mj=\delta_1^2\delta_1^{m-1}j\delta_1^mj,$$ from which the second equivalence follows.
In a similar manner, we deduce that the relations of type 4) are redundant. For, after expanding ${\mathcal P}(m)$, each summand of ${\mathcal R}(s){\mathcal P}(m)$ involves a term of the form $${\mathcal R}(s)\delta_1^rj=\delta_1^r{\mathcal R}(s)j=0.$$
Analogously, we have that the relations of type 5) are redundant and that we can rewrite the relations of type 2) as $i\delta_1^ni\delta_1^{n+1}=i\delta_1^{n+1}i\delta_1^n$.
Next let us rewrite the relations of type 6).
The relations ${\mathcal R}(s){\mathcal R}(t)={\mathcal R}(t){\mathcal R}(s)$ for all $s,t\geq 1$ are equivalent to $\delta_s\delta_t=\delta_t\delta_s$ for all $s,t\geq 1$.
This time the induction is a bit more involved. Our induction hypotheses will be that $\delta_1^mj=\delta_mj$ for all $m\leq s-1$, that ${\mathcal R}(m)$ can be expressed using products of $\delta_r$ with $r\leq m$ for all $2\leq m\leq s$ and finally that $\delta_m\delta_n=\delta_n\delta_m$ for all $m,n\leq s$.
Note that in the case $s=1$, there is nothing to show.
Clearly, we always have that $i\delta_rj=\delta_{r+1}$ and that $\delta_r\delta_1j=\delta_{r+1}j$, using the relation $jij^2=ij^3$ repeatedly. N.B. This is the relation of type 1) for $m=0$.
Then $$\delta_1^sj=\delta_1\delta_1^{s-1}j=\delta_1\delta_{s-1}j=\delta_{s-1}\delta_1j=\delta_sj$$ and thus also $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal R}(s+1) &= i(ij-ji)^sj=i\delta_1^sj-i\delta_1^{s-1}j\delta_1-\sum_{r=0}^{s-2}i\delta_1^rj{\mathcal R}(s-r)\\
&=\delta_{s+1}-\delta_s\delta_1-\sum_{r=0}^{s-2}\delta_{r+1}{\mathcal R}(s-r).\end{aligned}$$ These give us the first two of our formulae for $s+1$.
It is now clear that the relations ${\mathcal R}(r){\mathcal R}(s+1)={\mathcal R}(s+1){\mathcal R}(r)$ are equivalent to ${\mathcal R}(r)\delta_{s+1}=\delta_{s+1}{\mathcal R}(r)$ for all $1\leq r\leq s$. By considering each $r$ in turn, starting with $r=1$, we see that these relations are equivalent to $\delta_r\delta_{s+1}=\delta_{s+1}\delta_r$ for all $1\leq r\leq s$.
\[CArels\] The specialisation $\operatorname{\mathcal C}_0(K)$ has defining relations
1. $i^mj^{m+1}i^{m+1}j^{m+2}=i^{2m+1}j^{2m+3}$ for all $m\geq 0$;
2. $i^{n+2}j^{n+1}i^{n+1}j^n=i^{2n+3}j^{2n+1}$ for all $n\geq 0$;
3. $i^mj^m$ and $i^nj^n$ commute for all $m,n\geq 1$.
Moreover we have a PBW basis in $\operatorname{\mathcal C}_0(K)$ involving the elements $${\mathcal R}(1)=ij-ji, \quad {\mathcal R}(s+1)=i{\mathcal R}(1)^sj, \quad {\mathcal P}(m)={\mathcal R}(1)^mj, \quad {\mathcal I}(n)=i{\mathcal R}(1)^n,$$ as in Theorem \[CAPBW\].
N.B. These relations again respect the grading by dimension vector.
Let $\mathcal A$ be the ${\mathbb Q}$-algebra defined by the above relations. We have shown that all the relations hold in $\operatorname{\mathcal C}_0(K)$ and thus we have an epimorphism $\mathcal A\to\operatorname{\mathcal C}_0(K)$. Moreover, all elements in both $\mathcal A$ and $\operatorname{\mathcal C}_0(K)$ can be put into a normal form as in Theorem \[CAPBW\] with respect to the elements ${\mathcal R}(s)$, ${\mathcal P}(m)$ and ${\mathcal I}(n)$ defined above. Thus for each graded part we have $$\dim_{\mathbb Q}\mathcal A_\alpha\leq\dim_{{\mathbb Q}(q)}{\mathbb Q}(q)\otimes\operatorname{\mathcal C}_q(K)_\alpha=\dim_{\mathbb Q}\operatorname{\mathcal C}_0(K)_\alpha.$$ Thus the map $\mathcal A\to\operatorname{\mathcal C}_0(K)$ must be an isomorphism.
N.B. The equality $\dim_{{\mathbb Q}(q)}{\mathbb Q}(q)\otimes\operatorname{\mathcal C}_q(K)_\alpha=\dim_{\mathbb Q}\operatorname{\mathcal C}_0(K)_\alpha$ can be seen as follows. Each graded part $\operatorname{\mathcal C}_q(K)_\alpha$ is a finitely generated free ${\mathbb Q}[q]$-module. Therefore the dimension when tensored with the quotient field ${\mathbb Q}(q)$ equals the dimension when specialised to $q=0$, since both equal the rank.
The elements ${\mathcal R}(s)$, ${\mathcal P}(m)$ and ${\mathcal I}(n)$ are not well suited to the above description of $\operatorname{\mathcal C}_0(K)$. Instead, let us consider the map from the positive root lattice for $K$ to $\operatorname{\mathcal C}(K)$ given by sending $\alpha$ to $(\alpha):=i^{\alpha_i}j^{\alpha_j}$.
\[Cor\] The algebra $\operatorname{\mathcal C}_q(K)$ has a PBW basis $$(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m_1))\cdots(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m_a))\delta_{s_1}\cdots\delta_{s_t}(\operatorname{\underline\dim}I(n_1))\cdots(\operatorname{\underline\dim}I(n_b))$$ such that $m_1\leq\cdots\leq m_a$, $n_1\geq\cdots\geq n_b$ and $s_1\geq\cdots\geq s_t$.
Let us first consider the specialisation to $q=0$. The relations defining $\operatorname{\mathcal C}_0(K)$ imply that $$\begin{aligned}
(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m_2))(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m_1)) &= i^{m_1+m_2}j^{m_1+m_2+2}\\
&= (\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(\lfloor (m_1+m_2)/2\rfloor))(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(\lceil(m_1+m_2)/2\rceil))\end{aligned}$$ for all $m_2>m_1$ (and analogously in the preinjective case).
Also, we have that $$\delta_s(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m))=(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m+s)) \quad\textrm{and}\quad (\operatorname{\underline\dim}I(n))\delta_s=(\operatorname{\underline\dim}I(n+s))$$ and that $$(\operatorname{\underline\dim}I(n))(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m))=\delta_{n+m+1} \quad\textrm{and}\quad \delta_{s_1}\delta_{s_2}=\delta_{s_2}\delta_{s_1}.$$ Therefore we can put any monomial into the required form. By dimension arguments (working with each graded component separately), we see that this form is unique.
It follows immediately that this basis lifts to the generic composition algebra $\operatorname{\mathcal C}_q(K)$.
The Composition Monoid
======================
We now recall the definition of Reineke’s composition monoid $\operatorname{\mathcal{CM}}(K)$ [@Rein2]. In this section, we shall work over an algebraically closed field $k$ of characteristic zero.
Let us write $\operatorname{Rep}(\alpha)$ for the affine space $$\operatorname{Rep}(\alpha)=\mathbb M(\alpha_j\times\alpha_i)\oplus \mathbb M(\alpha_j\times\alpha_i)$$ and $\operatorname{GL}(\alpha)$ for the affine algebraic group $$\operatorname{GL}(\alpha_i)\times\operatorname{GL}(\alpha_j).$$ The variety $\operatorname{Rep}(\alpha)$ parametrises the representations of $K$ of dimension vector $\alpha$, the group $\operatorname{GL}(\alpha)$ acts by conjugation on the pairs of matrices and the orbits correspond bijectively to the isomorphism classes of representations of dimension vector $\alpha$.
The extension monoid $\mathcal M(kK)$ is defined to be the free abelian group on irreducible closed $\operatorname{GL}(\alpha)$-stable subvarieties of $\operatorname{Rep}(\alpha)$ for each dimension vector $\alpha$, and with subvarieties $\mathcal A\subset\operatorname{Rep}(\alpha)$ and $\mathcal B\subset\operatorname{Rep}(\beta)$ multiplying according to the rule $$\mathcal A\ast\mathcal B:=\Big\{X\in\operatorname{Rep}(\alpha+\beta):\begin{gathered}\exists\textrm{ an exact sequence } 0\to B\to X\to A\to 0\\ \textrm{ for some }A\in\mathcal A, B\in\mathcal B\end{gathered}\Big\}.$$
Again, this object seems to be unmanageable and so, by analogy with the Hall algebra, Reineke defines the composition monoid to be the submonoid $\operatorname{\mathcal{CM}}(K)$ generated by the varieties $i:=\operatorname{Rep}((1,0))$ and $j:=\operatorname{Rep}((0,1))$.
We shall often abbreviate notion and write $(\alpha)$ for $\operatorname{Rep}(\alpha)=i^{\alpha_i}j^{\alpha_j}$.
The following theorem is proved in [@Rein2].
\[ext\] If $\mathrm{ext}(\mathcal A,\mathcal B)=0$ or if $\mathcal A=\operatorname{Rep}(\alpha)$ and $\mathcal B=\operatorname{Rep}(\beta)$, then $$\mathrm{codim}\,\mathcal A\ast\mathcal B=\mathrm{codim}\,\mathcal A+\mathrm{codim}\,\mathcal B+\mathrm{ext}(\mathcal B,\mathcal A).$$
Here $\mathrm{ext}(\mathcal A,\mathcal B)$ denotes the general (or minimal) value of $\dim\operatorname{Ext}^1(A,B)$ where $A$ and $B$ range over $\mathcal A$ and $\mathcal B$ respectively.
In particular, for the isotropic root $\delta=(1,1)$, we have that $\mathrm{ext}(\delta,\delta)=0$. Thus $\mathrm{ext}(m\delta,n\delta)=0$ for all $m$ and $n$, and thus we have the relation (Corollary 5.5 of [@Rein2]) $$\operatorname{Rep}(m\delta)\ast\operatorname{Rep}(n\delta)=\operatorname{Rep}((m+n)\delta),$$ or in other words, $\delta_m\ast\delta_n=\delta_{m+n}$, using the notation $\delta_m=i^mj^m$ as before.
We also have the corollary
\[orbits\] Let $M$ and $N$ be two modules such that $\dim\operatorname{Ext}^1(M,N)=0$. Then $$\overline{\mathcal O_M}\ast\overline{\mathcal O_N}=\overline{\mathcal O_{M\oplus N}}.$$
For an orbit $\mathcal O_M$ in $\operatorname{Rep}(\alpha)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{codim}\,\overline{\mathcal O_M} &= \dim\operatorname{Rep}(\alpha)-\dim\operatorname{GL}(\alpha)+\dim\operatorname{End}(M)\\
&= -\langle\alpha,\alpha\rangle+\dim\operatorname{End}(M) = \dim\operatorname{Ext}^1(M,M).\end{aligned}$$ Here we have written $\langle-,-\rangle$ for the Euler form, given by the matrix $\big(\begin{smallmatrix}1&-2\\0&1\end{smallmatrix}\big)$.
Now, using Theorem \[ext\], we have that $\mathrm{codim}\,\overline{\mathcal O_{M\oplus N}}-\mathrm{codim}\,\overline{\mathcal O_M}\ast\overline{\mathcal O_N}$ equals $$\dim\operatorname{Ext}^1(M\oplus N,M\oplus N)-\dim\operatorname{Ext}^1(M,M)-\dim\operatorname{Ext}^1(N,N)-\dim\operatorname{Ext}^1(N,M),$$ which by assumption equals 0.
\[CMrels’\] We have the following relations.
1. $(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m+a))\ast(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m))=(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m+\lfloor a/2\rfloor)\ast(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m+\lceil a/2\rceil)$ for all $a,m\geq0$;
2. $(\operatorname{\underline\dim}I(n))\ast(\operatorname{\underline\dim}I(n+a))=(\operatorname{\underline\dim}I(n+\lceil a/2\rceil)\ast(\operatorname{\underline\dim}I(n+\lfloor a/2\rfloor)$ for all $a,n\geq0$;
3. $(\operatorname{\underline\dim}I(n))\ast(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m))=\delta_{m+n}$;
4. $\delta\ast(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m))=(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m+1))$;
5. $(\operatorname{\underline\dim}I(n))\ast\delta=(\operatorname{\underline\dim}I(n+1))$;
6. $\delta_1^m=\delta_m$.
We know that $(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m))=\delta_1^mj$, from which the relations of type 4) follow immediately.
Next consider $(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m_2))\ast(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m_1))$. For all $m_1\leq m_2+1$ we have that $\operatorname{Ext}^1(P(m_1),P(m_2))=0$. Thus Theorem \[ext\] applies to give $$(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m_2))\ast(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m_1))=\operatorname{Rep}(m_1+m_2,m_1+m_2+2).$$ In particular, we have the relations of type 1).
Analogous arguments work for the relations of types 2) and 5).
As mentioned after Theorem \[ext\], we have that $\delta_m\ast\delta_n=\delta_{m+n}$ for all $m$ and $n$, and hence we obtain the relations of type 6). The relations 3) now follow immediately.
We now prove a normal form for the elements of $\operatorname{\mathcal{CM}}(K)$.
\[CMPBW\] Every element of the composition monoid $\operatorname{\mathcal{CM}}(K)$ can be expressed uniquely as a product of the form $$(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m_1))\ast\cdots\ast(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m_a))\ast\delta_s\ast(\operatorname{\underline\dim}I(n_1))\ast\cdots\ast(\operatorname{\underline\dim}I(n_b))$$ for $m_1\leq\cdots\leq m_a$, $n_1\geq\cdots\geq n_b$ and some $s\geq0$.
By definition, $i=(\operatorname{\underline\dim}I(0))$ and $j=(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(0))$. Thus, using the above relations, we can put any word into the required form. Therefore we just need to prove that distinct words correspond to distinct varieties.
For $m_1\leq\cdots\leq m_a$, consider the product $\overline{\mathcal O_{P(m_1)}}\ast\cdots\ast\overline{\mathcal O_{P(m_a)}}$. By repeated use of Corollary \[orbits\], we see that this is precisely $\overline{\mathcal O_{P(m_1)\oplus\cdots\oplus P(m_a)}}$. Analogously for preinjective modules.
That is, we can describe each variety in the composition monoid as $$\overline{\mathcal O_P}\ast\operatorname{Rep}(s\delta)\ast\overline{\mathcal O_I}$$ for some preprojective module $P$, preinjective module $I$ and some $s\geq 0$.
Now, we know that $\operatorname{Rep}(s\delta)$ contains a dense subset of representations of the form $R=R_{x_1}\oplus\cdots\oplus R_{x_s}$ for distinct $x_1,\ldots,x_s\in\mathbb P^1$. Therefore $$\mathrm{ext}(\overline{\mathcal O_P},\operatorname{Rep}(s\delta))=0$$ whereas $$\mathrm{ext}(\operatorname{Rep}(s\delta),\overline{\mathcal O_P})=\dim\operatorname{Ext}(R,P)=s\#\{\textrm{indecomposable summands of $P$}\}.$$ We also have analogous results involving $\operatorname{Rep}(s\delta)$ and $\overline{\mathcal O_I}$. Therefore we can apply Theorem \[ext\] to get $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{codim}\,\overline{\mathcal O_P}\ast\operatorname{Rep}(s\delta)\ast\overline{\mathcal O_I} &= \dim\operatorname{Ext}(P\oplus R\oplus I,P\oplus R\oplus I)-\dim\operatorname{Ext}(R,R)\\
&= \dim\operatorname{Ext}(P\oplus R\oplus I,P\oplus R\oplus I)-s.\end{aligned}$$
We shall now show that $\overline{\mathcal O_P}\ast\operatorname{Rep}(s\delta)\ast\overline{\mathcal O_I}$ contains a dense subset of representations isomorphic to $P\oplus R_{x_1}\oplus\cdots\oplus R_{x_s}\oplus I$ for distinct $x_1,\ldots,x_s\in\mathbb P^1$.
Let us fix the modules $P$ and $I$, say corresponding respectively to the pairs of matrices $(P_1,P_2)$ and $(I_1,I_2)$, and set $\alpha:=\operatorname{\underline\dim}P+\operatorname{\underline\dim}I$. For a fixed $s\geq0$ we define a morphism of varieties $$\phi:\operatorname{GL}(\alpha+s\delta)\times\big(\operatorname{Rep}(\delta)-0\big)^s \to \operatorname{Rep}(\alpha+s\delta)$$ by sending the element $\big(g,(\lambda_1,\mu_1),\cdots,(\lambda_s,\mu_s)\big)$ to $g\cdot(A,B)$, where $A$ and $B$ are the block-diagonal matrices $$A=\mathrm{diag}(P_1,\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_s,I_1) \quad\textrm{and}\quad B=\mathrm{diag}(P_2,\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_s,I_2).$$
We wish to study the fibre over the point $X=g\cdot(A,B)$, and in particular its dimension. So, consider a point $\big(h,(\lambda'_r,\mu'_r)_r\big)$ mapping to $h\cdot(A',B')=X$. For each $r$ let $R_r$ and $R'_r$ be the modules determined by the points $(\lambda_r,\mu_r)$ and $(\lambda'_r,\mu'_r)$ respectively. By the Krull-Remak-Schmidt Theorem we know that there exists a permutation $\pi$ such that $R'_{\pi(r)}\cong R_r$ for each $r$. Thus we can decompose the fibre into a finite number of varieties, one for each permutation, and hence the dimension of the fibre will be the dimension of any of these smaller sets (since they are clearly isomorphic). Also, in the description of the point $X$ we may assume that $g=1$.
That is, we have that $R'_r\cong R_r$ for each $r$ and that $h\cdot(A',B')=(A,B)$.
Now, to say that $R'_r\cong R_r$ is to say that there exists a non-zero $t_r\in k^*$ such that $(t_r\lambda'_r,t_r\mu'_r)=(\lambda_r,\mu_r)$. Thus if we let $T\in\operatorname{GL}(\alpha+s\delta)$ be the point $\big(1,\mathrm{diag}(1,t_1,\ldots,t_s,1)\big)$, then $T\cdot(A',B')=(A,B)$. Therefore, the part of the fibre over $X$ corresponding to the identity permutation is isomorphic to $$\{(h,t_1,\ldots,t_s):h\in \mathrm{Stab}(A,B)T\}.$$ This is clearly isomorphic to $\mathrm{Stab}(A,B)\times(k^*)^s$, and hence has dimension $\dim\operatorname{End}(P\oplus R\oplus I)+s$, where $R$ is the regular module $R_1\oplus\cdots\oplus R_s$. In particular, the general dimension of a fibre is obtained precisely when the $R_r$ are pairwise non-isomorphic, or equivalently the $x_r:=[\lambda_r:\mu_r]$ are distinct points in $\mathbb P^1$.
We can now calculate the codimension of the closure of the image of $\phi$ using Chevalley’s Theorem (see for example [@Mumf]). $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{codim}\,&\overline{\mathrm{Im}\phi}\\
&= \dim\operatorname{Rep}(\alpha+s\delta)-\dim\operatorname{GL}(\alpha+s\delta)-2s+\dim\operatorname{End}(P\oplus R\oplus I)+s\\
&= \dim\operatorname{End}(P\oplus R\oplus I)-\langle\alpha+s\delta,\alpha+s\delta\rangle-s\\
&= \dim\operatorname{Ext}(P\oplus R\oplus I)-s.\end{aligned}$$
Since the image of $\phi$ is contained in the irreducible variety $\overline{\mathcal O_P}\ast\operatorname{Rep}(s\delta)\ast\overline{\mathcal O_I}$ and they have the same codimension, we deduce that they are equal.
Now, by definition, the closure of the image of $\phi$ is precisely the closure of the set $$\bigcup_{x_1,\ldots,x_s\in\mathbb P^1}\mathcal O_{P\oplus R_{x_1}\oplus\cdots\oplus R_{x_s}\oplus I}.$$ That is, $\overline{\mathcal O_P}\ast\operatorname{Rep}(s\delta)\ast\overline{\mathcal O_I}$ contains a dense set of modules isomorphic to $P\oplus R_{x_1}\oplus\cdots\oplus R_{x_s}\oplus I$ for distinct points $x_1,\ldots,x_s\in\mathbb P^1$.
It follows that distinct expressions of the form $\overline{\mathcal O_P}\ast\operatorname{Rep}(s\delta)\ast\overline{\mathcal O_I}$ give rise to distinct elements in the composition monoid.
\[CMrels\] The composition monoid $\operatorname{\mathcal{CM}}(K)$ has defining relations
1. $i^mj^{m+1}i^{m+1}j^{m+2}=i^{2m+1}j^{2m+3}$ for all $m\geq 0$;
2. $i^{n+2}j^{n+1}i^{n+1}j^n=i^{2n+3}j^{2n+1}$ for all $n\geq 0$;
3. $(ij)^m=i^mj^m$ for all $m\geq 1$.
It follows from the previous theorem that the relations in Proposition \[CMrels’\] are defining. Also, it is clear from relation 6) of the proposition that the third, fourth and fifth relations are superfluous and that the first and second are only needed in the cases $a=1$. This leaves precisely the relations written above.
Concluding Remarks
==================
We begin with an immediate corollary of Theorems \[CArels\] and \[CMrels\].
\[epi\] There is a natural surjection from $\operatorname{\mathcal C}_0(K)$ to the monoid ring ${\mathbb Q}\operatorname{\mathcal{CM}}(K)$ of the composition monoid. This sends $(\alpha)$ to $\operatorname{Rep}(\alpha)$ for each root $\alpha$. The kernel is generated by the relations $$(ij)^m=i^mj^m \quad\textrm{for all }m\geq1.$$
We note that Theorem \[CArels\] extends Lemma 4.2 in [@Rein2]. That is, only the quantum Serre relations are considered in [@Rein2], whereas we have exhibited defining relations for the specialisation to $q=0$ of the composition algebra. Similarly, the above corollary extends Proposition 4.3 of [@Rein2].
We stress that, whereas in the composition algebra the subalgebra generated by the elements $\delta_m$ form a polynomial algebra with infinitely many variables (one for each $m$), the corresponding subalgebra in the monoid ring ${\mathbb Q}\operatorname{\mathcal{CM}}(K)$ is isomorphic to a polynomial algebra on the single variable $\delta$.
At the end of [@Rein2], Reineke poses four questions concerning the composition monoid. Using our results, we can answer all of these for the case of the Kronecker quiver.
The first two questions concern defining relations for the composition monoid. We have given in Theorem \[CMrels\], however, a set of minimal defining relations, which answers the second question. These relations can be written as $$\operatorname{Rep}(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m))\ast\operatorname{Rep}(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m+1))=\operatorname{Rep}(\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m)\oplus P(m+1)) \textrm{ for all }m\geq 0,$$ and similarly for the prinjective modules, as well as $$\operatorname{Rep}(\delta)\ast\operatorname{Rep}(m\delta)=\operatorname{Rep}((m+1)\delta) \quad\textrm{for all }m\geq 1.$$ Therefore we have an affirmative answer to Reineke’s first question — namely that only relations of this type are necessary.
The third question discusses a partial normal form for elements of the composition monoid. It is proved in Theorem 5.8 of [@Rein2] that every word can be expressed in the form $$\operatorname{Rep}(\alpha_1)\ast\cdots\ast\operatorname{Rep}(\alpha_a),$$ where each $\alpha_r$ is a Schur root and such that $$\mathrm{ext}(\alpha_r,\alpha_{r+1})\neq0 \quad\textrm{implies}\quad \mathrm{ext}(\alpha_{r+1},\alpha_r)\neq0.$$
We recall that $\alpha$ is a Schur root if there exists a representation $X$ of dimension vector $\alpha$ with $\operatorname{End}(X)=k$.
Now, the normal form that we have described in Theorem \[CMPBW\] is precisely of this type. In fact, for the Kronecker quiver, we always have that $\mathrm{ext}(\alpha_r,\alpha_{r+1})=0$. Moreover, as was shown in the proof of Theorem \[CMPBW\], we can describe the elements of $\operatorname{\mathcal{CM}}(K)$ just in terms of Schur roots.
The Schur roots for the Kronecker quiver are precisely the dimension vectors of the indecomposable preprojectives and preinjectives together with $\delta$. We order these by saying that $$\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m)<\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m+1)<\delta<\operatorname{\underline\dim}I(n+1)<\operatorname{\underline\dim}I(n) \quad\textrm{for all }m,n\geq0.$$ Note that $\mathrm{ext}\,(\alpha,\beta)=0$ for Schur roots $\alpha<\beta$.
The elements of $\operatorname{\mathcal{CM}}(K)$ now correspond precisely to finite sets of Schur roots. In particular, $\alpha_1\leq\cdots\leq\alpha_a$ corresponds to the variety $$\mathcal A:=\operatorname{Rep}(\alpha_1)\ast\cdots\ast\operatorname{Rep}(\alpha_a)$$ and the general element of $\mathcal A$ is of the form $R=R_1\oplus\cdots\oplus R_a$ with $\operatorname{\underline\dim}R_r=\alpha_r$. The codimension of $\mathcal A$ can also be calculated using Theorem \[ext\] to be $$\mathrm{codim}\,\mathcal A=\sum_{s>r}\mathrm{ext}(\alpha_s,\alpha_r).$$
In this way we recover the Kac’s generic decomposition of $\alpha$ [@Kac1] (see also [@Scho]) as the decomposition of $\operatorname{Rep}(\alpha)$. That is, the decomposition $$\alpha=\alpha_1+\cdots+\alpha_a \quad\textrm{with each $\alpha_r$ a Schur root and }\mathrm{ext}(\alpha_r,\alpha_s)=0\textrm{ for }r\neq s.$$
Finally we mention the fourth question raised by Reineke, which asks whether the partial normal form can be lifted to the composition algebra.
Let us order the positive roots of $K$ as follows. $$\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m)<\operatorname{\underline\dim}P(m+1)< (s+1)\delta<s\delta< \operatorname{\underline\dim}I(n+1)<\operatorname{\underline\dim}I(n)$$ for all $m,n\geq 0$ and $s\geq1$. Corollary \[Cor\] then states that the elements $$(\alpha_1)\cdots(\alpha_a) \quad\textrm{for roots }\alpha_1\leq\cdots\leq\alpha_a$$ form a PBW basis for $\operatorname{\mathcal C}_0(K)$, where $(\alpha)=i^{\alpha_i}j^{\alpha_j}$. It is now immediate that the image in the composition monoid of each of these basis elements is already in normal form.
Moreover, we see that we have distinct basis elements $i^mj^m$ for each $m\geq 1$. These arise since there exist indecomposable representations of dimension vector $m\delta$ over the finite field $\mathbb F_{\!q}$ with endomorphism ring $\mathbb F_{\!q^m}$. This phenomenon only occurs for non-algebraically closed fields, and so does not appear in the composition monoid. This explains why the epimorphism described in Corollary \[epi\] is not an isomorphism.
[99]{} <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M. Aulsander</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">I. Reiten</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">S.O. Smalø</span>, ‘textit[Representation theory of Artin algebras]{}, Cambridge Stud. Adv. Math. 36 (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1995). <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J.A. Green</span>, ‘Hall algebras, hereditary algebras and quantum groups’, *Invent. Math.* 120 (1995) 361–377. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A.W. Hubery</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M. Reineke</span>, ‘The quantic monoid and degenerate quantized enveloping algebras’, in preparation. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">V.G. Kac</span>, ‘Infinite root systems, representations of graphs and invariant theory’, *Invent. Math.* 56 (1980) 57–92. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">V.G. Kac</span>, ‘Infinite root systems, representations of graphs and invariant theory II’, *J. Algebra* 78 (1982) 141–162. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">G. Lusztig</span>, *Introduction to quantum groups*, Progress in Math. 110 (Birkhäuser, Boston, 1993). <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D. Mumford</span>, *The red book of varieties and schemes*, Lecture Notes in Math. 1358 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993). <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M. Reineke</span>, ‘Generic extensions and multiplicative bases of quantum groups at $q=0$’, *Represent. Theory* 5 (2001) 147–163. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M. Reineke</span>, ‘The monoid of families of quiver representations’, *Proc. London Math. Soc.* (3) 84 (2002) 663–685. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">C. M. Ringel</span>, ‘Hall algebras and quantum groups’, *Invent. Math.* 101 (1990) 583–591. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">C. Szántó</span>, ‘Hall polynomials and the hall algebra of the Kronecker algebra’, preprint http://math.ubbcluj.ro/\~szanto/publ/HallKron.pdf . <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Schofield</span>, ‘General Representations of Quivers’, *Proc. London Math. Soc.* (3) 65 (1992) 46–64. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">P. Zhang</span>, ‘PBW-basis for the composition algebra of the Kronecker algebra’, *J. reine angew. Math.* 527 (2000) 97-116.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Wenxian Shen\
Department of Mathematics and Statistics\
Auburn University\
Auburn, AL 36849, U.S.A.\
\
Xiaoxia Xie\
Department of Applied Mathematics\
Illinois Institute of Technology\
Chicago, IL 60616, U.S.A.
title: Spectral theory for nonlocal dispersal operators with time periodic indefinite weight functions and applications
---
0.5cm
\[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\]
\[section\]
u ł Ø å[A]{}
ł Ø å[A]{}
\#1[$\underline{\hbox{#1}}$]{}
[**Abstract.**]{} In this paper, we study the spectral theory for nonlocal dispersal operators with time periodic indefinite weight functions subject to Dirichlet type, Neumann type and spatial periodic type boundary conditions. We first obtain necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a unique positive principal spectrum point for such operators. We then investigate upper bounds of principal spectrum points and sufficient conditions for the principal spectrum points to be principal eigenvalues. Finally we discuss the applications to nonlinear mathematical models from biology.
[**Key words.**]{} Nonlocal dispersal operator, time periodic weight function, principal spectrum point, principal eigenvalue, KPP equations
[**Mathematics subject classification.**]{} 45C05, 45M05, 45M20, 47G10, 92D25.
Introduction
============
Random dispersal operators, such as $u(t, \cdot)\mapsto \Delta u(t, \cdot)$ with proper boundary condition, are often adopted in modeling dissipative systems in applied sciences when the organisms in the systems move randomly between the adjacent spatial locations (see [@BrCoFl; @CaCo; @CaCo1; @CaCo2; @Co; @CoCuPo; @Fisher; @Ha; @He; @He0; @HeKo; @HessWein; @Kolmo; @Zhaox], etc.). Nonlocal dispersal operators, such as $u(t, \cdot)\mapsto \int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^N}k(y-\cdot)[u(t, y)-u(t, \cdot)]dy$, are applied in modeling diffusive systems in applied sciences when the systems exhibit long range internal interactions (see [@FeIsPe; @Fif; @GrHiHuMiVi; @HuGr; @HuMaMiVi; @KaLoSh1; @OtDuAl; @ShZh0; @St], etc.). Diffusive evolution equations with both random and nonlocal dispersals have been widely studied on one hand. On the other hand, there are still many important dynamical issues for such systems which are not well understood yet.
The current paper is devoted to the study of principal spectrum points/principal eigenvalues of nonlocal dispersal operators with time periodic indefinite weight functions and Dirichlet type, Neumann type, and periodic boundary conditions. More precisely, the eigenvalue problem subject to Dirichlet type boundary condition considered in this paper reads as $$\label{dirichlet-ori}
\begin{cases}
-\p_t u(t, x)+\int_D \kappa(y-x)u(t, y)dy-u(t, x)+\lambda_1 m_1(t,x)u(t, x)=0,\quad x\in \bar D,\\
u(t+T, x)=u(t, x),
\end{cases}$$ where $D\subset \R^N$ is a smooth bounded domain and $m_1(t, x)\neq 0$ is a continuous, time periodic weight function; the eigenvalue problem subject to Neumann type boundary condition considered in this paper reads as $$\label{neumann-ori}
\begin{cases}
-\p_t u(t, x)+\int_D \kappa(y-x)[u(t, y)-u(t, x)]dy+\lambda_2 m_2(t,x)u(t, x)=0,\quad x\in \bar D,\\
u(t+T, x)=u(t, x),
\end{cases}$$ where $D\in \R^N$ and $m_2(t, x)$ are as ; and the eigenvalue problem subject to periodic boundary conditions considered in this paper reads as $$\label{periodic-ori}
\begin{cases}
-\p_t u(t, x)+\int_{\R^N} \kappa(y-x)[u(t, y)-u(t, x)]dy+\lambda_3 m_3(t,x)u(t, x)=0,\quad x\in \R^N,\\
u(t+T, x)=u(t, x+p_j{\bf e_j})=u(t, x),
\end{cases}$$ where $p_j>0$, ${\bf e_j}=(\delta_{j_1}, \delta_{j_2}, \cdots, \delta_{jN})$ ($\delta_{jk}=1$ if $j=k$ and $\delta_{jk}=0$ if $j\neq k$), and $m_3(t, x)$ is a continuous function with $m_3(t+T, x)=m_3(t, x+p_j{\bf e_j})=m_3(t, x)$ for $j=1, 2, \cdots, N$. Throughout the paper, we assume that the nonlocal kernel function $\kappa(\cdot)$ in - satisfies the following condition \[K\] ()C\_c(\^N), (0)>0, (-z)=(z), \_[[$\mathbb{R}$]{}\^N]{} (z)dz=1.
The eigenvalue problems , , and can be viewed as the nonlocal dispersal counterparts of the following eigenvalue problems associated to random dispersal operators with time periodic indefinite functions and Dirichlet, Neumann, and periodic boundary conditions, $$\label{random-dirichlet-op}
\begin{cases}
-\p_t u(t, x)+\Delta u(t, x)+\lambda_1m_1(t,x)u(t, x)=0 \, & x\in D,\\
u(t, x)=0, & x\in \p D,\\
u(t, x)=u(t+T, x),
\end{cases}$$ $$\label{random-neumann-op}
\begin{cases}
-\p_t u(t, x)+\Delta u(t, x)+\lambda_2 m_2(t,x)u(t, x)=0 \, & x\in D,\\
\frac{\p u}{\p {\bf n}}(t, x)=0, & x\in \p D,\\
u(t, x)=u(t+T, x),
\end{cases}$$ and $$\label{random-periodic-op}
\begin{cases}
-\p_t u(t, x)+\Delta u(t, x)+\lambda_3 m_3(t,x)u(t, x) =0\, & x\in \R^N,\\
u(t+T, x)=u(t, x+p_j{\bf e_j})=u(t, x),
\end{cases}$$ respectively (see [@ShXi1] and references therein for the relation between nonlocal dispersal operators with Dirichlet type, Neumann type, and periodic boundary conditions, and random dispersal operators with Dirichlet, Neumann, and periodic boundary conditions).
The eigenvalue problems of random dispersal operators with indefinite weight functions have been extensively for more than two decades (see, e.g. [@BeHe; @Boc; @Bo; @BrCoFl; @BrLi; @CaCo1; @Co; @CoCuPo; @He; @He0; @HeKo; @HiKaLa; @KaLoYa; @LoYa; @SeHe] and references therein). For $i=1$ ($i= 2$, or $i= 3$, respectively), recall that a real number $\lambda_1^{r,p}$ ($\lambda_2^{r,p}$ or $\lambda_3^{r,p}$, respectively) is called a [*principal eigenvalue*]{} of (, or , respectively) if (, or , respectively) with $\lambda_1=\lambda_1^{r,p}$ ($\lambda_2=\lambda_2^{r,p}$, or $\lambda_3=\lambda_3^{r,p}$, respectively) has a positive solution (called [*eigenfunction*]{}). The eigenvalue problem , , or are closely related to the following regular eigenvalue problems, $$\label{random-dirichlet-op-eq}
\begin{cases}
-\p_t u(t, x)+\Delta u(t, x)+\lambda_1m_1(t,x)u(t, x)=\mu_1 u(t, x) \, & x\in D,\\
u(t, x)=0, & x\in \p D,\\
u(t, x)=u(t+T, x),
\end{cases}$$ $$\label{random-neumann-op-eq}
\begin{cases}
-\p_t u(t, x)+\Delta u(t, x)+\lambda_2 m_2(t,x)u(t, x)=\mu_2 u(t, x) \, & x\in D,\\
\frac{\p u}{\p {\bf n}}(t, x)=0, & x\in \p D,\\
u(t, x)=u(t+T, x),
\end{cases}$$ $$\label{random-periodic-op-eq}
\begin{cases}
-\p_t u(t, x)+\Delta u(t, x)+\lambda_3 m_3(t,x)u(t, x) =\mu_3u(t, x)\, & x\in \R^N,\\
u(t+T, x)=u(t, x+p_j{\bf e_j})=u(t, x).
\end{cases}$$ For $i=1, 2, 3$, and any given $\lambda_i$, let $\mu^{r, p}_{i}(\lambda_i)$ be the principal eigenvalue of , , and , respectively. Then $\lambda_1^{r,p}$ (resp. $\lambda_2^{r,p}$, $\lambda_3^{r,p}$) is a principal eigenvalues of (resp. , ) if and only if $\mu^r_1(\lambda_1^{r,p})=0$ (resp. $\mu^r_2(\lambda_2^{r,p})=0$, $\mu^r_3(\lambda_3^{r,p})=0$).
Thanks to its applications in the nonlinear mathematical models, in particular, the population dynamics in biology, the existence of positive principal eigenvalues of , , and is of particular interest and has been well studied. The time independent version was first studied by Manes and Micheletti in [@MaMi]. Then, Hess and Kato in [@HeKo] and Brown and Lin in [@BrLi] obtained some results for elliptic operators in Dirichlet boundary case. The proofs of Brown and Lin and Manes and Micheletti are based on the variational characterization of the principal eigenvalue; the proof of Hess and Kato uses Krein-Rutman’s theorem. For more general elliptic operators subject to various boundary conditions, we refer to [@Boc; @Bo; @BrCoFl; @BrLi; @CaCo1; @GoLa; @He; @HeKo; @Lo-Go0; @Lo-Go; @SeHe] and references therein, and for the applications in population dynamics, such as the optimization of spatial arrangement of favorable and unfavorable regions for a species to survive in biological context, we refer to [@CaCo; @CaCo2; @Co; @CoCuPo; @HiKaLa; @KaLoYa; @LoYa], etc.
Among others, in the time independent case, it is proved that with $m_1(t, x)=m_1(x)$ admits a unique positive principal eigenvalue if and only if \[random-auto-diri-condi\] m(x\_0)>0 x\_0D (see [@GoLa; @HeKo; @He]), and with $m_2(t,x)=m_2(x)$ admits a unique positive principal eigenvalue if and only if $$\label{random-auto-neum-condi}
m_2(x_0)>0 \quad\text{for some}\,\, x_0\in D\,\,\, \text{and}\,\,\int_D m_2(x)dx<0$$ (see [@He]). In the time periodic case, it is proved that has a unique positive principal eigenvalue if and only if \[R-D\] \_0\^T\_[x|D]{}m\_1(t, x)dt>0 (see [@He0]), and has a unique positive principal eigenvalue if \[R-N\] \_0\^T\_[x|D]{}m\_2(t, x)dt>0 \_D\_0\^Tm\_2(t, x)dtdx<0 (see [@He0]). There is no result for random dispersal operator subject to the spatial periodic boundary condition so far. But as we can see in the proofs for nonlocal dispersal operator, results in spatial periodic boundary case are very similar to those in Neumann boundary case.
The study of , , and is of great interest in its own and will also have important applications in the study of many nonlinear mathematical models with nonlocal dispersal from applied science, including the following time periodic dispersal evolution equations, $$\label{n-kpp-diri}
\begin{cases}
\p_t u=\int_{D} \kappa(y-x)u(t,y)dy-u(t,x)+\lambda_1 uf_1(t,x,u),\quad x\in \bar D,\\
u(t+T, x)=u(t, x),\\
u(0, x)\geq 0, u(0, x)\not\equiv 0,
\end{cases}$$ $$\label{n-kpp-neum}
\begin{cases}
\p_t u=\int_{D} k(y-x)[u(t,y)-u(t,x)]dy+\lambda_2 uf_2(t,x,u),\quad x\in \bar D,\\
u(t+T, x)=u(t, x),\\
u(0, x)\geq 0, u(0, x)\not\equiv 0,
\end{cases}$$ and $$\label{n-kpp-peri}
\begin{cases}
\p_t u=\int_{\R^N} k(y-x)u(t,y)dy-u(t,x)+\lambda_3 uf_3(t,x,u),\quad x\in \R^N,\cr
u(t+T, x+p_i{\bf e_i})=u(t, x+p_i{\bf e_i})=u(t, x),\\
u(0, x)\geq 0, u(0, x)\not\equiv 0,
\end{cases}$$ where $u(0, x)$ is continuous and bounded, $\lambda_i >0$, and $f_i(t, x, u)$ satisfies the following condition $(i=1,2,3)$,
[**(F)**]{} [*$f_i$ is $C^1$ in $t\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and $C^3$ in $(x,u)\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^N\times{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$; $f_i(t, x, u)<0$ for $u\gg 1$ and $\partial _u f_i(t, x, u)<0$ for $u\geq0$*]{}; $f_i(t+T,x,u)=f_i(t,x,u)$; and when $i=3$, $f_i(t+T, x,u)=f_i(t, x+p_j{\bf e_j}, u)=f(t,x,u)$ for $j=1, 2, \cdots, N$.
In , , and , $u(t, x)$ represents the density of a species at location $x$ and time $t$, and $\lambda_i f(t, x, 0) (i=1, 2, 3)$ represents the intrinsic growth rate of a species. Hence only non-negative solutions of , , and are of interest. Notice that $u\equiv 0$ is a solution to , , and . It is of great interest to know for which $\lambda_1$ (resp. $\lambda_2$, $\lambda_3$), there is a positive solution of (resp. , ). As in the random dispersal case, the spectral theory for the eigenvalue problems , , and will play an important role in the study of positive solutions of , , and ).
However, little is known about the eigenvalue problems of nonlocal dispersal operators with (time periodic) indefinite weight functions. The objective of this paper is to investigate the principal spectrum points /eigenvalues (if exists) of the nonlocal time-periodic weighted eigenvalue problems with Dirichlet type boundary condition , Neumann type boundary condition and spatial periodic type boundary condition , respectively. Note that, unlike random dispersal operators, a nonlocal dispersal operator may not have a principal eigenvalue (see [@Cov; @ShZh0] for examples). We hence first introduce the notion of the principal spectrum points of , and , which are the natural generalization of notion of the principal eigenvalue of , , and . Moreover, due to the lack of compactness of nonlocal operators, the Krein-Rutman’s theorem is not applicable, and there is in general no variational characterization for time-periodic nonlocal dispersal operators. We overcome the difficulties by developing various new techniques, and prove the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of positive principal spectrum points of , , and , respectively. We also investigate the upper bounds of principal spectrum points and the sufficient conditions for the principal spectrum points to be principal eigenvalues. As an application, we study asymptotic dynamics of , , and by the spectral theory of weighted nonlocal dispersal operators.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we introduce notations, definitions and state the main results of the paper. In section 3, we present some preliminary materials to be used in the proof of the main results. We prove the main results and discuss the application of the main results in section 4.
Notations, Definitions, and Main Results
========================================
In this section, we introduce notations, definitions, and state the main results.
We first introduce some standing notations and the concept of principal spectrum points of nonlocal dispersal operators with time periodic indefinite weight functions.
Let \[space-t12\] X\_1=X\_2={uC(|D, )| u(t+T, x)=u(t, x)} with norm $\|u\|_{\mathcal X_i}=\sup_{t\in \R, x\in \bar D}|u(t, x)| (i=1, 2)$, \[space-t3\] X\_3={uC(\^N, )|u(t+T, x)=u(t, x+p\_j[**e\_j**]{})=u(t, x) j=1,2,,N} with norm $\|u\|_{\mathcal X_3}=\sup_{t\in\R, x\in\R^N}|u(t, x)|$. Set $$\mathcal X_i^+=\{u\in \mathcal X_i|u\geq 0\}$$ and $$\mathcal X_i^{++}=\text{Int}{X_i^+}=\{\phi\in \mathcal X_i, \phi>0\}$$ ($i=1, 2, 3$). We define the integral operator $K_i$, the multiplication operator $B_i$, and the domain $D_i$ $(i=1,2,3)$ as follows, $$\label{Ki}
K_i: \mathcal X_i\to\mathcal X_i,\,\, K_iu(t, x)=
\begin{cases}
\int_D \kappa(y-x)u(t, y)dy\quad &\forall u\in X_i,\quad i=1,2,\\
\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^N}\kappa(y-x)u(t, y)dy\quad&\forall u\in X_3,
\end{cases}$$ \[bi\] B\_i: X\_iX\_i, B\_iu=b\_i u b\_i(x)=
1 & i=1, 3,\
\_D(y-x)dy & i=2,
and $$\label{D-i}
D_i=\begin{cases} D\quad &{\rm for}\,\, i=1,2,\cr
[0,p_1]\times[0,p_2]\times [0,p_N] &{\rm for}\,\, i=3.
\end{cases}$$ For $1\leq i\leq 3$, set \[Li\] (L\_iu)(t, x)=-\_tu(t, x)+(K\_iu)(t, x)-(B\_iu)(t, x) with domain $$\mathcal D (\mathcal L_i)=\{u\in \mathcal X_i| u \text{ is } C^1 \text{ in } t \text{ and } u_t\in \mathcal X_i\}.$$ Then for $i=1,2,3$, the eigenvalue problems , , and in the space $\mathcal X_i$ can be written uniformly as $$\label{EP-lambdai}
\mathcal L_iu+\lambda_i m_i u=0,$$ Observe that $K_2=K_1$, $B_3=B_1$ and $D_2=D_1$. The introduction of $K_2$, $B_3$, and $D_2$ is for convenience.
For any given real number $\lambda_i$, the weighted eigenvalue problem is closely related to the following regular eigenvalue problem on $\mathcal X_i$, \[EP-mui\] L\_i u+\_i m\_iu=\_i u. Let $\sigma_i(\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i m_i)$ be the spectrum set of (i.e. the spectrum set of the operator $\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_im_i$ in $\mathcal{X}_i$) and $$\ds\mu_i^n(\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i m_i)=\sup\{{\rm Re}\mu|\mu\in\sigma_i(\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i m_i)\}.$$
\[PSP-def\]
- $\mu_i^n(\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i m_i)$ is called [*the principal spectrum point*]{} of the regular eigenvalue problem . The principal spectrum point $\mu_i^n(\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i m_i)$ is called [*the principal eigenvalue*]{} of if with $\mu_i=\mu_i^n(\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i m_i)$ has a positive solution in $\mathcal{X}_i$.
- A real number $\lambda_i^p(m_i)$ is called a [*principal spectrum point*]{} of the weighted eigenvalue problem if $\mu_i^n(\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i^p(m_i) m_i)=0$. When $\lambda_i^p(m_i)$ is a principal spectrum point of and $\mu_i^n(\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i^p(m_i) m_i)$ is a principal eigenvalue of , $\lambda_i^p(m_i)$ is also called a [*principal eigenvalue*]{} of .
If not confusion occurs, we may write $\mu_i^n(\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i m_i)$ and $\lambda_i^p(m_i)$ as $\mu_i^n(\lambda_i)$ and $\lambda_i^p$, respectively.
Let $$\label{x-d-space}
X_1=X_2=\{u\in C(\bar D, \R)\}$$ with norm $\|u\|_{X_i}=\sup_{x\in\bar D}|u(x)|$ ($i=1,2$), $$\label{x-p-space}
X_3=\{u\in C({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^N,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})\,|\, u(x+p_j{\bf e_j})=u(x),\quad x\in\R^N,\, j=1,2,\cdots,N\}$$ with norm $\|u\|_{X_3}=\max_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^N}|u(x)|$. Set $$\label{x-d-positive-cone}
X_i^+=\{u\in X_i\,|\, u\geq 0\},$$ and $$\label{x-d-positive-interior}
X_i^{++}=
\begin{cases}
\{u\in X_i^+\,|\, u(x)>0,\quad x\in \bar D\},\quad & i=1,2,\\
\{u\in X_i^+\,|\, u(x)> 0,\quad x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^N\},\quad & i=3.
\end{cases}$$ In the case that $m_i(t, x)\equiv m_i(x)$, consider $$\label{autonomous-weight-pev}
K_iu-B_iu+\lambda_i m_iu=0,$$ and $$\label{autonomous-pev}
K_iu-B_iu+\lambda_i m_iu=\mu_i u,$$ in $X_i$ ($i=1,2,3$). Similarly, define [*the principal spectrum point*]{} $\mu_i^n(\lambda_i)$ of the regular eigenvalue problem to be the largest real part of the spectrum set of . We then call a real number $\lambda_i^p$ [*the principal spectrum point*]{} of the weighted eigenvalue problem if $\mu_i^n(\lambda_i^p)=0$.
Note that when $m_i(t,x)\equiv m_i(x)$, the principal spectrum point of and the principal spectrum point of are the same (see Proposition \[spectrum-autonomous\]).
Note also that , as well as its time independent version , is an eigenvalue problem in regular sense for $i=1, 2, 3$, as we can see from Definition \[PSP-def\] (1). Many properties of the principal spectrum point/principal eigenvalue have been studied extensively (see [@BaZh; @Cov; @HuShVi; @RaSh; @ShXi1; @ShZh0] etc.). And we will recall the basic properties and prove some new properties of the principal spectrum point/principal eigenvalue of in subsection 3.3.
However, little is known about the eigenvalue problem . We are the first to study the principal spectrum point/principal eigenvalue of nonlocal dispersal operators with time periodic indefinite weight function. Definition \[PSP-def\] (2) is a natural generalization of the principal eigenvalue of random dispersal operators with time periodic indefinite weight functions. And the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of positive principal spectrum point of are in Theorem \[PSP-diri\]-\[PSP-peri\], and the properties of the principal spectrum point of are in Theorem \[upper-bounds\].
For $i=1, 2, 3$, let \[hat-mi\] m\_i(x)=\_0\^T m\_i(t,x)dt, \[mi-max-min\] m\_[i, ]{}=\_[x|D\_i]{}m\_i(x), m\_[i, ]{}=\_[x|D\_i]{}m\_i(x), and \[P\] P(m\_i)=\_0\^T\_[x|D\_i]{}m\_i(t, x)dt.
We now state the main results of the paper. We first state the main results on the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence and uniqueness of positive principal spectrum points of , , and .
\[PSP-diri\] Suppose $\kappa(\cdot)$ satisfies (K) and $m_1\in\mathcal X_1$. The eigenvalue problem has exactly one positive principal spectrum point, denoted by $\lambda_1^p$, if and only if \[D\] P(m\_1)>0. More precisely, we show the following.
- There is $\lambda_1^p>0$ such that $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^p)=0$ if and only if (D) holds.
- If $\lambda_1^{p, 1},\lambda_1^{p, 2}>0$ are such that $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^{p, 1})=\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^{p, 2})=0$, then $\lambda_1^{p, 1}=\lambda_1^{p, 2}$.
\[PSP-diri-coro\] $\quad$
- If $m_1(t, x)\equiv m_1(t)$, then has exactly one positive principal spectrum point $\lambda_1^p$ if and only if $$\int_0^T m_1(t)dt>0.$$ Moreover, $\lambda_1^p$ is a principal eigenvalue of and $\ds \lambda_1^p=\frac{-\bar\lambda_1}{\widehat m_1}$, where $\bar \lambda_1(<0)$ is the principal eigenvalue of $K_1-B_1(=K_1-\mathcal I)$.
- If $m_1(t, x)\equiv m_1(x)$ , consider $$\label{autonomous-dirichlet-ori}
\left[\int_D\kappa(y-x)dy-u(x)\right]+\lambda_1m_1(x)u(x)=0,\quad x\in\bar D.$$ There exists a unique positive principal spectrum point $\lambda_1^p$ of if and only if $m_1(x_0)> 0$ for $x_0\in D_1$.
\[PSP-dirichlet-remark\] Theorem \[PSP-diri\] and Corollary \[PSP-diri-coro\] extend the principal eigenvalue theory for random dispersal operators with time independent or time periodic indefinite weight functions subject to Dirichlet boundary condition to nonlocal dispersal operators with time independent or time periodic indefinite weight functions subject to Dirichlet type boundary condition.
\[PSP-neum\] Suppose that $\kappa(\cdot)$ satisfies (K), $m_2(\cdot, \cdot)\in\mathcal X_2$ and $m_2(t, x)\not \equiv m_2(t)$. The eigenvalue problem has exactly one positive principal spectrum point, denoted by $\lambda_2^p$, if and only if \[N\] P (m\_2)>0 \_[D\_2]{} \_0\^Tm\_2(t, x)dtdx<0. More precisely, we show the following.
- There is a $\lambda_2^p>0$ such that $\mu_2^n(\lambda_2^p)=0$ if and only if (N) holds.
- If $\lambda_2^{p, 1}, \lambda_2^{p, 2}>0$ are such that $\mu_2^n(\lambda_2^{p, 1})=\mu_2^n(\lambda_2^{p, 2})=0$, then $\lambda_2^{p, 1}=\lambda_2^{p, 2}$.
\[PSP-neum-coro\]
- If $m_2(t,x)\equiv m_2(t)$, then $$\mu_2^n(\lambda_2)=\lambda_2\widehat m_2.$$ It then follows that, if $\int_0^T m_2(t)dt\not =0$, then there is no positive principal spectrum point of , and if $\int_0^T m_2(t)dt=0$, then any $\lambda_2>0$ is a positive principal spectrum point of .
- If $m_2(t, x)\equiv m_2(x)$, consider $$\label{autonomous-neumann-ori}
\int_D\kappa(y-x)[u(y)-u(x)]dy+\lambda_2m_2(x)u(x)=0,\quad x\in\bar D.$$ There is exactly one positive principal spectrum point $\lambda_2^p$ of if and only if $$m_2(x_0)>0\quad \text{for some}\,\, x_0\in D_2\quad {\rm and}\,\,\int_{D_2} m_2(x)dx<0.$$
\[PSP-neum-remark\] Theorem \[PSP-neum\] and Corollary \[PSP-neum-coro\] extend the principal eigenvalue theory for random dispersal operators with time independent or time periodic indefinite weight functions subject to Neumann boundary condition to nonlocal dispersal operators with time independent or time periodic indefinite weight functions subject to Neumann type boundary condition.
\[PSP-peri\] Suppose that $\kappa(\cdot)$ satisfies (K), $m_3(\cdot, \cdot)\in\mathcal X_3$, and $m_3(t, x)\not \equiv m_3(t)$ for $t\in \R$ and $x\in \R^N$. The eigenvalue problem has exactly one positive principal spectrum point, denoted by $\lambda_3^p$, if and only if \[P\] P (m\_3)>0 \_[D\_3]{} \_0\^Tm\_3(t, x)dtdx<0. More precisely, we show the following.
- There is a $\lambda_3^p>0$ such that $\mu_3^n(\lambda_3^p)=0$ if and only if (P) holds.
- If $\lambda_3^{p, 1},\lambda_3^{p, 2}>0$ are such that $\mu_3^n(\lambda_3^{p, 1})=\mu_3^n(\lambda_3^{p, 2})=0$, then $\lambda_3^{p, 1}=\lambda_3^{p, 2}$.
\[PSP-peri-coro\]
- If $m_3(t, x)=m_3(t)$, then $$\mu_3^n(\lambda_3)=\lambda_3 \widehat m_3.$$ It then follows that, if $\int_0^T m_3(t)dt\not =0$, then there is no positive principal spectrum point of , and if $\int_0^T m_3(t)dt=0$, then any $\lambda_3>0$ is a positive principal spectrum point of .
- If $m_3(t, x)\equiv m_3(x)$, consider $$\label{autonomous-periodic-ori}
\int_{\R^N}\kappa(y-x)[u(y)-u(x)]dy+\lambda_3m_3(x)u(x)=0.$$ There is exactly one positive principal spectrum point $\lambda_3^p$ of if and only if $$m_3(x_0)>0\quad \text{for some}\,\, x_0\in D_3,\quad {\rm and}\,\,\int_{D_3} m_3(x)dx<0.$$
Next, we state the main result on the upper bounds of principal spectrum points of , , and , and sufficient conditions for the principal spectrum points of , , and to be principal eigenvalues.
Consider the eigenvalue problem with indefinite weight function $\hat m_i$, $$\label{average-weight-pev}
K_iu-B_iu+\lambda_i \widehat m_i u=0,$$ and the regular eigenvalue problem $$\label{average-pev}
K_iu-B_iu+\lambda_i\widehat m_i u=\mu_i(\lambda_i) u$$ in $X_i$.
\[upper-bounds\] $\quad$
- (Upper bounds) If has a unique positive principal spectrum point $\lambda_i^p(\widehat m_i)$, then has also a unique positive principal spectrum point $\lambda_i^p(m_i)$ and $$\lambda_i^p(m_i)\le \lambda_i^p(\widehat m_i).$$
- (Sufficient conditions of the existence of positive principal eigenvalues)
- Assume that $N=1$ or $2$, $b_i+\widehat m_i$ is $C^N$, and has a unique positive principal spectrum point $\lambda_i^p$, then $\lambda_i^p$ is a positive principal eigenvalue of .
- For $N\geq 1$, and $i=1$ or $3$, assume that $\ds\int_{D_i}\frac{1}{\widehat m_{i,\max} -\widehat m_i(x)}dx=\infty$ and has a unique positive principal spectrum point $\lambda_i^p$, then $\lambda_i^p$ is a positive principal eigenvalue of .
\[average-pev-remark\] Assume that $\widehat m_i(x_0)>0$ for some $x_0\in D_i$, and in addition, $\int_{D_i}\widehat m_i(x)dx<0$ in the case $i=2,3$. Then has a unique positive principal spectrum point $\lambda_i^p(\widehat m_i)$.
Finally, we consider the applications of the principal spectrum point theory of nonlocal dispersal operators with time periodic indefinite weight function to the KPP type equations , , and . And we prove the following result.
\[KPP\] Assume (K) and (F) hold. Denote the principal spectrum point of the eigenvalue problem with $m_i(t, x)= f_i(t, x, 0)$ by $\mu_i^n(\lambda_i)$. Assume in addition that $f_1(t, x, 0)$, $ f_2(t, x, 0)$, and $ f_3(t, x, 0)$ satisfies (D), (N), (P), respectively. Then ( or ) admits a unique positive time-periodic solution $u^*(t, x)$ if and only if $$\lambda_i>\lambda_i^p,$$ where $\lambda_i^p$ is the positive number such that $\mu_i^n(\lambda_i^p)=0$.
Preliminary
===========
In this section, we present some notations and preliminary materials to be used in the proofs of the main results in Section 4. We first present a technical lemma in subsection 3.1. Then we present a comparison principle for solutions of some linear nonlocal evolution equations in subsection 3.2. Finally we present some basic properties of principal spectrum points of the regular eigenvalue problem in subsection 3.3. Throughout this section, for $1\leq i\leq 3$, let \[hi\] h\_i(t, x; \_i)=-b\_i(x)+\_i m\_i(t, x), and \[hathi\] h\_i(x;\_i)=-b\_i(x)+\_im\_i(x), where $\widehat m_i$ is as in . For $D_i$ defined in , set \[hathi-min-max\] h\_[i, ]{}(\_i)=\_[x|D\_i]{} h\_i(x;\_i), h\_[i, ]{}(\_i)=\_[x|D\_i]{}h\_i(x;\_i). If there is no confusion, we may omit $\lambda_i$, and abbreviate the notations in , , and as $h_i(t, x)$, $\widehat h_i(x)$ and $\widehat h_{i, \max}$, respectively.
A technical lemma
-----------------
In this subsection, we provide a useful technical lemma.
\[technical-lm\] Let $1\le i\le 3$. For any fixed $0<\lambda_i\in \R$, any $m_i\in \mathcal X_i$ and any $\epsilon>0$, there is $m_{i,\epsilon}\in\mathcal X_i$ satisfying that $$\|m_i-m_{i,\epsilon}\|_{\mathcal X_i}<\epsilon,$$ $b_i(x)+\lambda_i\widehat m_{i, \epsilon}(x)$ is $C^N$, $b_i(x)+\lambda_i\widehat m_{i, \epsilon}(x)$ attains its maximum at some $x_0\in {\rm Int}(D_i)$, and the derivatives of $b_i+\lambda_i\widehat m_{i, \epsilon}(x)$ up to order $N-1$ at $x_0$ are zero.
It follows from [@RaSh Lemma 4.1]. For the self-completeness, we provide a proof in the following.
We prove the case $i=1$ or $2$. The case $i=3$ can be proved similarly. Without loss of generality, we assume $\lambda_i=1$, and recall that $\widehat h_i(x)=-b_i(x)+\widehat m_i(x)$ (see ).
First, let $\tilde x_0\in \bar D_i$ be such that $$\widehat h_i(\tilde x_0)=\max_{x\in\bar D_i} \widehat h_i(x).$$ For any $\epsilon>0$, there is $\tilde x_\epsilon \in {\rm Int}(D_i)$ such that $$\label{eq1}
\widehat h_i(\tilde x_0)-\widehat h_i(\tilde x_\epsilon)<\frac{\epsilon}{3}.$$ Let $\tilde\sigma>0$ be such that $$B(\tilde x_\epsilon,\tilde\sigma)\Subset D_i,$$ where $B(\tilde x_\epsilon,\tilde\sigma)$ denotes the open ball with center $\tilde x_\epsilon$ and radius $\tilde\sigma$.
Note that there is $\xi_i(\cdot)\in C(\bar D_i)$ such that $0\leq \xi_i(x)\leq 1$, $ \xi_i(\tilde x_\epsilon)=1$, and ${\rm supp}( \xi_i)\subset B(\tilde x_\epsilon,\tilde\sigma)$. Let $$\overline m_{i, \epsilon}(t, x)=m_i(t, x)+\frac{\epsilon}{3} \xi_i(x),$$ and $$\label{eq0}
\overline h_{i,\epsilon}(x)=-b_i(x)+\widehat m_{i}(x)+\frac{\epsilon}{3} \xi_i(x).$$ Then $\overline m_{i, \epsilon}(t, \cdot)$ and $\overline h_{i,\epsilon}(\cdot)$ is continuous on $\bar D_i$, \[overline-ai\] m\_[i, ]{}(t, )-m\_i(t, ) and $\overline h_{i,\epsilon}(\cdot)$ attains its maximum in ${\rm Int}(D_i)$.
Let $\widetilde D_i\subset {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^N$ be such that $D_i\Subset \widetilde D_i$. Note that $\overline h_{i,\epsilon}(\cdot)$ can be continuously extended to $\widetilde D_i$. Without loss of generality, we may then assume that $\overline h_{i,\epsilon}(\cdot)$ is a continuous function on $\tilde D_i$ and there is $x_0\in {\rm Int}(D_i)$ such that $\overline h_{i,\epsilon}(x_0)=\sup_{x\in\widetilde D_i}\overline h_{i,\epsilon}(x)$. Observe that there is $\sigma>0$ and $\widetilde h_{i,\epsilon}(\cdot)\in C(\widetilde D_i)$ such that $B(x_0,\sigma)\Subset D_i$, $$\label{eq3}
0\leq\widetilde h_{i,\epsilon}(x)-\overline h_{i,\epsilon}(x)\le\frac{ \epsilon}{3}\quad \forall \, x\in\widetilde D_i,$$ and $$\widetilde h_{i,\epsilon}(x)=\widehat h_{i,\epsilon}(x_0)\quad \forall \, x\in B(x_0,\sigma).$$
Let $$\eta(x)=\begin{cases} C\exp(\frac{1}{\|x\|^2-1})\quad &{\rm if}\,\ \|x\|<1,\cr\cr
0\quad &{\rm if}\,\ \|x\|\geq 1,
\end{cases}$$ where $C>0$ is such that $\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^N}\eta(x)dx=1$. For given $\delta>0$, set $$\eta_\delta(x)=\frac{1}{\delta^N}\eta\left(\frac{x}{\delta}\right).$$ Let $$h_{i,\epsilon,\delta}(x)=\int_{\widetilde D_i}\eta_\delta(y-x)\widetilde h_{i,\epsilon}(y)dy.$$ By [@Ev Theorem 6, Appendix C], $ h_{i,\epsilon,\delta}(\cdot)$ is in $C^\infty(\widetilde D_i)$ and when $0<\delta\ll 1$, $$\label{eq4}
|h_{i,\epsilon,\delta}(x)-\widetilde h_{i,\epsilon}(x)|<\frac{\epsilon}{3}\quad \forall \, x\in\bar D_i.$$ It is not difficulty to see that for $0<\delta\ll 1$, $$h_{i,\epsilon,\delta}(x)\leq
\widetilde h_{i,\epsilon}(x_0)\quad \forall x\in B(x_0,\sigma),$$ and $$h_{i,\epsilon,\delta}(x)=\widetilde h_{i,\epsilon}(x_0)\quad
\forall x\in B(x_0,\sigma/2).$$ Fix $0<\delta\ll 1$. Let $$\widehat h_{i, \epsilon}(x)=h_{i,\epsilon,\delta}(x).$$ Then $\widehat h_{i, \epsilon}(\cdot)$ attains its maximum at some $x_0\in{\rm Int}(D_i)$, and the partial derivatives of $\widehat h_{i,\epsilon}(\cdot)$ up to order $N-1$ at $x_0$ are zero. Let $$m_{i, \epsilon}(t, x)= \overline m_{i, \epsilon}(t, x) +\widehat h_{i, \epsilon}(x)-\overline h_{i,\epsilon}(x).$$ Then $m_{i, \epsilon}\in{\mathcal X}_2$, $$\|m_i-m_{2,\epsilon}\|\leq \|m_i-\overline m_{i, \epsilon}\|+\|\widehat h_{i, \epsilon}-\overline h_{i, \epsilon}\|\leq\|m_i-\overline m_{i, \epsilon}\|+\|\widehat h_{i, \epsilon}-\widetilde h_{i, \epsilon}\|+\|\widetilde h_{i, \epsilon}-\overline h_{i, \epsilon}\|\leq \epsilon,$$ and $$-b_i(x)+\widehat m_{i,\epsilon}(x)=\widehat h_{i, \epsilon}(x).$$ Therefore, $-b_i+\widehat m_{i, \epsilon}$ is $C^N$, attains its maximum at some point $x_0\in {\rm Int}D_i$, and the partial derivatives of $-b_i+\widehat m_{i, \epsilon}$ up to order $N-1$ at $x_0$ are zero. The lemma is thus proved.
Comparison Principle
--------------------
In this subsection, we present the comparison principle for the solutions to the following evolution equations associated to the eigenvalue problem with $\lambda_i\ge 0$, $$\label{dirichlet-ori-evol}
\p_t u(t, x)=\int_D \kappa(y-x)u(t, y)dy-u(t, x)+ \lambda_1 m_1(t,x)u(t, x) \quad \text{ in } \bar D,$$ $$\label{neumann-ori-evol}
\p_t u(t, x)=\int_D \kappa(y-x)[u(t, y)-u(t, x)]dy+ \lambda_2 m_2(t,x)u(t, x) \quad \text{ in } \bar D,$$ and $$\label{periodic-ori-evol}
\p_t u(t, x)=\int_{\R^N} \kappa(y-x)[u(t, y)-u(t, x)]dy+\lambda_3 m_3(t, x)u(t, x) \quad \text{ in } \R^N,$$ where $m_i(t, x)\in \mathcal X_i(i=1, 2, 3)$.
By general semigroup theory, (resp. , ) generates evolution families $\{\Phi_1(t, s; m_1)\}$ (resp. $\{\Phi_2(t, s; m_2), \Phi_3(t, s; m_3)\}$) on $X_1$ (resp. $X_2$, $X_3$), that is, for any $u_0\in X_1$ (resp. $u_0\in X_2, u_0\in X_3$), $u(t, x; s, u_0, m_1):=(\Phi_1(t, s; m_1)u_0)(x)$ (resp. $u(t, x; s, u_0, m_2):=(\Phi_2(t, s; m_2)u_0)(x)$, $u(t, x; s, u_0, m_3):=(\Phi_3(t, s; m_3) u_0)(x)$) is the unique solution of (resp. , ) with $u(s, x; s, u_0, m_1)=u_0(x)$ (resp. $u(s, x; s, u_0, m_2)=u_0(x)$, $u(s, x; s, u_0, m_3)=u_0(x)$).
\[super-sub-sol\] A bounded measurable function $u(t, x)$ on $[0, T)\times \bar D$ is called a [*super-solution*]{} (or [*sub-solution*]{}) of if for any $x\in \bar D$, $u(t, x)$ is differentiable for all but finite many $t$’s in $[0, T)$ and satisfies that for each $x\in \bar D$, $$\p_t u\geq (\text{ or } \leq) \int_D \kappa(y-x)u(t, y)dy-u(t, x)+ m_1(t,x)u(t, x)$$ for all but finite many $t$’s in $[0, T)$.
[*Super-solutions and sub-solutions*]{} of and $\eqref{periodic-ori-evol}$ are defined in an analogous way.
\[comparison\] $\quad$
- If $u^1(t, x)$ and $u^2(t, x)$ are bounded sub- and super- solution of (resp. , ) on $[s, T)$, respectively, and $u^1(s, \cdot)\leq u^2(s, \cdot)$, then $u^1(t, \cdot)\leq u^2(t, \cdot)$ for $t\in [s, T)$.
- If $u^1, u^2\in X_i$, $u^1\leq u^2$ and $u^1\neq u^2$, then $$\Phi_i(t, s; m_i) u^1\ll \Phi_i(t, s; m_i) u^2 \text{ for all } t>s.$$
- If $u_0\in X_i^+$, and $m_i^1, m_i^2\in \mathcal X_i$, if $m_i^1\leq m_i^2$, then $$\Phi_i(t, s; m_i^1)u_0\leq \Phi_i(t, s; m_i^2)u_0 \text{ for all } t>s.$$
\(1) follows from the arguments in [@ShZh0 Proposition 3.1 (1)].
\(2) follows from the arguments in [@ShZh0 Proposition 3.1 (2)].
\(3) We consider the case $i=1$. Other cases ca be proved similarly.
Note that $u_1(t, x; s, u_0, m_1^2)$ is a supersolution of with $m_1$ being replaced by $m_1^1$. Then by (1), $$u_1(t, \cdot; s, u_0, m_1^1)\leq u_1(t, \cdot; s, u_0, m_1^2) \text{ for all } t>s.$$
For simplicity in notation, put $\Phi_i(T; m_i)=\Phi_i(T, 0; m_i) (i=1, 2, 3)$, and let $r(\Phi_i(T;m_i))$ be the spectral radius of $\Phi_i(T, 0; m_i)$.
Basic properties of principal spectrum points/principal eigenvalues
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Our objective in this subsection is to study some basic properties of the principal spectrum point of the regular eigenvalue problem .
Recall that in , $\mathcal (\mathcal L_i+\lambda_i m_i)u=-\p_t u-B_i u+K_iu+\lambda_i m_i u$, and we may use $\mu_i^n(\mathcal L_i+\lambda_i m_i)$ or $\mu_i^n(\lambda_i)$ to denote the principal spectrum point of , if no confusion occurs. And when $\lambda_i=0$, we use $\mu_i^n(0)$ to denote the principal $\mathcal L_i$.
\[spectrum-sol-operator\] For $1\leq i\leq 3$, $\mu_i^n (\mathcal L_i+\lambda_i m_i)=\frac{\ln r(\Phi_i(T; m_i))}{T}$.
It follows from [@RaSh Proposition 3.10].
\[spectrum-limit\] Let $1\le i\le 3$. Given any $u_0\in X_i^+\setminus\{0\}$, $$\mu_i^n(\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i m_i)=\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{\ln\|\Phi_i(t,0;m_i)u_0\|}{t}.$$
It follows from the arguments in [@HuShVi Proposition 2.5 and Theorem 3.2].
\[spectrum-autonomous\] Let $1\le i\le 3$.
- If $m_i(t,x)\equiv m_i(x)$, then the principal spectrum point of equals to the principal spectrum point of .
- If $m_i(t,x)\equiv m_i(t)$, then $\mu_i^n(\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i m_i)=\mu_i^n(0)+\lambda_i \widehat m_i$.
\(1) It follows from [@ShXi1 Proposition 3.3] and Proposition \[spectrum-limit\].
\(2) It follows from Proposition \[spectrum-limit\] and the fact that $$\Phi_i(t,0;m_i)=e^{\lambda_i \int_0^t m_i(s)ds}\Phi_i(t,0;0).$$
Recall that $h_i(t, x)$ is defined in . Set \[hi(x)\] H\_i: (\_i)X\_i, (H\_i u)(t, x)=-\_t u(t, x)+h\_i(t, x)u(t, x) with $\mathcal D(\mathcal H_i)=\mathcal D(\mathcal L_i)$. Note that $\mathcal H_i+K_i=\mathcal L_i+\lambda_i m_i$. Hence, we may use $\mu_i^n(\mathcal H_i+K_i)$ or equivalently $\mu_i^n(\mathcal L_i+\lambda_i m_i)$ in different situations to denote the principal spectrum point of the eigenvalue problem . We use $\mathcal Re\{\sigma(\mathcal H_i)\}$ to denote the real part of the spectrum set of $\mathcal{H}_i$.
\[spectrum-Hi\] Let $1\le i\le 3$.
- $\mathcal Re\{\sigma(\mathcal H_i)\}=[\widehat h_{i,\min},\widehat h_{i,\max}]$.
- $\mu_i^n(\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i m_i)\ge \mu_i^n(\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i \widehat m_i)\ge \widehat h_{i,\max}$.
- $\mu_i^n(\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i m_i)$ is the principal eigenvalue if and only if $\mu_i^n(\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i m_i)>
\widehat h_{i,\max}$.
\(1) It follows from Lemma 3.7 in [@HuShVi].
\(2) $\mu_i^n(\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i m_i)\ge \mu_i^n(\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i \widehat m_i)$ follows from [@RaSh Theorem C], and $\mu_i^n(\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i \widehat m_i)\ge \widehat h_{i,\max}$ follows from Proposition \[spectrum-autonomous\] (1) and [@ShXi0 Proposition 3.9].
\(3) It follows from [@RaSh Theorem A].
For fixed $\lambda_i$, let (S1), (S2), and (S3) be the following standing assumptions.
[**(S1)**]{} [*For $1\leq i\leq 3$, $\widehat h_i(\cdot;\lambda_i)$ is $C^N$, there is some $x_0\in {\rm{Int}} D_i$ in the case $i=1, 2$ and $x_0\in D_3$ in the case of $i=3$ satisfying that $\widehat h_i(x_0;\lambda_i)=\widehat h_{i, \max}$, and the partial derivatives of $\widehat h_i(x;\lambda_i)$ up to order $N-1$ at $x_0$ are zero.* ]{}
[**(S2)**]{} [ *$| \lambda_i|( \widehat m_{i,\max}-\widehat m_{i, \min})<\inf_{x\in \bar D_i}\int_{D_i}\kappa(y-x)dy$ in the case of $i= 2$, and $|\lambda_i|(\widehat m_{i,\max}-\widehat m_{i, \min})<1$ in the case of $i=1, 3$.* ]{}
[**(S3)**]{} [*$\ds\int_{D_i}\frac{1}{\widehat h_{i,\max}-\widehat h_i(x;\lambda_i)}dx=\infty$ for $i=1, 2, 3$.*]{}
Note that, if $|\lambda_i|\ll 1$, then the condition (S2) is automatically satisfied for $i=1, 2, 3$. Note also that (S1) implies (S3), and when $i=1$ or $3$, (S3) holds if and only if $\ds\int_{D_i}\frac{1}{\widehat m_{i,\max}-\widehat m_i(x)}dx=\infty$.
\[pv-existence\]
- For given $\lambda_i\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, if (S1) or (S2) or (S3) is satisfied, then $\mu_i^n(\lambda_i)$ is the principal eigenvalue of $\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i m_i$.
- For given $\lambda_i\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, if $\mu_i^n(\lambda_i)$ is not the principal eigenvalue of $\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i m_i$, then $$\mu_i^n(\lambda_i)=\widehat h_{i,\max}.$$
\(1) The result that (S1) and (S2) are sufficient conditions for $\mu_i^n(\lambda_i)$ to be the principal eigenvalue follows from the argument in Theorem B in [@RaSh]. (S3) is a sufficient condition for $\mu_i^n(\lambda_i)$ to be the principal eigenvalue follows from [@Cov Theorem 1.1] and Proposition \[spectrum-Hi\].
\(2) It follows from Proposition \[spectrum-Hi\].
The next proposition is essential to prove our main theorems. Each property in the proposition is also of independent interest.
\[property-PSP-prop\] Let $1\le i\le 3$.
- Assume $m_i, m_{i, k} \in \mathcal X_i$ with $\lambda_i^km_{i,k}\to \lambda_im_i$ as $k\to\infty$ in $\mathcal{X}_i$. Then $\mu_i^n( \mathcal L_i+\lambda_i^k m_{i,k})\to\mu_i^n(\mathcal L_i+\lambda_i m_i)$ as $k\to\infty$.
- We have $\mu_i^n(0)<0$ for $i=1$, and $\mu_i^n(0)=0$ for $i=2, 3$.
- If $\lambda_i^1m_{i}^1(t, x)\leq \lambda_i^2m_{i}^2(t, x)$, then $\mu_i^n(\mathcal L_i+\lambda_i^1m_{i}^1)\leq \mu_i^n(\mathcal L_i+\lambda_i^2m_{i}^2)$. If, in addition, $\lambda_i^1 m_i^1(t,x)\not \equiv \lambda_i^2 m_i^2(t,x)$, then $\mu_i^n(\mathcal L_i+\lambda_i^1m_{i}^1)< \mu_i^n(\mathcal L_i+\lambda_i^2m_{i}^2)$ .
- If $\mathcal P(m_i)=\int_0^T\max_{x\in \bar D_i}m_i(t, x)dt>0$, then $\mu_i^n(\mathcal L_i+\lambda_i m_i)>0$ for $\lambda\gg1$.
- The mapping $\lambda_i\in \R^+\mapsto \mu_i^n(\mathcal L_i+\lambda_i m_i)\in \R$ is convex.
\(1) follows from [@RaSh Proposition 3.11].
\(2) In the case of $\lambda_i=0$, $\mu_i^n(0)$ is the principal eigenvalue of $\mathcal L_i$, since the condition (S2) holds. And by Proposition \[spectrum-autonomous\] (1), $\mu_i^n(0)$ is the principal eigenvalue of $K_i-B_i$, associated with an eigenfunction $\phi_i\in X_i^{++}$, such that \[lambda1=0\] \_D (y-x)\_1( y)dy-\_1( x)=\_1\^n(0)\_1( x) in the Dirichlet boundary condition case, \[lambda2=0\] \_D (y-x)\_2( y)dy-\_Dk(y-x)dy\_2(x)=\_2\^n(0)\_2( x) in the Neumann boundary condition case, and \[lambda3=0\] \_[\^N]{} (y-x)\_3( y)dy-\_3(x)=\_3\^n(0)\_3(x) in the periodic boundary condition case. In the Neumann and periodic boundary condition cases, we have that $(\mu_2^n(0), \phi_2)=(0, 1)$ and $(\mu_3^n(0), \phi_3)=(0, 1)$ are eigenpairs, respectively. Hence $\mu_i^n(0)=0$ for $i=2,3$. In the Dirichlet boundary case, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_1^n(0)\int_D\phi_1^2(x)dx&=\int_D\int_D\kappa(y-x)\phi_1(y)\phi_1(x)dydx \phi_1-\int_D \phi_1^2(x)dx\\
&\le \int_D\int_D \kappa(y-x)\phi_1(y)\phi_1(x)dydx-\int_D\int_D \kappa(y-x)\phi_1^2(x)dydx\\
&=\int_D\int_D \kappa(y-x)\Big[\phi_1(y)\phi_1(x)-\frac{\phi_1^2(x)+\phi_1^2(y)}{2}\Big]dydx\\
&=-\frac12\int_D\int_D \kappa(y-x)(\phi_1(x)-\phi_1(y))^2dydx.\end{aligned}$$ This implies that $\mu_1^n(0)<0$. Hence the proof is complete.
\(3) Suppose that $m_{i}^1, m_{i}^2\in \mathcal X_i$, and $\lambda_2^1m_{i}^1\leq\lambda_i^2 m_{i}^2$. By Proposition \[comparison\] (3), for any $u_0\in X_i^+$ and $t\geq s$, $$\Phi_i(t, s; \lambda_i^1m_{i}^1)u_0\leq \Phi_i(t, s; \lambda_i^2m_{i, }^2).$$ This implies that $$r(\Phi_i(t, s; \lambda_i^1m_{i}^1))\leq r(\Phi_i(t, s; \lambda_i^2m_{i}^2)).$$ By Proposition \[spectrum-sol-operator\], we have $$\mu_i^n(\mathcal L_i+\lambda_i^1m_{i}^1)\leq \mu_i^n(\mathcal L_i+\lambda_i^2m_{i}^2).$$
\(4) Assume that $\int_0^T \widetilde m_i(t)dt=\int_0^T \max_{x\in D_i} m_i(t, x)dt>0$, and we need to show that $\mu_i^n(\lambda_i)>0$ when $\lambda_i\gg1$. We will prove the case of $i=1$, since other cases can be proved similarly.
By the continuity of $m_1(t,x)$, there are $\delta>0$, $x_0,x_1,\cdots,x_{n-1}\in D$, $0=t_0<t_1<t_2<\cdots<t_n=T$, $r_0,r_1,\cdots,r_{n-1}\in \R^+$, and $m_0,m_1,\cdots,m_{n-1}\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ such that $\cup_{i=0}^{i=n-1}B(x_i, r_i)\subset D$, and for $i=0,1,\cdots,n-1$ $$m_i+\delta\le m_1(t,x)\le \widetilde m_1(t) \quad {\rm for}\quad t_{i}\le t\le t_{i+1},\,\, x\in B(x_i,r_i),$$ and $$m_0(t_1-t_0)+m_1(t_2-t_1)+\cdots m_{n-1}(t_n-t_{n-1})>0.$$ Let $\bar u(t,x)$ be the function defined as follows: for $ t_0\le t<t_1$, $$\bar u(t,x)=\begin{cases} e^{\lambda m_0 t}\quad &{\rm for}\,\, x\in B(x_0,r_0),\cr
0\quad &{\rm for}\,\, x\in\bar D\setminus B(x_0,r_0),
\end{cases}$$ for $ t_i\le t<t_{i+1} (i=1,2,\cdots,n-1)$, $$\bar u(t,x)=\begin{cases} e^{\lambda [m_0(t_1-t_0)+m_1(t_2-t_1)+\cdots m_{i-1}(t_i-t_{i-1})]+\lambda m_it}\quad &{\rm for }\,\, x\in B(x_i,r_i),\cr
0\quad &{\rm for } \,\ x\in \bar D\backslash B(x_i,r_i),
\end{cases}$$ and for $0\le t<T$ and $k=1,2,\cdots$, $$\bar u(kT+t,x)=\bar u(kT,x)\bar u(t,x),\quad x\in\bar D.$$ We then have that for any $x\in\Bar D$, $\bar u(t,x)$ is differentiable in $t$ at all $t$ but $t_i+kT$ for $i=0,1,2,\cdots,n-1$ and $k=0,1,2,\cdots$. Moreover, for $\lambda\gg 1$, any $t_i+kT< t<t_{i+1}+kT$, and any $x\in\bar\Omega$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\bar u_t(t,x)-\left[\int_D \kappa(y-x)\bar u(t,y)dy-\bar u(t,x)+\lambda_1 m_1(t,x)\bar u(t,x)\right]\\
&\le \bar u(t,x)\lambda_1 m_i-[-\bar u(t,x)+ \lambda_1 m_1(t,x) \bar u(t,x)]\\
&=\bar u(t,x)\lambda_1[m_i-m_1(t,x)]+\bar u(t,x)\\
&=\bar u(t,x)[\lambda(m_i-m(t,x))+1]\\
&\le 0\end{aligned}$$ for $\lambda\gg 1$, where $i=0,1,\cdots,n-1$, $k=0,1,\cdots$. Then by Proposition \[comparison\], for $\lambda\gg 1$, $t\ge 0$ and $x\in\bar D$, we have $$u(t,x;u_0)\ge \bar u(t,x)$$ for any $u_0\in X_1^+$ with $u_0(x)\ge \bar u(0,x)$. For $\lambda\gg 1$, it then follows from Proposition \[spectrum-limit\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_1^n(\lambda_1)&\ge \lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{\ln\|\bar u(t,\cdot)\|_\infty}{t}\\
&=\frac{m_0(t_1-t_0)+m_1(t_2-t_1)+\cdots+m_{n-1}(t_n-t_{n-1})}{T}\\
&>0.\end{aligned}$$ The proof is thus complete.
\(5) It suffices to show that for any $0\le\lambda_i^1<\lambda_i^2$, \[convexity\] \_i\^n().
Fix $0\le\lambda_i^1< \lambda_i^2$. By Lemma \[technical-lm\] and Proposition \[pv-existence\], there are $m_i^{1,k},m_i^{2,k}\in \mathcal{X}_i$ for $k=1,2,\cdots$ such that $$m_i(t,x)\le m_i^{j,k}(t,x)\quad {\rm for}\,\, j=1,2,\,\, k=1,2,3,\cdots,$$ $$m_i^{j,k}\to m_i\quad {\rm as}\,\, k\to\infty$$ in $\mathcal{X}_i$ ($j=1,2$), and $\mu_i^n(\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i^j m_i^{j,k})$ is the principal eigenvalue of $\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i^jm_i^{j,k}$ for $j=1,2$ and $k=1,2,\cdots$. It then suffices to prove $$\label{aux-convexity}
\mu_i^n
\left(\frac{\lambda_i^1+\lambda_i^2}{2}\right)\le\frac{\mu_i^n(\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i^1m_i^{1,k})+\mu_i^n(\mathcal{L}_i+
\lambda_i^2m_i^{2,k})}{2}.$$
Fix $k\ge 1$. Let $\mu_i^{n,j,k}=\mu_i^n(
\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i^j m_i^{j,k})$ ($j=1,2$). Suppose that $\phi_i^{j,k}$ are positive eigenfunctions of $\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i^j m_i^{j,k}$ corresponding to $\mu_i^{n,j,k}$. Let $\phi_i^k=\sqrt {\phi_i^{1,k}\phi_i^{2,k}}$. Note that $\ds u_i^{1,k}(t,x)=e^{\mu_i^{n,j,k} t}\phi_i^{1,k}(t,x)$ is a solution of $$u_t=\int_{D} \kappa(y-x)u(t,y)dy-b_i(x) u(t,x)+\lambda_i^1 m_i^{1,k}(t, x) u(t,x),$$ and $\ds u_i^{2,k}(t,x)=e^{\mu_i^{n,j,k}t}\phi_i^{2,k}(t,x)$ is a solution of $$u_t=\int_{D} \kappa(y-x)u(t,y)dy-b_i(x)u(t,x)+\lambda_i^2 m_i^{2,k}(t,x)u(t,x),$$ where $D={\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^N$ in the periodic boundary condition case. Let $$u_i^{1,2,k}(t,x)=e^{\frac{\mu_i^{n,1,k}+\mu_i^{n,2,k}}{2}t}\sqrt{\phi_i^{1,k}(t,x)\phi_i^{2,k}(t,x)}.$$ Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\p_t u_i^{1,2,k}(t,x)\\
=&\frac{\mu_i^{n,1,k}+\mu_i^{n,2,k}}{2} e^{\frac{\mu_i^{n,1,k}+\mu_i^{n,2,k}}{2}t}\sqrt{\phi_i^{1,k}(t,x)\phi_i^{2,k}(t,x)}\\
& +e^{\frac{\mu_i^{n,1,k}+\mu_i^{n,2,k}}{2}t}\frac{\p_t \phi_i^{1,k}(t,x)\phi_i^{2,k}(t,x)+\phi_i^{1,k}(t,x)\p_t\phi_i^{2,k}(t,x)}{2\sqrt {\phi_i^{1,k}(t,x)\phi_i^{2,k}(t,x)}}\\
=&e^{\frac{\mu_i^{n,1,k}+\mu_i^{n,2,k}}{2}t}\frac{\int_D \kappa(y-x)[ \phi_i^{1,k}(t,y)\phi_i^{2,k}(t,x)+\phi_i^{1,k}(t,x)\phi_i^{2,k}(t,y)]dy}{
2\sqrt{\phi_i^{1,k}(t,x)\phi_i^{2,k}(t,x)}}\\
& +e^{\frac{\mu_i^{n,1,k}+\mu_i^{n,2,k}}{2}t}\frac{
-2b_i\phi_i^{1,k}(t,x)\phi_i^{2,k}(t,x)+(\lambda_i^1 m_i^{1,k} +\lambda_i^{2}m_i^{2,k})\phi_i^{1,k}(t,x)
\phi_i^{2,k}(t,x)}{2\sqrt{\phi_i^{1,k}(t,x)\phi_i^{2,k}(t,x)}}\\
\ge &e^{\frac{\mu_i^{n,1,k}+\mu_i^{n,2,k}}{2}t}\frac{\int_D \kappa(y-x)\left(2\sqrt{ \phi_i^{1,k}(t,y)\phi_i^{2,k}(t,x)}\sqrt{\phi_i^{1,k}(t,x)\phi_i^{2,k}(t,y)}\right)
dy}{
2\sqrt{\phi_i^{1,k}(t,x)\phi_i^{2,k}(t,x)}}\\
& -b_i(x)u_i^{1,2,k}(t,x)+\frac{\lambda_i^1+\lambda_i^2}{2} m_i(t,x)u_i^{1,2, k}(t,x)\\
\ge& \int_D \kappa(y-x)u_i^{1,2, k}(t,y)dy-b_i(x)u_i^{1,2, k}(t,x)+\frac{\lambda_i^1+\lambda_i^2}{2}m_i(t,x)u_i^{1,2,k}(t,x).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $u_i^{1,2,k}$ is a positive super-solution of $$u_t=\int_D \kappa (y-x)u(t,y)dy-b_i(x)u(t,x)+\frac{\lambda_i^1+\lambda_i^2}{2}m_i(t,x)u(t,x).$$ This together with Propositions \[comparison\] and \[spectrum-limit\] implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_i^n\left(\frac{\lambda_i^1+\lambda_i^2}{2}\right)\le \lim_{t\to\infty} \frac{\ln u_i^{1,2,k}(t,x)}{t}=\frac{\mu_i^{n,1,k}+\mu_i^{n,2,k}}{2}.\end{aligned}$$ This proves . Letting $k\to \infty$. we get .
\[strict-convex\] Assume that $m_i(t,x)\not\equiv m_i(t)$ and $0\le \lambda_1^1<\lambda_i^2$. If $\mu_i^n(\mathcal L_i+\lambda_i^{j} m_i)$ ($j=1,2$) are the principal eigenvalue of $\mathcal L_i+\lambda_i^{j} m_i$, then $$\mu_i^n\left(\frac{\lambda_i^1+\lambda_i^2}{2}\right)<\frac{\mu_i^n(\lambda_i^1)+\mu_i^n(\lambda_i^2)}{2}.$$
We denote the principal eigenvalues of $\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i^1 m_i$ and $\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i^2m_i$ by $\mu_i^n(\lambda_i^1)$ and $\mu_i^n(\lambda_i^2)$, respectively. Let $\phi_i^j$ be a positive eigenfunction of $\mathcal{L}_i+\lambda_i^j m_i$ ($j=1,2$). By the assumption that $m_i(t,x)\not \equiv m_i(t)$, we have $\frac{\phi_i^1(t,x)}{\phi_i^2(t,x)}\not\equiv$constant. In fact, if $\phi_i^1(t,x)=c\phi_i^2(t,x)$ for some $c>0$, then we have $$\mathcal{L}_i \phi_i^1(t,x)+\lambda_i^1 m_i(t,x)\phi_i^1(t,x)=\mu_i^n(\lambda_i^1)\phi_i^1(t,x)$$ and $$\mathcal{L}_i\phi_i^1(t,x)+\lambda_i^2 m_i(t,x)\phi_i^1(t,x)=\mu_i^n(\lambda_i^2)\phi_i^1(t,x).$$ It then follows that $$\lambda_i^1 m_i(t,x)\phi_i^1(t,x)-\mu_i^n(\lambda_i^1)\phi_i^1(t,x)=
\lambda_i^2 m_i(t,x)\phi_i^1(t,x)-\mu_i^n(\lambda_i^2)\phi_i^1(t,x).$$ This implies that $$m_i(t,x)=\frac{\mu_i^n(\lambda_i^1)-\mu_i^n(\lambda_i^2)}{\lambda_i^1-\lambda_i^2}\equiv {\rm constant}$$ This is a contradiction. Hence $\frac{\phi_i^1(t,x)}{\phi_i^2(t,x)}\not\equiv$constant.
We then have $$\frac{\phi_i^1(t,y)\phi_i^2(t,x)+\phi_i^1(t,y)\phi_i^2(t,x)}{2\sqrt{\phi_i^1(t,x)\phi_i^2(t,x)}}>\sqrt{\phi_i^1(t,y)\phi_i^2(t,y)}.$$ By the arguments of Proposition \[property-PSP-prop\], we have $$\mu_i^n\left(\frac{\lambda_i^1+\lambda_i^2}{2}\right)<\frac{\mu_i^n(\lambda_i^1)+\mu_i^n(\lambda_i^2)}{2}.$$ The corollary is thus proved.
Proofs of the main results
==========================
In this section, we prove our main results.
Dirichlet boundary condition case
---------------------------------
In this subsection, we prove Theorem \[PSP-diri\] and Corollary \[PSP-diri-coro\].
\[Proof of Theorem \[PSP-diri\]\] (1) We first assume that there is $\lambda_1^p>0$ such that $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^p)=0$, and prove that (D) holds, that is $\int_0^T\widetilde m_1(t)dt=\int_0^T \max_{x\in \bar {D_1}} m_1(t, x)dt>0$.
Assume that $\int_0^T\widetilde m_1(t)dt\le 0$. For any $\lambda_1>0$, we use $\widetilde \mu_1^n(\lambda_1)$ to denote the principal spectrum point of the following eigenvalue problem $$\begin{cases}
-\p_t u+\int_{D_1} \kappa(y-x)u(t,y)dy-u(t,x)+\lambda_1 \widetilde m_1(t)u=\widetilde\mu_1 u\quad \text{ in }\bar D,\cr
u(t+T,x)=u(t,x).
\end{cases}$$ By Proposition \[spectrum-autonomous\] (2), we have $$\widetilde \mu_1^n(\lambda_1)=\mu_i^n(0)+\frac{\lambda_1}{T}\int_0^T \widetilde m(t)dt,$$ where $\mu_1^n(0)<0$ by Proposition \[property-PSP-prop\](2). And by Proposition \[property-PSP-prop\](3), we have $$\mu_1^n(\lambda_1)\le \widetilde\mu_1^n(\lambda_1),$$ since $m_1(t, x)\leq \widetilde m_1(t)$ and $\lambda_1>0$. Hence $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1)<0$ for any $\lambda\ge 0$. This is a contradiction. Hence $\int_0^T\widetilde m_1(t)dt>0$.
Next, we assume that (D) holds, and prove that there is a unique $\lambda_1^p>0$ such that $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^p)=0$.
According to Proposition \[property-PSP-prop\](2), $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1)<0$ for $\lambda_1=0$. Meanwhile, from Proposition \[property-PSP-prop\](4), we have $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1)>0$ for $\lambda\gg1$. Thus there is $\lambda_1^p>0$ such that $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^p)=0$.
\(2) Suppose there exist $0<\lambda_1^{p, 1}\leq \lambda_1^{p, 2}$ such that $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^{p, 1})=\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^{p, 2})=0$. We need to show that $\lambda_1^{p, 1}=\lambda_1^{p, 2}$. Assume that $\lambda_1^{p,1}<\lambda_1^{p,2}$. By the convexity of $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1)$, $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1)=0$ for $\lambda_1^{p,1}\le \lambda_1\le\lambda_1^{p,2}$.
If $m_1(t,x)\equiv m_1(t)$, we have $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^{p,1})=\mu_1^n(0)+\lambda_1^{p,1}\widehat m_1=0$ and $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^{p,2})=\mu_1^n(0)+\lambda_1^{p,2}\widehat m_1=0$. Note that $\mu_1^n(0)<0$. We then must have $\widehat m_1>0$ and then $$0=\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^{p,1})=\mu_1^n(0)+\lambda_1^{p,1}\widehat m_1<
\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^{p,2})=\mu_1^n(0)+\lambda_1^{p,2}\widehat m_1=0.$$ This is a contradiction. Hence $\lambda_1^{p,1}=\lambda_1^{p,2}$.
Suppose that $m_1(t,x)\not\equiv m_1(t)$. Assume that $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^{p,1})$ is the principal eigenvalue of $\mathcal{L}_1+\lambda_1^{p,1}m_1$. Then for $\lambda_1>\lambda_1^{p,1}$ with $\lambda_1-\lambda_1^{p,1}\ll 1$, $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1)$ is also the principal eigenvalue of $\mathcal{L}_1+\lambda_1 m_1$. By Corollary \[strict-convex\], we have $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1)<0$ for $\lambda_1$ with $\lambda_1-\lambda_1^{p,1}\ll 1$. This is a contradiction. Hence $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^{p,1})$ is not the principal eigenvalue of $\mathcal{L}_1+\lambda_1^{p,1}m_1$. Similarly, $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^{p,2})$ is not the principal eigenvalue of $\mathcal{L}_1+\lambda_1^{p,2}m_1$. We then have that $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^{p, 1})$ and $\mu_1^n( \lambda_1^{p, 2})$ are not eigenvalues of $\mathcal L_1+\lambda_1^{p,1}m_1$ and $\mathcal{L}_1+\lambda_1^{p,2}m_1$, respectively. By Proposition \[pv-existence\] (2), we have $$\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^{p,1})=h_{1,\max}(\lambda_1^{p,1})= -1+\lambda_1^{p, 1}m_{1,\max},$$ and $$\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^{p,2})=h_{1,\max}(\lambda_1^{p,2})=-1+\lambda_1^{p, 2}m_{1,\max}.$$ It thus follows that $\lambda_1^{p, 1}=\lambda_1^{p, 2}$ if $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^{p, 1})=\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^{p, 2})=0$. This is also a contradiction.
Therefore, $\lambda_1^{p,1}=\lambda_1^{p,2}$.
\(1) Assume that $m_1(t,x)\equiv m_1(t)$. Then $ \mathcal{P}(m_1)=\int_0^T m_1(t)dt$ and $$\mu_1^n(\mathcal{L}_1+\lambda_1 m_1)=\mu_1^n(0)+\lambda_1 \widehat m_1.$$ (1) then follows from Theorem \[PSP-diri\].
\(2) Assume that $m_1(t,x)\equiv m_1(x)$. Then $\mathcal{P}(m_1)=T\cdot \max_{x\in\bar D_1}m_1(x)$. Then (2) follows from Theorem \[PSP-diri\] and Proposition \[spectrum-autonomous\].
Neumann boundary condition case
-------------------------------
In this subsection, we prove Theorem \[PSP-neum\] and Corollary \[PSP-neum-coro\].
We first prove (2).
Suppose that there exist $0<\lambda_2^{p, 1}\leq \lambda_2^{p, 2}$ such that $\mu_2^n(\lambda_2^{p, 1})=\mu_2^n(\lambda_2^{p, 2})=0$. We need to show that $\lambda_2^{p, 1}= \lambda_2^{p, 2}$.
Assume that $\lambda_2^{p,1}<\lambda_2^{p,2}$. By the convexity of $\mu_2^n(\lambda_2)$, $\mu_2^n(\lambda_2)=0$ for $\lambda_2^{p,1}\le \lambda_2\le\lambda_2^{p,2}$.
By the similar argument as in the Dirichlet boundary case, $\mu_2^n(\lambda_2^{p,1})$ and $\mu_2^n(\lambda_2^{p,2})$ are not eigenvalues of $\mathcal{L}_2+\lambda_2^{p,1}m_2$ and $\mathcal{L}_2+\lambda_2^{p,2}m_2$, respectively (the assumption $m_2(t,x)\not\equiv m_2(t)$ is used here). By Proposition \[pv-existence\] (2), we have $$\mu_2^n(\lambda)=\widehat h_{2,\max}(\lambda)=\max_{x\in {\bar D_2}}\left[ -b_2(x)+\lambda\widehat m_{2}(x)\right]=0 \quad \text{for all}\,\, \lambda\in[\lambda_2^{p,1},\lambda_2^{p,2}],$$ where $b_2(x)=\int_D\kappa(y-x)dy$. Let $x_\lambda\in \bar D_2$ be such that \[proof-neum-unique\] \_[x|D\_2]{}=-b\_2(x\_)+m\_2(x\_)=\_2\^n()=0 for $\lambda\in [\lambda_2^{p,1},\lambda_2^{p,2}]$. Note that $-b_2(x)<0$ for any $x\in\bar D_2$. Hence we must have $ \widehat m_2(x_\lambda)>0$. In particular, $\widehat m_2(x_{\lambda_2^{p,1}})>0$. We then have $$-b_2(x_{\lambda_2^{p,1}})+\lambda_2^{p,1}\widehat m_2(x_{\lambda_2^{p,1}})<-b_2(x_{\lambda_2^{p,1}})+\lambda_2^{p,2}
\widehat m_2(x_{\lambda_2^{p,1}})\le -b_2(x_{\lambda_2^{p,2}})+\lambda_2^{p,2}
\widehat m_2(x_{\lambda_2^{p,2}}),$$ which contradicts to .
It thus follows that $\lambda_2^{p, 1}=\lambda_2^{p, 2}$ if $\mu_2^n(\lambda_2^{p, 1})=\mu_2^n(\lambda_2^{p, 2})=0$.
Next, we prove (1).
First suppose that there is $\lambda_2^p>0$ such that $\mu_2^n(\lambda_2^p)=0$. We prove that $\int_0^T \widetilde m_2(t)dt>0$ and $\int_D\widehat m_2(x)dx<0$ with $\widetilde m_2(t)=\max_{x\in \bar D_2}m_2(t, x)$ and $\widehat m_2(x)=\frac1T\int_0^Tm_2(t, x)dt$.
Assume that $\int_0^T \widetilde m_2(t)dt\le 0$. Note that $m_2(t,x)\le \widetilde m_2(t)$ and $m_2(t,x)\not\equiv \tilde m_2(t)$. Hence, by Proposition \[spectrum-autonomous\](2) and Proposition \[property-PSP-prop\](3), we have $$\mu_2^n(\lambda_2)< \lambda_2\frac{\int_0^T\widetilde m_2(t)dt}{T}\le 0$$ for $\lambda_2> 0$. This is a contradiction. Therefore $\int_0^T\widetilde m_2(t)dt>0$.
Proposition \[property-PSP-prop\], together with $\mu_2^n(\lambda_2^p)=0$ and (2), leads to $\mu_2^n(\lambda_2)<0$ for $0<\lambda_2\ll 1$. Note that for $|\lambda_2|\ll 1$, $\mu_2^n(\lambda_2)$ is a principal eigenvalue, associated with a positive eigenfunction, denoted by $\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,x)$. Then $$-\frac{\p_t\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,x)}{\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,x)}+\int_{D_2} \kappa(y-x)\frac{\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,y)-\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,x)}{\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,x)}dy
+\lambda_2 m_2(t,x)=\mu_2^n(\lambda_2).$$ Hence for $0<\lambda_2\ll 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\mu_2^n(\lambda_2)\cdot T\cdot |D_2| -\lambda_2 T \int_{D_2} \widehat m_2(x)dx\\
&=
\int_0^T \int_{D_2}\int_{D_2} \kappa(y-x)\frac{\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,y)-\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,x)}{\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,x)}dydxdt\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T \int_{D_2}\int_{D_2} \kappa(y-x)\Big[\frac{\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,y)-\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,x)}{\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,x)}
+\frac{\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,x)-\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,y)}{\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,y)}\Big]dydxdt\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T\int_{D_2}\int_{D_2} \kappa(y-x)\frac{(\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,y)-\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,x))^2}{\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,x)\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,y)}dydxdt.\end{aligned}$$ Since $m_2(t,x)\not \equiv m_2(t)$, $\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,y)\not\equiv \phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,x)$. We then have $$0>\mu_2^n(\lambda_2)\cdot T\cdot |D_2|> \lambda_2 T\int_{D_2}\widehat m_2(x)dx \quad \text{ for } 0<\lambda_2\ll 1,$$ and then $\int_{D_2} \widehat m_2(x) dx<0$.
Next, suppose that $\int_0^T\widetilde m_2(t)dt>0$ and $\int_{D_2} \widehat m_2(x)dx<0$. We prove that there is $\lambda_2^p>0$ such that $\mu_2^n(\lambda_2^p)=0$.
By Proposition \[property-PSP-prop\] (4), $\mu_2^n(\lambda_2)>0$ for $\lambda_2\gg 1$. Note that $\mu_2(0)=0$ and for $0<\lambda_2\ll 1$, $\mu_2^n(\lambda_2)$ is a principal eigenvalue of . Suppose that $\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,x)$ is a positive principal eigenfunction with $\|\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(\cdot,\cdot)\|_\infty=1$. Note that $\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,x)$ is differentiable in $\lambda_2$ and $\phi_2^0(t,x)\equiv 1$. Hence $$\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,y)-\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,x)=\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,y)-1-(\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,x)-1)=O(\lambda_2).$$ Then by the above arguments, $$\begin{aligned}
&\mu_2^n(\lambda_2)\cdot T\cdot|D_2|\\
=&\lambda_2\int_{D_2} \widehat m_2(x)dx+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T\int_{D_2}\int_{D_2} \kappa(y-x)\frac{(\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,y)-\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,x))^2}{\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,x)\phi_2^{\lambda_2}(t,y)}dydxdt\\
=&\lambda_2\int_{D_2}\widehat m_2(x)dx+O(\lambda_2^2).\end{aligned}$$ It then follows that $\mu_2^n(\lambda_2)<0$ for $0<\lambda_2\ll 1$. Then there is $\lambda_2^p>0$ such that $\mu_2^n(\lambda_2^p)=0$.
\(1) Assume that $m_2(t,x)\equiv m_2(t)$. Then by Proposition \[spectrum-autonomous\] (2) and \[property-PSP-prop\] (2), we have $$\mu_2^n(\mathcal{L}_2+\lambda_2 m_2)=\mu_2^n(0)+\lambda_2 \widehat m_2=\lambda_2\widehat m_2.$$ It then follows that if $\widehat m_2\not =0$, then there is no positive principal spectrum point of $\mathcal{L}_2+\lambda_2 m_2$. If $\widehat m_2=0$, then every positive $\lambda$ is a principal spectrum point of $\mathcal{L}_2+\lambda_2m_2$.
\(2) Assume that $m_2(t,x)\equiv m_2(x)$. Then $\mathcal{P}(m_2)=T\cdot \max_{x\in\bar D_2}m_2(x)$. (2) then follows from Theorem \[PSP-neum\] and Proposition \[spectrum-autonomous\].
Periodic boundary condition case
--------------------------------
In this subsection, we prove Theorem \[PSP-peri\] and Corollary \[PSP-peri-coro\]
First, (2) can proved by the similar arguments as those in Theorem \[PSP-neum\](2).
We prove (1) in the following.
Suppose that there is $\lambda_3^p>0$ such that $\mu_3^n(\lambda_3^p)=0$. We prove that $\int_0^T \widetilde m_3(t)dt>0$ and $\int_{D_3}\widehat m_3(x)dx<0$.
Assume that $\int_0^T \widetilde m_3(t)dt\le 0$. Note that $m_3(t,x)\le \widetilde m_3(t)$ and $m_3(t,x)\not\equiv \widetilde m_3(t)$. Hence $$\mu_3^n(\lambda_3)<\frac{\lambda_3}T\int_0^T\widetilde m_3(t)dt\le 0$$ for $\lambda_3> 0$. This is a contradiction. Therefore $\int_0^T\widetilde m_3(t)dt>0$.
Proposition \[property-PSP-prop\], together with $\mu_3^n(\lambda_3^p)=0$, leads to $\mu_3^n(\lambda_3)<0$ for $0<\lambda_3\ll 1$. Note that for $|\lambda_3|\ll 1$, $\mu_3^n(\lambda_3)$ is a principal eigenvalue. Suppose that $\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,x)$ is a positive principal eigenfunction. Then $$-\frac{\p_t\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,x)}{\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,x)}+\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^N} \kappa(y-x)\frac{\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,y)-\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,x)}{\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,x)}dy
+\lambda_3 m_3(t,x)=\mu_3^n(\lambda_3).$$ Let $$\widetilde \kappa(z)=\sum_{(k_1,k_2,\cdots,k_N)\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}^N}\kappa(z+(k_1p_1,k_2p_2,\cdots,k_Np_N)).$$ Then $\widetilde \kappa(-z)=\widetilde \kappa(z)$ and $$\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^N}\kappa(y-x)\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,y)dy=\int_{D_3}\widetilde \kappa(y-x) \phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,y)dy.$$ Hence for $0<\lambda_3\ll 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\mu_3^n(\lambda_3)\cdot T\cdot |D_3| -\lambda_3T \int_{D_3} \widehat m_3(x)dx\\
&=
\int_0^T \int_{D_3}\int_{D_3} \widetilde\kappa(y-x)\frac{\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,y)-\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,x)}{\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,x)}dydxdt\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T \int_{D_3}\int_{D_3}\widetilde \kappa(y-x)\Big[\frac{\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,y)-\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,x)}{\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,x)}
+\frac{\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,x)-\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,y)}{\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,y)}\Big]dydxdt\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T\int_{D_3}\int_{D_3}\widetilde \kappa(y-x)\frac{(\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,y)-\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,x))^2}{\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,x)\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,y)}dydxdt.\end{aligned}$$ Since $m_3(t,x)\not \equiv m_3(t)$, $\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,y)\not\equiv \phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,x)$. Hence for $0<\lambda_3\ll 1$, $$0>\mu_3^n(\lambda_3)\cdot T\cdot |D_3|> \lambda_3 T\int_{D_3}\widehat m_3(x)dx$$ and then $\int_{D_3} \widehat m_3(x) dx<0$.
Next, suppose that $\int_0^T\widetilde m_3(t)dt>0$ and $\int_{D_3} \widehat m_3(x)dx<0$. We prove that there is $\lambda_3^p>0$ such that $\mu_3^n(\lambda_3^p)=0$.
By Proposition \[property-PSP-prop\] (4), $\mu_3^n(\lambda_3)>0$ for $\lambda_3\gg 1$. Note that $\mu_3^n(0)=0$ and for $0<\lambda_3\ll 1$, $\mu_3^n(\lambda_3)$ is a principal eigenvalue of . Suppose that $\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,x)$ is a positive principal eigenfunction with $\|\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(\cdot,\cdot)\|_\infty=1$. Note that $\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,x)$ is differentiable in $\lambda_3$ and $\phi_3^0(t,x)\equiv 1$. Hence $$\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,y)-\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,x)=\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,y)-1-(\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,x)-1)=O(\lambda_3).$$ Then by the above arguments, $$\begin{aligned}
&\mu_3^n(\lambda_3)\cdot T\cdot|D_3|\\
=&\lambda_3\int_{D_3} \widehat m_3(x)dx+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T\int_{D_3}\int_{D_3} \widetilde\kappa(y-x)\frac{(\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,y)-\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,x))^2}{\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,x)\phi_3^{\lambda_3}(t,y)}dydxdt\\
=&\lambda_3\int_{D_3}\widehat m_3(x)dx+O(\lambda_3^2).\end{aligned}$$ It then follows that $\mu_3^n(\lambda_3)<0$ for $0<\lambda_3\ll 1$. Then there is $\lambda_3^p>0$ such that $\mu_3^n(\lambda_3^p)=0$.
It can be proved by a similar argument as in the proof of Corollary \[PSP-neum-coro\].
Upper bounds and the existence of principal eigenvalues
-------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we prove Theorem \[upper-bounds\].
\[Proof of Theorem \[upper-bounds\]\] (1) First, we prove the upper bound of in the case of $i=1$. If has a unique positive principal spectrum point $\lambda_1^p(\widehat m_1)$, we need to show that also has a unique positive principal spectrum point $\lambda_1^p(m_1)$, and $\lambda_1^p(m_1)\leq \lambda_1^p(\widehat m_1)$.
By Corollary \[PSP-diri-coro\] (2), has a unique positive principal spectrum point $ \lambda_1^p(\widehat m_1)$ if and only if \[upper-bound-diri\] m\_1(x\_0)>0 x\_0D\_1, where $\widehat m_1(x_0)=\frac1T\int_0^Tm_1(t, x_0)dt$. Since $\int_0^Tm_1(t, x_0)dt\leq \int_0^T\max_{x\in \bar D_1}m_1(t, x)dt$, we know that $m_1(t, x)$ satisfies (D), that is $$\mathcal P(m_1)=\int_0^T\max_{x\in \bar D_1}m_1(t, x)dt>0.$$ By Theorem \[PSP-diri\], we know that also has a unique positive principal spectrum point $\lambda_1^p(m_1)$.
To prove the upper bound of $\lambda_1^p(m_1)$, denote the principal spectrum point of by $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1,\widehat m_1)$, and the principal spectrum point of by $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1,m_1)$. We have $$\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^p(\widehat m_1),\widehat m_1)\leq \mu_1^n(\lambda_1^p(\widehat m_1),m_1))$$ by Proposition \[property-PSP-prop\] (3). By Definition \[PSP-def\], we have $$\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^p(\widehat m_1),\widehat m_1)=\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^p(m_1),m_1)=0.$$ Hence, $$\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^p(m_1),m_1)\leq \mu_1^n( \lambda_1^p(\widehat m_1),m_1).$$ By Proposition \[property-PSP-prop\] (3), we have $$\lambda_1^p(m_i)\leq \lambda_1^p(\widehat m_i).$$ The proof in the case of $i=2$ or $i=3$ is similar to the case of $i=1$. So we omit it.
\(2) (i) It follows from the fact that the conditions in (i) imply that (S1) holds.
\(ii) It follows from (1) and Proposition \[pv-existence\].
Applications
------------
In this section, we apply Theorem \[PSP-diri\], \[PSP-neum\] and \[PSP-peri\] to study the existence of positive time-periodic solution of the KPP type equations , , and .
Recall the KPP type equation ( or ) with $f_i(t, x, u) (i=1, 2, 3)$ satisfying (F). The eigenvalue problems of , , and linearized at $u=0$ are $$\label{KPP-diri-L}
\begin{cases}
-\p_t u(t, x)+\left[\int_D \kappa(y-x)u(t, y)dy-u(t, x)\right]+\lambda_1 m_1(t,x)u(t, x)=\mu_1 u,\\
u(t+T, x)=u(t, x).\\
u(t, x)\geq0,
\end{cases}$$ for the Dirichlet boundary condition, $$\label{KPP-neum-L}
\begin{cases}
-\p_t u(t, x)+\int_D \kappa(y-x)[u(t, y)-u(t, x)]dy+\lambda_2 m_2(t,x)u(t, x)=\mu_2 u,\\
u(t+T, x)=u(t, x),\\
u(t, x)\geq 0
\end{cases}$$ for the Neumann boundary condition, and $$\label{KPP-peri-L}
\begin{cases}
-\p_t u(t, x)+\int_{\R^N} \kappa(y-x)[u(t, y)-u(t, x)]dy+\lambda_3 m_3(t,x)u(t, x)=\mu_3 u,\\
u(t+T, x)=u(t, x+p_j{\bf e_j})=u(t, x),\\
u(t, x)\geq 0
\end{cases}$$ for the periodic boundary condition, where $m_i(t, x)= f_i(t, x, 0)$. It is assumed that $m_1$, $m_2$, and $m_3$ satisfies (D), (N), and (P), respectively.
Denote the principal spectrum point of , , and by $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1)$, $\mu_2^n(\lambda_2)$, and $\mu_3^n(\lambda_3)$, respectively. Suppose $\lambda_i^p$ is such that $\mu_i^n(\lambda_i^p)=0$, we need to show that ( or ) admits a unique positive time-periodic solution $u^*(t, x)$ if and only if $\lambda_i>\lambda_i^p$.
We only prove the case of $i=1$, and other cases ($i=2$ or $i=3$) can be shown similarly.
First, we show if $\lambda_1>\lambda_1^p$, then admits a unique positive time-periodic solution $u^*(t, x)$. By [@RaSh Theorem E], the KPP type equation has a unique positive time periodic solution, if $f_1$ satisfies the following monostable assumptions:
[**(H1)**]{} [*$f_1$ is $C^1$ in $t\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and $C^3$ in $(x,u)\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^N\times{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$; $f_1(t, x, u)<0$ for $u\gg 1$ and $\partial _u f_1(t, x, u)<0$ for $u\geq0$*]{}; $f_1(t+T,x,u)=f_1(t,x,u)$.
[**(H2)**]{} [*$\mu_1^n(\lambda_1)>0$, where $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1)$ is the principle spectrum point of .* ]{}
The condition (H1) is exactly (F), so we only need to show that (H2) is satisfied if $\lambda_1>\lambda_1^p$. Since $m_1=f_1(t, x, 0)$ satisfies (D), we have $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^p)=0$ by Theorem \[PSP-diri\]. Since $\lambda_1>\lambda_1^p$, we know that $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1)>\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^p)$ by Theorem \[PSP-diri\] and \[P\]roposition \[property-PSP-prop\] (3). It follows that $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1)>0$. Hence (H2) is satisfied.
Second, consider , and we need to show that if has a solution, then $\lambda_1>\lambda_1^p$, where $\lambda_1^p$ is the unique positive number such that $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1^p)=0$.
Suppose that admits a positive solution $u^*(t, x)$. Then $$-\p_t u^*(t,x)+\int_D\kappa(y-x)u^*(t,y)dy-u^*(t,x)+\lambda_1 f_1(t,x,u^*(t,x)) u^*(t,x)=0.$$ This implies that $\mu_1^n(\mathcal{L}_1+\lambda_1 m^*_1)=0$, where $m^*_1(t,x)=f_1(t,x,u^*(t,x))$. Note that $f_1(t,x,0)>f_1(t,x,u^*(t,x))$. Hence $\mu_1^n(\lambda_1)>0$. Therefore, $\lambda_1^p<\lambda_1.$
[99]{}
A. Alvino, G. Trombetti, P.-L. Lions, S. Matarasso, Comparison results for solutions of elliptic problems via symmetrization, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 16 (1999), no. 2, 167-188.
F. Andreu-Vaillo, J. M. Mazón, J.D. Rossi, J. Toledo-Melero, Nonlocal diffusion problems, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, AMS, Providence, Rhode Island, 2010.
P. Bates, G. Zhao, Existence, uniqueness and stability of the stationary solution to a nonlocal evolution equation arising in population dispersal, J. Math. Anal. Appl., [**332**]{} (2007), 428–440.
A. Beltramo, P. Hess, On the principal eigenvalue of a periodic-parabolic operator, Comm. Partial Differential Equations, [**9**]{} (1984), 919-941.
J. Bochenek, On some linear eigenvalue problems with an indefinite weight function, Univ. Iagel. Acta Math. (1988), no. 27, 315-323.
M. B[ô]{}cher, The smallest characteristic numbers in a certain exceptional case, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**21**]{} (1914), no. 1, 6-9.
K. J. Brown, C. Cosner, J. Fleckinger, Principal eigenvalues for problems with indefinite weight function on $\R^n$, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**109**]{} (1990), no. 1, 147-155.
K. J. Brown, S.S. Lin, On the existence of positive eigenfunctions for an eigenvalue problem with indefinite weight function, J. Math. Anal. Appl.[**75**]{} (1980), no. 1, 112-120.
R. S. Cantrell, C. Cosner. Diffusive logistic equations with indefinite weights: population models in disrupted environments. II., SIAM J. Math. Anal. [**22**]{} (1991), no. 4, 1043-1064.
R. S. Cantrell, C. Cosner, Spatial ecology via reaction-diffusion equations, Wiley Series in Mathematical and Computational Biology, John Wiley $\&$ Sons, Ltd., Chichester, 2003. ISBN: 0-471-49301-592D40.
R. S. Cantrell, C. Cosner. Diffusive logistic equations with indefinite weights: population models in disrupted environments, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A [**112**]{} (1989), no. 3-4, 293-318.
A. Chmaj, X. Ren, [Homoclinic solutions of an integral equation: existence and stability,]{} [J. Differential Equations,]{} [**155**]{} (1999), no. 1, 17-43.
C. Cosner, [Eigenvalue problems with indefinite weights and reaction-diffusion models in population dynamics]{}, [Oxford Sci. Publ., Oxford Univ. Press]{}, New York, 1990. 35-02.
C. Cosner, F. Cuccu, G. Porru, [Optimization of the first eigenvalue of equations with indefinite weights]{}, [Adv. Nonlinear Stud.]{} [**13**]{} (2013), no. 1, 79-95.
J. Coville, [On a simple criterion for the existence of a principal eigenfunction of some nonlocal operators]{}, [J. Differential Equations]{}, [**249**]{} (2010), 2921–2953.
J. Coville, J. Dávila, S. Martínez, [Existence and uniqueness of solutions to a nonlocal equation with monostable nonlinearity]{}, [SIAM J. Math. Anal.]{} [ **39**]{} (2008), no. 5, 1693-1709.
D. Daners, [ Periodic-parabolic eigenvalue problems with indefinite weight functions]{}, [ Arch. Math.]{} [**68**]{} (1997), no. 5, 388-397.
D. E. Edmunds and W. D. Evans, [Spectral Theory and Differential Operators,]{} The Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, New York, 1987.
L. Evans, [Partial differential equations]{}. [Graduate Studies in Mathematics]{}, 19. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1998.
E. Feireisl, F. Issard-Roch, H. Petzeltová, [A non-smooth version of the Lojasiewicz-Simon theorem with applications to non-local phase-field systems,]{} [J. Differential Equations,]{} [**199**]{} (2004), no. 1, 1-21.
P. Fife, Some nonclassical trends in parabolic and parabolic-like evolutions, Trends in nonlinear analysis, 153–191, Springer, Berlin, 2003.
R. A. Fisher, [The wave of advance of advantageous genes]{}, [ Ann. Eugen.]{}, [7]{} (1937), 335-369.
J. García-Melán and J. D. Rossi, [On the principal eigenvalue of some nonlocal diffusion problems,]{} [J. Differential Equations]{}, [**246**]{} (2009), 21–38.
J.-P. Gossez, E. Lami Dozo, [On the principal eigenvalue of a second order linear elliptic problem]{}, [ Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.]{} [**89**]{} (1985), no. 2, 169-175.
M. Grinfeld, G. Hines, V. Hutson, K. Mischaikow and G. T. Vickers, Non-local dispersal, *Differential Integral Equations*, [**18**]{} (2005), 1299–1320.
K.P. Hadeler, [Reaction transport systems in biological modelling, in Mathematics inspired by biology,]{} Lecture Notes in Math., 1714, Springer, Berlin, 1999.
P. Hess, [On the spectrum of elliptic operators with respect to indefinite weights]{}, Proceedings of the symposium on operator theory (Athens, 1985), [Linear Algebra Appl. ]{} [**84**]{} (1986), 99-109.
P. Hess, [Periodic-parabolic boundary value problems and positivity]{}, [Pitman Research Notes in Mathematics Series]{}, 247. [Longman Scientific $\&$ Technical, Harlow; copublished in the United States with John Wiley $\&$ Sons, Inc.]{}, New York, 1991. ISBN: 0-582-06478-3
P. Hess, T. Kato, [On some linear and nonlinear eigenvalue problems with an indefinite weight function]{}, [Comm. Partial Differential Equations]{} [**5**]{} (1980), no. 10, 999-1030.
P. Hess and H. Weinberger, [Convergence to spatial-temporal clines in the Fisher equation with time-periodic fitnesses]{}, [ J. Math. Biol.]{} [28]{} (1990), no. 1, 83-98.
G. Hetzer, W. Shen and A. Zhang, [Effects of spatial variations and dispersal strategies on principal eigenvalues of dispersal operators and spreading speeds of monostable equations,]{} [Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics]{}, [**43**]{} (2013), 489–513.
M. Hintermüller, C.-Y. Kao, A. Laurain, [Principal eigenvalue minimization for an elliptic problem with indefinite weight and Robin boundary conditions]{}, [Appl. Math. Optim.]{} [**65**]{} (2012), no. 1, 111-146.
V. Hutson, M. Grinfeld, Non-local dispersal and bistability, *European J. Appl. Math.*, [**17**]{} (2006), no. 2, 221–232.
V. Hutson, S. Martinez, K. Mischaikow and G. T. Vickers, [The evolution of dispersal,]{} [J. Math. Biol.]{}, [**47**]{} (2003), 483–517.
V. Hutson, W. Shen and G. T. Vickers, [Spectral theory for nonlocal dispersal with periodic or almost-periodic time dependence,]{} [Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics]{}, [**38**]{} (2008), 1147–1175.
C.-Y. Kao, Y. Lou and W. Shen, [Random dispersal vs non-Local dispersal]{}, [Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems]{}, [**26**]{} (2010), 551–596.
C.-Y. Kao, Y. Lou, E. Yanagida, [Principal eigenvalue for an elliptic problem with indefinite weight on cylindrical domains]{}, [Math. Biosci. Eng.]{} [**5**]{} (2008), no. 2, 315-335.
A. Kolmogorov, I. Petrowsky, N. Piscunov, [A study of the equation of diffusion with increase in the quantity of matter, and its application to a biological problem]{}, [Bjul. Moskovskogo Gos, Univ.]{}, [1]{}(6): 1-25 (1937).
J. López-Gómez, [On linear weighted boundary value problems]{}. [Partial differential equations]{}(Han-sur-Lesse, 1993), 188-203, [Math. Res.]{}, 82, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, 1994.
J. López-Gómez, [The maximum principle and the existence of principal eigenvalues for some linear weighted boundary value problems]{}, [J. Differential Equations]{} [**127**]{} (1996), no. 1, 263-294.
Y. Lou, Yuan, E. Yanagida [Minimization of the principal eigenvalue for an elliptic boundary value problem with indefinite weight, and applications to population dynamics]{}, [Japan J. Indust. Appl. Math.]{} [**23**]{} (2006), no. 3, 275-292.
A. Manes, A. M. Micheletti, [Un’estensione della teoria variazionale classica degli autovalori per operatori ellittici del secondo ordine]{}. [Boll. Un. Mat. Ital.]{} (4) [**7**]{} (1973), 285-301.
G. Nadin, [Existence and uniqueness of the solutions of a space-time periodic reaction-diffusion equation]{}, [ J. Differential Equation]{} 249 (2010), no. 6, 1288-1304.
G. Nadin [The principal eigenvalue of a space-time periodic parabolic operator]{}, [Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. ]{} ,[**4**]{} 188 (2009), no. 2 269–295.
H. G. Othmer, S. R. Dunbar, W. Alt, [Models of dispersal in biological systems,]{} [J. Math. Biol.]{}, [**26**]{} (1988), no. 3, 263–298.
N. Rawal and W. Shen, [Criteria for the existence and lower bounds of principal eigenvalues of time periodic nonlocal dispersal operators and applications,]{} [J. Dynam. Differential Equations]{}, [**24**]{} (2012), 927–954.
S. Senn, P. Hess, [On positive solutions of a linear elliptic eigenvalue problem with Neumann boundary conditions]{}, [Math. Ann.]{}[**258**]{} (1981), no. 4, 459-470.
W. Shen and X. Xie, On principal spectrum points/principal eigenvalues of nonlocal dispersal operators and applications, [ Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst.]{} [**35**]{} (2015), no. 4, 1665-1696.
W. Shen and X. Xie, [Approximations of random dispersal operators/equations by nonlocal dispersal operators/equations]{}, *Journal of Differential Equations*, to appear.
k W. Shen and A. Zhang, [Spreading speeds for monostable equations with nonlocal dispersal in space periodic habitats,]{} [Journal of Differential Equations]{} [**249**]{} (2010), 747–795.
I. Stoleriu, [Integro-differential equations in materials science,]{} Ph.D thesis, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, 2001.
X.-Q. Zhao, [Global attractivity and stability in some monotone discrete dynamical systems]{}, [Bull. Austral. Math. Soc.]{} [53]{} (1996), no. 2, 305-324.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We introduce the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP — an integrable stochastic interacting particle system which is a 3-parameter generalization of the PushTASEP, a well-known close relative of the TASEP (Totally Asymmetric Simple Exclusion Process). The transition probabilities in the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP are expressed through the $_4\phi_3$ basic hypergeometric function. Under suitable limits, the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP degenerates to all known integrable (1+1)-dimensional stochastic systems with a pushing mechanism. One can thus view our new system as a pushing counterpart of the $q$-Hahn TASEP introduced by Povolotsky [@Povolotsky2013]. We establish Markov duality relations and contour integral formulas for the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP.
In a $q\to 1$ limit of our process we arrive at a random recursion which, in a special case, appears to be similar to the inverse-Beta polymer model. However, unlike in recursions for Beta polymer models, the weights (i.e., the coefficients of the recursion) in our model depend on the previous values of the partition function in a nontrivial manner.
author:
- 'Ivan Corwin, Konstantin Matveev, and Leonid Petrov'
bibliography:
- 'bib.bib'
title: 'The $q$-Hahn PushTASEP'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Integrable probability is a field which seeks to discover and analyze probabilistic systems enjoying significant algebraic structure (e.g. Markov dualities and Bethe ansatz diagonalizability) and which demonstrate universal asymptotic fluctuation behaviors. There are two main routes which have proved effective so far in producing integrable probabilistic systems — Macdonald processes (and various degenerations) [@BorodinCorwin2011Macdonald], [@BorodinGorinSPB12], [@BorodinPetrov2013Lect], and stochastic vertex models [@Borodin2014vertex], [@CorwinPetrov2015], [@BorodinPetrov2016_Hom_Lectures].
Prototypical examples within both classes of integrable models are the TASEP (Totally Asymmeric Simple Exclusion Process) [@Spitzer1970] and the PushTASEP, its counterpart with a long-range pushing mechanism [@liggett1980long], [@derrida1991dynamics]. In the context of *Macdonald processes*, both systems are connected to certain probability distributions on integer partitions $\lambda=(\lambda_1\ge\ldots\ge\lambda_N\ge0 )$ with nice algebraic structure, and the TASEP and PushTASEP are related to the distributions of, respectively, the smallest and the largest parts of $\lambda$. This picture can be generalized within the Macdonald process hierarchy to produce 2-parameter $q$-deformed discrete and continuous time TASEPs and PushTASEPs [@BorodinCorwin2013discrete], [@BorodinPetrov2013NN], [@CorwinPetrov2013], [@MatveevPetrov2014]. On the other hand, TASEP also belongs to the class of exactly solvable *stochastic vertex models*, and hence it admits a 3-parameter generalization to the $q$-Hahn TASEP [@Povolotsky2013], [@Corwin2014qmunu] (recalled in ). The latter is, in fact, a special case of the 4-parameter family of stochastic higher spin six vertex models studied in [@CorwinPetrov2015], [@BorodinPetrov2016_Hom_Lectures].
For some time it was not clear how to extend the PushTASEP analogously outside the Macdonald hierarchy. In this paper we achieve this. That is, we introduce a 3-parameter $q$-Hahn generalization of the PushTASEP (), adding a new parameter to the $q$-PushTASEP with $q$-geometric jumps discovered in [@MatveevPetrov2014]. This is akin to the $q$-Hahn extension of the discrete time $q$-TASEP [@BorodinCorwin2013discrete] found in [@Povolotsky2013] and studied in [@Corwin2014qmunu]. Our pushing system enjoys a variant of Markov duality (see ) similar to the one studied earlier for the continuous time $q$-PushTASEP [@CorwinPetrov2013], and generalizes the contour integral formulas from that setting, too (see ). The system itself is not so simple (in particular, its transition probabilities are expressed through the basic hypergeometric function $_4\phi_3$), and our search for it was informed by the desire to extend the duality and contour integral formulas away from the Macdonald context. Even once this generalized system is introduced (see ), it is not so simple to prove the duality, as it requires some interesting $q$-identities (the central statement is which we prove in ).
The $q$-Hahn TASEP revealed some interesting new systems as its limits — in particular, the beta polymer (or random walk in random environment) considered in [@CorwinBarraquand2015Beta] which arises in a scaling limit of the system as $q\to1$. We parallel this limit here, and discover a corresponding beta polymer-like system. The main new feature is that in our model, the distribution of the weights depends on the ratio of the partition functions immediately to the left and below (see ). We had initially expected that the inverse beta polymer of [@thieryLD2015integrable] would arise from our pushing system, but presently this does not seem to be the case (though perhaps the inverse beta polymer could be included into a 4-parameter family of pushing systems whose existence we speculate on below). However, in the $q\to 1$ limit we do arrive (see and ) at a solution to the following recursion relation, which bears great similarity to that satisfied by the inverse beta polymer: When $\tilde{Z}(i,t-1)>\tilde{Z}(i-1,t)$, $$\tilde{Z}(i,t) = \tilde{Y} \tilde{Z}(i,t-1) + (1-\tilde{Y}) \tilde{Z}(i-1,t)$$ where $\tilde{Y}$ is $\mathscr{Beta}^{-1}(\bar{\mu},\tfrac{1}{2}-\bar{\mu})$-distributed (see ); and when $\tilde{Z}(i,t-1)<\tilde{Z}(i-1,t)$, $$\tilde{Z}(i,t) = \tilde{Y} \tilde{Z}(i-1,t) + (1-\tilde{Y}) \tilde{Z}(i,t-1)$$ where $\tilde{Y}$ is $\mathscr{Beta}^{-1}(\bar{\mu},\tfrac{1}{2})$-distributed. For this random recursion (with suitable boundary data) we compute moment formulas () and conjecture a Laplace transform formula ().
Besides the $q\to 1$ limits, there are other new limit processes which arise from our work. In particular, for $q=0$ we find a geometric-Bernoulli generalization of the PushTASEP (see ).
We do not perform any asymptotics in this paper. In fact, the key result towards such an aim would be a Fredholm determinant formula for a suitable $q$-Laplace transform. However, due to the pushing mechanism, the moments generally used to derive such a formula become infinite past a certain power. Still, we present which contains what we believe is a correct formula based on previous analogous works.
Our present investigation suggests that there should be strong parallels between pushing and non-pushing integrable particle systems. In the non-pushing (e.g. standard TASEP) context, [@CorwinPetrov2015] introduced a 4-parameter family of stochastic vertex models, which recovers the 3-parameter $q$-Hahn TASEP in a special analytic continuation and degeneration. It would be interesting to develop a parallel 4-parameter family of pushing systems, and obtain the corresponding duality relations and contour integral formulas. We expect that this can be done in the following manner. Consider the stochastic higher spin vertex model with horizontal spin $J\in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge1}$. Subtract $J$ from the number of arrows along each horizontal edge, and interpret the negative arrow numbers as counting arrows pointing in the opposite direction. This minor modification introduces a pushing mechanism. It seems likely that duality and contour integral formulas can be carried over from the original stochastic higher spin model. On the other hand, to recover the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP one must find the right analytic continuation. We leave this for a later investigation.
We also note that it should be possible to produce a 4-parameter family of pushing systems by a different mechanism — via bijectivisation of the Yang-Baxter equation (see [@BufetovPetrovYB2017]) related to the spin $q$-Whittaker polynomials (introduced in [@BorodinWheelerSpinq]). This approach is developed in the upcoming work [@BufetovMucciconiPetrov2018], and we anticipate that the same 4-parameter family will come up in this manner.
Outline {#outline .unnumbered}
-------
In we recall duality and contour integral formulas for the $q$-moments of the $q$-Hahn TASEP [@Povolotsky2013], [@Corwin2014qmunu], as some of these ingredients are used for the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP. In we introduce the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP, discuss its various degenerations, and prove duality and contour integral formulas. In we consider a beta polymer-like limit of the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP as $q\to1$, and write down moments of the resulting system in a contour integral form. We also provide a conjecture for the $q$-Laplace transform. Formulas pertaining to $q$-hypergeometric functions and associated probability distributions on $\mathbb{Z}$ are summarized in .
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
The authors thank Guillaume Barraquand for pointing out the simplification which led to . The authors acknowledge that part of this work was done while in attendance of the ICERM conference on Limit Shapes, held from April 13-17, 2015. IC was partially supported by the NSF grants DMS-1208998, DMS-1811143 and DMS-1664650, as well as a Packard Fellowship in Science and Engineering and a Clay Research Fellowship. LP was partially supported by the NSF grant DMS-1664617.
$q$-Hahn TASEP {#sec:TASEP}
==============
Here we briefly recall the definition and duality properties of the $q$-Hahn TASEP introduced and studied in [@Povolotsky2013], [@Corwin2014qmunu].
Assume that the parameters $0<q<1$, $0\le {\boldsymbol\upnu}\le {\boldsymbol\upmu}<1$ are fixed.[^1] The $q$-Hahn TASEP is a discrete time (with $t\in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge0}$) Markov process on configurations $\vec x(t)=(x_1(t)>x_2(t)>\ldots )$, $x_i\in\mathbb{Z}$, with at most one particle per site and a rightmost particle $x_1$. The evolution of the $q$-Hahn TASEP is as follows. At each discrete time step $t\to t+1$, each particle $x_i(t)$ jumps in parallel and independently to $x_i(t+1)=x_{i}(t)+v_i$, where $v_i$ is sampled from the probability distribution $\varphi_{q,{\boldsymbol\upmu},{\boldsymbol\upnu}}(v_i\mid x_{i-1}(t)-x_i(t)-1)$. Note for the update of $x_1$, we assume a virtual particle $x_0\equiv +\infty$, by agreement. Here $\varphi_{q,{\boldsymbol\upmu},{\boldsymbol\upnu}}$ is the $q$-beta-binomial distribution defined by . See for an illustration.
![$q$-Hahn TASEP and the update probabilities $\varphi_{q,{\boldsymbol\upmu},{\boldsymbol\upnu}}$ for $x_1$ and $x_2$.[]{data-label="fig:TASEP"}](fig-TASEP.pdf)
We now proceed to describe a Markov duality relation between the $q$-Hahn TASEP one-step transition operator and the $q$-Hahn Boson operator on a different space. Fix $N\ge1$ and define the $N$-particle space $$\label{space_X_N}
\mathbb{X}^N:=
\{\vec x:=(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_N ), \ x_i\in \mathbb{Z},\
+\infty=x_0>x_1>\ldots>x_N \}.$$ By $\mathsf{P}^{\textnormal{TASEP}}_{q,{\boldsymbol\upmu},{\boldsymbol\upnu}}$ denote the $q$-Hahn TASEP Markov transition operator acting on functions on $\mathbb{X}^N$. Note that by the very definition of the $q$-Hahn TASEP, the evolution of its $N$ rightmost particles is independent from the rest of the process.
Also define the Boson particle spaces $$\label{space_Y_N_y_Nk}
\mathbb{Y}^N:=
\{\vec y=(y_0,y_1,\ldots,y_N )\in\mathbb{Z}_{\ge0}^{N+1}\}
,
\qquad
\mathbb{Y}^N_k:=
\{\vec y\in \mathbb{Y}^{N}\colon y_0+y_1+\ldots+y_N=k \}.$$ Let us define the $q$-Hahn Boson operator $\mathsf{P}^{\textnormal{Boson}}_{q,\alpha,{\boldsymbol\upnu}}$ acting on functions on $\mathbb{Y}^{N}$, where the parameter $\alpha$ is arbitrary. First, let $[\mathcal{A}_{q,\alpha,{\boldsymbol\upnu}}]_i$, $i=1,\ldots,N $, be a local operator acting only on the $y_i$ and $y_{i-1}$ coordinates of functions $f$ as $$[\mathcal{A}_{q,\alpha,{\boldsymbol\upnu}}]_i
f(\vec y)
=
\sum_{s_i=0}^{y_i}
\varphi_{q,\alpha,{\boldsymbol\upnu}}(s_i\mid y_i)\,
f(y_0,y_1,\ldots,y_{i-1}+s_i,y_i-s_i,\ldots,y_N).$$ Define the $q$-Hahn Boson operator by its action $$\mathsf{P}^{\textnormal{Boson}}_{q,\alpha,{\boldsymbol\upnu}}
f(\vec y)
:=
[\mathcal{A}_{q,\alpha,{\boldsymbol\upnu}}]_N
\ldots
[\mathcal{A}_{q,\alpha,{\boldsymbol\upnu}}]_1
f(\vec y).$$ The order of operators is important and corresponds to parallel update: first move particles from location 1 to location 0, then from location 2 to location 1 (note that the distribution of the particles taken from location 2 is no affected by what happened at location 1), and so on. No particles are moved from the location $0$, and no particles are added to the location $N$. This implies that $\mathsf{P}^{\textnormal{Boson}}_{q,\alpha,{\boldsymbol\upnu}}$ preserves each of the spaces $\mathbb{Y}^{N}_k$.
We put no restrictions on the parameter $\alpha$ in $\mathsf{P}^{\textnormal{Boson}}_{q,\alpha,{\boldsymbol\upnu}}$. In particular, we do not require it to be a Markov transition operator: it is allowed to have negative matrix elements. However, the rows in $\mathsf{P}^{\textnormal{Boson}}_{q,\alpha,{\boldsymbol\upnu}}$ still sum to one, and for ${\boldsymbol\upnu}\le \alpha<1$ the operator $\mathsf{P}^{\textnormal{Boson}}_{q,\alpha,{\boldsymbol\upnu}}$ defines a discrete time Markov process on $\mathbb{Y}^{N}$ called the $q$-Hahn Boson system.
The $q$-Hahn TASEP and $q$-Hahn Boson operators with the same parameters $\alpha={\boldsymbol\upmu}$ are dual to each other via the duality functional $\mathfrak{H}\colon \mathbb{X}^{N}\times \mathbb{Y}^{N}\to\mathbb{R}$ defined as $$\label{H_duality_functional}
\mathfrak{H}(\vec x,\vec y):=
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle\prod_{i=1}^{N}q^{y_i(x_i+i)},&y_0=0;
\\[10pt]
0,&y_0>0.
\end{cases}$$
\[thm:TASEP\_duality\] We have $$\mathsf{P}^{\textnormal{TASEP}}_{q,{\boldsymbol\upmu},{\boldsymbol\upnu}}\mathfrak{H}
=
\mathfrak{H}\bigl(\mathsf{P}^{\textnormal{Boson}}_{q,{\boldsymbol\upmu},{\boldsymbol\upnu}}\bigr)^T,$$ where “$T$” stands for transpose of an operator. In other words, $\mathsf{P}^{\textnormal{TASEP}}_{q,{\boldsymbol\upmu},{\boldsymbol\upnu}}$ acts in the variables $\vec x$, and $\mathsf{P}^{\textnormal{Boson}}_{q,{\boldsymbol\upmu},{\boldsymbol\upnu}}$ acts in the variables $\vec y$, and their actions on $\mathfrak{H}(\vec x,\vec y)$ coincide.
An immediate consequence of the duality is that the $q$-moments $\mathop{\mathbb{E}}\bigl[\prod_{i=1}^{n}q^{y_i(x_i(t)+i)}\bigr]$ of the $q$-Hahn TASEP, as index by time $t$ and the vector $\vec{y}$ solves a difference equation involving the $q$-Hahn Boson operator. Using the Bethe ansatz solvability of this Boson operator allows one to write down explicit contour integral formulas for the $q$-moments, which become particularly nice when the $q$-Hahn TASEP is started from the step [@Corwin2014qmunu] or the half-stationary [@BCPS2014] initial data.
Let us recall the formulas in the step case. Encode elements of $\mathbb{Y}^N_k$ as $\vec n=(n_1\ge \ldots\ge n_k)$, $N\ge n_1$, $n_k\ge0$, where for all $m$ we have $y_m=\#\{i\colon n_i=m\}$.[^2]
\[thm:TASEP\_moments\] Fix $0<q<1$, $0\le {\boldsymbol\upnu}\le{\boldsymbol\upmu}<1$. For any $N,k\ge1$ and $\vec n$ as above, the $q$-moments of the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP with step initial data $x_i(0)=-i$, $i\ge1$, have the form $$\begin{gathered}
\mathop{\mathbb{E}}
\Bigl[
\prod_{i=1}^{k}q^{x_{n_i}(t)+n_i}
\Bigr]
=\frac{(-1)^kq^{\frac{k(k-1)}{2}}}{(2\pi\sqrt{-1})^k}
\oint \frac{dz_1}{z_1}\ldots
\oint \frac{dz_k}{z_k}
\prod_{1\le A<B\le k}\frac{z_A-z_B}{z_A-qz_B}
\\\times\prod_{i=1}^{k}
\Biggl[
\left( \frac{1-{\boldsymbol\upnu}z_j}{1-z_j} \right)^{n_j}
\left( \frac{1-{\boldsymbol\upmu}z_j}{1-{\boldsymbol\upnu}z_j} \right)^t
\frac{1}{1-{\boldsymbol\upnu}z_j}
\Biggr].
\end{gathered}$$ Here all the integration contours encircle $1$ but not $0$ or ${\boldsymbol\upnu}^{-1}$, and for all $B>A$ the $z_A$ contour encircles the $qz_B$ contour.
The parameters $y_i$ are the labels of the $q$-moments. In we prove a duality result for the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP, and in utilize the duality to obtain contour integral formulas for the $q$-moments of this process.
$q$-Hahn PushTASEP, duality, and contour integrals {#sec:q_hahn_push}
==================================================
Definition and nonnegativity {#sub:def_nonnegativity}
----------------------------
The $q$-Hahn PushTASEP depends on the main “quantization” parameter $q\in(0,1)$, and on two parameters $\mu,\nu$ in the following range: $$\label{mu_nu_parameters_for_qHahn}
0<\mu<1,\qquad -1<\nu\le \min\{\mu,\sqrt q\}.$$ The $q$-Hahn PushTASEP is a discrete time Markov process on particle configurations in $\mathbb{Z}$ (with at most one particle per site) which have a rightmost particle: $$\vec x(t)=(x_1(t)> x_2(t)> \ldots).$$ At each discrete time moment, particles in the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP may jump to the left. The update $\vec x(t)\to \vec x(t+1)$ is performed according to the following procedure (the distributions $\varphi$ and $\psi$ are defined by and , respectively):
1. The first particle $x_1$ jumps to the left by $\ell\in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge0}$, where $\ell$ is drawn from the distribution $\varphi_{q,\mu,\nu}(\ell\mid \infty)$.
2. Consecutively for $i=2,3,\ldots $, given the movement of the $(i-1)$-st particle $x_{i-1}(t)\to x_{i-1}(t+1)=x_{i-1}(t)-\ell$, and the gap $g=x_{i-1}(t)-x_{i}(t)-1$ before this movement, the location of the $i$-th particle is updated as $x_i(t)\to x_{i}(t+1)=x_{i}(t)-L$, $L\in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge0}$, with probability $$\label{P_ell_g_update_probability_definition}
\mathbf{P}_{\ell, g}(L):=
\sum_{p=0}^{\min\{\ell, L\}}
\varphi_{q^{-1}, q^{g}, \mu \nu q^{g-1}}(p \mid \ell)
\,
\psi_{q, \nu \mu^{-1} q^{p}, \nu q^{g}, \nu^{2} q^{g+p}}(L-p).$$ For consistency of notation we will sometimes write $x_0=+\infty$ and $\mathbf{P}_{\ell,\infty}(L)=\varphi_{q,\mu,\nu}(L\mid \infty)$. See for an illustration.
![Update of the $i$-th particle given the movement of the $(i-1)$-st particle.[]{data-label="fig:push_update_pic"}](fig-pushTASEP.pdf){width=".7\textwidth"}
Let us make a number of comments concerning this definition:
1. It is not obvious that the right-hand side of is nonnegative because for $\nu>0$ the expression $\varphi_{q^{-1}, q^{g}, \mu \nu q^{g-1}}(p \mid \ell)$ might be negative. We prove the nonnegativity of the $\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}$’s in below.
2. The update probabilities $\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}$ are given by a complicated expression involving $q$-Pochhammer symbols. In below we discuss a number of previously studied PushTASEP like processes which arise as degenerations of the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP. In particular, under these degenerations the $\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}$’s simplify.
3. One can check that $\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}(L)=0$ unless $L\ge \ell-g$. (Indeed, this is because $\varphi_{q^{-1}, q^{g}, \mu \nu q^{g-1}}(p \mid \ell)=0$ unless $\ell-p\le g$.) In words, if the previous jumping distance $\ell$ is greater than the gap between $x_{i-1}$ and $x_i$, then the particle $x_i$ is deterministically pushed to the left. Therefore, update rule preserves the order of the particles.
4. If $\ell>g$ and $\mu\nu$ equals $q^y$ for a positive integer $y$, the denominator in $\varphi_{q^{-1}, q^{g}, \mu \nu q^{g-1}}(p \mid \ell)$ may vanish. However, we can still define $\varphi$ by continuity (canceling the corresponding factor in the numerator).
5. The process can make infinitely many jumps in a single discrete time step (for example, when it starts from the step initial configuration $x_i(0)=-i$, $i\ge0$). However, for each $N$ the behavior of the particles $x_i$, $i\le N$, is independent from the one of with $i>N$. Therefore, the dynamics restricted to $x_1,\ldots,x_N$ is well-defined as a process with finitely many particles. These $N$-particle dynamics are compatible for various $N$, and so the dynamics of the process on infinite particle configurations having a rightmost particle is well-defined.
\[prop:nonnegativity\] Under the restrictions on parameters we have $\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}(L)\ge0$ for all $\ell,g,L\in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge0}$, and $\sum_{L\in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge0}}\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}(L) = 1$.
The fact that $\sum_{L\in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge0}}\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}(L) = 1$ follows by interchanging the summations over $L$ and $p$ (the latter coming from ) and using $$\sum_{p=0}^{\ell}\varphi_{q^{-1}, q^{g}, \mu \nu q^{g-1}}(p \mid \ell)=1,
\qquad
\sum_{L=p}^{\infty}\psi_{q, \nu \mu^{-1} q^{p}, \nu q^{g}, \nu^{2} q^{g+p}}(L-p)=1,$$ see .
Turning to proving the positivity, there are two cases depending on the sign of $\nu$. First, we have $\varphi_{q^{-1}, q^{g}, \mu \nu q^{g-1}}(p \mid \ell) \geq 0$ when $-1<\nu\le0$. Therefore, we can think that the $i$-th particle first moves $x_{i}(t) \to x_{i}(t)-p$ with probability $\varphi_{q^{-1}, q^{g}, \mu \nu q^{g-1}}(p \mid \ell)$ due to the push of the $i-1$-st particle. After that, the $i$-th particle makes an extra move $x_{i}(t)-p \to x_{i}(t)-p-m$ (where $m+p=L$) with probability $\psi_{q, \nu \mu^{-1} q^{p}, \nu q^{g}, \nu^{2} q^{g+p}}(m) \geq 0$. In other words, the jump by $L$ in is a combination of two jumps, by $p$ and $L-p$ (with $p$ random), each happening with a nonnegative probability.
In the second case $0<\nu\le\min\{\mu,\sqrt q\}$ the expression $\varphi_{q^{-1}, q^{g}, \mu \nu q^{g-1}}(p \mid \ell)$ might become negative, and the previous interpretation does not imply nonnegativity of $\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}(L)$. Let us rewrite $\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}(L)$ in two different ways (depending on the order of $\ell$ and $g$) to show the nonnegativity. We have (here and below in the proof we use the notation from ) $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}(L)
&=
\sum_{p=0}^{\min\{\ell,L\}}
q^{gp}\frac{(\mu \nu/q;q^{-1})_{p}(q^{g};q^{-1})_{\ell-p}}{(\mu\nu q^{g-1};q^{-1})_{\ell}}
\frac{(q^{-1};q^{-1})_{\ell}}{(q^{-1};q^{-1})_{p}(q^{-1};q^{-1})_{\ell-p}}
\\&
\nonumber
\hspace{100pt}\times
\mu^{L-p}
\frac{(\nu\mu^{-1}q^p,\nu q^{g};q)_{L-p}}{(q,\nu^2 q^{g+p};q)_{L-p}}
\frac{(\nu^2 q^{g+p},\mu;q)_{\infty}}{(\nu q^p,\mu\nu q^g;q)_{\infty}}
\\&
\label{P_ell_g_initial_formula}
=
\frac{(\mu; q)_{\infty}(\nu^{2} q^{g}; q)_{\infty}}{(\nu; q)_{\infty}(\nu \mu q^{g}; q)_{\infty}}
\sum_{p=0}^{\min\{\ell,L\}}
q^{gp}\frac{(\mu \nu/q;q^{-1})_{p}(q^{g};q^{-1})_{\ell-p}}{(\mu\nu q^{g-1};q^{-1})_{\ell}}
\frac{(q^{-1};q^{-1})_{\ell}}{(q^{-1};q^{-1})_{p}(q^{-1};q^{-1})_{\ell-p}}
\\&
\hspace{100pt}\times
\mu^{L-p}
\frac{(\nu\mu^{-1}q^p,\nu q^{g};q)_{L-p}}{(q,\nu^2 q^{g+p};q)_{L-p}}
\frac{(\nu;q)_p}{(\nu^2 q^g;q)_p}.
\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ When $\ell<g$, this expression is rewritten as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{P_ell_g_rewrite_first_case}
\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}(L)
=
\mu^{L}\frac{(q^{g}; q^{-1})_{\ell} (\nu \mu^{-1};
q)_{L}(\nu q^{g}; q)_{L}}{(\mu \nu q^{g-1}; q^{-1})_{\ell} (q;
q)_{L}(\nu^{2} q^{g}; q)_{L}}
\\
{_{4}}\phi_{3}
\left[\begin{array}{cccc} q^{-\ell} & \mu^{-1} \nu^{-1} q & \nu & q^{-L}
\\ & \nu^{-1}q^{1-g-L} & \nu \mu^{-1} & q^{g-\ell+1} \end{array}; q, q
\right]
\frac{(\mu; q)_{\infty}(\nu^{2} q^{g}; q)_{\infty}}{(\nu;
q)_{\infty}(\nu \mu q^{g}; q)_{\infty}}.
\end{gathered}$$ The equality between and is termwise (when using the definition for $_4\phi_3$).
We will use Watson’s transformation formula [@GasperRahman (III.19)], $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Watsontransformation}
{_{4}}\phi_{3} \left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
q^{-n} & a & b & c \\ & d & e & f
\end{array}
; q, q \right]
\\=
\frac{(d/b, d/c; q)_{n}}{(d, d/bc; q)_{n}}\,
{_{8}}\phi_{7} \left[
\begin{array}{cccccccc} q^{-n} & \sigma & q \sigma^{\frac{1}{2}} & -q \sigma^{\frac{1}{2}} & f/a & e/a & b & c
\\
& \sigma^{\frac{1}{2}} & - \sigma^{\frac{1}{2}} & e & f & ef/ab & ef/ac & e f q^{n}/a
\end{array}; q, \frac{e f q^{n}}{bc} \right],
\end{gathered}$$ where $d e f= a b c q^{1-n}$ and $\sigma = ef/aq$. Applying this formula to , we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{P_ell_g_rewrite_first_case_87}
\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}(L)
=
\frac
{(\mu; q)_{\infty}(\nu^{2} q^{g}; q)_{\infty}}
{(\nu; q)_{\infty}(\nu \mu q^{g}; q)_{\infty}}
\,
\mu^{L}
\frac{(q^{g}; q^{-1})_{\ell} (\nu \mu^{-1}; q)_{L}(\nu q^{g}; q)_{L}(\nu^{-1}q^{1-g}, q)_{\ell}(\nu^{-2} q^{1-g-L}; q)_{\ell}}
{(\mu \nu q^{g-1}; q^{-1})_{\ell} (q; q)_{L}(\nu^{2} q^{g}; q)_{L}(\nu^{-1} q^{1-g-L}; q)_{\ell}(\nu^{-2}q^{1-g}; q)_{\ell}}
\\ \times
{_{8}}\phi_{7} \left[\begin{array}{cccccccc}
q^{-\ell} & \nu^{2} q^{g-\ell-1} & \nu q^{\frac{g-\ell+1}2} & -\nu q^{\frac{g-\ell+1}2} & \nu^{2}/q & \mu \nu q^{g-\ell} & \nu & q^{-L}
\\
& \nu q^{\frac{g-\ell-1}2} & - \nu q^{\frac{g-\ell-1}2} & q^{g-\ell+1} & \nu/\mu & \nu q^{g-\ell} & \nu^{2}q^{L+g-\ell} & \nu^{2}q^{g}
\end{array};
q, \frac{q^{L+g+1}}{\mu} \right].
\end{gathered}$$
When $\ell\ge g$, we must have $L\ge \ell-g$. Let us rewrite in another form: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{P_ell_g_rewrite_second_case}
\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}(L)
=
\mu^{L-\ell+g}
\frac
{(q^{\ell}; q^{-1})_{g} (\nu \mu^{-1} q^{\ell-g};q)_{L-\ell+g} (\nu; q)_{\ell-g}(\nu q^{g}; q)_{L-\ell+g}}
{(\mu \nu; q)_{g} (q; q)_{L-\ell+g}(\nu^{2} q^{g}; q)_{L}}
\\ \times
{_{4}}\phi_{3}
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
q^{-g} & \mu^{-1} \nu^{-1} q^{\ell-g+1} & \nu
q^{\ell-g} & q^{-L+\ell-g}
\\
& \nu^{-1}q^{-L+\ell-2g+1} & \nu \mu^{-1}
q^{\ell-g} & q^{\ell-g+1}
\end{array}; q, q
\right]
\frac{(\mu;
q)_{\infty}(\nu^{2} q^{g}; q)_{\infty}}{(\nu; q)_{\infty}(\nu \mu q^{g};
q)_{\infty}}.
\end{gathered}$$ Again, the equality between and is termwise up to an index shift by $\ell-g$. Using Watson’s transformation formula , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber&
\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}(L)
=
\frac
{(\mu; q)_{\infty}(\nu^{2} q^{g}; q)_{\infty}}
{(\nu; q)_{\infty}(\nu \mu q^{g}; q)_{\infty}}
\\
\label{P_ell_g_rewrite_second_case_87}
&\hspace{10pt}\times
\mu^{L-\ell+g}\,
\frac{(q^{\ell}; q^{-1})_{g} (\nu \mu^{-1} q^{\ell-g};q)_{L-\ell+g} (\nu; q)_{\ell-g}
(\nu q^{g};q)_{L-\ell+g}(\nu^{-2}q^{-L-g+1}; q)_{g} (\nu^{-1}q^{-g+1}; q)_{g}}
{(\mu \nu;q)_{g} (q; q)_{L-\ell+g}(\nu^{2} q^{g}; q)_{L} (\nu^{-1} q^{-L+\ell-2g+1};q)_{g}
(\nu^{-2}q^{-\ell+1}; q)_{g}}
\\ &\hspace{10pt}
\nonumber
\times {_{8}}\phi_{7}
\left[\begin{array}{cccccccc}
q^{-g} & \nu^{2} q^{\ell-g-1} & \nu
q^{\frac{\ell-g+1}2} & -\nu q^{\frac{\ell-g+1}2} & \nu^{2}/q & \mu \nu & \nu
q^{\ell-g} & q^{-L+\ell-g}
\\
& \nu q^{\frac{\ell-g-1}2} & - \nu q^{\frac{\ell-g-1}2}
& q^{\ell-g+1} & \nu/ \mu q^{\ell-g} & \nu & \nu^{2}q^{L} & \nu^{2}q^{\ell}
\end{array}; q, \frac{q^{L+g+1}}{\mu}
\right].
\end{aligned}$$ In both cases and all the prefactors and the terms in the sums for $_8\phi_7$ are manifestly nonnegative under our conditions (for the terms in $_8\phi_7$ this follows from the definition of $_8\phi_7$ as a sum). This completes the proof.
\[rmk:sqrt\_q\_maybe\_a\_proof\_artefact\] The condition $\nu\le \sqrt{q}$ in , which was not present in the $q$-Hahn TASEP [@Corwin2014qmunu], [@CorwinPetrov2015], is essential for the nonnegativity of transition probabilities in our $q$-Hahn PushTASEP. Indeed, $$\mathbf{P}_{1,1}(1)=
\frac{\mu \left(\nu ^2-\nu +1\right)-\nu +q \left( 1+\nu ^2-(\mu +1) \nu\right)}{(1-\mu \nu ) (1-q \nu ^2)},$$ and the numerator in this expression is negative for, say, $q=\frac{1}{4}$, $\mu=\frac{3}{4}$, and $\nu=\frac{2}{3}$.
Degenerations {#sub:degenerations}
-------------
The $q$-Hahn PushTASEP update probabilities $\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}(L)$ are defined by rather complicated expressions . Here we discuss a number of their degenerations when the parameter $q=0$. These lead to some known and some new stochastic particles systems with pushing. In we discuss another type of degeneration where $q\to 1$ which also simplifies the form of the update probabilities.
### Known PushTASEPs
If we set $\nu=0$, the factor $\psi_{q, \nu \mu^{-1} q^{p}, \nu q^{g}, \nu^{2} q^{g+p}}(L-p)$ in simplifies to $$\psi_{q, \nu \mu^{-1} q^{p}, \nu q^{g}, \nu^{2} q^{g+p}}(L-p)
\,\big\vert_{\nu=0}=\mu^{L-p}\frac{(\mu;q)_{\infty}}{(q;q)_{L-p}}.$$ This is the $q$-geometric distribution. The first particle jumps according to this $q$-geometric distribution (note that $p=0$ for the first particle). For the update probabilities of all other particles we have $$\label{deg_P_nu0}
\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}(L)\,\big\vert_{\nu=0}
=
(\mu;q)_{\infty}
\sum_{p=0}^{\min\left\{ \ell,L \right\}}
q^{gp}\mu^{L-p}
\frac{(q^g;q^{-1})_{\ell-p}(q^{-1};q^{-1})_{\ell}}
{(q;q)_{L-p}(q^{-1};q^{-1})_{p}(q^{-1};q^{-1})_{\ell-p}}.$$ We see that the $\nu=0$ process coincides with the geometric $q$-PushTASEP introduced in [@MatveevPetrov2014 Section 6.3], and our parameter $\mu$ corresponds to $\alpha a_i$ (specific to each particle).
Further setting $q=0$ in the geometric $q$-PushTASEP reduces it to a geometric PushTASEP (that is, a discrete time PushTASEP with geometrically distributed jumps). In the sum only one summand will be nonzero, and[^3] $$\label{geom_push_q0_nu0}
\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}(L)\,\big\vert_{\nu=q=0}
=
\sum_{p=0}^{\min\left\{ \ell,L \right\}}
(1-\mu)\,\mu^{L-p}\,\mathbf{1}_{p=\max\left\{ 0,\ell-g \right\}}
=
(1-\mu)\,\mu^{L-\max\{0,\ell-g\}}.$$ In words, the first particle jumps according to a geometric distribution with parameter $\mu$, and for each $i=2,3,\ldots$, the particle $x_{i-1}$ pushes $x_i$ by the minimal possible distance which preserves the order of the particles (cf. ), and after this push the particle $x_i$ makes an independent jump according to the geometric distribution. The geometric PushTASEP is well-known, see, e.g., [@BorFerr2008DF], [@warrenwindridge2009some] for its connections to Schur processes and dynamics on them.
Finally, in both the geometric $q$-PushTASEP and the geometric PushTASEP one can pass to the continuous time by sending $\mu\to0$ and rescaling the discrete time by $\mu^{-1}$. For $q>0$, this produces the continuous time $q$-PushTASEP introduced in [@BorodinPetrov2013NN] and considered in [@CorwinPetrov2015]. For $q=0$ the process reduces to the usual continuous time PushTASEP [@Spitzer1970], [@derrida1991dynamics] (also referred to as the “long-range TASEP”, and viewed as a simplified model of Toom’s anchored interface dynamics).
In the geometric $q$-PushTASEP from [@MatveevPetrov2014], as well as in its degenerations, one can assign update probability with the particle-dependent parameter $\mu_i$ to each $x_i$, and the resulting system remains exactly solvable via $q$-Whittaker or Schur symmetric functions (for the $q$-PushTASEP and PushTASEPs, respectively). Moreover, in the $q$-Hahn TASEP one can also take particle-dependent parameters $(\mu_i,\nu_i)$, under the condition that $\nu_i/\mu_i$ does not depend on the particle. The $q$-moments of the resulting system can be expressed as contour integrals coming from the inhomogeneous stochastic higher spin six vertex model [@BorodinPetrov2016inhom Section 10.3]. It is likely that the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP duality and moment formulas can be extended to include particle-dependent parameters, but here we do not pursue this direction.[^4]
### A new $q=0$ particle system {#sub:gB_push}
Let us briefly describe a limit as $q\searrow0$ and $\mu,\nu$ are fixed, which leads to a new particle system. Define the geometric-Bernoulli probability distribution[^5] on $k\in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge0}$ by $$\mathsf{gB}(\alpha,\beta;k)
:=
\begin{cases}
\beta,& k=0;\\
(1-\beta)(1-\alpha)\alpha^{k-1},& k\ge1.
\end{cases}$$ We have for the two factors in the sum in : $$\label{q0_deg}
\varphi_{q^{-1}, q^{g}, \mu \nu q^{g-1}}(p \mid \ell)
\,\Big\vert_{q=0}
=
\begin{cases}
1,&\textnormal{if $g=0$ and $p=\ell$};\\
\dfrac{1}{1-\mu\nu},&
\textnormal{if $0<g\le \ell$ and $p=\ell-g$};\\[9pt]
\dfrac{-\mu\nu}{1-\mu\nu},&
\textnormal{if $0<g\le\ell$ and $p=\ell-g+1$};\\[6pt]
1,&\textnormal{if $g>\ell$ and $p=0$};\\
0,&\textnormal{otherwise},
\end{cases}$$ and $$\label{q0_deg1}
\psi_{q, \nu \mu^{-1} q^{p}, \nu q^{g}, \nu^{2} q^{g+p}}(L-p)
\,\Big\vert_{q=0}
=
\begin{cases}
\mathsf{gB}(\mu,\frac{(1-\mu)(1+\nu)}{1-\mu\nu};L),
& p=g=0;\\[6pt]
\mathsf{gB}(\mu,\frac{1-\mu}{1-\nu};L),
&p=0,\ g>0;\\[6pt]
\mathsf{gB}(\mu,\frac{1-\mu}{1-\mu\nu};L-p),
& p>0,\ g=0;\\[6pt]
\mathsf{gB}(\mu,1-\mu;L-p),
& p>0,\ g>0.
\end{cases}$$ The first particle in this $q=0$ process jumps according to the distribution $\mathsf{gB}(\mu,\frac{1-\mu}{1-\nu};\cdot)$. To write down the update probabilities of all other particles, observe that the combination of the quantities – takes the form (recall that $\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}(L)=0$ unless $L\ge \ell-g$) $$\label{q0_full_prob_P}
\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}(L)\,\big\vert_{q=0}=
\begin{cases}
\mathsf{gB}(\mu,\frac{1-\mu}{1-\nu};L)
& \ell<g;
\\[6pt]
\mathsf{gB}(\mu,\frac{1-\mu}{1-\mu\nu};L-\ell+g)
& \ell>g,\ L\ge \ell-g;
\\[6pt]
\mathsf{gB}(\mu,\frac{1-\mu}{(1-\nu)(1-\mu\nu)};L)
& \ell=g>0;
\\[6pt]
\mathsf{gB}(\mu,\frac{(1-\mu)(1+\nu)}{1-\mu\nu};L)
& \ell=g=0.
\end{cases}$$ The condition that all the update probabilities $\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}(L)\,\vert_{q=0}$ are nonnegative is equivalent to $0\le \mu<1$ and that all the second parameters of the geometric-Bernoulli distributions in are between $0$ and $1$. This leads to $$-1\le \nu\le 0, \ 0 \le \mu<1
\qquad
\textnormal{or}
\qquad
0<\nu<1,\ \frac{\nu}{1-\nu+\nu^2}\le \mu<1.$$ For $\nu\le 0$ we can interpret as a random pushing caused by the jump of $x_{i-1}$, and as an independent jump of $x_i$ after the push (cf. ).
Setting $\nu=0$ in turns all the geometric-Bernoulli probabilities into the geometric ones with parameter $\mu$. This recovers the discrete time geometric PushTASEP as in . Thus, the $q=0$ degeneration of the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP can be viewed as a new nontrivial one-parameter extension of the geometric PushTASEP. Because $q$-moment formulas do not easily survive the $q\searrow0$ degeneration, here we do not pursue computations for this $q=0$ particle system.
A $q=0$ degeneration of the $q$-Hahn TASEP was introduced in [@derbyshev2012totally], [@povolotsky2015gen_tasep]. Its asymptotic behavior was studied recently in [@SaenzKnizelPetrov2018] via Schur measures.
Duality {#sub:duality}
-------
Like the $q$-Hahn TASEP, our $q$-Hahn PushTASEP satisfies a duality relation which we now describe. This is one of the main results of the present work.
Fix $N$ and $k$ and recall the spaces $\mathbb{X}^N$, $\mathbb{Y}^N$, and $\mathbb{Y}^{N}_k$ –. Let $\mathsf{P}^{\textnormal{PushTASEP}}_{q,\mu,\nu}$ denote the one-step Markov transition operator of the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP acting on $\mathbb{X}^{N}$ (the evolution of the $N$ rightmost particles under the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP is independent from the rest of the system). Recall the duality functional $\mathfrak{H}(\vec x,\vec y)=\prod_{i=0}^{N}q^{y_i(x_i+i)}$ which, by agreement, is zero unless $y_0=0$. Here $\vec x\in \mathbb{X}^N$, $\vec y\in \mathbb{Y}^{N}$. By $\mathfrak{H}_k$ denote the restriction of $\mathfrak{H}$ to $\mathbb{X}^N\times \mathbb{Y}^N_k$.
Let $(q,\mu,\nu)$ be the parameters of the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP satisfying . For any $k\ge 1$ there exists $\mu_0>0$ (depending on $k$) such that for all $0<\mu<\mu_0$ we have \[thm:push\_duality\] $$\label{push_duality_formulation_equation}
\mu^k \mathsf{P}^{\textnormal{PushTASEP}}_{q,\mu,\nu} \mathfrak{H}_k
\bigl(\mathsf{P}^{\textnormal{Boson}}_{q,q/\mu,\nu}\bigr)^{T}
=
\nu^k
\mathfrak{H}_k
\bigl(\mathsf{P}^{\textnormal{Boson}}_{q,q/\nu,\nu}\bigr)^{T}.$$ Here “$T$” means transpose, that is, the Boson operators act in the $\vec y$ variables while the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP transition operator acts on the $\vec x$’s.
The condition that $\mu$ is sufficiently small guarantees the convergence of the infinite series coming from the action of $\mathsf{P}^{\textnormal{PushTASEP}}_{q,\mu,\nu}$. This convergence issue is the reason that only finitely many of the $q$-moments of the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP exist and are given by the contour integrals (, see also ).
Note also that unlike in the $q$-Hahn TASEP duality (), in the Boson operators do not necessarily have nonnegative matrix elements. This duality is [*not*]{} a Markov duality due to this lack of positivity as well as the factors $\mu^k$ and $\nu^k$. Despite this, we will see that it still provides meaningful information about how the expected value of the duality function evolves over time.
The duality relation was guessed from the contour integral formulas () which generalize those known for the geometric $q$-pushTASEP (with step initial data). It was not a priori clear that the guessed formulas encoded expectations for any particle system. However, we discovered the $q$-Hahn pushTASEP introduced here satisfies both the duality (which is a result for general initial data) and the contour integral formulas (again, for step initial data).
Here we directly verify that the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP defined in satisfies . The proof of the duality relation occupies the rest of this subsection and is based on which we prove in the next .
First, let us write out for fixed $\vec x=(x_1,\ldots,x_N )\in \mathbb{X}^{N}$ and $\vec y=(y_0,y_1,\ldots,y_N )\in \mathbb{Y}^{N}_{k}$. We need to show that $$\label{push_duality_formulation_equation_as_sums}
\mu^k
\sum_{\vec x'\in \mathbb{X}^{N}}
\sum_{\vec y'\in \mathbb{Y}^{N}_k}
\mathsf{P}^{\textnormal{PushTASEP}}_{q,\mu,\nu}(\vec x,\vec x')
\mathfrak{H}_k (\vec x',\vec y')
\mathsf{P}^{\textnormal{Boson}}_{q,q/\mu,\nu}(\vec y,\vec y')
=
\nu^k
\sum_{\vec y''\in \mathbb{Y}^{N}_k}
\mathfrak{H}_k (\vec x,\vec y'')
\mathsf{P}^{\textnormal{Boson}}_{q,q/\nu,\nu}(\vec y,\vec y'').$$ If $y_0>0$, both sides of vanish because $\mathsf{P}^{\textnormal{Boson}}_{q,q/\nu,\nu}(\vec y,\vec y')$ is nonzero only when $y_0'\ge y_0$, and we use the definition of $\mathfrak{H}$ . Thus, we can and will assume that $y_0=0$. Continuing, we further expand : $$\label{push_duality_formulation_equation_detail}
\begin{split}
&
\mu^k
\sum_{\vec x'\in \mathbb{X}^{N}}
\sum_{\vec y'\in \mathbb{Y}^{N}_k}
\,\prod_{i=1}^N
\mathbf{P}_{x_{i-1}-x_{i-1}',x_{i-1}-x_i-1}(x_i-x_i')
\prod_{i=1}^{N}
\varphi_{q,q/\mu,\nu}
\left( \sum\nolimits_{j=0}^{i-1}(y_j'-y_j)\;\Big\vert\;y_i \right)
\prod_{r=0}^{N}q^{y_r'(x_r'+r)}
\\
&\hspace{120pt}
=
\nu^k
\sum_{\vec y''\in \mathbb{Y}^{N}_k}
\,
\prod_{i=1}^{N}\varphi_{q,q/\nu,\nu}
\left( \sum\nolimits_{j=0}^{i-1}(y_j''-y_j)\;\Big\vert\;y_i \right)
\prod_{r=0}^{N}q^{y_r''(x_r+r)}
\end{split}$$ (the products over $r$ in both sides vanish if $y_0'$ or $y_0''$, respectively, are positive). We will prove by induction on $N$.
\[lemma:induciton\_base\] For any $x_1\in \mathbb{Z}$ and $y_1\ge0$ there exists $\mu_0>0$ such that for all $0<\mu<\mu_0$ we have $$\mu^{y_1}\varphi_{q,q/\mu,\nu}(0\mid y_1)
\sum_{x_1'=-\infty}^{x_1}\varphi_{q,\mu,\nu}(x_1-x_1'\mid \infty)
\,q^{y_1(x_1'+1)}
=
\nu^{y_1}\varphi_{q,q/\nu,\nu}(0\mid y_1)\,
q^{y_1(x_1+1)}.$$
Expand the definition of $\varphi$ , , and rewrite the claim as $$\mu^{y_1}
\frac{(q/\mu;q)_{y_1}}{(\nu;q)_{y_1}}
\sum_{x_1'=-\infty}^{x_1}
\mu^{x_1-x_1'}
\frac{(\nu/\mu;q)_{x_1-x_1'}}{(q;q)_{x_1-x_1'}}
\frac{(\mu;q)_{\infty}}{(\nu;q)_{\infty}}
\,q^{y_1(x_1'+1)}
=
\nu^{y_1}
\frac{(q/\nu;q)_{y_1}}{(\nu;q)_{y_1}}\,
q^{y_1(x_1+1)}.$$ This simplifies to $$\sum_{d=0}^{\infty}
(\mu q^{-y_1})^{d}
\frac{(\nu/\mu;q)_{d}}{(q;q)_{d}}
\frac{(\mu q^{-y_1};q)_{\infty}}{(\nu q^{-y_1};q)_{\infty}}
=1,\qquad d=x_1-x_1',$$ which is simply $\sum_{d=0}^{\infty}\varphi_{q,\mu q^{-y_1},\nu q^{-y_1}}(d\mid\infty)=1$. Note that the series converges for sufficiently small $\mu$.
The induction step $N-1\to N$ is based on the following lemma:
\[lemma:main\_identity\] For all nonnegative integers $g,\ell,y$ there exists $\mu_0>0$ such that for all $0<\mu<\mu_0$ we have $$\label{main_identity_equation}
\begin{split}
&
\sum_{t=0}^{y}
\frac{(q; q)_{y}}{(q; q)_{t}(q; q)_{y-t}}\,
q^{(g+1)t}
\nu^{y-t} (\nu^{-1}q; q)_{y-t}
(\nu^{2}q^{-1}; q)_{t}
\\&
\hspace{50pt}
=
\sum_{s=0}^{y}
\frac{(q; q)_{y}}{(q; q)_{s}(q; q)_{y-s}}\,
q^{(g+1-\ell)s}
\mu^{y-s}
(\mu^{-1}q; q)_{y-s}
(\mu \nu q^{-1}; q)_{s}
\sum_{L=0}^{\infty} q^{-L(y-s)} \mathbf{P}_{\ell, g}(L).
\end{split}$$
We prove in the next .
Denote $y=y_N$ and $\bar k=k-y$. Write for : $$\begin{aligned}
&
\mu^k
\sum_{\vec x'\in \mathbb{X}^{N}}
\sum_{\vec y'\in \mathbb{Y}^{N}_k}
\,\prod_{i=1}^N
\mathbf{P}_{x_{i-1}-x_{i-1}',x_{i-1}-x_i-1}(x_i-x_i')
\prod_{i=1}^{N}
\varphi_{q,q/\mu,\nu}
\left( \sum\nolimits_{j=0}^{i-1}(y_j'-y_j)\;\Big\vert\;y_i \right)
\prod_{r=0}^{N}q^{y_r'(x_r'+r)}
\\&\hspace{2pt}
=
\mu^{\bar k}
\sum_{\vec x'\in \mathbb{X}^{N-1}}
\sum_{\vec y'\in \mathbb{Y}^{N-1}_{\bar k}}
\prod_{i=1}^{N-1}\mathbf{P}_{x_{i-1}-x_{i-1}',x_{i-1}-x_i-1}(x_i-x_i')
\prod_{i=1}^{N-1}\varphi_{q,q/\mu,\nu}\left( \sum\nolimits_{j=0}^{i-1}(y_j'-y_j)\;\Big\vert\;y_i \right)
\prod_{r=0}^{N-1}q^{y_r'(x_r'+r)}
\\
&\hspace{80pt}\times
\mu^{y}
\sum_{s=0}^{y}\varphi_{q,q/\mu,\nu}(s\mid y)\, q^{s(x_{N-1}'+N-1)}
\sum_{L=0}^{\infty}
q^{(y-s)(x_N-L+N)}\,\mathbf{P}_{x_{N-1}-x_{N-1}',x_{N-1}-x_N-1}(L).
\end{aligned}$$ Here we used the notation $s=y_N-y_N'=\sum_{j=0}^{N-1}(y_j'-y_j)$ and $L=x_N-x_N'$. The factor $q^{s(x_{N-1}'+N-1)}$ appears on the last line because in the sum over $\vec{y}\,'\in\mathbb{Y}^{N-1}_{\bar k}$ in the second line the quantity $y_{N-1}'$ is different from $y_{N-1}'$ in the first line: the former not take into account $s$ Boson particles coming from $y_N$. Continuing the computation, we can now apply with $\ell=x_{N-1}-x_{N-1}'$, $g=x_{N-1}-x_N-1$. By the induction hypothesis: $$\begin{aligned}
&=
\mu^{\bar k}
\sum_{\vec x'\in \mathbb{X}^{N-1}}
\sum_{\vec y'\in \mathbb{Y}^{N-1}_{\bar k}}
\prod_{i=1}^{N-1}\mathbf{P}_{x_{i-1}-x_{i-1}',x_{i-1}-x_i-1}(x_i-x_i')
\prod_{i=1}^{N-1}\varphi_{q,q/\mu,\nu}\left( \sum\nolimits_{j=0}^{i-1}(y_j'-y_j)\;\Big\vert\;y_i \right)
\prod_{r=0}^{N-1}q^{y_r'(x_r'+r)}
\\
&\hspace{82pt}\times
q^{y(x_N+N)}
\nu^y
\sum_{t=0}^{y}
q^{(x_{N-1}-x_N-1)t}\,
\varphi_{q,q/\nu,\nu}(t\mid y)
\\&
=
\nu^{k}\sum_{\vec y''\in \mathbb{Y}^{N-1}_{\bar k}}
\sum_{t=0}^y
\varphi_{q,q/\nu,\nu}(t\mid y)
\prod_{i=1}^{N-1}\varphi_{q,q/\nu,\nu}
\biggl( \sum\limits_{j=0}^{i-1}(y_j''-y_j)\;\Big\vert\;y_i \biggr)
q^{t(x_{N-1}+N-1)+(y-t)(x_N+N)}
\prod_{r=0}^{N-1}q^{y_r''(x_r+r)},
\end{aligned}$$ where $t=y_N-y_N''=\sum_{j=0}^{N-1}(y_j''-y_j)$. We can rewrite the sum over $\vec y\,''\in \mathbb{Y}^{N-1}_{\bar k}$ and $t$ as a sum over $\vec y\,''\in \mathbb{Y}^N_k$, thus arriving at the right-hand side of . Throughout the whole computation, all infinite series converge for sufficiently small $\mu$ because all $y_i$, $y_i'$, $y_i''$ are bounded. This completes the proof of the duality modulo which we establish in the next subsection.
Proof of {#sub:lemma_proof}
---------
First, note that the infinite sum over $L$ in the right-hand side of is the only part of this identity which can bring convergence issues. However, because the $\psi$ term in contains $\mu^{L}$, the sum over $L$ in indeed converges for sufficiently small $\mu$.
**Step 1** (A rational identity). We start with the right-hand side of , and rewrite the sum over $L$ as $$\label{main_identity_equation_proof1}
\begin{split}
&
\sum_{L=0}^{\infty}q^{-L(y-s)}\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}(L)=
\sum_{L=0}^{\infty}
\sum_{p=0}^{\min\{\ell, L\}}
q^{-L(y-s)}
\varphi_{q^{-1}, q^{g}, \mu \nu q^{g-1}}(p \mid \ell)
\,
\psi_{q, \nu \mu^{-1} q^{p}, \nu q^{g}, \nu^{2} q^{g+p}}(L-p)
\\&
\hspace{130pt}=
\sum_{p=0}^{\ell}
\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}
q^{-(m+p)(y-s)}
\varphi_{q^{-1}, q^{g}, \mu \nu q^{g-1}}(p \mid \ell)
\,
\psi_{q, \nu \mu^{-1} q^{p}, \nu q^{g}, \nu^{2} q^{g+p}}(m).
\end{split}$$ We use one of Heine’s transformation formulas [@GasperRahman (III.2)], $$_2\phi_1
\left[
\begin{array}{cc} a & b \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{c} \end{array};
q, z
\right]
=
\frac{(c/b;q)_{\infty}(bz;q)_{\infty}}{(c;q)_{\infty}(z;q)_{\infty}}\,
{}_2\phi_1
\left[
\begin{array}{cc} abz/c & b \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{bz} \end{array};
q, c/b
\right],$$ with $a=\nu q^g$, $b=\nu\mu^{-1}q^p$, $c=\nu^2q^{g+p}$, and $z=\mu q^{s-y}$, to rewrite $$\label{main_identity_equation_proof2}
\mathrm{RHS}\,
\eqref{main_identity_equation_proof1}
=
\sum_{p=0}^{\ell}
q^{p(s-y)}
\varphi_{q^{-1}, q^{g}, \mu \nu q^{g-1}}(p \mid \ell)
\,
\frac{(\nu q^{p+s-y};q)_{y-s}}
{(\mu q^{s-y};q)_{y-s}}
\sum_{r=0}^{y-s}
\bigl(\mu\nu q^{g}\bigr)^r\,
\frac{(q^{s-y};q)_r (\nu\mu^{-1}q^p;q)_r}{(\nu q^{p+s-y};q)_r(q;q)_r}.$$ The advantage is that now the $q$-hypergeometric sum over $r$ terminates. Thus, to prove the desired identity we need to establish the following, $$\label{main_identity_equation_proof3}
\begin{split}
&
\sum_{t=0}^{y}
\frac{(q; q)_{y}}{(q; q)_{t}(q; q)_{y-t}}\,
q^{(g+1)t}
\nu^{y-t} (\nu^{-1}q; q)_{y-t}
(\nu^{2}q^{-1}; q)_{t}
\\&\hspace{5pt}=
\sum_{s=0}^{y}
\sum_{r=0}^{y-s}
\sum_{p=0}^{\ell}
\frac{(q; q)_{y}}{(q; q)_{s}(q; q)_{y-s}}\,
q^{(g+1-\ell)s}
(\mu \nu q^{g-p})^{y-s}
(\nu^{-1} q^{-g})^{y-s-r}
\\
&\hspace{80pt}
\times
(\mu^{-1}q; q)_{y-s}
(\mu \nu q^{-1}; q)_{s}\,
\varphi_{q^{-1}, q^{g}, \mu \nu q^{g-1}}(p \mid \ell)\,
\varphi_{q, \nu \mu^{-1} q^{p}, \mu^{-1} q}(y-s-r \mid y-s).
\end{split}$$ where we packed parts of into the second $\varphi$ expression. Note that now this is an identity of rational functions not involving infinite summation, so we do not need to worry about convergence.
**Step 2** (Induction base). We will prove by induction on $\ell$, but this requires a number of additional transformations. The base of the induction $\ell=0$ is $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{t=0}^{y}
\frac{(q; q)_{y}}{(q; q)_{t}(q; q)_{y-t}}\,
q^{(g+1)t}
\nu^{y-t} (\nu^{-1}q; q)_{y-t}
(\nu^{2}q^{-1}; q)_{t}
\\
=
\sum_{t=0}^{y}
\frac{(q; q)_{y}}{(q; q)_{t}(q; q)_{y-t}}\,
q^{(g+1)t} (\nu^{-1}q; q)_{y-t}
\sum_{r=0}^{t} \nu^{y-t} (\nu^{2}q^{-1}; q)_{t} \,
\varphi_{q, \mu \nu q^{-1}, \nu^{2}q^{-1}}(r\mid t),\end{gathered}$$ where we have set $t=r+s$ in the right-hand side. This holds because the $\varphi$’s sum to one, cf. .
**Step 3** (Setting $\nu=q^{-x}$). We now turn to the induction step in the proof of . For any $\ell\ge0$, both sides of this identity are rational functions in $\nu$, so it suffices to prove the identity for infinitely many values of $\nu$. We will show it for $\nu = q^{-x}$ for large enough positive integers $x$. Use the “self-duality” property of $\varphi$ to write $$\label{main_identity_equation_proof4_RHS_rewritten}
\begin{split}
\mathrm{RHS}\,\eqref{main_identity_equation_proof3}
&=
\sum_{s=0}^{y}
\sum_{p=0}^{\ell}
\frac{(q; q)_{y}}{(q; q)_{s}(q; q)_{y-s}}\,
q^{(g+1-\ell)s}
(\mu q^{g-p-x})^{y-s}
(\mu q^{-x-1}; q)_{s}\,
\varphi_{q^{-1}, q^{g}, \mu q^{-x+g-1}}(p \mid \ell)
\\
&\hspace{80pt}
\times
(\mu^{-1}q; q)_{y-s}
\sum_{d=0}^{x-g}
q^{(y-s)d}
\varphi_{q, \mu^{-1} q^{p-x}, \mu^{-1} q}(d \mid x-g).
\end{split}$$
**Step 4** (A $q$-exponential generating series). Denote $$\Pi(\alpha,\beta):={}_1\phi_0(\beta;q,\alpha)=
\sum_{y=0}^{+\infty}\frac{(\beta;q)_y}{(q;q)_y}\alpha^y
=
\frac{(\alpha \beta;q)_{\infty}}{(\alpha;q)_\infty}$$ (the last equality is the $q$-binomial theorem). Note that $$\label{Pi_properties}
\Pi(\alpha,\beta)^{-1}=\Pi(\alpha\beta,1/\beta),
\qquad
\Pi(\alpha/q,\beta)-\Pi(\alpha,\beta)=
(1-\beta)\frac{\alpha}{q}\,\Pi(\alpha/q,\beta q).$$
Let $\chi$ be a formal parameter. Multiply both sides of the desired identity $$\mathrm{LHS}\,\eqref{main_identity_equation_proof3}=\mathrm{RHS}\,\eqref{main_identity_equation_proof4_RHS_rewritten}$$ by $\chi^y/(q;q)_y$ and sum over $y$ from $0$ to $+\infty$. We obtain the following identity that we need to establish: $$\label{main_identity_equation_proof5}
\begin{split}
&
\Pi(\chi q^{g+1},q^{-2x-1})
\Pi(\chi q^{-x},q^{x+1})
\Pi(\chi \mu q^{g-x-\ell},\mu^{-1} q^{x+1})
\\
&\hspace{20pt}
=
\sum_{z=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\chi^{z}(\mu^{-1}q; q)_{z}}{(q; q)_{z}}
\sum_{p=0}^{\ell}
(\mu q^{g-p-x})^{z}\,
\varphi_{q^{-1}, q^{g}, \mu q^{-x+g-1}}(p \mid \ell)
\sum_{d=0}^{x-g}
q^{z d}\,
\varphi_{q, \mu^{-1} q^{p-x}, \mu^{-1} q}(d \mid x-g)
.
\end{split}$$ The third factor $\Pi$ in the left-hand side of arises by applying the first identity in to $\Pi(\chi q^{g+1-\ell},\mu q^{-x-1})$ coming from .
**Step 5** (Recursion in $\ell$ for the left-hand side of ). Denote the left-hand side of by $L(\mu,\ell)$. The second identity in implies that $$\label{main_identity_equation_proof6_recursion_relation_LHS}
L(\mu,\ell+1)-L(\mu,\ell)=
(1-\mu^{-1}q^{x+1})\chi\mu q^{g-\ell-x-1}
L(\mu/q,\ell).$$ To prove the inductive step $\ell\to\ell+1$ it now suffices to verify the same recursion relation for the right-hand side of .
**Step 6** (Recursion in $\ell$ for the right-hand side of ). We now aim to check that the right-hand side of satisfies recursion . We will perform this check for each coefficient by $\chi^z$ separately. That is, we need to show that for every fixed $z\in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge0}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&
\sum_{p=0}^{\ell+1}
q^{-pz}
\,
\varphi_{q^{-1}, q^{g}, \mu q^{-x+g-1}}(p \mid \ell+1)
\sum_{d=0}^{x-g}
q^{z d}\,
\varphi_{q, \mu^{-1} q^{p-x}, \mu^{-1} q}(d \mid x-g)
\\
&\nonumber
\hspace{60pt}-
\sum_{p=0}^{\ell}
q^{-pz}
\,
\varphi_{q^{-1}, q^{g}, \mu q^{-x+g-1}}(p \mid \ell)
\sum_{d=0}^{x-g}
q^{z d}\,
\varphi_{q, \mu^{-1} q^{p-x}, \mu^{-1} q}(d \mid x-g)
\\&
\label{main_identity_equation_proof7}
=
(1-\mu^{-1}q^{x+1})q^{-\ell}\,
\frac{q^{-z}-1}{1-\mu^{-1}q}
\\&\nonumber
\hspace{80pt}
\times
\sum_{p=0}^{\ell}
q^{-p(z-1)}\,\varphi_{q^{-1},q^g,\mu q^{-x+g-2}}(p\mid \ell)
\sum_{d=0}^{x-g}
q^{(z-1)d}\,\varphi_{q,\mu^{-1}q^{p-x+1},\mu^{-1}q^2}(d\mid x-g)
.
$$ Note that the factor $\chi$ in the right-hand side of leads to a shift $z\mapsto z-1$ which combined with the $q$-shifting of $\mu$ brings certain extra terms into the right-hand side of the above identity.
**Step 7** (Comparing coefficients by $q^{kz}$). It now suffices to show that the coefficients by $q^{kz}$ for all $k\in \mathbb{Z}$ in both sides of are the same. Let us also set $\gamma=q^{-g}$, this will later serve as a generic parameter. This leads to the following identity to be checked: $$\label{main_identity_equation_proof8}
\begin{split}
&
\sum_{p=0}^{\ell+1}
\Bigl(
\varphi_{q^{-1}, \gamma^{-1}, \mu \gamma^{-1}q^{-x-1}}(p \mid \ell+1)
\,
\varphi_{q, \mu^{-1} q^{p-x}, \mu^{-1} q}(p+k \mid x-g)
\\&\hspace{140pt}
-
\varphi_{q^{-1}, \gamma^{-1}, \mu \gamma^{-1} q^{-x-1}}(p \mid \ell)
\,
\varphi_{q, \mu^{-1} q^{p-x}, \mu^{-1} q}(p+k \mid x-g)
\Bigr)
\\&
=
\frac{(1-\mu^{-1}q^{x+1})q^{-\ell-k}}{1-q/\mu}
\sum_{p=0}^{\ell+1}
\Bigl(
q^{-1}
\varphi_{q^{-1},\gamma^{-1},\mu\gamma^{-1} q^{-x-2}}(p\mid \ell)
\,
\varphi_{q,\mu^{-1}q^{p-x+1},\mu^{-1}q^2}(p+k+1\mid x-g)
\\&\hspace{140pt}
-
\varphi_{q^{-1},\gamma^{-1},\mu\gamma^{-1} q^{-x-2}}(p\mid \ell)
\,
\varphi_{q,\mu^{-1}q^{p-x+1},\mu^{-1}q^2}(p+k\mid x-g)
\Bigr).
\end{split}
$$ Simplifying this identity and rewriting it in a $q$-hypergeometric notation (cf. ) for $k\ge0$ (the case $k\le 0$ is considered in a similar manner), we obtain $$\begin{split}
\label{main_identity_equation_proof9}
&
\frac{q^{k+1} \left(1-\gamma q^l\right) \left(1-\mu q^x\right)}{\left(\mu-q^{x+1} \right) \left(\gamma-\mu q^k \right)}
\,
{_{4}}\phi_{3} \left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
q^{\ell+1} & \mu q^{-x-1} & q^x & \gamma q^{x-k}
\\
&\mu q^x & \gamma q^\ell & q^{-k-1}
\end{array}
; q^{-1}, q^{-1} \right]
\\
&\hspace{40pt}
-
\frac{q^{k-x} \left(1-\mu q^x\right) \left(\mu-\gamma q^{l+x+1} \right)}{\left(\mu-q^{x+1} \right) \left(\gamma-\mu q^k \right)}
\,
{_{4}}\phi_{3} \left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
q^{\ell} & \mu q^{-x-1} & q^x & \gamma q^{x-k}
\\
&\mu q^x & \gamma q^{\ell-1} & q^{-k-1}
\end{array}
; q^{-1}, q^{-1} \right]
\\&
=
\frac{q^{-x} \left(1-q^{k+x+1}\right) \left(\gamma q^x-q^k\right)}{\left(1-q^{k+1}\right) \left(\gamma -\mu q^k\right)}
\,
{_{4}}\phi_{3} \left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
q^{\ell} & \mu q^{-x-2} & q^x & \gamma q^{x-k-1}
\\
&\mu q^{x-1} & \gamma q^{\ell-1} & q^{-k-2}
\end{array}
; q^{-1}, q^{-1} \right]
\\
&\hspace{90pt}
-
{_{4}}\phi_{3} \left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
q^{\ell} & \mu q^{-x-2} & q^x & \gamma q^{x-k}
\\
&\mu q^{x-1} & \gamma q^{\ell-1} & q^{-k-1}
\end{array}
; q^{-1}, q^{-1} \right].
\end{split}$$ In passing from to we have assumed that $\gamma$ is not an integer power of $q$: as both sides of are rational in $\gamma$, it suffices to establish for infinitely many values of $\gamma$. Note that all the $q$-hypergeometric series in are terminating.
**Step 8** (Extension and proof of the $q$-hypergeometric identity). To establish , consider its extension for incomplete $q$-hypergeometric series: $${_{4}}\phi_{3}^{[p]} \left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
a & b & c & d
\\
&e & f & g
\end{array}
; q, z \right]:=
\sum_{n=0}^{p}
\frac{(a;q)_p(b;q)_p(c;q)_p(d;q)_p}{(q;q)_p(e;q)_p(f;q)_p(g;q)_p}z^n.$$ Then the right-hand side of the analogue of is nonzero but can be explicitly computed: $$\begin{aligned}
&\nonumber
\frac{q^{k+1} \left(1-\gamma q^l\right) \left(1-\mu q^x\right)}{\left(\mu-q^{x+1} \right) \left(\gamma-\mu q^k \right)}
\,
{_{4}}\phi_{3}^{[p]} \left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
q^{\ell+1} & \mu q^{-x-1} & q^x & \gamma q^{x-k}
\\
&\mu q^x & \gamma q^\ell & q^{-k-1}
\end{array}
; q^{-1}, q^{-1} \right]
\\ \nonumber
&\hspace{40pt}
-
\frac{q^{k-x} \left(1-\mu q^x\right) \left(\mu-\gamma q^{l+x+1} \right)}{\left(\mu-q^{x+1} \right) \left(\gamma-\mu q^k \right)}
\,
{_{4}}\phi_{3}^{[p]} \left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
q^{\ell} & \mu q^{-x-1} & q^x & \gamma q^{x-k}
\\
&\mu q^x & \gamma q^{\ell-1} & q^{-k-1}
\end{array}
; q^{-1}, q^{-1} \right]
\\&
\label{main_identity_equation_proof10}
\hspace{40pt}
-
\frac{q^{-x} \left(1-q^{k+x+1}\right) \left(\gamma q^x-q^k\right)}{\left(1-q^{k+1}\right) \left(\gamma -\mu q^k\right)}
\,
{_{4}}\phi_{3}^{[p]} \left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
q^{\ell} & \mu q^{-x-2} & q^x & \gamma q^{x-k-1}
\\
&\mu q^{x-1} & \gamma q^{\ell-1} & q^{-k-2}
\end{array}
; q^{-1}, q^{-1} \right]
\\ \nonumber
&\hspace{40pt}
+
{_{4}}\phi_{3}^{[p]} \left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
q^{\ell} & \mu q^{-x-2} & q^x & \gamma q^{x-k}
\\
&\mu q^{x-1} & \gamma q^{\ell-1} & q^{-k-1}
\end{array}
; q^{-1}, q^{-1} \right]
\\& \nonumber
\hspace{80pt}
=\frac{q^{k+1} (q^\ell;q^{-1})_p (q^x;q^{-1})_{p+1} (q^{-x-1} \mu ;q^{-1})_{p+1}
(q^{x-k} \gamma ; q^{-1})_{p+1}}
{(\gamma-\mu q^k)(\mu-q^{x+1})(q^{-1};q^{-1})_p
(q^{-k-1};q^{-1})_{p+1}
(q^{\ell-1} \gamma ;q^{-1})_p (q^{x-1} \mu ;q^{-1})_p}.\end{aligned}$$ This last identity is readily proven by induction on $p$. Indeed, both $$\textnormal{
$\mathrm{LHS}\,\eqref{main_identity_equation_proof10}\,[p+1]-\mathrm{LHS}\,\eqref{main_identity_equation_proof10}\,[p]$
\qquad and\qquad
$\mathrm{RHS}\,\eqref{main_identity_equation_proof10}\,[p+1]-\mathrm{RHS}\,\eqref{main_identity_equation_proof10}\,[p]$
}$$ are simple sums of ratios of $q$-Pochhammer symbols, and their equality is checked directly. Taking any $p\ge\ell+1$ makes the right-hand side of vanish, and leads to .
This completes the proof of .
Contour integral observables {#sub:push_contour_integrals}
----------------------------
In this subsection we utilize the duality of to obtain nested contour integral formulas for the $q$-moments of the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP. Fix $k\ge1$, and denote $\vec n=(n_1\ge \ldots\ge n_k\ge0 )$ with $n_1\le N$. Consider the joint moment $$\label{push_q_moment_definition}
u(t;\vec n):=
\mathop{\mathbb{E}}
\biggl[
\prod_{j=1}^{k}
q^{x_{n_j}(t)+n_j}
\biggr]
,
\qquad
t=0,1,2,\ldots ,$$ where the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP starts from the step initial configuration $x_i(0)=-i$, $i=1,2,\ldots$. First, let us deal with convergence of the expectation .
\[lemma:finiteness\_q\_moments\] When $0<\mu<q^k$ and the other $q$-Hahn PushTASEP parameters satisfy , the $q$-moment $u(t;\vec n)$ is finite for all $t\in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge0}$.
By the definition of the process in , the $q$-Hahn pushTASEP one-step transition probability $\vec x\to \vec x'$ can be bounded from above by $\mathsf{polynomial}(\vec x-\vec x')\cdot \mu^{\sum_{i=1}^{N}(x_i-x_i')}$. Multiplying this estimate by $\prod_{j=1}^{k}
q^{x_{n_j}(t)+n_j}$ and summing over $\vec x'$ (which can take arbitrarily large negative values) we get a finite sum if $\mu<q^k$.
The bound $\mu<q^k$ in cannot be relaxed as the $k$-th $q$-moment of the first particle after the first step has the form $$\mathop{\mathbb{E}}\bigl[q^{k (x_1(1)+1)}\bigr]
=
\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}q^{-k\ell}\,\varphi_{q,\mu,\nu}(\ell\mid\infty)
=
\frac{(\mu;q)_{\infty}}{(\nu;q)_{\infty}}
\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\mu q^{-k}
\right)^{\ell}
\frac{(\nu/\mu;q)_{\ell}}{(q;q)_{\ell}}
=
\frac{(\nu q^{-k};q)_k}{(\mu q^{-k};q)_{k}}
=
\frac{(\nu/q;q^{-1})_k}{(\mu/q;q^{-1})_k},$$ and this series converges only when $|\mu q^{-k}|<1$.
implies that in and we can take $\mu_0=q^k$.
\[thm:push\_q\_moments\_in\_the\_text\] When $0<\mu<q^k$ and the other $q$-Hahn PushTASEP parameters satisfy , we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{push_q_moment_formula_in_the_text}
u(t;\vec n)=
\frac{(-1)^k q^{\frac{k(k-1)}{2}}}{(2\pi\sqrt{-1})^k}
\oint\frac{dz_1}{z_1}
\ldots
\oint\frac{dz_k}{z_k}
\prod_{1\le A<B\le k}
\frac{z_A-z_B}{z_A-qz_B}
\\\times
\prod_{j=1}^{k}
\Biggl[
\left(
\frac{1-\nu z_j}{1-z_j}
\right)^{n_j}
\left(
\frac{1-\nu q^{-1}z_j^{-1}}
{1-\mu q^{-1}z_j^{-1}}
\right)^t
\frac{1}{1-\nu z_j}
\Biggr]
\end{gathered}$$ for all $\vec n=(n_1\ge \ldots\ge n_k\ge0 )$. Here each contour for $z_A$ is a simple closed curve around $1$ which encircles the contour $qz_B$ for $B>A$, but not the points $\mu/q$ or $1/\nu$. See for an illustration.
The condition $\mu<q^{-k}$ also implies the existence of the $k$ nested integration contours in .
\[scale=2, thick\] (0,-1)–++(0,2); (-1,0)–++(5,0); (2,0) circle (1pt) node\[below,yshift=-2\] [1]{}; (1.5,0) circle (1pt) node\[below,yshift=-2\] [$q$]{}; (3.4,0) circle (1pt) node\[below,yshift=-2\] [$1/\nu$]{}; (.5,0) circle (1pt) node\[below,yshift=-2\] [$\mu/q$]{}; (1.6,0) circle (.8); at (2,.8) [$z_1$]{}; (1.7,0) circle (.65); (1.8,0) circle (.5); at (1.7,-.39) [$z_3$]{};
We establish this theorem by showing that both sides of satisfy certain free evolution equations with two-body boundary conditions. This approach to obtaining $q$-moment formulas was applied for $q$-TASEPs and ASEP in [@BorodinCorwinSasamoto2012], [@BorodinCorwin2013discrete], and for the $q$-Hahn TASEP () in [@Corwin2014qmunu].
Start with the right-hand side of and denote it by $v(t;\vec n)$, where $\vec n=(n_1,\ldots,n_k )$, $n_i\ge0$, are not necessarily weakly decreasing. We need to show that $u(t;\vec n)=v(t;\vec n)$ for weakly decreasing $n_1\ge \ldots\ge n_k\ge0$. Let $$\nabla^j_{a,b}f(\vec n):=a f(n_1,\ldots,n_k)+b f(n_1,\ldots,n_{j-1},n_j-1 ,n_{j+1},\ldots,n_k ).$$ Similarly to [@BorodinCorwin2013discrete], [@Corwin2014qmunu] one can readily check that the contour integrals $v(t;\vec n)$ satisfy the *free evolution equations* $$\label{free_ev_equations}
\prod_{j=1}^k
\nabla^{j}_{\mu-q,q-\mu\nu}v(t+1; n_1,\ldots,n_k )=
\prod_{j=1}^{k}
\nabla^{j}_{\nu-q,q-\nu^2}v(t;n_1,\ldots,n_k )$$ with the boundary conditions
1. $v(t;\vec n)=0$ if $n_k=0$;
2. $v(0;\vec n)=1$ if $n_1\ge \ldots\ge n_k>0 $;
3. If $n_i=n_{i+1}$ for some $i=1,\ldots,k-1$, then $$\label{two_body_boundary}
\begin{split}
&
\frac{\nu(1-q)}{1-q\nu}v(t;n_1,\ldots,n_i-1,n_{i+1}-1,\ldots,n_k )
+
\frac{q-\nu}{1-q \nu}v(t;n_1,\ldots,n_i,n_{i+1}-1 ,\ldots,n_k )
\\
&\hspace{60pt}
+
\frac{1-q}{1-q\nu}v(t;n_1,\ldots,n_i,n_{i+1},\ldots ,n_k )
-
v(t;n_1,\ldots,n_i-1,n_{i+1},\ldots,n_k)=0.
\end{split}$$
In more detail, the equations are satisfied by the integrand in , and the boundary conditions require contour integration. In particular, combining the integrals as in gives rise to a factor $z_i-qz_{i+1}$ under the integral which cancels the corresponding factor in the double product over $A<B$. The integrand then becomes skew symmetric in $z_i$ and $z_{i+1}$, while the $z_i$ and $z_{i+1}$ integration contours can be chosen to coincide. This implies that the combination of the contour integrals vanishes.
Next, from [@Povolotsky2013] or [@Corwin2014qmunu] (up to a notation change) it follows that for any function $v(t;\vec n)$ satisfying the two-body boundary conditions we have $$\prod_{j=1}^k \nabla^{j}_{1-p,p} v(t;\vec n)=
\mathsf{P}^{\textnormal{Boson}}_{q,(1-\nu)p+\nu,\nu}v(t;\vec n).$$ Therefore, the free evolution equations together with the two-body boundary conditions are equivalent to the *true evolution equations* $$\label{true_ev_eq}
\mu^k
\mathsf{P}^{\textnormal{Boson}}_{q,q/\mu,\nu}v(t+1;\vec n)
=
\nu^k
\mathsf{P}^{\textnormal{Boson}}_{q,q/\nu,\nu}v(t;\vec n).$$
Finally, from the duality () it follows that the $q$-moments $u(t;\vec n)$ satisfy the same true evolution equations (the time evolution $t\to t+1$ corresponds to the application of the one-step transition operator $\mathsf{P}^{\textnormal{PushTASEP}}_{q,\mu,\nu}$). Moreover, $u(t;\vec n)$ clearly satisfy the remaining boundary conditions **1** and **2** above (recall that, by agreement, $x_0\equiv +\infty$). The uniqueness of the solution to the true evolution equations with the boundary conditions **1** and **2** follows from the invertibility of the $q$-Boson operator based on its spectral theory [@BCPS2014], [@CorwinPetrov2015]. Hence $u(t;\vec n)=v(t;\vec n)$ for all $N\ge n_1\ge \ldots\ge n_k\ge0 $, as desired.
Although only finitely many of the $q$-moments of the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP are finite, based on them we conjecture a Fredholm determinantal formula[^6] for the $e_q$-Laplace transform of the single particle location in the process. When $\nu=0$, the Fredholm determinant identity is proven rigorously [@BorodinCorwinFerrariVeto2013] using the formalism of $q$-Whittaker measures and symmetric functions instead of duality and moment formulas. A duality-based proof for the continuous time $q$-PushTASEP (i.e., $\nu=0$ and $\mu\to0$ in our notation) is also possible, cf. [@MatveevPetrov2014 Theorem 7.10].
\[conj:conjecture\_push\_Fredholm\] For the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP started from the step initial configuration we have $$\mathop{\mathbb{E}}
\biggl[
\frac{1}{\left( \zeta q^{x_n(t)+n};q \right)_{\infty}}
\biggr]
=
\det\left( I+K_{\zeta} \right),
\qquad \zeta\in \mathbb{C}\setminus \mathbb{R}_{>0}.$$ Here $K_{\zeta}$ is a kernel of an integral operator on a small positively oriented circle around $1$ having the form $$K_\zeta(w,w')=\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{-1}}
\int_{-\infty\sqrt{-1}+\frac12}^{\infty\sqrt{-1}+\frac12}
\frac{\pi}{\sin(-\pi s)}
\hspace{.3pt}
(-\zeta)^s
\frac{g(w)}{g(q^s w)}
\frac{ds}{q^s w-w'},$$ with $$g(w)=
\left(
\frac{(\nu w;q)_{\infty}}{(w;q)_{\infty}}
\right)^n
\left(
\frac{(\mu w^{-1};q)_{\infty}}{(\nu w^{-1};q)_{\infty}}
\right)^t
\frac{1}{(\nu w;q)_\infty}
.$$
A direct proof of this formula by expanding $1/(\zeta q^{x_t(t)+n};q)_\infty$ as a series in $\zeta$ close to $0$, and interchanging the summation and the expectation is not possible as the random variable $x_n(t)+n$ has only finitely many moments. (However, direct proofs work for related processes like $q$-TASEP and ASEP, cf. [@BorodinCorwin2011Macdonald], [@BorodinCorwinSasamoto2012].) It would be very interesting to find an extension of the symmetric functions formalism used in [@BorodinCorwinFerrariVeto2013] in order to establish . Another way around this obstacle which leads to observables suitable for asymptotic analysis was suggested in [@imamura2017fluctuations], [@imamura2019stationary]. Overall, we believe that our conjecture can be established with the help of a good notion of analytic continuation from known Fredholm determinantal formulas.
If or another family of suitable observables is available, then we expect the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP to display the common behavior characteristic of the KPZ universality class. That is, as $t\to+\infty$, the height function divided by $t$ should have a limit shape, and the (single-point) fluctuations of the height function around this limit shape should have scale $t^{1/3}$ and be governed by the GUE Tracy–Widom distribution. The corresponding results for the $q$-TASEP can be found in [@FerrariVeto2013], [@barraquand2015phase].
Beta limit {#sec:beta_limit}
==========
In this section we consider the limit of our $q$-Hahn PushTASEP as $q,\mu,\nu\to1$. A similar limit of the $q$-Hahn TASEP was discovered in [@CorwinBarraquand2015Beta]. The latter is related to the distribution of the random walk in beta-distributed random environment. From the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP we obtain a more complicated model of polymer type. It is unclear whether this new model is related to a random walk in random environment.
Definition of the limiting model {#sub:def_beta_limit_model}
--------------------------------
Consider the random variables $X(i,t):=q^{-(x_i(t)+i)}$, where $\vec x(t)$ is the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP with the step initial condition $x_i(0)=-i$, $i\ge1$. Fix $N$ and view $X(i,t)$ as a random process with values in $(0,1]$, indexed by $(i,t)\in \left\{ 1,\ldots,N \right\}\times \mathbb{Z}_{\ge0}$. Scale the parameters as $$\label{beta_parameters_scaling}
\textnormal{$q=e^{-{\epsilon}}$, $\mu=e^{-\bar \mu {\epsilon}}$,
$\nu=e^{-\bar\nu {\epsilon}}$, where $0<\bar\mu<\bar\nu$, $\bar{\nu}\ge\tfrac{1}{2}$, and ${\epsilon}\searrow0$.}$$ Note that these scaled $(q,\mu,\nu)$ fall under the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP parameter restrictions . We will show that as ${\epsilon}\to0$, the process $X(i,t)$ converges to a certain process $Z(i,t)$ defined as follows using the probability distributions from .
\[def:Z\_process\] Fix $\bar{\mu}$ $\bar{\nu}$. Let the random process $Z(i, t)$, $(i, t) \in \mathbb{Z}_{> 0} \times \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$, be defined recursively by:
1. $Z(i, 0) = 1$ for all $i$.
2. Set $Z(1,t) = Z(1,t-1) \cdot \mathscr{B}_1(0, \bar{\mu}, \bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu})$, where $\mathscr{B}_1$ is the generalized beta distribution .
3. For $i >1$ and $t > 0$ with probability one $Z(i, t-1) \neq Z(i-1,t)$. Then define $$\label{NBB_recurrence}
Z(i, t) :=
\begin{cases}
Z(i, t-1)\cdot \mathscr{NBB}_1
\left(
2\bar{\nu}-1, \frac{Z(i-1, t)^{-1} - Z(i-1,t-1)^{-1}}{Z(i,t-1)^{-1} - Z(i-1,t-1)^{-1}}, \frac{Z(i,t-1)}{Z(i-1, t)}, \bar{\mu}, \bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu}
\right),\\
\hspace{230pt}
\textnormal{if $Z(i, t-1) < Z(i-1,t)$};
\\[6pt]
Z(i-1, t)\cdot \mathscr{NBB}_1
\left(
2\bar{\nu}-1, \frac{Z(i, t-1)^{-1} - Z(i-1,t-1)^{-1}}{Z(i-1, t)^{-1} - Z(i-1, t-1)^{-1}}, \frac{Z(i-1, t)}{Z(i, t-1)}, \bar{\mu}, \bar{\nu}
\right),\\
\hspace{230pt}
\textnormal{if $Z(i-1,t) < Z(i, t-1)$},
\end{cases}$$ where $\mathscr{NBB}_1$ is the distribution given by .
Let us discuss two points related to the definition of the process $Z(i,t)$. First, note that when $\bar{\nu}=\frac{1}{2}$, the recurrence simplifies: $$Z(i, t) :=
\begin{cases}
Z(i, t-1)\cdot \mathscr{B}_1\left(\frac{Z(i,t-1)}{Z(i-1, t)}, \bar{\mu}, \frac{1}{2}-\bar{\mu}\right), & \text{if} \ Z(i, t-1) < Z(i-1,t);
\\[7pt]
Z(i-1, t)\cdot \mathscr{B}_1\left(\frac{Z(i-1, t)}{Z(i, t-1)}, \bar{\mu}, \frac{1}{2} \right), & \text{if} \ Z(i-1,t) < Z(i, t-1).
\end{cases}$$ In particular, there is no immediate dependence on $Z(i-1, t-1)$ in the recurrence formula. Moreover, if above we have $Z(i-1, t)=Z$ and $Z(i, t-1) = \delta Z$, then $Z(i, t)\to Z$ as $\delta \to 1$ because $\mathscr{B}_1$ converges to the delta measure at $1$.
Second, the definition of $Z(i,t)$ when $Z(i,t-1)=Z(i-1,t)$ also makes sense even if $\bar{\nu}>\frac{1}{2}$, as follows from the next lemma:
\[lemma:Z\_Z\_equal\_remark\_1\_15\] Let $\bar{\nu}>\frac{1}{2}$. Assume that $$Z(i-1, t-1)=X,
\qquad
Z(i-1, t)=Z < X,
\qquad
Z(i, t-1) = (1-\gamma)Z.$$ Then $Z(i, t) \to Z \cdot \mathscr{B}_1(Z/X, \bar{\mu}, 2\bar{\nu}-1)$ as $\gamma \to 0$.
We use Euler’s transformation formula $$\begin{aligned}
{_{2}F_{1}}(a, b; c; z) = (1-z)^{c-a-b}{_{2}F_{1}}(c-a, c-b; c; z)\end{aligned}$$ and the Gauss’s theorem $$\begin{aligned}
{_{2}F_{1}}(a, b; c, 1) = \frac{\Gamma(c)\Gamma(c-a-b)}{\Gamma(c-a)\Gamma(c-b)}, \quad c > \max\{0, a, b, a+b\}.\end{aligned}$$ For $\gamma \to 0+$ the probability density of $\frac{Z(i, t)}{(1-\gamma)Z}$ (conditioned on $X$ and $Z$) at $x$ is $$\begin{aligned}
&{_{2}F_{1}}
\left(
2\bar{\nu}-1, \bar{\nu};
\bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu};
\frac{(Z^{-1}-X^{-1})(1-x)}{(1-(1-\gamma)x)(Z^{-1}(1-\gamma)^{-1} - X^{-1})}
\right)
\\
&\hspace{80pt}
\times
\frac{x^{\bar{\mu}-1}(1-x)^{\bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu}-1}}
{(1-(1-\gamma)x)^{\bar{\nu}}}
\frac{\gamma^{\bar{\mu}+2\bar{\nu}-1}\Gamma(\bar{\nu})}
{\Gamma(\bar{\mu}) \Gamma(\bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu})}
\left(
\frac{Z^{-1}(1-\gamma)^{-1}}
{Z^{-1}(1-\gamma)^{-1} - X^{-1}}
\right)^{2\bar{\nu}-1}
\\&\hspace{20pt}
=
{_{2}F_{1}}
\left(
-\bar{\mu}-\bar{\nu}+1, -\bar{\mu}; \bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu};
\frac{(Z^{-1}-X^{-1})(1-x)}
{(1-(1-\gamma)x)(Z^{-1}(1-\gamma)^{-1} - X^{-1})}
\right)
\\
&\hspace{80pt}
\times
\frac{\gamma^{\bar{\mu}+2\bar{\nu}-1}\Gamma(\bar{\nu})}
{\Gamma(\bar{\mu}) \Gamma(\bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu})}
\left(
\frac{Z^{-1}(1-\gamma)^{-1}}
{Z^{-1}(1-\gamma)^{-1} - X^{-1}}
\right)^{2\bar{\nu}-1}
\\
&\hspace{80pt}
\times
\left(
\frac{Z^{-1}(1-\gamma)^{-1}-xX^{-1}}
{(1-(1-\gamma)x)(Z^{-1}(1-\gamma)^{-1} - X^{-1})}
\right)^{-\bar{\mu}+1-2\bar{\nu}}
\frac{x^{\bar{\mu}-1}(1-x)^{\bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu}-1}}
{(1-(1-\gamma)x)^{\bar{\nu}}} \gamma^{-\bar{\mu}+1-2\bar{\nu}}
\\&\hspace{20pt}
\to
\frac{x^{\bar{\mu}-1}(1-x)^{2\bar{\nu}-2}}
{(1-xZ/X)^{\bar{\mu}+2\bar{\nu}-1}}
\frac{(1 - Z/X)^{\bar{\mu}+2\bar{\nu}-1}
\Gamma(\bar{\mu}+2\bar{\nu}-1)}
{\Gamma(\bar{\mu})\Gamma(2\bar{\nu}-1)}.\end{aligned}$$ For $\gamma \to 0-$ the probability density of $\frac{Z(i, t)}{Z}$ (again, conditioned on $Z$ and $X$) at $x$ is $$\begin{aligned}
&
{_{2}F_{1}}\left(
2\bar{\nu}-1, \bar{\nu}+\bar{\mu}; \bar{\nu}; \frac{(Z^{-1}(1-\gamma)^{-1}-X^{-1})(1-x)}{(1-(1-\gamma)^{-1}x)(Z^{-1} - X^{-1})}
\right)
\\&\hspace{80pt}
\times
\frac{x^{\bar{\mu}-1}(1-x)^{\bar{\nu}-1}}
{(1-(1-\gamma)^{-1}x)^{\bar{\nu}+\bar{\mu}}}
\frac{(\frac{-\gamma}{1-\gamma})^{\bar{\mu}+2\bar{\nu}-1}\Gamma(\bar{\nu}+\bar{\mu})}{\Gamma(\bar{\mu}) \Gamma(\bar{\nu})}
\left(\frac{Z^{-1}}{Z^{-1} - X^{-1}}\right)^{2\bar{\nu}-1}
\\&\hspace{20pt}
=
{_{2}F_{1}}\left(
1-\bar{\nu}, -\bar{\mu}; \bar{\nu}; \frac{(Z^{-1}(1-\gamma)^{-1}-X^{-1})(1-x)}{(1-(1-\gamma)^{-1}x)(Z^{-1} - X^{-1})}
\right)
\frac{(\frac{-\gamma}{1-\gamma})^{\bar{\mu}+2\bar{\nu}-1}\Gamma(\bar{\nu}+\bar{\mu})}{\Gamma(\bar{\mu}) \Gamma(\bar{\nu})}
\\&\hspace{80pt}
\times
\left(\frac{Z^{-1}}{Z^{-1} - X^{-1}}\right)^{2\bar{\nu}-1}
\left(\frac{Z^{-1}-xX^{-1}}{(1-(1-\gamma)^{-1}x)(Z^{-1}- X^{-1})}\right)^{-\bar{\mu}+1-2\bar{\nu}}
\\&\hspace{80pt}
\times
\frac{x^{\bar{\mu}-1}(1-x)^{\bar{\nu}-1}}{(1-(1-\gamma)x)^{\bar{\nu}+\bar{\mu}}} \left(\frac{-\gamma}{1-\gamma}\right)^{-\bar{\mu}+1-2\bar{\nu}}
\\&\hspace{20pt}
\to
\frac{x^{\bar{\mu}-1}(1-x)^{2\bar{\nu}-2}}{(1-xZ/X)^{\bar{\mu}+2\bar{\nu}-1}}
\frac{(1 - Z/X)^{\bar{\mu}+2\bar{\nu}-1}\Gamma(\bar{\mu}+2\bar{\nu}-1)}{\Gamma(\bar{\mu})\Gamma(2\bar{\nu}-1)}.\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.
Change of variables and inverse beta recursion {#sec:cov}
----------------------------------------------
Through a change of variables (pointed out to us by Guillaume Barraquand after the first posting of this work), it is possible to simplify the form of the recursion for $Z$ given in . The generalized negative binomial beta distributions reduce to their standard counterparts. In the case $\bar{\nu}=\tfrac{1}{2}$, the resulting recursion is quite similar, though different from the one satisfied by the inverse beta polymer partition function [@thieryLD2015integrable]. In particular, the choice of parameters for the beta random variable depends on whether $Z(i-1,t)$ or $Z(i,t-1)$ is greater. It is not clear whether for $Z(i,t)$ there exists a representation as a polymer partition function.
Define $\tilde{Z}(i,t) := Z(i,t)^{-1}$ where $Z$ is given through . By combining this change of variables with that of , we may rewrite the recursion satisfied by $Z$ as follows.
\[lem:Ztilde\] $\tilde{Z}(i,t) := Z(i,t)^{-1}, (i,t)\in \mathbb{Z}_{>0}\times \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$ satisfies the recursion:
1. $\tilde{Z}(i,0) = 1$ for all $i$.
2. $\tilde{Z}(1,t) = \tilde{Z}(1,t-1) \,\cdot \, \mathscr{Beta}^{-1}(\bar{\mu},\bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu})$ where $\mathscr{Beta}^{-1}$ is the inverse of a beta distributed random variable (see ).
3. For $i>1$ and $t>0$ with probability one $\tilde{Z}(i,t-1)\neq \tilde{Z}(i-1,t)$. Then, when $\tilde{Z}(i,t-1)>\tilde{Z}(i-1,t)$, $$\tilde{Z}(i,t) = \tilde{Y} \tilde{Z}(i,t-1) + (1-\tilde{Y}) \tilde{Z}(i-1,t),$$ where $\tilde{Y}$ is $\mathscr{NBBeta}^{-1}(2\bar{\nu}-1,\tfrac{\tilde{Z}(i-1,t)-\tilde{Z}(i-1,t-1)}{\tilde{Z}(i,t-1)-\tilde{Z}(i-1,t-1)},\bar{\mu},\bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu})$-distributed (see ); and when $\tilde{Z}(i,t-1)<\tilde{Z}(i-1,t)$, $$\tilde{Z}(i,t) = \tilde{Y} \tilde{Z}(i-1,t) + (1-\tilde{Y}) \tilde{Z}(i,t-1),$$ where $\tilde{Y}$ is $\mathscr{NBBeta}^{-1}(2\bar{\nu}-1,\tfrac{\tilde{Z}(i,t-1)-\tilde{Z}(i-1,t-1)}{\tilde{Z}(i-1,t)-\tilde{Z}(i-1,t-1)},\bar{\mu},\bar{\nu})$-distributed.
In the special case when $\bar{\nu}=1/2$, the recursion simplifies as follows: When $\tilde{Z}(i,t-1)>\tilde{Z}(i-1,t)$, $$\tilde{Z}(i,t) = \tilde{Y} \tilde{Z}(i,t-1) + (1-\tilde{Y}) \tilde{Z}(i-1,t),$$ where $\tilde{Y}$ is $\mathscr{Beta}^{-1}(\bar{\mu},\tfrac{1}{2}-\bar{\mu})$-distributed; and when $\tilde{Z}(i,t-1)<\tilde{Z}(i-1,t)$, $$\tilde{Z}(i,t) = \tilde{Y} \tilde{Z}(i-1,t) + (1-\tilde{Y}) \tilde{Z}(i,t-1),$$ where $\tilde{Y}$ is $\mathscr{Beta}^{-1}(\bar{\mu},\tfrac{1}{2})$-distributed.
We only prove the general $\bar{\nu}$ recursion of $\tilde{Z}$ when $\tilde{Z}(i,t-1)>\tilde{Z}(i-1,t)$. The other case and specialization to $\bar{\nu}=\tfrac{1}{2}$ then follows likewise. Let $X$ be distributed as $$\mathscr{NBB}_1 \left(2\bar{\nu}-1, \frac{Z(i-1, t)^{-1} - Z(i-1,t-1)^{-1}}{Z(i,t-1)^{-1} - Z(i-1,t-1)^{-1}}, \frac{Z(i,t-1)}{Z(i-1, t)}, \bar{\mu}, \bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu}\right).$$ From , it follows that $$\label{eq:Zceqn}
\frac{Z(i,t)}{Z(i,t-1)} = X\qquad \textrm{and}\qquad \frac{Z(i,t)}{Z(i-1,t)} = c \cdot X, \quad \textrm{where } c := \frac{Z(i,t-1)}{Z(i-1,t)}.$$ Define $Y := \frac{X-c\cdot X}{1- c\cdot X}$. Since shows that $X$ is $\mathscr{NBB}_1$-distributed (with suitable parameters), we may employ to show that $Y$ is $\mathscr{NBBeta}(r,p,m,n)$ with $r=2\bar{\nu}-1$, $p= \frac{Z(i-1, t)^{-1} - Z(i-1,t-1)^{-1}}{Z(i,t-1)^{-1} - Z(i-1,t-1)^{-1}}$, $m= \bar{\mu}$ and $n = \bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu}$. By , $$\frac{\frac{Z(i,t)}{Z(i,t-1)} - \frac{Z(i,t)}{Z(i-1,t)}}{1-\frac{Z(i,t)}{Z(i-1,t)}} = Y.$$ We may rewrite things now via $\tilde{Z}$. In these variables, $p = \tfrac{\tilde{Z}(i-1,t)-\tilde{Z}(i-1,t-1)}{\tilde{Z}(i,t-1)-\tilde{Z}(i-1,t-1)}$ and the above recursion reduces to the desired relation $$\tilde{Z}(i,t) = \tilde{Y} \tilde{Z}(i,t-1) + (1-\tilde{Y}) \tilde{Z}(i-1,t),$$ where $\tilde{Y} = Y^{-1}$.
Convergence {#sub:convergence_to_beta_model}
-----------
Let us now prove the convergence of the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP to the process $Z(i,t)$ from .
\[thm:beta\_convergence\] For fixed $\bar{\mu}$ and $\bar{\nu}$, as ${\epsilon}\to 0+$, the process $\{X(i,t)\colon 1\le i\le N,\; t\in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge0}\}$ converges to $\{Z(i, t)\colon 1\le i\le N,\; t\in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge0}\}$.
The proof occupies the rest of the subsection. We will use the following two facts proven in [@CorwinBarraquand2015Beta] (Lemmas 2.2 and 2.3):
\[prop:q\_to\_1\_convergence\_BC16\]
1. For $r, q \in (0, 1)$ and $x, y >0$, $$\frac{(r q^{y}; q)_{\infty}}{(r q^{x}; q)_{\infty}} \to (1-r)^{x - y} \qquad \text{as} \ q \to 1.$$
2. If $X_{\epsilon}$ is distributed as $\varphi_{e^{-{\epsilon}}, e^{-\bar{\mu} {\epsilon}}, e^{-\bar{\nu} {\epsilon}}}(\cdot \mid \infty)$, then $\exp(-{\epsilon}X_{{\epsilon}})$ converges in distribution as ${\epsilon}\to 0+$ to $\mathscr{B}_1(0, \bar{\mu}, \bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu})$.
Clearly, $X(i,0)=Z(i,0)=1$. The second part of implies that $X(1,t)=q^{-x_1(t)-1}$ converges to $Z(1,t)$, since the first $q$-Hahn PushTASEP particle $x_1(t)$ follows a random walk with jump distribution $\varphi_{q,\mu,\nu}(\cdot\mid \infty)$.
To complete the proof, we need to show that conditionally on $$x_{i-1}(t-1) + i-1 \sim \frac{\log X}{{\epsilon}},
\qquad
x_{i}(t-1)+i \sim \frac{\log Y}{{\epsilon}},
\qquad
x_{i-1}(t)+i-1 \sim \frac{\log Z}{{\epsilon}},$$
1. If $Y<Z$, $X(i,t)/Y$ converges in distribution to $\mathscr{NBB}_1\left( 2\bar{\nu}-1, \frac{Z^{-1} - X^{-1}}{Y^{-1} - X^{-1}}, \frac{Y}{Z}, \bar{\mu}, \bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu}\right)$;
2. If $Y>Z$, $X(i,t)/Z$ converges in distribution to $\mathscr{NBB}_1\left( 2\bar{\nu}-1, \frac{Y^{-1} - X^{-1}}{Z^{-1} - X^{-1}}, \frac{Z}{Y}, \bar{\mu}, \bar{\nu} \right)$.
As before, let us use the notation $$\ell = x_{i-1}(t-1) - x_{i-1}(t), \qquad
g = x_{i-1}(t-1) - x_{i}(t-1)-1,\qquad
\quad\text{and}\quad
L = x_{i}(t-1) - x_{i}(t).$$ We will prove the above two cases separately using formulas , for the update probabilities $\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}(L)$.
**Proof of case 1.** The case $Y<Z$ corresponds to representation for $\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}(L)$. It suffices to show that for a fixed $\mathsf{t} > 0$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{limit_l<g}
\lim_{{\epsilon}\to 0+}{\epsilon}^{-1}
\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}(\lceil \mathsf{t}/{\epsilon}\rceil)
=
\frac{e^{-\mathsf{t} \bar{\mu}}(1-e^{-\mathsf{t}})^{\bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu}-1}}
{(1-e^{-\mathsf{t}}Y/Z)^{\bar{\nu}}}
\frac{(1-Y/Z)^{\bar{\mu}}\Gamma(\bar{\nu})}{\Gamma(\bar{\mu}) \Gamma(\bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu})}
\left(1-\frac{Z^{-1} - X^{-1}}{Y^{-1} - X^{-1}}\right)^{2\bar{\nu}-1}
\\
\times
{_{2}F_{1}}\left(
2\bar{\nu}-1, \bar{\nu}; \bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu}; \frac{X/Z - 1}{X/Y-1} \cdot \frac{1 - e^{-\mathsf{t}}}{1-e^{-\mathsf{t}}Y/Z}
\right).\end{gathered}$$ Rewrite the product of the $q$-Pochhammer symbols preceding ${_{8}\phi_{7}}$ in the expression as (in this case we use the notation $L=\lceil \mathsf{t}/{\epsilon}\rceil$) $$\frac{\mu^{L} (\nu/\mu; q)_{L} (\mu; q)_{\infty}}
{(q;q)_{L}(\nu; q)_{\infty}}
\,
\frac{(\nu^{2}q^{g}; q)_{\infty}}
{(q^{g+1}; q)_{\infty}}
\,
\frac{(q^{g-\ell+1}; q)_{\infty}}
{(\mu \nu q^{g-\ell}; q)_{\infty}}
\,
\frac{(\nu q^{g-\ell}; q)_{\infty}}
{(\nu^{2} q^{g-\ell}; q)_{\infty}}
\,
\frac{(\nu^{2} q^{L+g-\ell}; q)_{\infty}}
{(\nu q^{L+g-\ell}; q)_{\infty}}.$$ For $L = \lceil \mathsf{t}/{\epsilon}\rceil$ the second part of implies $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mu^{L} (\nu/\mu; q)_{L} (\mu; q)_{\infty}}{{\epsilon}(q;q)_{L}(\nu; q)_{\infty}}
\to
\frac{e^{-\mathsf{t} \bar{\mu}}(1-e^{-\mathsf{t}})^{\bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu}-1}\Gamma(\bar{\nu})}
{\Gamma(\bar{\mu}) \Gamma(\bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu})},\end{aligned}$$ while the first part of leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{(\nu^{2}q^{g}; q)_{\infty}}
{(q^{g+1}; q)_{\infty}}
\to
(1 - Y/X)^{1 - 2\bar{\nu}},
\qquad &
\frac{(q^{g-\ell+1}; q)_{\infty}}{(\mu \nu q^{g-\ell}; q)_{\infty}}
\to
(1-Y/Z)^{\bar{\mu}+\bar{\nu}-1}, \\
\frac{(\nu q^{g-\ell}; q)_{\infty}}{(\nu^{2} q^{g-\ell}; q)_{\infty}} \to (1-Y/Z)^{\bar{\nu}},
\qquad &
\frac{(\nu^{2} q^{L+g-\ell}; q)_{\infty}}{(\nu q^{L+g-\ell}; q)_{\infty}} \to (1-e^{-\mathsf{t}}Y/Z)^{-\bar{\nu}}.\end{aligned}$$ The $k$-th term in the summation for ${_{8}\phi_{7}}$ in the expression is $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{(q^{-\ell}; q)_{k}(q^{-L}; q)_{k}}
{(\nu^{2}q^{L+g-\ell}; q)_{k} (\nu^{2}q^{g}; q)_{k}}
\,
\frac{(\nu^{2}q^{-1}; q)_{k}(\nu; q)_{k}}
{(q; q)_{k}(\nu \mu^{-1}; q)_{k}}
\left( \frac{q^{L+g+1}}{\mu}\right)^{k}
\\\times
\frac{(\nu^{2} q^{g-\ell-1}; q)_{k}(\nu q^{(g-\ell+1)/2}; q)_{k} (-\nu q^{(g-\ell+1)/2}; q)_{k} (\mu \nu q^{g-\ell}; q)_{k} }
{(\nu q^{(g-\ell-1)/2}; q)_{k} (- \nu q^{(g-\ell-1)/2}; q)_{k} (q^{g-\ell+1}; q)_{k} (\nu q^{g-\ell}; q)_{k}}.\end{gathered}$$ For fixed $k$ we have the following convergence: $$\begin{aligned}
&
\frac{(\nu^{2} q^{g-\ell-1}; q)_{k}(\nu q^{(g-\ell+1)/2}; q)_{k} (-\nu q^{(g-\ell+1)/2}; q)_{k} (\mu \nu q^{g-\ell}; q)_{k} }
{(\nu q^{(g-\ell-1)/2}; q)_{k} (- \nu q^{(g-\ell-1)/2}; q)_{k} (q^{g-\ell+1}; q)_{k} (\nu q^{g-\ell}; q)_{k}}
\to 1,
\\
&
\frac{(q^{-\ell}; q)_{k}(q^{-L}; q)_{k}}
{(\nu^{2}q^{L+g-\ell}; q)_{k} (\nu^{2}q^{g}; q)_{k}}
\,
\left(
\frac{q^{L+g+1}}{\mu}
\right)^{k}
\to
\frac{(X/Z-1)^{k} (e^{\mathsf{t}}-1)^{k}}{(1-e^{-\mathsf{t}}Y/Z)^{k}(1-Y/X)^{k}}\, (e^{-\mathsf{t}}Y/X)^{k},
\\
&\hspace{80pt}
\frac{(\nu^{2}q^{-1}; q)_{k}(\nu; q)_{k}}{(q; q)_{k}(\nu \mu^{-1}; q)_{k}}
\to
\frac{(2 \bar{\nu}-1)_{k}(\bar{\nu})_{k}}{k!(\bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu})_{k}}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence the whole ${_{8}\phi_{7}}$ converges to ${_{2}F_{1}}\left(2\bar{\nu}-1, \bar{\nu}; \bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu}; \frac{X/Z - 1}{X/Y-1} \cdot \frac{1 - e^{-\mathsf{t}}}{1-e^{-\mathsf{t}}Y/Z}\right)$. Combining everything together gives us , which establishes the first case.
**Proof of case 2.** For the case $Y>Z$ we use representation for $\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}(L)$. It suffices to show that for a fixed $\mathsf{t} > \log(Y/Z),$[^7] $$\begin{gathered}
\label{limit_l>g}
\lim_{{\epsilon}\to 0}
{\epsilon}^{-1}
\mathbf{P}_{\ell,g}(\lceil \mathsf{t}/{\epsilon}\rceil+\ell-g)
=
\frac{e^{-\mathsf{t} \bar{\mu}}(1-e^{-\mathsf{t}})^{\bar{\nu}-1}}{(1-e^{-\mathsf{t}}Z/Y)^{\bar{\nu}+\bar{\mu}}} \, \frac{(1-Z/Y)^{\bar{\mu}}\Gamma(\bar{\nu} + \bar{\mu})}{\Gamma(\bar{\mu}) \Gamma(\bar{\nu})}
\left(1-\frac{Y^{-1} - X^{-1}}{Z^{-1} - X^{-1}}\right)^{2\bar{\nu}-1}
\\\times
{_{2}F_{1}}\left(2\bar{\nu}-1, \bar{\nu}+\bar{\mu}; \bar{\nu}; \frac{X/Y - 1}{X/Z-1} \cdot \frac{1 - e^{-\mathsf{t}}}{1-e^{-\mathsf{t}}Z/Y}\right).\end{gathered}$$ Rewrite the product of $q$-Pochhammer symbols preceding ${_{8}\phi_{7}}$ in as $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{\mu^{L-\ell+g} (\nu/\mu; q)_{L-\ell+g} (\mu; q)_{\infty}}{(q;q)_{L-\ell+g}(\nu; q)_{\infty}}\, \frac{(\nu; q)_{\infty}^{2}}{(\mu \nu; q)_{\infty}(\nu/\mu; q)_{\infty}} \, \frac{(q^{\ell-g+1}; q)_{\infty}(q^{\ell-q}\nu/\mu; q)_{\infty}}{(\nu q^{\ell-g}; q)_{\infty}(\nu^{2}q^{\ell-g}; q)_{\infty}}
\\\times
\frac{(q^{L+g-\ell}\nu/\mu; q)_{\infty}}{(\nu q^{L+g-\ell}; q)_{\infty}} \, \frac{(\nu^{2}q^{L}; q)_{\infty}}{(q^{L}\nu/\mu; q)_{\infty}}\, \frac{(\nu^{2}q^{\ell}; q)_{\infty}}{(q^{\ell+1}; q)_{\infty}}.\end{gathered}$$ With the notation $L-\ell+g = \lceil \mathsf{t}/{\epsilon}\rceil$, the second part of implies $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mu^{L-\ell+g} (\nu/\mu; q)_{L-\ell+g} (\mu; q)_{\infty}}{{\epsilon}(q;q)_{L-\ell+g}(\nu; q)_{\infty}}
\to
\frac{e^{-\mathsf{t} \bar{\mu}}(1-e^{-\mathsf{t}})^{\bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu}-1}\Gamma(\bar{\nu})}{\Gamma(\bar{\mu}) \Gamma(\bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu})}.\end{aligned}$$ The first part of implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{(q^{\ell-g+1}; q)_{\infty}}{(\nu q^{\ell-g}; q)_{\infty}} \to (1-Z/Y)^{\bar{\nu}-1},
\qquad &
\frac{(q^{\ell-q}\nu/\mu; q)_{\infty}}{(\nu^{2}q^{\ell-g}; q)_{\infty}} \to (1-Z/Y)^{\bar{\mu}+\bar{\nu}},
\\
\frac{(\nu^{2}q^{\ell}; q)_{\infty}}{(q^{\ell+1}; q)_{\infty}} \to (1-Z/X)^{1 - 2\bar{\nu}},
\qquad&
\frac{(q^{L+g-\ell}\nu/\mu; q)_{\infty}}{(\nu q^{L+g-\ell}; q)_{\infty}} \to (1-e^{-\mathsf{t}})^{\bar{\mu}},
\\\
&
\frac{(\nu^{2}q^{L}; q)_{\infty}}{(q^{L}\nu/\mu; q)_{\infty}} \to (1-e^{-\mathsf{t}}Z/Y)^{-\bar{\mu}-\bar{\nu}}.\end{aligned}$$
Recall the $q$-Gamma function $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{q}(x)=\frac{(q; q)_{\infty}}{(q^{x}; q)_{\infty}}(1-q)^{1-x},\end{aligned}$$ which converges to the ordinary Gamma function as $q\nearrow 1$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{(\nu; q)_{\infty}^{2}}{(\mu \nu; q)_{\infty}(\nu/\mu; q)_{\infty}}
=
\frac{\Gamma_{q}(\bar{\mu} + \bar{\nu})\Gamma_{q}(\bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu})}
{\Gamma_{q}(\bar{\nu})^{2}}
\to
\frac{\Gamma(\bar{\mu} + \bar{\nu})\Gamma(\bar{\nu}-\bar{\mu})}{\Gamma(\bar{\nu})^{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ The $k$-th term in the summation for ${_{8}\phi_{7}}$ in has the form: $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{(q^{-g}; q)_{k}(q^{-L+\ell-g}; q)_{k}}{(\nu^{2}q^{L}; q)_{k} (\nu^{2}q^{\ell}; q)_{k}}
\,
\frac{(\nu^{2}q^{-1}; q)_{k}(\nu \mu; q)_{k}}{(q; q)_{k}(\nu; q)_{k}}
\,
\left( \frac{q^{L+g+1}}{\mu}\right)^{k}
\\
\times
\frac{
(\nu^{2} q^{\ell-g-1}; q)_{k}(\nu q^{(\ell-g+1)/2}; q)_{k}
(-\nu q^{(\ell-g+1)/2}; q)_{k}(\nu q^{\ell-g}; q)_{k}
}
{
(\nu q^{(\ell-g-1)/2}; q)_{k}
(-\nu q^{(\ell-g-1)/2}; q)_{k}
(q^{\ell-g+1}; q)_{k}(\nu q^{\ell-g}/\mu; q)_{k}
}.\end{gathered}$$ For fixed $k$ we have the following behavior: $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{
(\nu^{2} q^{\ell-g-1}; q)_{k}(\nu q^{(\ell-g+1)/2}; q)_{k}
(-\nu q^{(\ell-g+1)/2}; q)_{k}(\nu q^{\ell-g}; q)_{k}
}
{
(\nu q^{(\ell-g-1)/2}; q)_{k} (-\nu q^{(\ell-g-1)/2}; q)_{k} (q^{\ell-g+1}; q)_{k}(\nu q^{\ell-g}/\mu; q)_{k}
}
\to 1,
\\
&
\frac{(q^{-g}; q)_{k}(q^{-L+\ell-g}; q)_{k}}{(\nu^{2}q^{L}; q)_{k} (\nu^{2}q^{\ell}; q)_{k}}
\,
\left( \frac{q^{L+g+1}}{\mu}\right)^{k}
\to
\frac{(X/Y-1)^{k} (e^{\mathsf{t}}-1)^{k}}{(1-e^{-\mathsf{t}}Z/Y)^{k}(1-Z/X)^{k}}
\,
(e^{-\mathsf{t}}Z/X)^{k},
\\ &
\hspace{70pt}
\frac{(\nu^{2}q^{-1}; q)_{k}(\nu \mu; q)_{k}}{(q; q)_{k}(\nu; q)_{k}}
\to
\frac{(2 \bar{\nu}-1)_{k}(\bar{\nu}+\bar{\mu})_{k}}
{k!(\bar{\nu})_{k}}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence the whole ${_{8}\phi_{7}}$ expression in converges to ${_{2}F_{1}}\left(2\bar{\nu}-1, \bar{\nu}+\bar{\mu}; \bar{\nu}; \frac{X/Y-1}{X/Z-1} \cdot
\frac{1 - e^{-\mathsf{t}}}{1-e^{-\mathsf{t}}Z/Y}\right)$. Combining everything together gives us . This completes the proof of .
Contour integral observables of the beta model {#sub:beta_contour_integrals}
----------------------------------------------
The nested contour integral expressions for the $q$-moments of the $q$-Hahn TASEP produce (in the $q\to1$ scaling limit) contour integral observables for the process $\{Z(i,t)\}$. For $\vec n=(n_1\ge n_2\ge \ldots\ge n_k\ge0 )$ and $t\in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge0}$ define $U(t;\vec n):=\mathop{\mathbb{E}}\bigl[\prod_{i=1}^{k} Z(n_i,t)^{-1}\bigr]=\mathop{\mathbb{E}}\bigl[\prod_{i=1}^{k} \tilde{Z}(n_i,t)\bigr]$.
\[prop:beta\_moments\] When $\bar{\mu}>k$, we have $$\label{beta_contour_moments}
U(t;\vec n)=
\frac{1}{(2\pi\sqrt{-1})^k}
\int \ldots\int
\prod_{1\le A<B\le k}\frac{w_A-w_B}{w_A-w_B-1}
\prod_{j=1}^{k}
\left(\frac{\bar{\nu}+w_j}{w_j} \right)^{n_j}
\left( \frac{\bar{\nu}-1-w_j}{\bar{\mu}-1-w_j} \right)^{t}
\frac{dw_j}{\bar{\nu}+w_j}.$$ Here the contours are simple closed curves around $0$ which do not encircle $\bar{\mu}-1$ or $-\bar{\nu}$, and such that the $w_A$ contour encircles the $w_B+1$ one for all $A<B$.
implies that $u(t;\vec n)\to U(t;\vec n)$ under the scaling . Let $w_i$ be the contours as in , and set $z_j=q^{w_j}=e^{-{\epsilon}w_j}$. Then the contours $z_j$ are exactly the ones in . As ${\epsilon}\to0$, we have the following convergence in the integrand: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{z_A-z_B}{z_A- q z_{B}}
\to
\frac{w_{A}-w_{B}}{w_{A}-w_{B}-1}, &
\qquad
\frac{1-\nu z_{j}}{1-z_{j}}
\to
\frac{\bar{\nu} + w_{j}}{w_{j}},
\\
\frac{1- \nu q^{-1} z_{j}^{-1}}{1- \mu q^{-1} z_{j}^{-1}}
\to
\frac{\bar{\nu}-1-w_{j}}{\bar{\mu}-1-w_{j}}, &
\qquad
\frac{d z_{j}}{z_{j}(1-\nu z_{j})}
\to
-\frac{d w_{j}}{\bar{\nu} + w_{j}}.
\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof. Note that the restriction $\bar{\mu}>k$ in comes from $\mu<q^k$ in .
Again, using the moments of or taking the scaling limit as $q\nearrow1$ of , we can write down a conjectural Fredholm determinantal expression for the Laplace transform of $Z(n,t)$:
\[conj:conjecture\_push\_Fredholm\_beta\] For $\xi\in \mathbb{C}\setminus\mathbb{R}_{>0}$, we have $$\mathop{\mathbb{E}}
\Bigl[
e^{\xi Z(n,t)^{-1}}
\Bigr]=
\mathop{\mathbb{E}}
\Bigl[
e^{\xi \tilde{Z}(n,t)}
\Bigr]=
\det(I+K^{\mathscr{B}}_\xi),$$ where $K^{\mathscr{B}}_\xi$ is a kernel of an integral operator on a small circle around $0$: $$K^{\mathscr{B}}_\xi(v,v')=
\frac{1}{2\pi\sqrt{-1}}
\int_{-\infty\sqrt{-1}+\frac12}^{\infty\sqrt{-1}+\frac12}
\frac{\pi}{\sin(\pi s)}(-\xi)^{s}\,
\frac{g^\mathscr{B}(v)}{g^{\mathscr{B}}(v+s)}
\,
\frac{ds}{s+v-s'},$$ where $$g^{\mathscr{B}}(v)=
\left( \frac{\Gamma(v)}{\Gamma(v+\bar\nu)} \right)^n
\left( \frac{\Gamma(\bar{\nu}-w)}{\Gamma(\bar{\mu}-w)} \right)^t
\Gamma(v+\bar{\nu})
.$$
Probability distributions from $q$-hypergeometric series {#sec:q_hyp}
========================================================
Basic definitions {#sub:q_hyp_notation}
-----------------
Here we recall some basic facts about $q$-hypergeometric series. Define the $q$-Pochhammer symbols $$(a; q)_{n} =
\begin{cases}
1,&n=0;\\
\prod_{i=1}^{n}(1 - a q^{i-1}), &n\ge1;\\
\prod_{i=n}^{-1}(1-aq^{i})^{-1},&n\le -1,
\end{cases}
\qquad \text{and} \qquad
(a; q)_{\infty} = \prod_{i=1}^{\infty}(1 - a q^{i-1}).$$ For the definition of the infinite $q$-Pochhammer symbol we assume $|q| < 1$.
The unilateral basic hypergeometric series $_{k+1}\phi_{k}$ is defined via $$\label{q_hyp_defn}
_{k+1}\phi_{k} \left[\begin{array}{ccc} a_{1} & \ldots & a_{k+1} \\ b_{1} & \ldots & b_{k} \end{array}; q, z \right] = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{(a_{1}, \ldots, a_{k+1}; q)_{n}}{(b_{1}, \ldots, b_{k}, q; q)_{n}} z^{n},$$ where $(c_{1}, \ldots, c_{m}; q)_{n} = (c_1;q)_n\ldots (c_m;q)_n $. If one of $a_{j}$ is $q^{-y}$ for a positive integer $y$, then this series is terminating. Otherwise we assume $|q|, |z| < 1$ for the sum to be convergent.
In below we describe two families of probability distributions with weights given in terms of $q$-Pochhammer symbols. Their normalization constants are computed by applying $q$-summation identities.
$q$-beta-binomial distribution {#sub:phi_distr}
------------------------------
For integers $0 \leq s \leq y$ define $$\label{phi_qmunu_definition}
\varphi_{q,\mu,\nu}(s\mid y):=\mu^{s}\frac{(\nu/\mu;q)_{s}(\mu;q)_{y-s}}{(\nu;q)_{y}}\frac{(q;q)_{y}}{(q;q)_{s}(q;q)_{y-s}}.$$
\[lemma:phi\_sum\_to\_one\] For any nonnegative integer $y$ we have $$\label{phi_qmunu_sum}
\sum_{s=0}^{y} \varphi_{q,\mu,\nu}(s\mid y)=1.$$
Identity first appeared in the context of interacting particle systems in [@Povolotsky2013].
Use Heine’s $q$-generalization of Gauss’ summation formula [@GasperRahman (II.8)], $$\label{q-Gauss}
_{2}\phi_{1}
\left[
\begin{array}{cc} a & b \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{c} \end{array};
q, c/ab
\right] = \frac{(c/a; q)_{\infty}(c/b; q)_{\infty}}{(c; q)_{\infty}(c/ab; q)_{\infty}}.$$ Take $a = q^{-y}$, $b= \mu/\nu$, $c=\mu q^{1-y}$ in . This makes the $_2\phi_1$ function terminating, and the resulting finite summation identity is simply with $q$ replaced by $q^{-1}$.
Therefore, for all values of the parameters $(q,\mu,\nu)$ for which $\varphi_{q,\mu,\nu}(s\mid y)$ is well-defined and nonnegative for every $0 \leq s
\leq y$, is a probability distribution on $\{0, 1, \ldots, y\}$. One such family of parameters is $0\le q<1$, $0 \le\mu <1$, $\nu \le \mu$. Another choice leading to a probability distribution is $q > 1$, $\mu =
q^{-m}$, $\nu = q^{-n}$ for nonnegative integers $m$, $n$ with $m \le n$, $y
\le n$.
We can also take $y \to \infty$ to get the function $$\label{phi_qmunu_infinity_definition}
\varphi_{q,\mu,\nu}(s\mid \infty):=\mu^{s}\frac{(\nu/\mu;q)_{s}}{(q;q)_{s}}\frac{(\mu;q)_{\infty}}{(\nu; q)_{\infty}},$$ which for appropriate values of parameters is a probability distribution on $\mathbb{Z}_{\ge0}$.
The distribution $\varphi_{q,\mu,\nu}$ appears (under a simple change of parameters, see [@BCPS2014 Section 5.2] for details) as the orthogonality weight of the classical $q$-Hahn orthogonal polynomials [@Koekoek1996 Section 3.6]. It is also related to a very natural $q$-deformation of the Polya urn scheme [@Gnedin2009]. As such, we call $\varphi_{q,\mu,\nu}$ the *$q$-beta-binomial distribution*.
By taking $q=e^{-{\epsilon}},
\mu=e^{-\alpha{\epsilon}}, \nu=e^{-(\alpha+\beta){\epsilon}}$ and letting ${\epsilon}\to 0+$, we see that $\varphi_{q,\mu,\nu}(s\mid y)$ converges to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\Gamma(\alpha+y-s)\Gamma(\beta+s)\Gamma(\alpha+\beta)\Gamma(y+1)}{\Gamma{(\alpha)}\Gamma(\beta)\Gamma(\alpha+\beta+y)\Gamma(s+1)\Gamma(y-s+1)},\end{aligned}$$ which is the probability of $s$ under the beta-binomial distribution with parameters $y, \alpha, \beta$. The beta-binomial distribution is the orthogonality weight for the Hahn orthogonal polynomials [@Koekoek1996 Section 1.5], and also arises from the ordinary Polya urn scheme.
Another property of the $q$-beta-binomial distribution which we need is the following symmetry:
\[lemma:phi\_symmetry\] For any nonnegative integers $x$ and $y$ we have $$\label{phi_qmunu_interchange}
\sum_{s=0}^{y}\varphi_{q,\mu,\nu}(s\mid y)\,q^{sx}
=
\sum_{t=0}^{x}\varphi_{q,\mu,\nu}(t\mid x)\,q^{ty}.$$
This is [@Corwin2014qmunu Proposition 1.2], see also [@Barraquand_qhahn_2014].
For $x=0$ identity reduces to .
$q$-hypergeometric distribution {#sub:q_hyp}
-------------------------------
For generic values of $a,b,c$ such that $a,b<1$, $c,q\in(0,1)$ and $\frac{c}{ab}\in(0,1)$, the individual terms in the summation identity are all nonnegative. Therefore, this identity defines a probability distribution $$\label{q_hyp_distribution_definition}
\psi_{q,a,b,c}(p):=
\left(\frac{c}{ab} \right)^{p} \frac{(a; q)_{p}(b; q)_{p}}{(q;q)_{p}(c; q)_{p}}
\frac{(c; q)_{\infty}(c/ab; q)_{\infty}}{(c/a; q)_{\infty}(c/b; q)_{\infty}}$$ on the set of all nonnegative integers $p$. We call it the *$q$-hypergeometric distribution* by analogy with the classical hypergeometric distribution whose probability generating function $\sum_{p=0}^{\infty}z^p \mathop{\mathrm{Prob}}(X=p)$ is the Gauss hypergeometric function $_2F_1$.
Distributions for the $q\to1$ beta limit {#sub:2F1_distributions}
----------------------------------------
In we use several distributions which we define here. Let the negative binomial distribution be $$\label{neg_binom_def}
\mathscr{NB}(r,p)[k]
=(1-p)^r\,\frac{p^k(r)_k}{k!},\qquad k=0,1,2,\ldots ;
\qquad
r\ge0,\quad 0\le p<1,$$ where $(r)_k=r(r+1)\ldots(r+k-1)$ is the ordinary Pochhammer symbol. Here $\mathscr{NB}(r,p)[k]$ (and similar expressions below) stands for the probability weight of $k$ (or the probability density function in the absolutely continuous case), and $\mathscr{NB}(r,p)$ is the corresponding random variable. The generalized beta distribution of the first kind has the density $$\label{gen_beta_def}
\mathscr{B}_1(c,m,n)[x]=
\frac{(1-c)^m \Gamma(m+n)}{\Gamma(m)\Gamma(n)}\,
\frac{x^{m-1}(1-x)^{n-1}}{(1-c x)^{m+n}},
\qquad
0<x<1,$$ where $m,n>0$ and $c<1$. A special case of this distribution is the standard beta, denoted by $\mathscr{Beta}(m,n)$, which occurs when $c=0$. If $X$ is $\mathscr{Beta}(m,n)$-distributed, then we say that $X^{-1}$ is $\mathscr{Beta}^{-1}(m,n)$-distributed. (Note that this does not mean that the density of $X^{-1}$ is the inverse of the density of $X$.)
Combine the distributions and and define the continuous distribution $\mathscr{NBB}_1(r,p,c,m,n)$ on $(0,1)$ as $\mathscr{B}_1(c,m,n+k)$, with $k\sim \mathscr{NB}(r,p)$. That is, $\mathscr{NBB}_1$ has the density $$\label{nbb1_distribution_definition}
\mathscr{NBB}_1(r,p,c,m,n)[x]
=
( 1 - p ) ^ { r }\,
\frac { ( 1 - c ) ^ { m } \Gamma ( m + n ) } { \Gamma ( m ) \Gamma ( n ) }
\,
\frac { x ^ { m - 1 } ( 1 - x ) ^ { n - 1 } } { ( 1 - c x ) ^ { m + n } }
\,
{}_2F_1 \left( r , m + n ; n ; \frac { p ( 1 - x ) } { 1 - c x } \right),$$ where ${}_2F_1$ is the ordinary Gauss hypergeometric function $$_2F_1(a,b;c;z)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{(a)_k(b)_k}{(c)_k}\frac{z^k}{k!}.$$ When $c=0$, this distribution reduces to the negative binomial beta distribution which we denote by $\mathscr{NBBeta}(r,p,m,n)$. If $X$ is $\mathscr{NBBeta}(r,p,m,n)$-distributed, then we say that $X^{-1}$ is $\mathscr{NBBeta}^{-1}(r,p,m,n)$-distributed.
The next lemma shows that via a $c$-dependent linear fractional transform, these random variables can be made independent of $c$.
\[lem:changeofvar\] If $X$ is distributed as $\mathscr{B}_1(c,m,n)$ (i.e., a generalized beta random variable with density on $[0,1]$ given by ), then $Y =\frac{X-c X}{1-c X}$ is $\mathscr{Beta}(m,n)$-distributed. Likewise if $W$ is distributed as $\mathscr{NBB}_1(r,p,c,m,n)$ (i.e., a random variable with density on $[0,1]$ given by ), then $V =\frac{W-c W}{1-c W}$ is $\mathscr{NBBeta}(r,p,m,n)$-distributed.
This follows from a simple change of variables applied to the densities.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">I. Corwin, Columbia University, Department of Mathematics, 2990 Broadway, New York, NY 10027, USA</span>
E-mail: `[email protected]`
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">K. Matveev, Department of Mathematics, Brandeis University, 415 South Street, Waltham, MA, USA</span>
E-mail: `[email protected]`
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">L. Petrov, University of Virginia, Department of Mathematics, 141 Cabell Drive, Kerchof Hall, P.O. Box 400137, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA, and Institute for Information Transmission Problems, Bolshoy Karetny per. 19, Moscow, 127994, Russia</span>
E-mail: `[email protected]`
[^1]: Note that we are using a different font for the $q$-Hahn TASEP parameters $({\boldsymbol\upmu},{\boldsymbol\upnu})$ to distinguish them from the parameters $(\mu,\nu)$ of the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP.
[^2]: For example, $\vec y=(1,0,3,1,2)\in \mathbb{Y}^4_7$ corresponds to $\vec n=(4,4,3,2,2,2,0)$.
[^3]: Throughout the paper $\mathbf{1}_{\cdots}$ denotes the indicator.
[^4]: The upcoming work [@BufetovMucciconiPetrov2018] connects the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP to stochastic vertex models. Formulas for observables in the $q$-Hahn PushTASEP with particle-dependent parameters can likely be obtained using that approach.
[^5]: This random variable is a product of a Bernoulli random variable with values in $\left\{ 0,1 \right\}$ and an independent geometric random variable with values in $\left\{ 1,2,\ldots \right\}$, hence the name.
[^6]: We will not recall the definition of a Fredholm determinant of a kernel on a contour, see, e.g., [@Bornemann_Fredholm2010] or one of the books [@Lax2002book], [@Simon-trace-ideals], [@GohbergKrein1969].
[^7]: This condition corresponds to $L\ge \ell-g$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We suggest that the propagation of the action potential is driven by a pressure pulse propagating in the axoplasm along the axon length. The pressure pulse mechanically activates Na$^+$ ion channels embedded in the axon membrane. This activation initiates the development of a local membrane voltage spike, as in the Hodgkin-Huxley model of the action potential. Extracellular Ca$^{2+}$ ions influxing during the voltage spike trigger a mechanism that amplifies the pressure pulse and therefore prevents its viscous decay. The model is able to explain a number of phenomena that are unexplained within the Hodgkin-Huxley framework: the Meyer-Overton rule for the effectiveness of anesthetics, as well as various mechanical, optical and thermodynamic phenomena accompanying the action potential. The model correctly predicts the velocity of propagation of the nerve impulse, including its dependence on axon diameter, degree of myelination and temperature.'
author:
- 'M. M. Rvachev'
bibliography:
- 'proj.bib'
date: 'May 14, 2009'
title: Action potential as a pressure pulse propagating in the axoplasm
---
Introduction
============
The well-known Hodgkin-Huxley theory of propagation of the nerve impulse in neuronal axons [@hodg52] has recently been the subject of constructive criticism [@rva03; @rva03b; @heim05; @heim06]. As a purely electrical theory, the Hodgkin-Huxley theory is unable to explain a number of mechanical and thermodynamic phenomena that are observed synchronously with a propagating action potential. These include changes in nerve dimensions and in the normal force exerted by the nerve [@iwas80b; @iwas80; @tasa80; @tasa82; @tasa90], reversible changes in temperature and heat [@abbo58; @howa68; @ritc85; @tasa89; @tasa92] and changes in fluorescence intensity and anisotropy of lipid membrane markers [@tasa68; @tasa69]. Importantly, within the electrical framework, it has not been possible to explain the famous Meyer-Overton rule [@meye99; @over01] for the effectiveness of anesthetics on nerve fibers. The rule states that the effectiveness of an anesthetic is linearly related to the solubility of that anesthetic in membranes [@urba06]. The rule is valid over 5 orders of magnitude and holds independently of the chemical identity of the anesthetic; it is valid for noble gases such as argon and xenon as well as for alkanols. No link is found between the reactiveness of anesthetics with ion channels, the major actors in the Hodgkin-Huxley theory, and the Meyer-Overton rule.
The Hodgkin-Huxley mechanism of propagation of the nerve impulse [@hodg52] can be divided into two phases. First, after an initial depolarization of a membrane segment to the excitation level, a local voltage spike develops. Second, ionic currents flowing through the excited membrane depolarize adjacent unexcited membrane segments to the excitation voltage, causing propagation of the nerve impulse. The viability of the first phase of the mechanism is little doubted. In the voltage clamp method [@hodg52], electrodes are positioned inside and outside of an axon, allowing the experimenter to change the membrane voltage arbitrarily and to measure the resultant membrane voltage and current. Using this method, it is also possible to simultaneously depolarize the membrane along the entire length of the axon. If depolarization reaches a certain threshold level, one observes a “membrane” action potential (voltage spike), which develops concurrently along the axon length. Hodgkin and Huxley studied this type of action potential in detail [@hodg52]. They showed that the duration, magnitude and time course of the voltage spike are explained by ionic fluxes across the membrane. The fluxes arise due to time- and voltage-dependent changes in ion-specific membrane permeability. There are no axial currents during the membrane action potential, which simplifies theoretical modeling of the process.
The second phase of the Hodgkin-Huxley mechanism, depolarization of unexcited membrane segments by ionic currents straggling in the axial direction along the axon length and thus causing impulse propagation, has not been shown experimentally. To test the validity of this part of the mechanism, one would ideally wish to block axial ionic currents at an axonal cross-section and to observe whether a propagated action potential is able to cross this boundary. To date, such an experiment has not been done. Proof of the propagation mechanism has been based on numerical calculations. Using their electrical framework, Hodgkin and Huxley calculated [@hodg52] the velocity of the action potential for the squid giant axon. Although the calculated velocity agreed well with experiment, a number of flaws in the formulation of the problem were pointed out [@heim06]; e.g., changes in the membrane capacitance due to variation in membrane thickness were ignored. Hodgkin and Huxley themselves noted [@hodg52] that due to non-zero axial currents “the situation is more complicated in a propagated action potential” compared to a membrane action potential, and “it is not practicable to solve as it stands” the equation describing the problem. To simplify, they assumed that a steadily propagating solution exists, in which, additionally, the shape of the voltage spike is preserved in time. No analysis of the stability of the solution was made. Even with these simplifications, the numerical calculation was in parts “excessively tedious”, and “the solution was continued as a membrane action potential”. Clearly, the calculation was rather complicated and will be expected to have associated error.
In this paper, we present an alternative theory for the propagation of the action potential. We suggest that its propagation is driven by a pressure pulse propagating in the axoplasm. This model allows a well-understood calculation of the action potential velocity. For both myelinated and unmyelinated fibers of various diameters, the velocity predicted by this theory agrees very well with experiment. The theory is able to quantitatively explain the Meyer-Overton rule as well as various mechanical, optical and thermodynamic phenomena that accompany the action potential. The speculation that density pulses may be related to nerve impulses has been discussed by various authors since 1912 [@wilk12; @wilk12b; @hodg45; @kauf89a; @kauf89b]. Most recently, it has been suggested [@heim05; @heim06] that the action potential is a soliton propagating in the axon membrane. While this model appears to account for the abovementioned phenomena, as well as for the Meyer-Overton rule, it does not seem to explain changes in the propagation velocity that are related to axon diameter [@hill77].
The Hodgkin-Huxley theory
=========================
According to the Hodgkin-Huxley theory [@hodg52], the propagation of the action potential is driven by electrical currents flowing in the axial direction along the length of the axon. In the resting state, ion transporters maintain transmembrane concentration gradients, pumping K$^+$ inside the cell and Na$^+$ outside [@hill77]. The resting membrane is more permeable to K$^+$; therefore, the electrochemical equilibrium maintains a negative potential inside the cell. Depolarization of the membrane to a threshold level results in a rapid and transient opening of voltage-gated Na$^+$ channels, causing the membrane voltage to spike to the Nernst equilibrium for Na$^+$ ions. This is followed by a slower activation of voltage-gated K$^+$ channels, which repolarizes the membrane to the resting potential. The action potential propagates due to axial spread of electrical currents from the site of the voltage spike [@hodg52]. These currents depolarize adjacent unexcited regions of the membrane to the excitation voltage. Within this framework, the membrane is described as the electrical circuit shown in Fig. 1.
![\[fig:mem\_cir\] Electrical circuit representing membrane. $R_{Na}=1/g_{Na}$, $R_{K}=1/g_{K}$, $R_{l}=1/g_{l}$. $R_{Na}$ and $R_{K}$ vary with time and membrane potential, the other components are constant. From [@hodg52].](fig1.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
The current density across the membrane is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
I & = & C_M\frac{dU}{dt}+g_K(U-E_K)+ \\
& & g_{Na}(U-E_{Na})+g_l(U-E_l), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the four terms on the right-hand side of the equation give, respectively, the membrane capacity current, the current carried by K$^+$ ions, the current carried by Na$^+$ ions, and the “leakage current” (due to Cl$^-$ and other ions) per unit area of membrane. $C_M$ is the membrane capacitance, and $g_K$, $g_{Na}$ and $g_l$ are, respectively, the conductances to K$^+$ ions, Na$^+$ ions and the leakage currents. $E_K$, $E_{Na}$ and $E_l$ are, respectively, the equilibrium potentials for K$^+$ and Na$^+$ and the leakage currents. $g_{Na}$ and $g_K$ vary with the membrane potential $U$ and time as parameterized from voltage clamp data [@hodg52], while $C_M$, $g_l$, $E_K$, $E_{Na}$ and $E_l$ are constant. For a “membrane” action potential, $U$ is the same at each instant over the length of the axon. There is no current along the axon axis, and $I$ is always zero. The time course of the action potential is obtained by solving eq. (1) numerically, with $I=0$ and the initial depolarization condition $U=U_0$. Hodgkin and Huxley showed convincingly [@hodg52] that the time course of the membrane action potential is indeed explained by behavior in $g_{Na}$ and $g_K$, as parameterized from the voltage clamp data, and the dynamics as described by eq. (1).
For reconstructing a propagated action potential, one has to consider local circuit currents, which leads to [@hodg52]: $$I = \frac{R}{2\rho_2}\frac{\partial^2U}{\partial x^2},$$ where $R$ is the axon radius, $\rho_2$ is the specific electrical resistance of the axoplasm, and $x$ is distance along the axon. Combining eqs. (1) and (2), one obtains: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{R} {2\rho_2} \frac{\partial^2U}{\partial x^2}&=&C_M \frac{\partial U}{\partial t}+g_K(U-E_K)+\\
& & g_{Na}(U-E_{Na})+g_l(U-E_l). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Hodgkin and Huxley noted that this equation was not practicable to solve in this form. To simplify, they assumed that a steadily propagating solution exists, in which the shape of $U$ against distance does not change in time, leading to: $$\frac{\partial^2 U} {\partial x^2} = \frac{1}{\theta^2} \frac{\partial^2 U} {\partial t^2},$$ where $\theta$ is the velocity of conduction. From eqs. (3) and (4), one obtains: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{R} {2\rho_2\theta^2} \frac{d^2U}{dt^2} & = & C_M \frac{dU}{dt}+g_K(U-E_K)+ \\
& & g_{Na}(U-E_{Na})+g_l(U-E_l). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This is an ordinary differential equation and can be solved numerically if $\theta$ is known. It is solved by guessing a value of $\theta$, inserting it in eq. (5) and carrying out numerical integration starting from the resting state at the foot of the action potential. As the guessed $\theta$ is too small or large, it is found that $U$ approaches either $+\infty$ or $-\infty$. A new value of $\theta$ is then chosen and the procedure repeated until a correctly guessed $\theta$ brings $U$ back to the resting condition when the action potential is over [@hodg52]. Although the Hodgkin-Huxley model does lead to a propagating action potential, certain flaws were found in the formulation of the problem [@heim06]. Importantly, the model is not able to explain a number of mechanical, optical and thermodynamic phenomena accompanying the action potential, as well as it provides few clues for understanding the Meyer-Overton rule [@heim05; @heim06].
The pressure wave model
=======================
We suggest that the propagation of the nerve impulse is driven by a pressure pulse propagating in the axoplasm along the axon length. While several variations of the process can be envisioned, we suggest that it proceeds as shown in Fig. 2.
{width="1.5\columnwidth"}
A propagating axoplasmic pressure pulse distends the axon membrane, which causes mechanical activation of the membrane Na$^+$ ion channels. Activated Na$^+$ channels allow Na$^+$ ions to influx along the inward electrochemical gradient, thus locally depolarizing the membrane to the excitation voltage and initiating a local Hodgkin-Huxley voltage spike. The local transmembrane voltage spike activates membrane voltage-gated Ca$^{2+}$ channels, leading to an influx of Ca$^{2+}$ ions along their inward electrochemical gradient. The presence of free intracellular Ca$^{2+}$ induces a contraction in actin-myosin filaments anchored to the membrane interior. The filament contraction forces a radial contraction in cylindrical segments of the membrane (Fig. 3),
![\[fig:fig3\] Amplification of the axoplasmic pressure pulse by a radial contraction of the axon membrane (drawn not to scale).](fig3.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
which amplifies the propagating pressure pulse and thus compensates for its decay due to viscosity. (In section 5, it is shown that under physiological conditions axoplasmic pressure pulses decay over roughly 1 mm distances.)
Figs. 4(a)-(b)
![\[fig4\] Mechanical activation of Na$^+$ ion channels by the traveling pressure pulse (see text).](fig4.eps){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
illustrate a suggested process of mechanical activation of Na$^+$ ion channels. The lipid bilayer is stretched laterally as the propagating axoplasmic pressure pulse causes a $\Delta R(t)$ increase in the membrane cylinder radius $R$, corresponding to a $\Delta\tau(t)$ increase in the lipid bilayer tension $\tau$. Tension $\tau$ can be expressed through the bilayer lateral pressure profile $p(z)$ [@cant01]: $\tau=\int_{-\frac{h}{2}}^{\frac{h}{2}}p(z) dz$, where $z$ is the depth within the bilayer, and the integral is over the bilayer thickness $h$. The change $\Delta\tau(t)$ in the bilayer tension results in a change $\Delta p(z,t)$ in the lateral pressure profile such that $\Delta\tau(t)=\int_{-\frac{h}{2}}^{\frac{h}{2}}\Delta p(z,t) dz$. We suggest that these alterations in the bilayer lateral pressures modulate conformational opening of Na$^+$ channels imbedded in the bilayer. Alternatively, it is plausible that Na$^+$ channels are activated by direct mechanical links (such as filaments) tethering the ion channel structures to the interior cytoskeleton that is perturbed by the propagating pressure pulse, as shown in Fig. 4(c).
According to the model presented, an initial influx of Na$^+$ ions through mechanically activated ion channels depolarizes the membrane to the excitation voltage, leading to the development of a local Hodgkin-Huxley voltage spike. Further, the change in voltage across the membrane activates membrane voltage-gated Ca$^{2+}$ channels, allowing entry of Ca$^{2+}$ ions into the cell, which initiates a contraction in the filament network anchored to the membrane interior. Ca$^{2+}$ is a good candidate for mediating the Hodgkin-Huxley voltage spike into the filament contraction for several reasons. First, Ca$^{2+}$ ion channels are found in virtually every excitable cell [@shep94], and many types of Ca$^{2+}$ ion channels are directly and rapidly gated by voltage [@nau08]. Furthermore, an increase in free intracellular Ca$^{2+}$ is often associated with initiation of motion in cells, from motility in freely moving cells and muscle contraction to synaptic vesicle release at synapses [@shep94]. Also, the free intracellular Ca$^{2+}$ concentration is typically extremely low, while it is much larger outside the cell. Ca$^{2+}$ ions that influx during the action potential should instantly increase manyfold the free Ca$^{2+}$ concentration in the vicinity of the filament network attached to the inner membrane surface; that, coupled with the ability of Ca$^{2+}$ to quickly induce conformational changes in proteins (such as upon its binding to actin filaments in the actin-myosin muscle complex), could provide a fast contractile response necessary to amplify a propagating pressure pulse. In this scheme, the Hodgkin-Huxley sodium and potassium currents and the voltage spike simply provide a means for activating voltage-gated Ca$^{2+}$ ion channels. Alternatively, it is possible that amplification of the pressure pulse proceeds through an electromechanical coupling mechanism, such as voltage-induced membrane movement [@zhan01] resulting from the Hodgkin-Huxley voltage spike. Note that, since the radial bilayer contraction follows the pressure pulse at the same velocity, even a small contraction yielding a small amplification will accumulate over distance and will create a larger amplifying effect. In this context, it should be noted that a pressure pulse propagating in an inviscid incompressible fluid enclosed in a viscoelastic tube, dissipates energy and decays because the pressure exerted by the tube on the fluid during tube radial expansion is greater than that during tube radial contraction; therefore, the total work done by the tube on the fluid is negative. In axons, the situation may be the reverse – a larger pressure exerted by the bilayer during its contraction may result in an overall transmission of kinetic energy to the axoplasm.
Meyer-Overton rule and the action of anesthetics
================================================
Within the framework of the nerve impulse as an axoplasmic pressure pulse, we naturally arrive at a quantitative explanation of the Meyer-Overton rule for inhaled anesthetics [@meye99; @over01; @urba06]. Essentially, the rule states that anesthetic potency is determined by the bilayer concentration of anesthetic, independent of its molecular identity [@cant01]. Therefore, the Meyer-Overton rule can be explained if there is a property of the lipid bilayer that is essential for nerve impulse propagation and that, in addition, depends only on the bilayer concentration of anesthetic. As is shown below, one such property may be the bilayer area expansion modulus, which affects both the decay and the velocity of axoplasmic pressure pulses. It is also shown that anesthetics may inhibit the mechanical activation of membrane Na$^+$ channels by the traveling pressure pulse (and therefore suppress the conduction of the action potential) in a manner consistent with the Meyer-Overton rule.
Suppose that an anesthetic molecule is dissolved within the lipid bilayer (anywhere from the headgroup to the hydrophobic region), and it weakens and destabilizes the bilayer structure nonspecifically, e.g., through creating a defect in the packing of lipid molecules and thereby nonspecifically disordering lipid chains (Fig. 5(a)).
![\[fig5\] (a) Disordering of lipid packing order by an anesthetic molecule dissolved in the bilayer. (b) Pockets of altered area expansion modulus in the vicinity of anesthetic molecules.](fig5.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Such disordering interaction will generally decrease the bilayer elastic area expansion modulus in the vicinity of the lipid/anesthetic molecular complex (it is well established that bilayers with larger lipid chain disordering generally display lower elastic moduli and tensile strengths [@need95]). Using a simple macroscopic model of the membrane [@need95], shown in Fig. 5(b), the total membrane area expansion modulus can be expressed as: $$K=\left(\frac{a_M}{K_M}+\frac{a_{L/A}}{K_{L/A}}\right)^{-1},$$ where the right-hand side of the equation is a combination of the area expansion moduli of the two components, namely, non-anesthetized membrane $K_M$ (which describes the elasticity of the lipid bilayer, embedded proteins and other native structures) and a purported lipid/anesthetic molecular complex $K_{L/A}$ ($K_{L/A}<K_M$), scaled by their area fractions $a_M$ and $a_{L/A}$. Assuming that anesthetic molecules are dissolved only in the lipid segments of the membrane and that they do not cluster together, the area fractions $a_M$ and $a_{L/A}$ are given by: $$a_{L/A} = 1 - a_M = n_{A} \cdot h \cdot A_{L/A},$$ where $n_{A}$ represents the concentration of anesthetic molecules within the membrane, in units of molecules per volume, $h$ the bilayer thickness, and $A_{L/A}$ the membrane area occupied by a single lipid/anesthetic molecular complex. Note that $A_{L/A}$ and $K_{L/A}$ are independent of the chemical identity of the anesthetic, due to the purported nonspecificity of anesthetic/lipid interaction. Combining eqs. (6) and (7): $$K=\left(\frac{1- n_{A} h A_{L/A}}{K_M}+\frac{ n_{A} h A_{L/A}}{K_{L/A}}\right)^{-1},$$ where the right-hand side of the equation does not depend on the identity of the anesthetic, but only on its bilayer concentration $n_A$. As will be shown in the next section, both the velocity and the decay length of axoplasmic pressure pulses vary as $\sqrt{K}$. Therefore, a decrease in the area expansion modulus $K$ due to an increase in the anesthetic concentration $n_A$ will reduce the pressure pulse velocity and increase its decay, which, when $n_A$ is of sufficient magnitude, should lead to an inhibition of the pulse propagation. From the form of eq. (8), it follows that anesthetics acting in such a way will comply with the Meyer-Overton rule. From the line of argument above, it is clear that any nonspecific anesthetic/lipid interaction that results in decreasing $K$ with increasing $n_A$ and thus leads to a block in nerve impulse conduction will be consistent with the Meyer-Overton rule.
Another possible mechanism of action of anesthetics consistent with the Meyer-Overton rule relies on inhibition of mechanoactivation of Na$^+$ ion channels by the traveling pressure pulse, in cases where such activation is modulated by changes in the membrane lateral pressures (Fig. 4(b)). As before, we assume that anesthetic molecules dissolved in the bilayer weaken it nonspecifically and that increasing anesthetic concentration $n_A$ decreases the membrane area expansion modulus $K$. As will be discussed in the next section, the potential energy of a propagating axoplasmic pressure pulse is mainly stored in the membrane strain. The membrane strain energy, $E_p$, is proportional to $L\Delta\tau^2/K$, where $L$ is the pulse length and $\Delta\tau$ is the peak increase in the membrane tension $\tau$ from equilibrium. Since $L\sim\sqrt{K}$ (assuming a fixed pulse duration, see eq. (14)), for the same pulse energy ($E_p$ fixed), it follows that $\Delta\tau\sim K^{1/4}$. Therefore, a decrease in the area expansion modulus $K$ will result in a reduced tension increase $\Delta\tau$. At sufficiently high $n_A$ (low $K$), the decreased $\Delta\tau$ may not suffice for activation of mechanosensitive Na$^+$ channels, suppressing the process of pulse amplification and leading to a block of nerve impulse conduction. It should also be noted that, if the anesthetic/lipid interaction changes the lipid bilayer area without affecting its area expansion modulus, the equilibrium tension in the membrane may change, which may affect gating of mechanosensitive Na$^+$ channels, possibly leading to conduction block. This would also conform to the Meyer-Overton rule if the anesthetic/lipid interaction is nonspecific. In this context, it should be noted that an anesthetic/lipid interaction altering a mechanical property of the lipid bilayer in a nonspecific manner would probably involve a defect-like structure, in which physical properties of the anesthetic compound are not important provided that the compound satisfies certain criteria for creating the defect (e.g., being hydrophobic, nonpolar, and nonreactive and possessing certain spatial and mass dimensions).
Propagation of axoplasmic pressure pulses
=========================================
We consider the propagation of small amplitude, axially symmetric pressure pulses in a viscous compressible axoplasm enclosed in a circular cylindrical thin-walled distensible membrane. The theoretical analysis of waves in viscous fluids enclosed in tubes has been presented in [@rayl45; @morg54; @rubi78]. For the limiting case of a viscous compressible axoplasm in a rigid tube, the pressure pulse is an axoplasmic density disturbance that propagates along the axon similarly to a sound wave packet, with the pulse potential energy stored in the axoplasm bulk deformation [@rayl45; @rubi78]. In the opposing limit of a viscous incompressible axoplasm in a distensible membrane, the pressure pulse manifests itself as an increase in the axon diameter and associated membrane area expansion, with the pulse potential energy stored in the membrane strain [@morg54; @rubi78]. Let us consider a pressure pulse of central frequency $\omega$ propagating in the axoplasm of density $\rho$, compressibility $\kappa$ and dynamic viscosity $\mu$, enclosed in a cylindrical membrane of radius $R$, thickness $h$ and area expansion modulus $K$. Let us also assume that for the deformation of area expansion (when the membrane material behaves in an elastic solid manner), the membrane Young’s modulus is $E$ and the Poisson’s ratio is $\nu$. If viscosity is neglected, the pulse propagates with the velocity [@chev93]: $$v_0=\sqrt{\frac{1}{\rho(\kappa + \frac{2R}{K})}}.$$ For typical unmyelinated axons, i.e., assuming $K=0.8$ N/m (twice the single plasma membrane area expansion modulus of 0.4 N/m [@thom97], to account for the combination of the axon and adjoining glial cell membranes), $\kappa =4.04\cdot10^{-10}$ Pa$^{-1}$ (water at 38 $^\circ$C [@lide02]), $\rho = 1050$ kg/m$^3$ (axoplasm [@keyn51]), and $2R=1$ $\mu$m, eq. (9) yields the pressure pulse velocity of $28$ m/s. Note that if the axon membrane is assumed to be indistensible ($\frac{2R}{K}\ll\kappa$), eq. (9) yields a pulse velocity of 1535 m/s.
Viscous axoplasm
----------------
Viscous forces in the axoplasm and in the axon membrane in general decrease the velocity of axoplasmic pressure waves and introduce a decay [@rayl45; @morg54; @rubi78]. The membrane viscous tension is characterized by the ratio of the surface viscosity (on the order of 10$^{-6}$ N$\cdot$s/m [@evan76]) and the time scale of the pressure pulse (here assumed to be close to the action potential duration, about 1 ms), yielding 10$^{-3}$ N/m. Since this value is much smaller than the membrane elastic area expansion modulus, 0.4 N/m, the effects of membrane viscosity on the pulse propagation can be neglected [@rubi78]. Concerning the viscosity of the axoplasm, for the general case of a viscous compressible fluid enclosed in an elastic tube, the dispersion equation is quite complicated and has not been solved in closed form. However, the equation is simplified and can be solved in the high viscosity limit, defined by: $$\alpha \equiv R \sqrt{\frac{\omega\rho}{\mu}} \ll 1.$$ Here we evaluate eq. (10) for typical axons. As before, we assume that the duration of the axoplasmic pressure pulse is similar to that of the action potential, about 1 ms, yielding $\omega \approx 3142$ rad/s. Axoplasm viscosity $\mu$, as is relevant for perturbations associated with small-amplitude axoplasmic pressure pulses, is assumed to be similar to the viscosity of water, $\mu=6.82 \cdot 10^{-4}$ Pa$\cdot$s at 38 $^\circ$C [@lide02]. Taking $2R=10 \mu$m (the typical internal myelin diameter for A$\alpha$ myelinated fibers) and $\rho = 1050$ kg/m$^3$ yields $\alpha = 0.35$, which should be small enough for high-viscosity approximation to the dispersion equation to hold [@rubi78] for axons of similar or smaller diameters. When $\alpha\gg 1$ ($2R\gg29\mu$m), the effects of viscosity are small, and the pressure pulse propagates with little decay and with the velocity described by eq. (9).
When eq. (10) holds, the phase velocity of axoplasmic pressure waves (the velocity of the harmonic waves) is given by [@rayl45; @morg54; @rubi78]: $$v_{ph}=\frac{c}{2} \cdot \alpha \cdot v_0,$$ where $\alpha$ and $v_0$ are given by eqs. (10) and (9), respectively; $c=1$ when $\frac{2R}{K} \ll \kappa$ (the limit of a rigid membrane), while $c=\frac{2}{\sqrt{5-4\nu}}$ when $\frac{2R}{K} \gg \kappa$ (the limit of a soft membrane). The factor $c$ accounts for movement of the membrane in the axial direction caused by the viscous axoplasm in the limit of a soft membrane; here and below we assume $\nu=0.5$ for the incompressible lipid bilayer, leading to $\frac{2}{\sqrt{5-4\nu}}\approx 1.15$. The velocity of the pressure pulse (the “group” velocity) is given by $v_{gr}=\frac{\partial \omega}{\partial k}$, where $k$ is the wavenumber. From eqs. (9) - (11), and using the relations $v_{ph}=\frac{\omega}{k}$ and $v_{gr}=\frac{\partial \omega}{\partial k}$, we obtain the velocity of the axoplasmic pressure pulse in the high viscosity limit (10): $$v_{gr}=c \cdot \alpha \cdot v_0 = c \cdot R \sqrt{\frac{\omega}{\mu(\kappa +\frac{2R}{K})}}.$$ Under the same limit, the distance over which the pulse amplitude decreases $e$-fold (the decay length), is [@rayl45; @morg54; @rubi78]: $$l = \frac{c}{2} \cdot R \sqrt{\frac{1}{\omega \mu (\kappa +\frac{2R}{K})}}.$$
Myelinated axons
----------------
In the Hodgkin-Huxley theory of propagation of the action potential, the role of the myelin sheath is in insulating the membrane electrically and in decreasing the membrane electrical capacitance; both contribute to more rapid conduction of the action potential. However, the myelin sheath is also quite rigid. About 80% of dry myelin content is lipid, with a roughly 2:2:1 molar ratio of the three major lipids, cholesterol, phospholipids and galactolipids [@knaa05]. Cholesterol is known to increase the strength and elastic modulus of lipid bilayers, with the highest modulus and highest strength achieved for 50 mol% cholesterol [@need95], i.e., rather close to the concentration in myelin. The remaining 20% of dry myelin content consists of protein, including various types of fibrous proteins that can form rigid structures. Altogether, for the deformation of circumferential strain, the myelin elastic area expansion modulus is about 2 N/m for a single myelin layer of 4 nm thickness [@need95]. Noting that $K =Eh$ (for $\nu=0.5$), the myelin effective Young’s modulus is $E = 5\cdot10^8$ Pa. The ratio of the axon diameter (internal myelin diameter) to the nerve fiber diameter (external myelin diameter) is typically about 0.7 [@dona05], implying a myelin thickness of $h\approx0.43 R$. Therefore, $\frac{2R}{K}=\frac{2R}{Eh} \approx 9.3\cdot 10^{-9}$ Pa$^{-1}$. This is about 23 times greater than the compressibility of water at 38$^\circ$C, $\kappa =4.04\cdot10^{-10}$ Pa$^{-1}$. Hence, $v_0$, as used in eq. (12), is only $\sqrt{24}\approx4.9$ times less than the speed of sound in water (see eq. (9)). In other words, the myelin sheath is so rigid that its distensibility decreases the pulse speed only about 4.9 times compared to the theoretical maximum if axon walls were absolutely rigid. For typical myelinated axons, e.g., cat myelinated axons of 10 $\mu$m fiber diameter at 38 $^\circ$C, eq. (12) yields $v_{gr} = 88$ m/s (using $E=5\cdot10^8$ Pa, $2R=7 \mu$m, $h=0.43 R$, $\nu=0.5$, $\omega=3142$ rad/s, $\mu=6.82 \cdot 10^{-4}$ Pa$\cdot$s and $\kappa =4.04\cdot10^{-10}$ Pa$^{-1}$). Given the roughness of the estimate, this theoretical value of 88 m/s is in excellent agreement with the measured action potential velocity of 60 m/s for these fibers [@hurs39]. From eq. (13), the decay length for the propagation of the pulses in myelinated segments of such a fiber (where the pulse propagates passively) is 14 mm. Assuming that the distance between the nodes of Ranvier is 1 mm (100 times the external diameter of myelin), the pulse amplitude decays 7% over the internodal distance.
Unmyelinated axons
------------------
Unmyelinated nerve fibers usually have diameters of 0.1 - 1.2 $\mu$m. The action potential conduction velocity, in m/s, is given approximately by $v\approx 1800\sqrt{R}$, where $R$ is the axon radius in meters [@hobb07] (values quoted in the literature range from $v\approx 1000\sqrt{R}$ [@plon88] to $v\approx 3000\sqrt{R}$ [@rush51]). Therefore, for an axon of 1 $\mu$m diameter, conduction velocity is about 1.27 m/s. Assuming $2R=1$ $\mu$m, $K=0.8$ N/m (twice the single plasma membrane value of 0.4 N/m [@thom97]), and $\omega$, $\mu$, $\kappa$ and $\nu$ as before for myelinated axons, eq. (12) yields a pressure pulse velocity of $v_{gr} = 1.11$ m/s, very close to the experimental value. From eq. (13), the decay length for this fiber is 0.18 mm. It is truly remarkable that, for both myelinated and unmyelinated fibers, the predicted velocity of propagation of axoplasmic pressure pulses is very close to the measured velocities of nerve impulses.
Dependence of propagation velocity on fiber diameter
----------------------------------------------------
As can be seen from the above numerical estimates, for both myelinated and unmyelinated axons the condition $\frac{2R}{K} \gg \kappa$ is true; and therefore, eq. (12) simplifies to: $$v_{gr}= \sqrt{\frac{2 R \omega K}{3 \mu}}.$$ This relationship shows that for unmyelinated axons, the axoplasmic pressure pulse velocity is proportional to the half-power of the axon diameter, assuming that the pulse duration, the membrane area expansion modulus and the axoplasm viscosity do not vary with axon diameter. For myelinated axons, introducing $\gamma =h/R$ (the ratio of the myelin sheath thickness to the axon radius) and using $K=Eh$, we can rewrite eq. (14) as: $$v_{gr}= R\sqrt{\frac{2\omega E \gamma}{3 \mu}}.$$ Therefore, for myelinated axons, assuming that pulse duration and specific properties of axoplasm and myelin are independent of diameter and that the myelin sheath thickness scales in proportion to the fiber diameter (i.e., $\gamma$ is constant), the pressure pulse velocity scales linearly with the fiber diameter. It is interesting that a linear dependence of pressure pulse velocity on fiber diameter is also obtained for myelinated axons without assuming $\kappa\ll\frac{2R}{K}$, from eq. (12): $$v_{gr}= c \cdot R \sqrt{\frac{\omega}{\mu(\kappa +\frac{2}{E \gamma})}}.$$ In summary, given that specific properties of axoplasm and myelin are independent of fiber diameter and that the myelin sheath thickness scales in proportion to fiber diameter, the axoplasmic pressure pulse velocity scales as $\sqrt{R}$ for unmyelinated axons and as $R$ for myelinated axons, similar to what is measured experimentally [@hobb07; @rush51].
Dependence of propagation velocity on temperature
-------------------------------------------------
The duration of the action potential increases with decreasing temperature, e.g., with Q$_{10}$ (the ratio of the velocity at one temperature to the value at a temperature 10 $^\circ$C lower) of 3.4 at 37 $^\circ$C for cat vagus myelinated fibers [@paint66]. Assuming that the duration of the axoplasmic pressure pulse is similar to that of the action potential, taking the change in $\mu$ from 37 $^\circ$C to 27 $^\circ$C as for water, Q$_{10}=0.81$ [@lide02], and assuming that the other parameters in eq. (12) do not change with temperature, we obtain the predicted Q$_{10}$ of 2 for the nerve impulse propagation velocity. This is rather close to the experimental value of 1.6 [@paint65].
Discussion
==========
It has recently been suggested [@heim05; @heim06] that the Hodgkin-Huxley model [@hodg52] of the action potential does not provide a satisfactory description of the nerve impulse because it does not include the mechanical [@iwas80b; @iwas80; @tasa80; @tasa82; @tasa90] and optical [@tasa68; @tasa69] changes associated with the action potential, as well as it is inconsistent with observed reversible changes in temperature and heat [@abbo58; @howa68; @ritc85; @tasa89; @tasa92]. Furthermore, the famous Meyer-Overton rule [@meye99; @over01; @urba06] is seemingly inconsistent with the Hodgkin-Huxley theory, as it implies an action of anesthetics other than binding to ion channels [@heim06]. The authors suggested a theory of the action potential based on solitons propagating in the axon membrane [@heim05; @heim06]. Although this theory is in principle able to account for the abovementioned phenomena, apparently it cannot explain changes in the propagation velocity that are related to axon diameter.
Following earlier work [@rva03; @rva03b], we have here proposed an alternative theory of the propagation of the nerve impulse. We suggested that the traveling transmembrane voltage spike (the action potential) is preceded by a pressure pulse propagating in the axoplasm. We have shown that, under physiological conditions, such pulses decay over roughly 1 mm distances; therefore, sustained propagation requires a mechanism of amplification. Based on known axon properties, we have proposed several amplification mechanisms. Each of these mechanisms involves the Hodgkin-Huxley voltage spike as a mediator, thereby providing the spike a functional role within the model. Due to the presence of the axoplasmic pressure pulse, the model is consistent with the mechanical, optical and thermal changes associated with the action potential [@iwas80b; @iwas80; @tasa80; @tasa82; @tasa90; @abbo58; @howa68; @ritc85; @tasa89; @tasa92; @tasa68; @tasa69]. Importantly, the simple and powerful Meyer-Overton rule [@meye99; @over01; @urba06], valid over 5 orders of magnitude, currently appears to be difficult, if not impossible, to interpret within the Hodgkin-Huxley theory. Within the presented framework, however, the Meyer-Overton rule is readily explained based on properties of lipid bilayers. A simple test of the presented theory is its ability to predict the velocity of the nerve impulse. We have shown that, over 2 orders of magnitude (for myelinated and unmyelinated axons), the predicted velocity is close to that which is experimentally observed, despite the fact that the precision of calculations is limited by current knowledge of the mechanical properties of axons and of the duration of the axoplasmic pressure pulse. The dependence of nerve impulse velocity on fiber diameter and temperature is also reproduced well by the model. A transmembrane voltage spike such as the action potential, however, is not a necessary feature of the model; therefore, it is suggested that some neurons may not exhibit the voltage spike, while still transmitting the nerve signal over short distances.
The author gratefully thanks his father, Prof. Michael A. Rvachov, for useful discussions.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We use one-and-a-half dimensional particle-in-cell plasma simulations to study the interaction of a relativistic, strongly magnetized wind with an ambient medium. Such an interaction is a plausible mechanism which leads to generation of cosmological $\gamma$-ray bursts. We confirm the idea of Mészáros and Rees (1992) that an essential part (about 20%) of the energy that is lost by the wind in the process of its deceleration may be transferred to high-energy electrons and then to high-frequency (X-ray and $\gamma$-ray) emission. We show that in the wind frame the spectrum of electrons which are accelerated at the wind front and move ahead of the front is nearly a two-dimensional relativistic Maxwellian with a relativistic temperature $T=m_ec^2\Gamma_{_T}/k\simeq 6\times 10^9\Gamma_{_T}$ K, where $\Gamma_{_T}$ is equal to $200\Gamma_0$ with the accuracy of $\sim 20$%, and $\Gamma_0$ is the Lorentz factor of the wind, $\Gamma_0\gtrsim 10^2$ for winds outflowing from cosmological $\gamma$-ray bursters. Our simulations point to an existence of a high-energy tail of accelerated electrons with a Lorentz factor of more than $\sim 700 \Gamma_0$. Large-amplitude electromagnetic waves are generated by the oscillating currents at the wind front. The mean field of these waves ahead of the wind front is an order of magnitude less than the magnetic field of the wind. High-energy electrons which are accelerated at the wind front and injected into the region ahead of the front generate synchro-Compton radiation in the fields of large-amplitude electromagnetic waves. This radiation closely resembles synchrotron radiation and can reproduce the non-thermal radiation of $\gamma$-ray bursts observed in the Ginga and BATSE ranges (from a few keV to a few MeV). Synchrotron photons which are generated in the vicinity of the wind front may be responsible for the radiation of $\gamma $-ray bursts in the EGRET energy range above a few ten MeV. The spectrum of $\gamma$-ray bursts in high-energy $\gamma$-rays may extend, in principle, up to the maximum energy of the accelerated electrons which is about $10^{13}(\Gamma_0/10^2)^2$ eV in the frame of the $\gamma$-ray burster.'
author:
- 'M.V. Smolsky and V.V. Usov'
title: 'Non-thermal radiation of cosmological $\gamma$-ray bursters'
---
Introduction {#Introduction}
============
Many ideas about the nature of $\gamma$-ray bursts have been discussed during last 25 years after their discovery (for a review, see [@Blaes94]; [@Harding94]; [@Hartman95]; [@Dermer95]; [@FM95]; [@Greiner98]; [@Piran98]). Among these ideas, there was a suggestion that the sources of $\gamma$-ray bursts (GRBs) are at cosmological distances, i.e. at a redshift $z\sim 1$ ([@Usov75]; [@vdBerg83]; [@Paczynski86]; [@Goodman86]; [@Eichler89]). After the BATSE data became available ([@Meegan92], 1994), the idea of a cosmological origin of GRB sources has come to be taken very seriously (e.g., [@Paczynski91]; [@FM95]). Recent detections of absorption and emission features at a redshift $z=0.835$ in the optical afterglow of GRB 970508 ([@Metzger97]) and at redshift $z=3.42$ in the host galaxy of GRB 971214 ([@Kulkarni98]) clearly demonstrate that at least some of the GRB sources lie at cosmological distances. A common feature of all acceptable models of cosmological $\gamma$-ray bursters is that a relativistic wind is a source of GRB radiation. The Lorentz factor, $\Gamma_0$, of such a wind is about $10^2-10^3$ or even more (e.g., [@Fenimore93]; [@Harding97]). A very strong magnetic field may be in the plasma outflowing from cosmological $\gamma$-ray bursters ([@Usov92], 1994a,b; [@Thompson93]; [@Blackman96]; [@Vietri96]; [@Katz97]; [@Meszaros97]; [@Dai98]). It was pointed out ([@Meszaros92], 1993; [@Rees92]) that the kinetic energy of relativistic winds may be converted into non-thermal radiation of GRBs when these winds interact with an ambient medium (e.g., an ordinary interstellar medium or plasma which is ejected from the predecessor of the burster). Recently, the interaction between a relativistic magnetized wind and an ambient medium was studied numerically ([@Smolsky96]; [@Usov98]), and it was shown that electrons of the ambient medium which are reflected from the wind front are accelerated up to the mean energy of reflected protons. In this paper we study both the spectrum of electrons accelerated at the wind front and their non-thermal radiation.
A plausible model of cosmological GRBs is discussed in § 2. The main results of our numerical simulations of the interaction between a relativistic strongly magnetized wind and an ambient medium are presented in § 3. The spectrum of electrons which are accelerated at the wind front and their non-thermal radiation are considered in § 4. Finally, our main conclusions are summarized and discussed in § 5.
Relativistic strongly magnetized winds from cosmological $\gamma$-ray bursters and their non-thermal radiation: a plausible scenario {#model}
====================================================================================================================================
The energy output of cosmological $\gamma$-ray bursters in $\gamma$-rays typically is $10^{51}-10^{53}$ ergs ([@Wickramasinghe93]; [@Tamblyn93]; [@Lipunov95] ) and may be as high as $3\times 10^{53}$ ergs ([@Kulkarni98]) or even more ([@Kulkarni99]). These estimates assume isotropic emission of GRBs. Such a high energetics of cosmological $\gamma$-ray bursters and a short time scale of $\gamma$-ray flux variability call for very compact objects as sources of GRBs ([@Hartman95]; [@Piran98] and references therein). These objects may be either millisecond pulsars which are arisen from accretion-induced collapse of white dwarfs in close binaries ([@Usov92]) or differentially rotating disk-like objects which are formed by the merger of a binary consisting of two neutron stars ([@Eichler89]; [@Narayan92]). Such very young fast-rotating compact objects have two possible sources of energy which may be responsible for radiation of cosmological GRBs. These are the thermal energy of the compact objects and the kinetic energy of their rotation. The thermal energy may be transformed into $\gamma$-rays by means of the following sequence of processes (for review, see [@Piran98]): (1) Emission of neutrinos and cooling of the object; (2) Absorption of neutrinos $(\nu_i +
\bar\nu_i \rightarrow e^+ + e^- )$ and formation of a fireball which mainly consists of electrons and positrons; (3) Expansion of the fireball and formation of a relativistic shell, $\Gamma_0
\gtrsim 10^2$; (4) Interaction of the shell with an external medium and acceleration of electrons to very high energies; and (5) Generation of $\gamma$-rays by high-energy electrons. The maximum thermal energy, $Q_{\rm th} ^{\rm max}$, of very young compact objects is high enough to explain the energy output of cosmological GBBs, $Q_{\rm th} ^{\rm max}\simeq$ a few $\times 10^{53}$ ergs. However, the fraction of the thermal energy that is converted into the energy of the electron-positron fireball and then into the kinetic energy of the relativistic shell is very small and cannot be essentially more than $10^{-3}-10^{-2}$ ([@GDN]; [@Eichler89]; [@JR]; [@Piran98] and references therein). Moreover, the efficiency of transformation of the kinetic energy of a relativistic shell into radiation cannot be more than $30-40$% ([@be]). Hence, neutrino powered winds outflowing from compact objects may be responsible for the radiation of cosmological GRBs only if they are well collimated, with opening angle about a few degrees or even less. For both young neutron stars and post-merger objects, such a collimation of neutrino powered winds is very questionable (e.g., [@Woosley93]; [@Piran98] and references therein).
The rotational energy of the compact objects at the moment of their formation may be comparable with the thermal energy, $Q_{\rm rot}
^{\rm max}\simeq Q_{\rm th} ^{\rm max}$. The efficiency of transformation of the rotational energy to the energy of a relativistic strongly magnetized wind and then to the energy of high-frequency radiation may be as high as almost 100% (see Usov 1994a,b; Blackman et al. 1996 and below). For some time the theoretical expectation has been that rotation powered neutron stars (pulsars) should generate collimated outflows (e.g., [@Benford84]; [@Michel85]; [@Sulkanen90]). The Crab, Vela, PSR B1509-58 and possible PSR B1951+32 all show evidence that this is indeed the case ([@Hester98]; [@Gaensler99] and references therein). If the energy flux from the source of GRB 990123 in the direction to the Earth is only about ten times more than the energy flux averaged over all directions, the model of GRBs based on the rotation powered winds can easily explain the energetics of such an extremal event as GRB 990123 ([@Kulkarni99]). Such an anisotropy of emission from the burst sources doesn’t contradict available data on GRBs (e.g., [@PL98]). In the case of typical GRBs with the energy output of $10^{51}-10^{53}$ ergs, this model can explain their energetics even if the emission of GRBs is nearly isotropic. Therefore, the rotational energy of compact objects is a plausible source of energy for cosmological GRBs, not the thermal energy.
In many papers (e.g., [@Usov92]; [@Thompson93]; Blackman et al. 1996; [@Kluzniak98]), it was argued that the strength of the magnetic field $B_{_S}$ at the surface of compact objects may be as high as $\sim 10^{16}$ G or even more. Such a strong magnetic field leads to both deceleration of the rotation of the fast-rotating compact object on a time scale of seconds and generation of a strongly magnetized wind that flows away from the object at a relativistic speed, $\Gamma_0\simeq 10^2-10^3$ (e.g., [@Usov94a]). The outflowing wind is Poynting flux–dominated, i.e., $\sigma = L_{\pm}/
L_{_P}\ll 1$, where
$$L_{_P}\simeq {2\over 3} {B_{_S}^2R^6\Omega^4\over c^3}\simeq 2\times
10^{52}\left({B_{_S}\over 10^{16}\,\,{\rm G}}
\right)^2\left({R\over 10^6\,\,{\rm cm}}\right)^6
\left({\Omega\over 10^4\,\,{\rm s}^{-1}}\right)^4\,\,
{\rm ergs\,\,s}^{-1}$$
is the luminosity of the compact object in the Poynting flux, $ L_{\pm}$ is its luminosity in both electron-positron pairs and radiation, $c$ is the speed of light, $R$ is the radius of the compact object and $\Omega$ is its angular velocity; $R\sim 10^6$ cm and $\Omega\sim
10^4$ s$^{-1}$ for both millisecond pulsars and post-merger objects. For compact objects with extremely strong magnetic fields, $B_{_S}\sim 10^{16}$ G, it is expected that $\sigma $ is $\sim 0.01-0.1$ ([@Usov94a]).
A plausible magnetic topology for a relativistic magnetized wind outflowing from an oblique rotator ($\vartheta\neq 0$) with a nearly dipole magnetic field is shown in Figure 1, where $\vartheta$ is the angle between the rotational axis and the magnetic axis. Near the rotational poles, the wind field should be helical (e.g., [@Coroniti90]). This is because the magnetic flux originates in a single polar cap. Near the rotational equator, the toroidal magnetic field of the wind should be striped and alternates in polarity on a scalelength of $\pi (c/\Omega )\sim 10^7$ cm. These magnetic stripes are separated by thin current sheets $(J_\theta)$. Off the equator, the magnetic flux in the toward and away stripes is unequal if $\vartheta\neq \pi/ 2$. In other words, in the striped region, the wind field is a superposition of a pure helical field and a pure striped field with nearly equal magnetic fluxes in adjacent stripes.
Since the luminosity of a $\gamma$-ray burster in a relativistic magnetized wind drops in time, $L_{_P}
\propto t^{-\beta}$, the wind structure at the moment $t\gg\tau_{_\Omega}$ is similar to a shell with the radius $r\simeq ct$, where $\beta$ is a numerical index, $1\leq \beta\leq 2$, and $\tau_{_\Omega}\sim 10^{-2}-10^2$ s is the characteristic time of deceleration of the compact object rotation due to the action of the electromagnetic torque and the torque related to generation of gravitational radiation ([@Usov92]; [@Yi98]). The thickness of the shell is $\sim c\tau_{_\Omega}$.
The strength of the magnetic field at the front of the wind is about
$$B\simeq B_{_S}\frac {R^3}{r_{\rm lc}^2r}
\simeq 10^{15}\frac Rr\left(
\frac{B_{_S}}{ 10^{16}\,\rm{G}}\right) \left(\frac\Omega
{10^4\,\rm{s}^{-1}}\right)^2\rm{G},
\label{Bobj}$$
where $r_{\rm lc}=c/\Omega=3\times 10^6(\Omega /10^4\,$s$^{-1})$ cm is the radius of the light cylinder.
Non-thermal radiation from a relativistic strongly magnetized wind depends on whether the wind is striped in the direction of its outflow or not. If the wind is striped (see Fig.1), the magnetic field is more or less frozen in the outflowing plasma at the distance $r\lesssim r_f$ ([@Usov94a]; [@Blackman98]), where
$$r_f\simeq 2\times 10^{14} \sigma^{3/4}\left(
{B_{_ S}\over 10^{16}\,{\rm G}}\right)^{1/2}
\left({\Omega\over 10^4\,{\rm s}^{-1}}\right)^{1/2}\,\,
{\rm cm}\,.
\label{rnth}$$
At $r > r_f$, the wind density is not sufficient to screen displacement currents, and the striped component of the wind field is transformed into large-amplitude electromagnetic waves (LAEMWs) due to development of magneto-parametric instability ([@Usov75b], 1994a,b; Blackman et al. 1996; [@Melatos96]). \[For a criterion for electromagnetic waves to be considered as LAEMWs see § 4.\] The typical frequency of generated LAEMWs is equal to $\Omega$, and their amplitude is $\sim B$. Outflowing particles are accelerated in the field of LAEMWs to Lorentz factors of the order of $10^6$, and generate non-thermal synchro–Compton radiation with the typical energy of photons in the range of a few $\times (0.1-1)$ MeV (Usov 1994a,b; Blackman et al. 1996; [@Blackman98]). A long high-energy tail of the $\gamma$-ray spectrum may exist up to $\sim 10^4$ MeV. This is consistent with the observed spectra of GRBs ([@Band93]; [@Schaefer94]; [@FM95]).
The radiative damping length for LAEMWs generated at $r\sim r_f$ is a few orders of magnitude less than $r_f$ ([@Usov94a]). Therefore, at $r\gg r_f$ LAEMWs decay almost completely, and their energy is transferred to high-energy electrons and then to X-ray and $\gamma$-ray photons. It is worth noting that when the magnetic axis is perpendicular to the rotational axis, $\vartheta = \pi /2$, the electromagnetic field of the Poynting flux–dominated wind is purely striped just as vacuum magnetic dipole waves ([@Michel71]). In this case, almost all energy of the wind is radiated in X-rays and $\gamma$-rays at $r\sim r_f$ ([@Usov94a]; [@Blackman96]; [@Blackman98]), and the total energy output in hard photons per a GRB may be as high as $Q^{\rm max}_{\rm rot}
\simeq$ a few $\times 10^{53}$ ergs.
At $r\gg r_f$ and $\vartheta \neq \pi /2$, the magnetic field is helical everywhere in the outflowing wind (see Fig. 1). Such a relativistic strongly magnetized wind expands more or less freely up to the distance
$$r_{\rm{dec}}\simeq 5\times 10^{16}\left({\frac{Q_{\rm{kin}}}{10^{52}\,
\rm{ergs}}}\right)^{1/3}\left({\frac n{1\,\rm{cm}^{-3}}}\right)^{-1/3}\left(
{\frac{\Gamma_0}{10^2}}\right)^{-2/3}\rm{cm},
\label{rdec}$$
at which deceleration of the wind due to its interaction with an ambient medium becomes important ([@Rees92]), where $n$ is the density of the ambient medium and $Q_{\rm{kin}}$ is the kinetic energy of the outflowing wind, $Q_{\rm{kin}}
\leq Q_{\rm rot}\leq Q^{\rm max}_{\rm rot}$ . Substituting $r_{\rm{dec}}$ for $r$ into equation (\[Bobj\]), we have the following estimate for the magnetic field at the wind front at $r\sim r_{\rm {dec}}$:
$$B_{\rm{dec}}\simeq 2\times 10^4\left(\frac{B_s}{10^{16}\,\rm{G}}\right)\left(
\frac\Omega{10^4\,\rm{s}^{-1}}\right)^2\left(
\frac{Q_{\rm{kin}}}{10^{52}\,\rm{ergs}}\right)^{-1/3}\left(\frac
n{1\,\rm{cm}^{-3}}\right)^{1/3}\left({\frac{\Gamma_0}{10^2}}\right)
^{2/3}\rm{G}\,,
\label{Bdec}$$
For typical parameters of cosmological $\gamma$-ray bursters, $B_{_S}
\simeq 10^{16}$ G, $\Omega\simeq 10^4$ s$^{-1}$, $Q_{\rm{kin}}\simeq
10^{52}-10^{53}$ ergs and $\Gamma_0\simeq 10^2-10^3$, if the ambient medium is an ordinary interstellar gas, $n\sim 1
-10^2$ cm $^{-3}$, from equation (\[Bdec\]) we have $B_{\rm{dec}}\simeq 10^4- 4\times 10^5$ G.
It is suggested by Mészáros and Rees (1992) that in the process of the wind – ambient medium interaction at $r\sim r_{\rm{dec}}$, an essential part of the wind energy may be transferred to high-energy electrons and then to high-frequency (X-ray and $\gamma$-ray) emission. This suggestion is confirmed by our numerical simulations (see [@Smolsky96]; [@Usov98] and below). Hence, in our scenario in a general case, when the rotational axis and the magnetic axis are not aligned $(\vartheta \neq 0)$ or perpendicular $(\vartheta \neq \pi /2)$, there are at least two regions where powerful non-thermal X-ray and $\gamma$-ray emission of GRBs may be generated. The first region is at $r \sim r_f \sim 10^{13}-10^{14}$ cm, and the second one is at $r\sim r_{\rm dec}\sim 10^{16}- 10^{17}$ cm. Acceleration of electrons and their radiation in the first radiating region at $r\sim r_f$ were considered in details earlier (Usov 1994a,b; Blackman et al. 1996; Blackman & Yi 1998). Below, we consider the spectrum of electrons accelerated at $r\sim r_{\rm dec}$ and their radiation.
Interaction of a relativistic strongly magnetized wind with an ambient medium {#interaction}
=============================================================================
For consideration of the interaction between a relativistic magnetized wind and an ambient medium, it is convenient to switch to the co-moving frame of the outflowing plasma (the wind frame). While changing the frame, the magnetic and electric fields in the wind are reduced from $B$ and $E=B[1-(1/\Gamma_0^2)]^{1/2}
\simeq B$ in the frame of the $\gamma$-ray burster to $B_0\simeq B/\Gamma_0$ and $E_0=0$ in the wind frame. Using this and equation (\[Bdec\]), for typical parameters of cosmological $\gamma$-ray bursters (see § 2) we have $B_0\simeq 10^2-10^3$ G at $r\simeq r_{\rm dec}$.
In the wind frame, the problem of the wind – ambient medium interaction is identical to the problem of collision between a wide relativistic beam of cold plasma and a region with a strong magnetic field which is called a magnetic barrier. Recently, the interaction of a wide relativistic plasma beam with a magnetic barrier was studied numerically ([@Smolsky96]; [@Usov98]). In these studies, the following initial condition of the beam – barrier system was assumed. Initially, at $t=0$, the ultrarelativistic homogeneous neutral beam of protons and electrons (number densities $n_p=n_e\equiv n_0$) runs along the $x$ axis and impacts at the barrier, where $n_0$ is constant. The beam is infinite in the $y$ – $z$ dimensions and semi-infinite in the $x$ dimension. The magnetic field of the barrier ${\bf B}_0$ is uniform and transverse to the beam velocity, ${\bf B}_0=B_0{\bf \hat e}_z\Theta[x]$, where $B_0$ is constant and $\Theta [x]$ is the step function equal to unity for $x>0$ and to zero for $x<0$. At the front of the barrier, $x=0$, the surface current $J_y$ runs along the $y$ axis to generate the jump of the magnetic field. The value of this current per unit length of the front across the current direction is $cB_0/4\pi$. A 1${1\over 2}$D time-dependent solution for the problem of the beam – barrier interaction was constructed, i.e., electromagnetic fields (${\bf E}=E_x{\bf \hat
e}_x+E_y{\bf \hat e}_y$; ${\bf B}=B{\bf \hat e}_z$) and motion of the beam particles in the $x$ – $y$ plane were found. The structure of the fields and motion of the beam particles were treated self-consistently except the external current $J_y$ which was fixed in our simulations.
The main results of our simulations are the following ([@Smolsky96]; [@Usov98]).
1\. When the energy densities of the beam and the magnetic field, ${\bf B}_0$, of the barrier are comparable,
$$\alpha = 8\pi n_0m_pc^2(\Gamma_0-1)/B^2_0\sim 1\,,
\label{alpha}$$
where $m_p$ is the proton mass, the process of the beam – barrier interaction is strongly nonstationary, and the density of protons after their reflection from the barrier is strongly non-uniform. The ratio of the maximum density of reflected protons and their minimum density is $\sim 10$.
2\. At $\alpha > \alpha _{\rm cr}\simeq 0.4$, the depth of the beam particle penetration into the barrier increases in time, $x_{\rm pen}\simeq v_{\rm pen} t$, where $v_{\rm pen}$ is the mean velocity of the penetration into the barrier. The value of $v_{\rm pen}$ is subrelativistic and varies from zero (no penetration) at $\alpha \leq \alpha_{\rm cr}$ to $0.17c$ at $\alpha =1$ and then to $0.32 c$ at $\alpha =2$. At $\alpha > \alpha _{\rm cr}$, the magnetic field of the barrier at the moment $t$ roughly is $B(t)\simeq B_0\Theta[x-x_{\rm {pen}}(t)]$ (see Fig. 2). In other words, the front of the beam – barrier interaction is displaced into the barrier with the velocity $v_{\rm pen}$. For $\alpha > \alpha _{\rm cr}$, our consideration of the beam – barrier interaction in the vicinity of the new front, $x\simeq x_{\rm {pen}}$, is [*completely self-consistent*]{}, and no simplifying assumptions besides geometrical ones are exploited.
3\. At the front of the barrier, $x\simeq x_{\rm {pen}}(t)$, the surface current varies in time because of strong nonstationarity of the beam – barrier interaction at $\alpha\sim 1$, and low-frequency electromagnetic waves are generated (Fig. 2). The typical frequency of these waves is about the proton gyrofrequency $\omega_{Bp}=eB_0/m_pc\Gamma_0$ in the field of the barrier $B_0$. The wave amplitude $ B_w$ can reach $\sim 0.2 B_0$.
4\. At $\alpha \sim 1$, strong electric fields are generated in the vicinity of the front of the barrier, $x\simeq x_{\rm {pen}}(t)$, and electrons of the beam are accelerated in these fields up to the mean energy of protons, i.e. up to $\sim m_pc^2 \Gamma_0$ (see Fig. 3). At $\alpha_{\rm cr} < \alpha \lesssim 1$, the mean Lorentz factor of outflowing high-energy electrons after their reflection and acceleration at the barrier front depends on $\alpha$ and is
$$\langle\Gamma_e^{\rm {out}}\rangle \simeq 0.2
\left(\frac{m_p}{m_e}\right)\Gamma_0
\label{Gammamean}$$
within a factor of 2. The total energy of accelerated electrons is about 20% of the energy in outflowing protons which are reflected from the magnetic barrier.
5\. At $\alpha_{\rm cr} < \alpha \lesssim 1$, the mean Lorentz factor of protons reflected from the barrier is $\langle \Gamma_p^{\rm{out}}\rangle \simeq (0.7\pm 0.1)\Gamma_0$, i.e. the process of the beam proton reflection from the barrier is non-elastic, and about 30% of the initial kinetic energy of the beam protons is lost in this collision. The energy that is lost by the beam protons is transferred to high-energy electrons and low-frequency electromagnetic waves. Typically, the energy in these waves is a few times smaller than the energy in high-energy electrons.
In the burster frame, a magnetized wind flows away from the burster at relativistic speeds and collides with an ambient medium. In the process of such a collision, the outflowing wind loses its energy. From the listed results of our simulations of the beam – barrier collision ([@Smolsky96]; [@Usov98]), it follows that at $r\sim r_{\rm dec}$, where $\alpha$ is $\sim 1$, about 70% of the energy losses of the wind are transferred to protons of the ambient medium which are reflected from the wind front. The mean energy of reflected protons is about $m_pc^2\Gamma_0^2$. The other 30% of the wind energy losses are distributed between high-energy electrons and low-frequency electromagnetic waves. As a rule, the total energy in accelerated electrons is a few times more than the total energy in low-frequency waves.
Non-thermal radiation from the region of the wind – ambient medium interaction
==============================================================================
High-energy electrons accelerated at the wind front generate non-thermal radiation while they move in both the magnetic field of the wind and the electromagnetic fields of low-frequency waves that are produced by the non-stationary currents at the wind front.
Synchrotron radiation from the wind front
-----------------------------------------
In our simulations of the beam – magnetic barrier interaction ([@Smolsky96]; [@Usov98]), the examined space-time domain is
$$x_{\rm min}<x<x_{\rm max},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,0<t<t_{\rm max},
\label{xt}$$
where $x_{\rm max}$ and $-x_{\rm min}$ are equal to a few $\times (1-10)
(c/\omega_{Bp})$, $t_{\rm max}$ is equal to a few $\times (1-10)T_p$, and $(c/\omega_{Bp})$ and $T_p=2\pi / \omega_
{Bp}$ are the proton gyroradius and gyroperiod in the magnetic field of the barrier $B_0$, respectively. Non-thermal radiation of high-energy electrons from the examined space domain was calculated for the beam and barrier parameters which are relevant to cosmological GRBs ([@Smolsky96]; [@Usov98]). Figure 4 shows the intensity of radiation as a function of time $t$ for a simulation with $B_0=300$ G, $\Gamma_0=300$, $\alpha =2/3$, $x_{\rm min}=-5(c/\omega_{Bp})$ and $x_{\rm max}=30(c/\omega_{Bp})$. In all our simulations, the bulk of calculated radiation is generated via synchrotron mechanism in a compact vicinity, $x_{\rm pen}- 2 (c/\omega_{Bp}) <x
< x_{\rm pen}$, of the barrier front where both the strength of the magnetic field is of the order of $B_0$ and the mean energy of accelerated electrons is extremely high. Radiation of high-energy electrons in the fields of low-frequency waves is negligible ($\sim 1$% or less) because both the fields of these waves are about an order of magnitude smaller than $B_0$ (see below) and the length of the examined space domain (\[xt\]) is restricted for computational reasons.
At $\alpha\sim 1$, the mean energy of synchrotron photons generated at the front of the barrier is
$$\langle \varepsilon _\gamma \rangle \simeq 0.1\left( {\frac{\Gamma
_0}{10^2}} \right) ^2\left( {\frac{B_0}{10^3\,\rm{G}}}\right) \;\;
\rm{MeV}\,.
\label{eps}$$
The average fraction of the kinetic energy of the beam that is radiated in these photons is
$$\xi _\gamma \equiv \frac{\left\langle \Phi _\gamma \right\rangle }{
n_0m_pc^3\Gamma _0}
\simeq 10^{-3}\left( {\frac{\Gamma _0}{10^2}}\right)
^2\left( {\frac{B_0}{10^3\,\rm{G}}}\right)\,,
\label{ksinum}$$
where $\left\langle\Phi_\gamma \right\rangle$ is the average synchrotron luminosity of high-energy electrons per unit area of the barrier front.
In the burster frame, the characteristic energy, $\langle \tilde{\varepsilon}_
\gamma \rangle$, of synchrotron photons generated in the vicinity of the wind front increases due to the Doppler effect. Taking this into account and using equation (\[eps\]), we have
$$\langle \tilde{\varepsilon}_\gamma \rangle \simeq
10\left( {\frac{\Gamma _0 }{10^2}}\right) ^2\left(
{\frac{B_{\rm{dec}}}{10^5\,\rm{G}}}\right) \;\;\rm{ MeV}\,.
\label{epsLab}$$
where $B_{\rm{dec}}$ is determined in equation (\[Bdec\]). The fraction of the wind energy which is transferred to radiation at the wind front does not depend on the frame where it is estimated, and in the burster frame it is equal to
$$\tilde{\xi}_\gamma = \xi_\gamma\simeq 10^{-3}\left( \frac{\Gamma
_0}{10^2} \right) \left( \frac{B_{\rm{dec}}}{10^5\, \rm{G}}\right) \,,
\label{ksiLab}$$
For typical parameters of relativistic magnetized winds which are relevant to cosmological $\gamma$-ray bursters, $\Gamma_0\simeq 10^2-10^3$ and $B_{\rm{dec}}\simeq 10^5$ G (see § 2), from equations (\[epsLab\]) and (\[ksiLab\]) we have $\langle \tilde{\varepsilon}_\gamma \rangle\simeq 10 -
10^3$ MeV and $\tilde{\xi}\simeq 10^{-2}-10^{-3}$, i.e., the synchrotron radiation that is generated at wind front is in the EGRET range.
The main part of X-ray and $\gamma$-ray emission of detected GRBs is in the BATSE range, from a few $\times 10$ keV to a few MeV (e.g., [@FM95]). Synchrotron radiation from the wind front is either too hard or too weak to explain this emission irrespective of $B_{\rm dec}$. Indeed, equations (\[epsLab\]) and (\[ksiLab\]) yield
$$\langle \tilde{\varepsilon}_\gamma \rangle \simeq 10^2\left(
{\frac{\Gamma _0}{10^2}}\right) \left( {\frac{\tilde{\xi}_\gamma
}{10^{-2}}} \right)\;\;\;\rm{MeV}.
\label{epsLabksiLab}$$
In our model, the energy of rotation powered winds which are responsible for cosmological GRBs cannot be significantly more than $10^{53}$ ergs. To explain the energy output of $\sim 10^{51}-
10^{53}$ ergs per GRB (see § 2), the efficiency of transformation of the wind energy into the energy of non-thermal radiation has to be about or more than $ 1\%$, $\tilde{\xi}_\gamma \gtrsim 10^{-2}$, and for some GRBs it may be as high as 100%, $\tilde{\xi}_\gamma
\simeq 1$. Taking into account that for cosmological GRBs the value of $\Gamma _0$ is $\gtrsim 10^2 $ (e.g., [@Fenimore93]; [@Harding97]), for $\tilde{\xi}_\gamma \gtrsim 10^{-2}$ from equation (\[epsLabksiLab\]) it follows that the mean energy of synchrotron photons generated at the wind front is very high, $\langle
\tilde{\varepsilon}_\gamma\rangle\gtrsim 100$ MeV. This is because the bulk of these photons is generated in the thin vicinity of the wind front where there are both a strong magnetic field, $B\simeq B_0$, and high-energy electrons. The mean time that high-energy electrons spend in this vicinity and generate synchrotron radiation is very short, $\sim$ a few $\times T_p\sim
10^{-6}(B_{\rm dec}/10^5\,\,{\rm G})^{-1}(\Gamma_0/10^2)$ s. To get a high efficiency of synchrotron radiation at the wind front, $\tilde{\xi}_\gamma > 10^{-2}$, it is necessary to assume that the magnetic field $B_{\rm dec}$ is about its maximum value (see § 2). From equation (\[epsLab\]), we can see that in this case the mean energy of synchrotron photons is of the order of or higher than $10^2$ MeV.
For a typical value of $B_{\rm dec}$, that is $\sim 10^5$ G (see § 2), and $\Gamma_0\sim 10^2-10^3$, from equation (\[ksiLab\]) we have $\tilde \xi_\gamma\sim 10^{-3}-10^{-2}\ll 1$. Hence, high-energy electrons are accelerated at the wind front and injected into the region ahead of the front practically without energy losses. In our model, these high-energy electrons are the best candidates to be responsible for the X-ray and $\gamma$-ray emission of GRBs in the BATSE range. Before considering high-frequency radiation from the region ahead of the wind front, we discuss briefly some general properties of radiation of high-energy electrons in the fields of electromagnetic waves.
LAEMWs and synchro-Compton radiation of electrons
-------------------------------------------------
The motion of electrons and their radiation in the fields of electromagnetic waves is characterized by the following dimensionless Lorentz-invariant parameter (e.g., [@BT74]):
$$\eta ={e B_w\over m_ec\omega}\,,
\label{eta}$$
where $ B_w$ is the amplitude of the waves and $\omega$ is their frequency. At $\eta \ll 1$, electrons radiate via Compton scattering. In this case, the typical energy of photons $\langle{\varepsilon}_c\rangle$ after scattering depends on the wave frequency, $\langle{\varepsilon}_c\rangle\propto \omega \Gamma_e^2$, and does not depend on the wave amplitude (e.g., [@BT74]).
Electromagnetic waves with $\eta \gg 1$ are called large-amplitude electromagnetic waves (LAEMWs). Radiation of electrons in the fields of LAEMWs is called synchro–Compton radiation. In the most simple case which is interesting for us (see below) when the bulk of radiating electrons has such a high velocity $v_\perp=c\sin \psi$ transverse to the wave vector that
$$(v_\perp /c)\Gamma_e = \Gamma_e\sin\psi \gtrsim \eta\,,
\label{psi}$$
synchro–Compton radiation of these electrons closely resembles synchrotron radiation ([@BT74]), where $\psi$ is the angle between the electron velocity and the wave vector of LAEMWs. Indeed, it is well known that electromagnetic radiation of relativistic electrons is concentrated in the direction of the particle’s velocity within a narrow cone of angle $\Delta \varphi\simeq 1/\Gamma_e \ll 1$ (e.g., [@Rybicki79]). For nearly transverse motion of electrons in a magnetic field $B$, the formation length of radiation is about $\Delta l \simeq 2 R_{Be}\Delta \varphi\simeq
2m_ec^2/eB$, where $R_{Be}=m_ec^2\Gamma_e/eB$ is the electron gyroradius. For synchro–Compton radiation, $\eta\gg 1$, the formation length is much smaller than the wavelength, $\lambda =2\pi c/\omega$, of LAEMWs :
$$\Delta l\simeq \left({m_ec \omega \over \pi eB}\right)\lambda
\simeq {\lambda \over \pi\eta} \ll \lambda\,,
\label{Deltal}$$
and the electromagnetic fields of LAEMWs may be considered as homogeneous and static. Therefore, synchro–Compton radiation is similar to synchrotron radiation in a magnetic field which is equal to the local field of LAEMWs. \[For details on synchro–Compton radiation see ([@GO71]; [@BT74]).\]
The mean frequency of synchro-Compton radiation of high-energy electrons with the Lorentz factor $\Gamma_e$ is (e.g., [@BT74])
$$\nu_{sc}\simeq {e\langle B_w\rangle \Gamma^2_e
\over 2\pi mc}\simeq 3\times 10^6\langle B_w\rangle
\Gamma_e^2\,\,\,\,{\rm Hz}\,,
\label{nu}$$
where $\langle B_w\rangle$ is the mean field of LAEMWs.
LAEMWs generated at the wind front
----------------------------------
At $\alpha\sim 1$, low-frequency electromagnetic waves are generated at the wind front and propagate in both directions from the front (see § 3 and Figs 2 and 5 – 7). These waves are non-monochromatic. Figure 8 shows a typical spectrum of low-frequency waves in the wind frame. This spectrum has a maximum at the frequency $\omega_{\rm max}$ which is a few times higher than the proton gyrofrequency $\omega_{Bp}=eB_0 /m_pc\Gamma_0$ in the field of $B_0$.
At high frequencies, $\omega > \omega_{\rm max}$, the spectrum of low-frequency waves may be fitted by a power law:
$$|B(\omega )|^2\propto
\omega ^{-\beta}\,,
\label{Bomega}$$
where $\beta\simeq 1.6$.
In the region ahead of the wind front, the mean field of low-frequency waves depends on $\alpha$, and in the wind frame, for $\alpha_{\rm cr}\lesssim \alpha \lesssim 1$ this field is
$$\langle B_w\rangle =(\langle B_z\rangle^2 +
\langle E_y\rangle^2)^{1/2}\simeq 0.1 B_0 \simeq 0.1 B_{\rm dec}
/\Gamma_0
\label{avBw}$$
within a factor of 2 or so.
At $\alpha > 1$, the intensity of low-frequency waves is suppressed in the region ahead of the wind front (see Fig. 6) because the typical frequency, $\omega\simeq \omega_{\rm max}$, of these waves is smaller than the relativistic plasma frequency of the ambient medium, $\omega_p=
(4\pi n_0e^2/m_e\langle\Gamma_e\rangle )^{1/2}$ ([@Gallant92]). In this case, only a high-frequency component of low-frequency waves with the frequency $\omega \gtrsim \omega_p\simeq (5\alpha )^{1/2}\omega_{Bp}$ propagates far ahead of the wind front.
For typical parameters of low-frequency waves generated at the wind front, $B_w\simeq 0.1 B_0$ and $\omega\simeq \omega_{\rm max}\simeq 3
\omega_{Bp}\simeq 3 (eB_0/m_pc\Gamma_0)$, from equation (\[eta\]) we have
$$\eta \simeq {B_w\over B_0}{m_p\over m_e}\Gamma_0
\simeq 50\Gamma_0\gg 1\,.
\label{eta1}$$
Hence, these low-frequency waves are LAEMWs.
High-energy electrons accelerated at the wind front
---------------------------------------------------
At $r\sim r_{\rm dec}$, where $\alpha$ is $\sim 1$, about 20% of the energy of a relativistic strongly magnetized wind is transferred to electrons of an ambient medium which are reflected from the wind front and accelerated to extremely high energies (see § 3 and references therein). In the wind frame, the spectrum of high-energy electrons in the region ahead of the wind front may be fitted by a two-dimensional relativistic Maxwellian
$${dn_e \over d\Gamma_e}\propto \Gamma_e\exp \left({-
{m_ec^2\Gamma_e\over kT}}\right)
\label{dne}$$
with a relativistic temperature $T=m_ec^2\Gamma_{_T} /k$, where $\Gamma_{_T}\simeq 240 \Gamma_0$ (see Fig. 9). The fact that the energy distribution of accelerated electrons at $\alpha\sim 1$ is close to a relativistic Maxwellian is quite natural because at $\alpha
\gtrsim \alpha_{\rm cr}$ the trajectories of particles in the front vicinity are fully chaotic. The thermal distribution of high energy electrons does not come as a result of interparticle collisions, since the ambient medium is collisionless and no artificial viscosity is included in the simulation code ([@Smolsky96]). Thermalization of the electron distribution is purely a result of collisionless interactions between particles and electromagnetic oscillations generated at the wind front.
At $\Gamma_e\leq 700\Gamma_0$, the fit of the electron spectrum by a two-dimensional relativistic Maxwellian (\[dne\]) with $\Gamma_{_T}
\simeq 200\Gamma_0$ is rather accurate (see Fig. 9). A small excess of electrons with Lorentz factors $\Gamma_e > 700 \Gamma_0$ may be interpreted as a high-energy tail. Such a tail may result, for example, from multiple acceleration of high-energy electrons at the wind front. Figure 10 shows the angular distribution of high-energy electrons in the region far ahead of the wind front. From Figure 10, we can see that this distribution is anisotropic. The mean angle between the velocity of outflowing electrons and the normal to the wind front is $\langle \psi \rangle\simeq 1/3$ radian.
Synchro-Compton radiation of high-energy electrons from the region ahead of the wind front
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-energy electrons with a nearly Maxwellian spectrum are injected into the region ahead of the wind front and radiate in the fields of LAEMWs via synchro-Compton mechanism. The mean angle between the velocity of these electrons and the wave vector of LAEMWs is $\langle\psi \rangle \simeq 1/3$ radian. Using this and equations (\[Gammamean\]) and (\[eta1\]), we can see that the condition (\[psi\]) is satisfied, and, therefore, in the region ahead of the wind front synchro-Compton radiation of high-energy electrons closely resembles synchrotron radiation. To model the spectrum of synchro-Compton radiation, we replace the fields of LAEMWs $B_z(t,x)$ and $E_y(t,x)$ by a constant magnetic field which is equal to the mean field of LAEMWs $\langle B_w\rangle$. The energy losses of electrons in such a magnetic field are governed by ([@Landau71])
$$\frac{d\Gamma_e}{dt}=-\chi (\Gamma_e^2 -1)\,,
\label{SynchLoss}$$
where $\chi = 2e^4\langle B_w\rangle^2/3m_e^3c^5$.
In our approximation, the evolution of the spectrum of high-energy electrons in the region ahead of the wind front may be found from the following equation (e.g., [@Pacholczyk69])
$${\partial f(\Gamma_e, t)\over \partial t}=
{\partial \over \partial\Gamma_e}[\chi \Gamma_e^2
f(\Gamma_e, t)] + \dot N _ef_{\rm bar}(\Gamma_e)\,,
\label{par}$$
where $f(\Gamma_e, t)$ is the distribution function of high-energy electrons in the region ahead of the wind front per unit area of the front at the moment $t$, $\dot N_e\simeq n_0c$ is the rate of production of high-energy electrons per unit area of the front, and $f_{\rm bar}=(\Gamma_e/\Gamma_{_T}^2)\exp (-\Gamma_e/
\Gamma_{_T})$ is the average spectrum of high-energy electrons which are injected into the region ahead of the front. The function $f(\Gamma_e, t)$ is normalized to the total number of high-energy electrons per unit area of the front $N_e$, while the function $f_{\rm bar}$ is normalized to unity:
$$\int_1^{\infty}f(\Gamma_e, t)\,d\Gamma_e=N_e\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
{\rm and }\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\int_1^{\infty}f_{\rm bar}\,d\Gamma_e=1\,.
\label{norm}$$
For simplicity, we disregard the angular anisotropy of the electron distribution function.
Under the mentioned assumptions, in the frame of the wind front the differential proper intensity of synchro-Compton radiation from the region ahead of the wind front is (e.g., [@Pacholczyk69]; [@Rybicki79])
$$I_\nu (t)= \int_1^{\infty}f(\Gamma_e, t)i_\nu d\Gamma_e\,,
\label{Inu}$$
where
$$i_\nu =\frac{\sqrt{3}e^3\langle B_w\rangle}{m_ec^2}
\frac \nu {\nu _c}\int_{\nu /\nu
_c}^\infty K_{5/3}(\eta )d\eta \,,
\label{specti}$$
is the spectrum of synchrotron radiation generated by a single relativistic electron in a uniform magnetic field $\langle B_w\rangle$, $K_{5/3}$ is the modified Bessel functions of 5/3 order and
$$\nu _c={\frac{3e\langle B_w\rangle\Gamma^2_e}{4\pi m_ec}}
\label{nuTyp}$$
is the typical frequency of synchrotron radiation.
The observed spectral flux $F_\nu (t)$ (in units erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ erg$^{-1}$) can be obtained from the proper intensity $I_\nu (t)$ dividing by the square of the burster distance $d$, and by taking into account both the effects of relativistic beaming and cosmological effects (e.g., [@Tavani96a]; [@Dermer98]):
$$F_\nu (t)={D^3(1+z)\over 4\pi d^2}I_{\nu'}(t)\,,
\label{Fnu}$$
where $D$ is the relativistic Doppler factor, $D\simeq 2\Gamma_0$, and $z$ is the cosmological redshift. The observed frequency $\nu$ depends on the emitted frequency $\nu'$ in the wind frame as $\nu=[D/(1+z)]\nu'\simeq [2\Gamma_0/
(1+z)]\nu'$.
Equations (\[SynchLoss\]) – (\[Fnu\]) were integrated numerically. For typical parameters of cosmological $\gamma$-ray bursters, $\Gamma_0 = 150$, $B_0= 300$ G, $\langle B_w\rangle =
0.1 B_0$, $\Gamma_T = 200\Gamma_0 = 3\times 10^4$ and $z=1$, Figure 11 shows the observed spectrum of synchro-Compton radiation from the region ahead of the wind front. For this radiation the characteristic energy of photons is in the BATSE range (e.g., [@Band93]; [@Schaefer94]; [@FM95]; [@Preece96]; [@Schaefer98]). The spectrum of synchro-Compton radiation displays a continuous hard to soft evolution, in agreement with observational data on GRBs ([@Bhat94]).
Conclusions and discussion {#discussion}
==========================
In a relativistic strongly magnetized wind outflowing from a fast rotating compact object like a millisecond pulsar with the surface magnetic field $B_{_S}\sim 10^{15}-10^{16}$ G, there are at least two regions where extremely powerful non-thermal emission in hard (X-ray and $\gamma$-ray) photons may be generated (see Fig. 1). The first radiating region is at the distance $r_f\sim 10^{13}-10^{14}$ cm from the compact object. In this region, the striped component of the wind field is transformed into LAEMWs. Acceleration of electrons in the fields of LAEMWs and generation of non-thermal radiation at $r\sim r_f$ were considered in (Usov 1994a,b; Blackman et al. 1996; Blackman & Yi 1998). The second radiating region is at $r\sim r_{\rm dec}\sim 10^{16}-10^{17}$ cm where deceleration of the wind due to its interaction with an ambient medium becomes important. We have used one-and-a-half dimensional particle-in-cell plasma simulations to study both the interaction of a relativistic, strongly magnetized wind with an ambient medium at $r\sim r_{\rm dec}$ and non-thermal radiation from the region of this interaction ([@Smolsky96]; [@Usov98] and the present paper). One of the main results of this study is that we have confirmed the idea of Mészáros and Rees (1992) that the wind – ambient medium interaction may be responsible for high-frequency (X-ray and $\gamma$-ray) emission of cosmological GRBs. We have shown that at $r\sim r_{\rm dec}$, where in the wind frame the magnetic pressure of the wind is comparable to the dynamical pressure of the ambient medium, $\alpha \sim 1$, an essential part (about 20%) of the wind energy may be transferred to high-energy electrons and then to high-frequency emission. In this paper, it is shown that in the wind frame the spectrum of electrons which are accelerated at the wind front and move ahead of the front is close to a two-dimensional relativistic Maxwellian with the temperature $T=m_ec^2
\Gamma_{_T}/k$, where $\Gamma_{_T}$ is equal to $200\Gamma_0$ with the accuracy of $\sim 20$%. Our simulations point to the existence of a high-energy tail of accelerated electrons with a Lorentz factor of more than $\sim 700 \Gamma_0$. It was shown in our early papers ([@Smolsky96]; [@Usov98]) that the process of the wind – ambient medium interaction is strongly nonstationary, and LAEMWs are generated by the oscillating currents at the wind front and propagate away from the front. In the wind frame, the mean field of LAEMWs in the region ahead of the wind front is $\langle B_w\rangle\simeq 0.1 B_{\rm dec}/\Gamma_0 \sim 10-10^2$ G. High-energy electrons that are accelerated at the wind front and injected into the region ahead of the front generate synchro-Compton radiation in the fields of LAEMWs. This radiation closely resembles synchrotron radiation in a uniform magnetic field with the strength of $\langle B_w\rangle$. In the burster frame, for typical parameters of relativistic strongly magnetized winds outflowing from millisecond pulsars with extremely strong magnetic fields, $B_{_S}\simeq 10^{15}-10^{16}$ G, the maximum of synchro-Compton radiation generated in the region ahead of the wind front at $r\sim r_{\rm dec}$ is in the BATSE range, from $\sim 10^2$ keV to a few MeV. Radiation which is generated at the wind front may be responsible for high-energy $\gamma $-rays, $\varepsilon_\gamma>$ a few ten MeV, which are observed in the spectra of some GRBs ([@Hurley94]). The energy flux of GRBs in such high-energy $\gamma $-rays may be more or less comparable with the energy flux in the BATSE range if $\Gamma_0B_{\rm dec} \gtrsim 3\times 10^8$ G. Besides that, high-energy $\gamma$-rays may be generated efficiently via inverse Compton scattering (e.g., [@Jones79]; [@Meszaros94]). In the burster frame, the spectrum of high-energy $\gamma$-rays generated at $r\sim r_{\rm dec}$ may, in principle, extend up to the maximum energy of accelerated electrons which is about the maximum energy of protons reflected from the wind front, $\varepsilon _\gamma
^{\rm max}\sim m_p\Gamma_0^2\sim 10^{13}(\Gamma_0/10^2)^2$ eV. In connection with this, it is worth noting that the Tibet air shower array ([@Amenomori96]) and HEGRA AIROBICC Cherenkov array ([@Padilla98]) have independently reported significant excesses of $\gamma$-rays at energies of $\sim 10^{13}$ eV coincident with some GRBs both in direction and burst time. The statistical significance of these results was estimated to be about $6\,\sigma$. \[For details on very high energy $\gamma$-rays from cosmological $\gamma$-ray bursters see ([@Totani98], 1999).\]
To fit the observed spectra of GRBs, for accelerated electrons it was usually taken either a three-dimensional relativistic Maxwellian distribution (Katz 1994a,b) or a sum of a three-dimensional relativistic Maxwellian distribution and a suprathermal power-law tail (Tavani 1996a,b). The thermal character of the electron distribution (or its part) is consistent with our results. In our simulations, we observe a two-dimensional relativistic Maxwellian distribution of accelerated electrons. However, the difference between 2D and 3D Maxwellian distributions does not change the calculated spectrum of synchrotron radiation significantly ([@Jackson75]; [@Jones79]; [@Rybicki79]).
Our solution for the wind – ambient medium collision is completely self-consistent only if $\alpha$ is $\gtrsim \alpha_{\rm cr}\simeq 0.4$ ([@Usov98]). Such values of $\alpha$ are most interesting for cosmological GRBs because at $r\simeq
r_{\rm dec}$ when deceleration of a relativistic wind due to its interaction with the ambient medium becomes important the value of $\alpha$ is about unity. At $\alpha \ < \alpha_{\rm cr}$, both the structure of the wind front and the process of the wind – ambient medium interaction are not studied well enough. For this case, we have constructed a solution with a strong surface current at the wind front ([@Smolsky96]; [@Usov98]). In this solution, the surface current is considered as an external one and fixed. Maybe, in the process of interaction of a relativistic strongly magnetized wind with an ambient medium at $\alpha \ < \alpha_{\rm cr}$ the structure of the wind front is self-regulated so that a required current runs along the front.
A situation similar, in some respects, to our problem was considered in the works of Hoshino et. al (1992) and Gallant & Arons (1994), where collisionless shocks rather than the plasma beam – magnetic barrier collision were examined. In these studies, acceleration of light particles, electrons and positrons, was observed near the shock ([@Hoshino92]). The level of electron acceleration reported by Hoshino et. al (1992) is compatible with our results. Indeed, the energy that is transferred from protons to electrons depends on their mass ratio, $m_p/m_e$. For computational reasons, the mass ratio used by Hoshino et. al (1992) was small, $m_p/m_e=20$. In our simulations, we use the realistic mass ratio, $m_p/m_e=1836$. If we substitute $m_p/m_e=20$ into equation (\[Gammamean\]), we obtain the mean Lorentz factor of accelerated electrons that coincides with the results of Hoshino et al. (1992) within uncertainties of their and our calculations. The energy spectrum of accelerated electrons in the simulations of Hoshino et. al (1992) is close to a relativistic Maxwellian too.
In our scenario, the rotational energy of compact objects (millisecond pulsars or post-merger objects) is a source of energy for emission of cosmological $\gamma$-ray bursters. This energy may be as high as a few $\times10^{53}$ ergs. If radiation of the gravitational waves by the compact object is negligible, the rotational energy is transformed to the energy of a relativistic Poynting flux-dominated wind with the efficiency of $\sim 100\%$. In the case when the angle $\vartheta$ between the rotational and magnetic axes of the compact object is about $\pi /2$, almost all the energy of the wind is radiated in X-rays and $\gamma$-rays at $r\sim r_f$ ([@Usov94a]; Blackman et al. 1996; [@Blackman98]). The maximum energy which may be radiated in hard photons at $r\sim r_{\rm dec}$ is only a few times smaller than that at $r\sim r_f$. Hence, the total energy output in hard photons per GRB may be as high as $\sim 10^{53}$ ergs or even a few times more. This energy is sufficient for the explanation of the energetics of cosmological GRBs.
At $\vartheta\simeq \pi /2$, when the bulk of the wind energy is transferred into $\gamma$-rays at $r\sim r_f$, the residual energy of the wind at $r\gg r_f$ may be very small. In this case, afterglows which are generated at $r\gtrsim r_{\rm dec}$ and accompany GRBs are weak irrespective of that the GRBs themselves may be quite strong. This may explain the fact that X-ray, optical and radio afterglows have been observed in some strong GRBs but not in others (e.g., [@Piran98] and references therein).
For interpretation of data on cosmological GRBs, the interaction of a relativistic wind with an ambient medium and non-thermal radiation generated at $r\sim r_{\rm dec}$ were considered in many papers (see, for a review [@Piran98]). All these considerations were usually carried out in the frame of the conventional model which was based on the following assumptions.
\(1) Two collisionless shocks form: an external shock that propagates from the wind front into the ambient medium, and an internal shock that propagates from the wind front into the inner wind, with a contact discontinuity at the wind front between the shocked material.
\(2) Electrons are accelerated at the shocks to very high energies.
\(3) The shocked matter acquires embedded magnetic fields. The energy density of these fields is about the energy density of high-energy electrons accelerated by the shocks.
\(4) Highly accelerated electrons generate high-frequency (X-ray and $\gamma$-ray) radiation of GRBs via synchrotron mechanism.
\(5) The efficiency of conversion of the wind energy into accelerated electrons and then to high-frequency radiation of GRBs is about 10% $\sim$ 30%.
The idea about formation of two collisionless shocks near the front of a relativistic wind outflowing from a cosmological $\gamma$-ray burster is based mainly on both theoretical studies which have shown that collisionless shocks can form in a rarified plasma (e.g., Sagdeev 1962, 1979; [@TK71], [@Dawson83]; [@Q85]) and the fact that such shocks have been observed in the vicinities of a few comets and planets ([@Leroy82]; [@Livesey]; [@Omidi] and references therein). Undoubtedly, collisionless shocks exist and can accelerate electrons to ultrarelativistic energies in many astrophysical objects such as supernova remnants and jets of active galactic nuclei. However, for the wind parameters which are relevant to cosmological GRBs (see § 2), formation of collisionless shocks in the vicinity of the wind front is very questionable (e.g., [@Smolsky96]; [@Mitra]; [@Brainerd]). Indeed, the properties of relativistic, transverse, magnetosonic collisionless shocks were studied in details by Gallant et al. (1992) and Hoshino et al. (1992), and it was shown that all the upstream ions are electromagnetically reflected from the shock front. This is similar to reflection of ions from the wind front in our simulations. If a shock forms, its thickness is of the order of the gyroradius of reflected protons in the upstream magnetic field (e.g., [@Hoshino92]). In a plasma system, a collisionless shock may form only if the characteristic size of the system is significantly larger than the shock thickness. In our case, the radius, $r$, of the wind front is the characteristic size of the system. At $r\sim r_{\rm dec}$, an external collisionless shock may form in an ambient medium just ahead of the wind front if the the gyroradius of protons which are reflected from the wind front is significantly smaller than $r_{\rm dec}$. In the burster frame, the gyroradius of reflected protons in the ambient medium is
$$R_{Bp}={m_pc^2\Gamma_p\over eB_{\rm am}}\simeq 3\times
10^{16}\left({\Gamma_0\over 10^2}\right)^2\left({B_{\rm am}\over
10^{-6}\,{\rm G}}\right)^{-1}\,\,{\rm cm}\,,
\label{RBp}$$
where $\Gamma_p\simeq \Gamma_0^2$ is the mean Lorentz factor of reflected protons and $B_{\rm am}$ is the mean magnetic field of the ambient medium. For the interstellar medium in our Galaxy, the mean magnetic field is about $2\times 10^{-6}$ G (e.g., [@MT77]). If for a GRB the value of $B_{\rm am}$ is $\sim 2\times 10^{-6}$ G, from equations (\[rdec\]) and (\[RBp\]), for the wind parameters which are relevant to cosmological GRBs (see § 2) we have $R_{Bp}/r_{\rm dec}\sim 1$ at $\Gamma_0 = 10^2$ and $R_{Bp}/r_{\rm dec}\sim 10^2$ at $\Gamma_0 = 10^3$. In this case, an external collisionless shock cannot form ahead of the wind front, especially if $\Gamma_0$ is about $10^3$ or even more. Recently, Brainerd (1999) came to the same conclusion from another consideration. As to the internal shock, it cannot form in a Poynting flux-dominated wind too (e.g., [@KFO]; [@KC84]).
Our model of the wind – ambient medium interaction differs qualitatively from the conventional model which is based on the assumption that an external collisionless shock forms just ahead of the wind front. Although it might seem that observational consequences of our model must differ from observational consequences of the conventional model significantly, this is not the case. Moreover, we can see that all the listed assumptions of the conventional model are confirmed by our simulations, certainly except of the first assumption on formation of the collisionless shocks. There is only a modification that LAEMWs are embedded in the region ahead of the wind front instead of magnetic fields, and highly accelerated electrons generate high-frequency emission of GRBs via synchro-Compton radiation. However, in our case synchro-Compton radiation closely resembles synchrotron radiation. Therefore, if in the conventional model of GRB emission from the shocked region ahead of the wind front the mechanism of electron acceleration by a relativistic, collisionless shock is replaced by the mechanism of electron acceleration at the wind front, this model will remain otherwise practically unchanged.
At $r >r_{\rm dec}$, the outflowing wind slows down due to its interaction with the ambient medium, and when the Lorentz factor of the wind front is about several tens or less, an external shock may form just ahead of the front. We believe that the afterglows which are observed in $\sim 10^5$ s after some GRBs result from acceleration of electrons by such a shock as it is generally accepted ([@Meszaros97b]; [@Vietri97]; [@Waxman97]; [@Wijers97]).
This research was supported by MINERVA Foundation, Munich / Germany.
Amenomori, M., et al. 1996, A&A, 311, 919
Band, D., et al. 1993, , 413, 281
Baring, M.G., & Harding, A.K. 1997, , 491, 663
Benford, G. 1984, , 282, 154
Bhat, P.N. et al. 1994, , 426, 604
Blackman, E.G. & Yi, I. 1998, , 498, L31
Blackman, E.G., Yi, I., & Field, G.B. 1996, , 473, L79
Blandford, R.D., & Eichler, D. 1987, , 154, 1
Blaes, O.M. 1994, ApJS, 92, 643
Blumenthal, G.R. & Tucker, W.H. 1974, in X-Ray Astronomy, ed. R. Giacconi and H. Gursky (Dordrecht : D. Reidel Publishing Company), p. 99
Brainerd, J.J. 1999, astro-ph/9904040
Coroniti, F.V. 1990, , 349, 538
Dai, Z.G., & Lu, T. 1998, A&A, 333, L87
Dawson, J.M. 1983, Rev. Mod. Phys., 55, 403
Dermer, C.D. 1998, , 501, L157
Dermer, C.D., & Weiler, T.J. 1995, Ap&SS, 231, 377
Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T. & Schramm, D. 1989, , 340, 126
Fenimore, E.E., Epstein, R.I., & Ho, C. 1993, A&AS, 97, 59
Fishman, G.J. & Meegan, C.A. 1995, , 33, 415
Gaensler, B.M., Brazier, K.T.S., Manchester, R.N., & Johnston, S. 1999, astro-ph/9901262
Gallant, Y.A., & Arons, J. 1994, , 435, 230
Gallant, Y.A., Hoshino, M., Langdon, A.B., Arons, J., & Max, C.E. 1992, , 391, 73
Goodman, J. 1986, , 308, L47
Goodman, J., Dar, A., & Nussinov, S. 1987, , 314, L7
Greiner, J. 1998, astro-ph/9802222
Gunn, J.E. & Ostriker, J.P. 1971, , 165, 223
Harding, A.K. 1994, , 90, 863
Hartmann, D. 1995, in The Gamma-Ray Sky with [*Compton GRO*]{} and SIGMA, NATO ASI Proc. 461, ed. M. Signore, P. Salati, & G. Vedrenne (Dordrecht : Kluwer), 329
Herster, J.J. 1998, in Neutron Stars and Pulsars: Thirty Years after the Discovery, ed. N. Shibazaki, N. Kawai, S. Shibata, & T. Kifune (Tokyo : Universal Academy Press), 431
Hoshino, M., Arons J., Gallant, Y.A., & Langdon, A.B. 1992, , 390, 454
Hurley, K., et al. 1994, , 372, 652
Jackson, J.D. 1975, Classical Electrodynamics (New York : Wiley)
Janka, H.-Th., &Ruffert, M. 1996, A&A, 1996, 307, L33
Jones, T.W., & Hardee, P.E. 1979, , 228, 268
Katz, J. 1994a, , 432, L107
Katz, J. 1994b, in Gamma-Ray Bursts, Second Workshop, ed. G.J. Fishman, J.J. Brainerd, & K. Hurley (New York: AIP), 529
Katz, J. 1997, , 490, 633
Kennel, C.F., & Coroniti F.V. 1984, , 283, 694
Kennel, C.F., Fujimura, F.S., & Okamoto, I. 1983, J. Ap. Geophys. Fluid Dyn., 26, 147
Kluźniak, W., & Ruderman, M. 1998, , 505, L113
Kulkarni, S.R., et al. 1998, , 393, 35
Kulkarni, S.R., et al. 1999, , 398, 389
Landau, L.D., & Lifshitz, E.M. 1971, The Classical Theory of Fields (Elmsford : Pergamon Press)
Leroy, M.M., Winscke, D., Goodrich, C.C., Wu, C.S., & Papadopoulos, K. 1982, J. Geophys. Res., 87, 5081
Lipunov, V.M., Postnov, K.A., Prokhorov, M.E., Panchenko, I.E., & Jorgensen, H.E. 1995, , 454, 593
Livesey, W.A., Kennel, C.F., & Russell, C.T. 1982, Geophys. Res. Lett., 9, 1037
Manchester, R.N. & Taylor, J.H. 1977, Pulsars (San Francisco : Freeman)
Meegan, C.A., Fishman, G.J., Wilson, R.B., Paciesas, W.S., Pendleton, G.N., Horack, J.M., Brock, M.N., & Kouveliotou, C. 1992, , 355, 143
Meegan, C.A., et al. 1994, in Gamma-Ray Bursts, Second Workshop, ed. G.J. Fishman, J.J. Brainerd, & K. Hurley (New York: AIP), 3
Melatos, A. & Melrose, D.B. 1996a, , 279, 1168
Melatos, A. & Melrose, D.B. 1996b, ASP Conf. Ser., 105, 421
Mészáros, P., & Rees, M.J. 1992, , 397, 570
Mészáros, P., & Rees, M.J. 1993, , 405, 278
Mészáros,P., Rees, M.J., & Papathanassiou, H. 1994, , 432, 181
Mészáros, P., & Rees, M.J. 1997, , 482, L29
Mészáros, P., & Rees, M.J. 1997, , 476, 232
Metzger, R.M. et al. 1997, , 387, 879
Michel, F.C. 1971, Comments Ap. Space Phys., 3, 80
Michel, F.C. 1985, , 288, 138
Mitra, A. 1996, A&A, 313, L9
Narayan, R., Paczyński, B., & Piran, T. 1992, , 395, L83
Omidi,N., & Winske, D. 1990, J. Geophys. Res., 95, 2281
Pacholczyk, A.G. 1969, Radio Astrophysics (San Francisco : Freeman)
Paczyński, B. 1986, , 308, L43
Paczyński, B. 1991, Acta Astron., 41, 257
Padilla, L., et al. 1998, A&A, 337, 43
Perna, R., & Loeb, A. 1998, , 509, L85
Piran, T. 1998, astro-ph/9810256
Preece, R.D., et al. 1996, , 473, 310
Quest, K.B. 1985, Phys. Rev. Lett., 54, 1872
Rees, M.J., & Mészáros, P. 1992, , 258, 41
Rybicki, G.B., & Lightman, A.P. 1979, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics (New York : John Wiley & Sons)
Sagdeev, R.Z. 1962, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys., 6, 867
Sagdeev, R.Z. 1979, Rev. Mod. Phys., 51, 11
Schaefer, B.E., et al. 1994, ApJS, 92, 285
Schaefer, B.E., et al. 1998, , 492, 696
Smolsky, M.V., & Usov, V.V. 1996, , 461, 858
Sulkanen, M.E., & Lovelace, R.V.E. 1990, , 350, 732
Tamblyn, P., & Melia, F. 1993, , 417, 421
Tavani, M. 1996a, , 466, 768
Tavani, M. 1996b, Phys. Rev. Lett., 76, 3478
Thompson, C., & Duncan. R.C. 1993, , 408, 194
Tidman, D.A., & Krall, N.A. 1971, Shock waves in collisionless plasma (New York : Wiley)
Totani, T. 1998, , 509, L81
Totani, T. 1999, Astropart. Phys., in press (astro-ph/9810207)
Usov, V.V. 1975, Ap&SS, 32, 375
Usov, V.V. 1992, , 357, 472
Usov, V.V. 1994a, , 267, 1035
Usov, V.V. 1994b, in Gamma-Ray Bursts, Second Workshop, ed. G.J. Fishman, J.J. Brainerd, & K. Hurley (New York: AIP), 552
Usov, V.V., & Chibisov, G.V. 1975, Soviet Astron., 19, 115
Usov, V.V., & Smolsky, M.V. 1998, Phys. Rev. E, 57, 2267
van den Berg, S. 1983, Ap&SS, 97, 385
Vietri, M. 1996, , 471, L95
Vietri, M. 1997, , 478, L9
Waxman, E. 1997, , 485, L5
Wijers, R.A.M.J., Rees, M.J., & Mészáros, P. 1997, MNRAS, 288, 51P
Wickramasinghe, W.A.D.T., Nemiroff, R.J., Norris, J.P., Kouveliotou, C., Fishman, G.J., Meegan,C.A., Wilson, R.B., & Paciesas, W.S. 1993, , 411, L55
Woosley, S.E. 1993, A&A, 97, 205
Yi, I., & Blackman, E.G. 1998, , 494, L163
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We analyze the $\pi \gamma^\ast \gamma^\ast$ amplitude in the framework of radial Regge models in the large-$N_c$ limit. With the assumption of similarity of the asymptotic Regge $\rho$ and $\omega$ meson spectra we find that the pion distribution amplitude is [*constant*]{} in the large-$N_c$ limit at the scale $Q_0$ where the QCD radiative corrections are absent – a result found earlier in a class of chiral quark models. We discuss the constraints on the couplings from the anomaly and from the limit of large photon virtualities, and find that the coupling of the pion to excited $\rho$ and $\omega$ mesons must be asymptotically constant. We also discuss the effects of the QCD evolution on the pion electromagnetic transition form factor. Finally, we use the Regge model to evaluate the slope of the form factor at zero momentum and compare the value to the experiment, finding very reasonable agreement.'
author:
- Enrique
- Wojciech Broniowski
title: 'Pion transition form factor and distribution amplitudes in large-$N_c$ Regge models'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The study of exclusive processes in QCD [@Lepage:1980fj; @Chernyak:1983ej] has been a permanent challenge both on the theoretical as well as the experimental side. The production of neutral pions by two virtual photons provides the simplest process where both perturbative and non-perturbative aspects of strong interactions can be tested. Indeed, the normalization of the corresponding from factor for real photons is dictated by the chiral anomaly. In the opposite limit of large photon virtualities the amplitude factorizes into power corrections and a soft and scale dependent distribution amplitude (DA) which gives direct information on the quark content of the pion at a given scale. Actually, for large momenta the behavior of the DA is controlled by the perturbative QCD renormalization group evolution [@Lepage:1980fj; @Dittes:1981aw; @Mueller:1994cn] in terms of Gegenbauer polynomials as implied by the conformal symmetry (for a review see, [*e.g.*]{}, Ref. [@Braun:2003rp]) and the high-$Q^2 $ power expansion. Then at $Q^2 \to \infty $ one has the fixed point result, [*e.g.*]{}, $\varphi^{(2)}(x,Q^2) \to 6 x(1-x)$. For low scales genuinely non-perturbative evolution can be tackled by transverse lattice methods [@Dalley:2001gj; @Burkardt:2001mf] (for a review see e.g. Ref. [@Burkardt:2001jg]). The first and second moments of the DA have been computed on Euclidean lattices [@DelDebbio:2002mq; @DelDebbio:2005bg; @Gockeler:2005jz]. The QCD sum rules have been applied to the leading twist-2 DA [@Belyaev:1997fu]. Measurements of the transition form factor have been undertaken by the CELLO [@Behrend:1990sr] and CLEO [@Gronberg:1997fj] collaborations. An analysis of the lowest Gegenbauer moments $a_2$ and $a_4$ has been carried out by [@Schmedding:1999ap] and [@Bakulev:2001pa; @Bakulev:2002uc; @Bakulev:2003cs; @Bakulev:2005cp]. Higher twists have been analyzed in the context of light cone sum rules [@Agaev:2005rc]. A direct measurement of the DA has been presented by the E791 collaboration [@Aitala:2000hb]. For a concise review on all these developments see, [*e.g.*]{}, Ref. [@Bakulev:2004mc] and references therein.
Most calculations dealing with the pion transition form factor and more specifically with the DA involve [*quarks as explicit degrees of freedom*]{}. This appears rather natural but the principle of the quark-hadron duality suggests that it should also be possible to make these calculations entirely in terms of the complete set of hadronic states. In fact, the large $N_c$-limit of QCD [@'tHooft:1973jz; @Witten:1979kh] makes quark-hadron duality manifest at the expense of introducing an infinite number of weakly interacting stable mesons and glueballs. The large-$N_c$-limit may in fact be regarded as a model-independent formulation of the quark model. Actually, chiral quark models are particular realizations implementing in a rather natural way this large-$N_c$ behavior at the one-quark-loop approximation and several calculations have been made along these lines [@Petrov:1997ve; @Petrov:1998kg; @Heinzl:2000ht; @Praszalowicz:2001wy; @Anikin:2000bn; @Anikin:2000rq; @Dorokhov:2002tq; @Dorokhov:2002iu; @RuizArriola:2002bp; @RuizArriola:2003bs] (for a review see, [*e.g.*]{}, Ref. [@RuizArriola:2002wr]). Despite the subtleties regarding the correct implementation of chiral Ward identities [@RuizArriola:2002wr; @Bzdak:2003qe], chiral quark models by themselves cannot be “better” than the large-$N_c$ limit, as they form a particular model realization of this limit. Surprisingly, up to now there has been remarkable little information on the quark content of hadrons based solely and directly on the large-$N_c$ limit and the quark-hadron duality ideas, without resorting to specific low-energy quark models.
The purpose of this paper is to fill this gap and analyze the pion transition form factor in the original spirit of the large-$N_c$ limit. We impose chiral constraints at low energies and QCD short distance constraints at high energies and extract from there the DA in a [*Regge model with infinitely many resonances*]{} where the radial squared mass spectrum is assumed to be linear. This near-linearity is supported by the experimental analysis of Ref. [@Anisovich:2000kx]. We do the analysis in the absence of radiative corrections which must be introduced via QCD evolution, hence our calculation corresponds to some reference scale $Q_0$ where the radiative QCD corrections are absent. Remarkably, we obtain the same main result as found previously by us in chiral quark models [@RuizArriola:2002bp; @RuizArriola:2003bs], namely, the leading-twist pion DA is [*constant at the scale $Q_0$*]{}. Our calculation provides an explicit example of quark-hadron duality in an exclusive process.
Up till now the calculations within the framework of large-$N_c$ Regge models have been mainly restricted to two-point functions [@Golterman:2001nk; @Simonov:2001di; @Golterman:2002mi; @Afonin:2004yb; @Afonin:2006da; @RuizArriola:2006gq]. On the other hand, large-$N_c$-motivated calculations of three-point functions with short distance constraints have been carried out with a [*finite*]{} number of resonances, which enabled getting model-independent results for vector meson decays [@Moussallam:1994xp; @Knecht:2001xc; @Beane:2001uj; @Beane:2001em; @Ruiz-Femenia:2003hm]. In this regard there are large $N_c$ studies of both the pion [@Dominguez:2001zu] and the proton [@Dominguez:2004bx] electromagnetic form factors. It should also be mentioned that, echoing some older ideas of Radyushkin [@Radyushkin:1995pj], the light-cone wave functions have recently been computed within the holographic approach to QCD based on the AdS/CFT correspondence [@Brodsky:2005en; @Brodsky:2006uq] or meromorphization ideas [@Radyushkin:2006iz]. In these works the quark-hadron duality is also exploited.
The outline of the paper is as follows. In Sect. \[sec:pda\] we review DAs in the large-$N_c$ context and fix our notation for the remainder of the paper. In Sect. \[sec:regge\] we undertake the analysis of the large-$N_c$ Regge model and its consequences for the pion transition form factor and pion DA. Section \[sec:evol\] deals with aspects of the QCD evolution, which is a crucial ingredient of analyses of this kind. For completeness some technical details of the LO evolution of the non-singlet DA are provided in Appendix \[sec:gegen\].
parton Distribution Amplitude and large $N_c$ {#sec:pda}
=============================================
Partonic distribution amplitudes (DAs) are basic properties of bound states of QCD. They are defined as matrix elements of quark bilinears between the vacuum and the hadronic state in question. For instance, the twist-2 DA of $\pi^a$, $\varphi^{(2)}(x)$, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&& \langle 0 | \overline{\psi}(z) \gamma_\mu \gamma_5 \frac{\tau^a}{2}
[z,-z] \psi(-z)| \pi^a(q) \rangle
\nonumber \\ &=& i f_\pi(q^2) q_\mu
\int_0^1 dx e^{i u q\cdot z} \varphi^{(2)}(x), \label{AV} \end{aligned}$$ where $u=2x-1$, $z$ is a coordinate along the light cone, $[z,-z]$ denotes the gauge link operator, and $f_\pi(q^2)$ is the pion decay form factor, with the pion decay constant $f_\pi(0) \equiv f=86$ MeV in the chiral limit. The DAs have the support $x\in [0,1]$, normalization $\int_0^1 dx \, \varphi(x) = 1$, and satisfy the crossing relation $\varphi(x) = \varphi(1-x)$. Obviously the definition (\[AV\]) requires an identification of quark degrees of freedom and also specification of a renormalization scale and scheme.
On the other hand, the pion DA is related to the [*pion electromagnetic transition form factor*]{} in the process $\gamma^\ast
\gamma^\ast \to \pi^0$, or more generally, to processes with one pion and two (virtual or real) photons on external legs. This is a physical matrix element which does not depend on the renormalization scale and which is more suitable for our purposes. With the outgoing momenta and polarizations of the photons denoted as $q_1$,$e_1$ and $q_2$, $e_2$ one finds the amplitude $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^{\mu \nu}_{\pi^0 \gamma^\ast \gamma^\ast } (q_1,q_2) &=&
\epsilon_{\mu\nu \alpha \beta}e_1^\mu e_2^\nu q_1^\alpha q_2^\beta
F_{\pi \gamma^\ast \gamma^\ast}(Q^2,A),\end{aligned}$$ where the pion transition form factor $F_{\pi \gamma^\ast
\gamma^\ast}$ depends on the total virtuality, $Q^2$, and the photon asymmetry, $A$, $$\begin{aligned}
Q^2 = -(q_1^2 + q_2^2 ), \; A = \frac{q_1^2 - q_2^2}{q_1^2+ q_2^2}, \; -1 \le A \le 1. \end{aligned}$$ Equivalently, $q_1^2 = -\frac{(1+A)}2 Q^2$, $q_2^2=-\frac{(1-A)}2
Q^2$. For large virtualities one finds the standard twist decomposition of the pion transition form factor [@Lepage:1980fj], $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\pi^0 \gamma^\ast \gamma^\ast} (Q^2, A ) = J^{(2)} (A)
\frac1{Q^2} + J^{(4)} (A) \frac1{Q^4} + \dots , \label{twist}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\!\!J^{(2)}(A) &=& \frac{4 f}{N_c } \int_0^1 \!\!\! dx
\frac{\varphi_\pi^{(2)}(x)}{1-u^2 A^2}, \label{J2} \\
\!\!J^{(4)}(A) &=& \frac{8 f \Delta^2 }{N_c} \int_0^1 \!\!\! dx \frac{
\varphi_\pi^{(4)} (x) [1+u^2 A^2]}
{\left[1-u^2 A^2\right]^2}, \label{J4}\end{aligned}$$ involving the subsequent DAs. The above results hold modulo the logarithmic corrections incorporated by means of the QCD evolution of the DAs, $\varphi_\pi^{(n)} (x) \to \varphi_\pi^{(n)}
(x,Q)$ [@Braun:2003rp]. At infinitely large momentum one reaches an ultraviolet fixed point behavior , regardless of the value of the DA at some finite scale. It is important to realize that, at least in the perturbative regime, QCD evolution [*requires*]{} an identification of the powers in a twist expansion and the corresponding coefficients inherit a logarithmic momentum dependence, $J^{(n)}(A) \to J^{(n)}(A,Q^2) $ provided their value is known at some reference scale $Q_0$. Let us recall that power corrections are a high-energy manifestation of low-energy non-perturbative phenomena.
In the large-$N_c$ limit the vacuum sector of QCD becomes a theory of infinitely many non-interacting mesons and glueballs [@'tHooft:1973jz; @Witten:1979kh], hence hadronic amplitudes may be calculated as tree-level processes, where the propagators are saturated by infinitely many sharp meson (glueball) states. In our case the relevant diagram is shown in Fig. \[fig:diag\]: the pion first couples to a pair of vector mesons $V_\rho$ and $V_\omega$, which then transform into photons. From symmetry constraints, one vector meson has even $G$-parity ($\rho$-type) and the other one odd $G$-parity ($\omega$-type). Thus, for a massless pion we have $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\pi^0 \gamma^\ast \gamma^\ast} (Q^2,A) &=&
\sum_{V_\rho,V_\omega} \frac{F_{V_\rho}(q_1^2) F_{V_\omega}(q_2^2)
G_{\pi V_\rho V_\omega}(q_1^2,q_2^2)}{(q_1^2 - M_{V_\rho}^2)(q_2^2 -M_{V_\omega}^2 )}
\nonumber \\ &+& (q_1 \longleftrightarrow q_2), \label{eq:amp}\end{aligned}$$ where $F_{V_\rho}$ and $F_{V_\omega}$ are the current-vector meson couplings and $G_{\pi V_\rho V_\omega}$ is the coupling of two vector mesons to the pion. At the soft photon point corresponding to the neutral pion decay $\pi^0 \to 2 \gamma $ the chiral anomaly matching condition imposes the normalization $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\pi^0 \gamma^* \gamma^* } (0,0) &=& \sum_{V_\rho V_\omega}
\frac{2F_{V_\rho}(0) F_{V_\omega}(0) G_{\pi V_\rho V_\omega}(0,0)}
{M_{V_\rho}^2 M_{V_\omega}^2} \nonumber \\ &=& \frac{1}{4 \pi^2 f}.
\label{anomc}\end{aligned}$$ This consistency constraint, realized in nature, can be always satisfied in models by an appropriate choice of the couplings.
![The pion electromagnetic transition amplitude in the large-$N_c$ limit.[]{data-label="fig:diag"}](diag.eps){width="18.00000%"}
The large-$Q$ expansion of Eq. (\[eq:amp\]) would naively yield pure power corrections, assuming a [*finite*]{} number of resonances [@Moussallam:1994xp; @Knecht:2001xc; @Ruiz-Femenia:2003hm]. The situation with infinitely many resonances requires some care, since the coefficients of the twist expansion involve positive powers of the meson masses and require regularization. We will illustrate below the situation with an explicit model.
Another, more subtle, question regards the role of radiative corrections in the large-$N_c$ limit. This problem also arises in chiral quark models which are specific model realizations of the large-$N_c$ limit with explicit quark degrees of freedom [@Petrov:1997ve; @Petrov:1998kg; @Heinzl:2000ht; @Praszalowicz:2001wy; @Anikin:2000bn; @Dorokhov:2002tq; @RuizArriola:2002bp; @RuizArriola:2003bs; @RuizArriola:2002wr]. We take over the viewpoint adopted in our previous work [@RuizArriola:2002bp; @RuizArriola:2003bs; @RuizArriola:2002wr], namely, we consider a situation where all perturbative radiative corrections are switched off. This corresponds to an identification of the power corrections at a given reference scale $Q_0$. Thus, our calculations in the large-$N_c$ limit determine the [*initial condition*]{} for the QCD evolution, of the form $\varphi_\pi^{(n)}
(x,Q_0)$. An obvious advantage of such an approach is that [*after*]{} the evolution the DAs comply to the known asymptotic QCD behavior. We discuss this issue in detail in Sect. \[sec:evol\].
Large-$N_c$ Regge Models {#sec:regge}
========================
Now we proceed to the basic analysis of this paper, namely a study of Eq. (\[eq:amp\]) at large $Q^2$. The idea is as follows: we adopt a model for the spectra and couplings, calculate the amplitude, and compare to Eq. (\[J2\],\[J4\]). For the spectra we take the radial Regge model $$\begin{aligned}
M^2_{V_\rho}(n) &=& M^2_{V_\omega}(n)= M^2 + a n,\end{aligned}$$ which assumes for simplicity the same spectra in the $\rho$ and $\omega$ channels. is well fulfilled [@Anisovich:2000kx] in the experimentally explored region. We also assume that the $M$ and $a$ parameters are isospin-independent, [*i.e.*]{} are the same for the $\rho$- and $\omega$-type mesons. We investigate possible departures from this assumption later on. We also take constant, [*[*i.e.*]{} $n$-independent*]{} values $$\begin{aligned}
F_{V_\rho}&=&F_\rho={\rm const.}, \nonumber \\
F_{V_\omega}&=&F_\omega={\rm const.},\end{aligned}$$ as follows from matching of the predictions of the radial Regge model for the vector correlator to QCD [@RuizArriola:2006gq]. Standard vector-meson dominance yields the relation $F \equiv F_\rho =N_c F_\omega$. The matching yields $$\begin{aligned}
a= 2\pi \sigma = \frac{24\pi^2}{N_c} F^2, \label{c2} \end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma$ is the long-distance string tension. If we use $F = 154~{\rm MeV}$ from the $\rho \to 2 \pi $ decay [@Ecker:1988te] we get $\sqrt{\sigma} = 546~{\rm MeV}$, while the lattice calculation of Ref. [@Kaczmarek:2005ui] gives a similar order-of-magnitude estimate, $\sqrt{\sigma} = 420~{\rm MeV}$. Condition (\[c2\]) originates solely from the asymptotic spectrum and is insensitive to the low-lying states, whose parameters (mass, couplings) may depart form the asymptotic values.
Using the standard Feynman trick we rewrite Eq. (\[eq:amp\]) in the form $$\begin{aligned}
&& F_{\pi^0 \gamma^\ast \gamma^\ast} (Q,A) = \sum_{n, n'=0}^\infty
\int_0^1 dx \times \label{nnp}
\\ && \frac{ (F^2 / N_c) G_{n n'}(Q^2,A) }{\left \{
M^2 +a n x + a n'(1-x) +\frac12 Q^2 [ 1+u A] \right \}^2 }
\nonumber \\ && + (A \longleftrightarrow -A),
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $G_{n n'}$ is the coupling of the pion to the $n$ and $n'$ states belonging to the $\rho$ and $\omega$ Regge towers. This coupling may involve diagonal ($n=n'$) and non-diagonal ($n \neq n'$) terms, hence we introduce $n'=n+d$. The double sum may then be transformed into $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n,n'=0}^\infty A_{nn'}=\sum_{d=0}^\infty \sum_{m=0}^\infty
\left ( 1-\frac{\delta_{0 d}}{2} \right ) (A_{m,m+d}+A_{m+d,m}),
\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where the factor $(1-{\delta_{0 d}}/{2})$ is introduced for the correct counting the the diagonal and non-diagonal terms. On purely physical grounds we expect that the non-diagonal couplings are suppressed, because in that case the radial wave functions involve different number of nodes and the overlap is reduced. Thus it is reasonable to assume that $G_{n,n+d}$ is decreasing sufficiently fast with increasing $d$ such that Eq. (\[nnp\]) makes sense. Note that reasonable as it is, this assumption has sound consequences, as it makes the sum over $n$ and $n'$ in Eq. (\[nnp\]) finite. With no suppression the sum diverges logarithmically, however, any power-law suppression of $G_{n,n+d}$ with $d$ makes the expression well-behaved. At asymptotic $Q^2$ and fixed $d$ the coupling $G_{n,n+d}$ might a priori depend on $n$. We show, however, that this is impossible, as it would lead to violation of the twist expansion (\[twist\]). Indeed, assume that $G_{n,n+d}= G_{n+d,n} \sim n^{\alpha(d,Q^2,A)}
g(d,Q^2,A)$. Then, using the Euler-McLaurin summation formula we can we transform the sum into an integral and get the asymptotic behavior $$\begin{aligned}
&& F_{\pi^0 \gamma^\ast \gamma^\ast} (Q,A) \sim \sum_{d}
\left ( 1-\frac{\delta_{0 d}}{2} \right )
\int_0^1 dx \int_{n_0}^\infty dn \label{nnp2}
\\ && \left ( \frac{ n^{\alpha(d,Q^2,A)} g(d,Q^2,A)}{\left \{
M^2 +a n + a d x + \frac12 Q^2 [ 1+u A] \right \}^2 } \right . \nonumber \\
&& \left .
+ \frac{ n^{\alpha(d,Q^2,A)} g(d,Q^2,A)}{\left \{
M^2 +a n + a d (1-x) + \frac12 Q^2 [ 1+u A] \right \}^2 } \right ) \nonumber \\
&& \sim \sum_{d}\left ( 1-\frac{\delta_{0 d}}{2} \right )
\int_0^1 dx \, g \frac{ [1-u A]^{\alpha-1}
+ [1+u A]^{\alpha-1} }{ (Q^2)^{1-\alpha}},
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ whereas Eqs. (\[twist\],\[J2\]) enforce the leading behavior in the form $1/[Q^2 (1-u^2 A^2)]$. This implies that the only natural way to match to QCD (in the absence of radiative corrections) is to assume that at large $Q^2$ and $n$ we have $\alpha=0$ and $g$ depending only on $d$. In other words, [*the coupling $G_{n,n+d}$ at large $Q^2$ and $n$ is independent of $n$, $Q$, and $A$.*]{} Thus for simplicity we take $G_{n,n+d}= G_{n+d,n}= g(d)$ for all, even low, $n$. The obtained behavior is reminiscent of the asymptotic independence of the coupling $F_V$ of $Q^2$ and $n$ in the case of the two-point vector correlator. It is worth stressing that each term in Eq. (\[nnp\]) goes as $1/Q^4$ and it is the summation over $n$ which changes the power to $1/Q^2$, yielding the leading twist DA properly. Any finite truncation does not do the job. In order to generate the $1/Q^2$ behavior one needs the proper asymptotic density of states, such as in the Regge model.
With the formula for the polygamma function, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{(u + v n)^2}=\frac{1}{v^2} \psi^{(1)}\left ( \frac{u}{v} \right ),\end{aligned}$$ we obtain from Eq. (\[nnp\]) the equation $$\begin{aligned}
&& F_{\pi^0 \gamma^\ast \gamma^\ast} (Q,A) = \frac{F^2}{N_c a^2} \sum_{d}
\left ( 1-\frac{\delta_{0 d}}{2} \right )
g(d)
\int_0^1 dx \times \label{nnp3} \nonumber \\
&& \left [ \psi^{(1)}\left ( \frac{M^2}{a} + d x +\frac{1}{2a} Q^2 [1+u A] \right )
\right . \label{nx}\\
&& \left . + \psi^{(1)}\left ( \frac{M^2}{a} + d (1-x) +\frac{1}{2a} Q^2 [1+u A]
\right ) \right ] \nonumber \\ &&+ (A \longleftrightarrow -A).
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ At large $Q^2$ we use the expansion $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{(1)}(A Q^2+B)=\frac{1}{A Q^2}+\left ( \frac{1}{2}-B \right ) \frac{1}{A^2 Q^4}+ \dots\end{aligned}$$ which yields $$\begin{aligned}
&& F_{\pi^0 \gamma^\ast \gamma^\ast} (Q,A) = \frac{8F^2}{N_c a} \sum_{d}
\left ( 1-\frac{\delta_{0 d}}{2} \right )
g(d)
\int_0^1 dx \times \label{nnp4} \\
&& \left ( \frac{1}{Q^2(1-u^2 A^2)} -
\frac{[2M^2+a(d-1)](1+u^2 A^2)}{Q^4(1-u^2 A^2)^2} +\dots \right ).\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Comparison to Eq. (\[J2\],\[J4\]) gives immediately the identification $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi^{(2)}(x) = 1, \;\;\; \varphi^{(4)}(x) = 1, \label{constphi}\end{aligned}$$ with the normalization conditions $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{d}\left ( 1-\frac{\delta_{0 d}}{2} \right ) g(d)=\frac{12\pi^2 f}{N_c},
\label{BLnorm}\\
&&\Delta^2=-\frac{N_c}{24\pi^2 f} \sum_{d}\left ( 1-\frac{\delta_{0 d}}{2} \right ) g(d)
[2M^2+a(d-1)]). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Note that $g(d)\sim N_c^{-1/2}$, as required for 3-meson couplings, and $\Delta^2 \sim N_c^0$. The sign of $\Delta^2$ is formally not constrained. We stress that the above results hold at the scale $Q_0$ at which the radiative gluon corrections are not present.
Let us consider in a greater detail the simplest case where no non-diagonal couplings are present, $g(d)=G \delta_{d0}$. Then Eqs. (\[BLnorm\]) yield $$\begin{aligned}
G=\frac{24\pi^2 f}{N_c}, \;\;\; \Delta^2=\frac{a}{2}-M^2. \label{nd0}\end{aligned}$$ With $M=m_\rho=770$ MeV the parameter $\Delta^2$ is positive when $\sqrt{\sigma} > 434$ MeV. At $\sqrt{\sigma} = 500$ MeV we obtain $\Delta=439$ MeV, which agrees in the order of magnitude with quark-model estimates [@Anikin:1999cx; @RuizArriola:2003bs].
At $Q^2=0$ the anomaly condition (\[anomc\]) enforces the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{(1)}\left ( \frac{m_\rho^2}{2\pi \sigma }\right ) = \frac{\sigma
N_c}{4\pi f^2},
\label{rel}\end{aligned}$$ which is very well satisfied for $\sigma=(500~{\rm MeV})^2$, when the above equation becomes $0.377 \simeq 0.377$. If we use the relation $m_\rho^2=24\pi^2 f^2/N_c$, then Eq. (\[rel\]) becomes $\psi^{(1)}(z)=3/z$, with $z=m_\rho^2/a \simeq 0.385$, which gives numerically the relation $\sqrt{\sigma} \simeq 0.64m_\rho=495$ MeV. This shows that extending the assumption of constancy of the the meson coupling $G$ all the way from the asymptotic region down to $Q^2=0$ preserves the constraints of the model. Moreover, it leads to very reasonable results and allows to remarkably well determine the string tension from the meson phenomenology using the chiral anomaly matching condition.
Let us now discuss the effects of modifying the Regge model. Suppose the masses $M$ and the slope parameters $a$ were different in the $\rho$ and $\omega$ channels. If $a_\rho \neq a_\omega$ then the expansion (\[J2\],\[J4\]) is violated. Note, however, that in that case we would have different asymptotic density of $\rho$ and $\omega$ states, which is not possible in a theory with strict $SU(2)_F$ symmetry. On the other hand, it is possible to split $m_\rho$ and $m_\omega$. In that case still $\varphi^{(2)}=1$, but higher-twist DAs become $x$-dependent. We know from experimental data that the $\omega$-$\rho$ mass splitting is tiny, so that dependence should not be strong. At any case, the result of constant $\varphi^{(2)}$ in the large-$N_c$ limit (at the scale $Q_0$) seems very robust.
Several comments referring to the interpretation of our results are in order. We recall that the constancy of pion DAs has been originally obtained by the present authors in the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model [@RuizArriola:2002bp] as well as in the Spectral Quark Model [@RuizArriola:2003bs], which are particular realizations of the large-$N_c$ limit. A key ingredient of these calculation was the correct implementation of chiral symmetry through the Ward-Takahashi identities. On the other hand, calculations based on nonlocal quark models originally obtained bumped distributions [@Praszalowicz:2001wy], close in shape to the asymptotic forms. Later calculations with more careful implementation of PCAC resulted in much flatter results [@Bzdak:2003qe], with the DA remaining non-zero at the end-points $x=0, 1$. The trend to a flat distribution can also be seen in transverse lattice calculations at low transverse scales [@Dalley:2001gj; @Burkardt:2001mf]. The present calculation is founded on more general background, using only the facts that at large-$N_c$ we deal with a purely mesonic theory and that the confined meson spectrum may be described by the radial Regge model.
Another comment refers to the absence of explicit quarks in the present approach. Interestingly, the calculation, although referring to the partonic structure, as seen in Eq. (\[AV\]), never explicitly introduces partons of spin 1/2. The $x$ variable enters from the Feynman representation of the product of two vector-meson propagators and is later identified with the Bjorken $x$ by matching to the QCD expressions (\[J2\],\[J4\]). The identification is unique, since DAs are universal for all $Q^2$ and $A$ and are only functions of $x$ (and the model parameters).
QCD evolution for large and finite $N_c$ {#sec:evol}
========================================
An important point, not only for our calculation, but for all model calculations, is the question of the energy scale where the obtained predictions for the DAs hold. Distribution amplitudes depend on the scale, while our result corresponds to a fixed reference scale $Q_0$. The QCD evolution is crucial, eventually evolving the DAs into their asymptotic forms , , …. At leading order the evolution for the leading-twist component is very simple. One method is to use the Gegenbauer moments (see Appendix \[sec:gegen\]), which evolve with the [*evolution ratio*]{} $[\alpha(Q^2)/\alpha(Q_0^2)]^{\gamma_n^{(0)}/2 \beta_0}$. Since $\beta_0=11N_c/3-2N_f/3$, and $\gamma_n^{(0)} \sim (N_c^2-1)/(2 N_c)$ the exponent reaches a finite value in the large-$N_c$ limit. As expected, the quark contribution (depending on the number of active flavors $N_F$) is only $1/N_c$ suppressed. For instance, the second Gegenbauer moment behaves as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{a_2 (Q)}{a_2 (Q_0)} =
\left(\frac{\alpha(Q)}{\alpha(Q_0) } \right)^{\frac{75 (N_c^2 -1)}{12 N_c (11 N_c - 2 N_F)}}\end{aligned}$$ From the present calculation one gets $a_2 (Q_0) = 7 /18 $. For $N_F=3$ the exponent changes from $50/81 $ at $N_c=3$ to $25/44$ at $N_c = \infty$, an effect at the $10\%$ level only. Thus, the (perturbative) evolution is never switched off. Obviously, our result for the DA cannot hold at all scales. As we said, it refers to a particular reference scale $Q_0$. It is precisely at that situation where the DAs are constant functions of $x$. In order to pass to other scales, the evolution is necessary and its effect is strong. In particular, the evolution changes the end-point behavior near $x=0,1$, for instance the twist-2 component $\varphi^{(2)} \sim x$ near $x=0$ and $\varphi^{(2)} \sim 1-x$ near $x=1$ (see Refs. [@RuizArriola:2002bp] for details). This effect is very important, in particular for the analysis of processes with one real photon, where $A=1$. Then the numerators in integrands of Eq. (\[J2\],\[J4\]) involve powers of $x(1-x)$ and the transition form factor is well-behaved only when the end-point behavior of the DA cancels the singularity. In short, [*the QCD evolution is mandatory if we want to compare the model predictions to the data*]{}.
Having said that, we note that we can compute exactly the unevolved large-$N_c$ pion transition form factor, which amounts to carrying the $x$ integration in Eq. (\[nx\]). For the diagonal model, $g(d)=G \delta_{d0}$, we find $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\pi^0 \gamma^\ast \gamma^\ast} (Q,A) &=& \frac{2f}{N_c A Q^2}
\left [ \psi^{(0)}\left ( \frac{M^2}{a} + \frac{ Q^2 (1+A)}{2a}\right )
\right . \nonumber \\ && \left.
- \psi^{(0)}\left ( \frac{M^2}{a} + \frac{Q^2 (1-A) }{2a} \right ) \right ]. \label{full}\end{aligned}$$
![The pion transition form factor in the large-$N_c$ Regge model. Solid lines from top to bottom correspond to Eq. (\[full\]) at $|A|=1$, $0.95$, $0.75$, $0.5$, and $0$, respectively. The dashed lines indicate the Brodsky-Lepage limit of $2 f$ for $|A|=1$ (upper curve) and $4f/3$ for $|A|=0$ (lower curve). The CLEO data points are for $A=1$.[]{data-label="fig:pex"}](pex2.ps){width="48.50000%"}
This result is plotted for different values of the asymmetry $A$ in Fig. \[fig:pex\], where the need for evolution at large $Q^2$ is vividly seen. The top curve (thick line) is for the un-evolved large-$N_c$ result of Eq. (\[full\]) with $A=1$. At large-$Q^2$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
Q^2 F_{\pi^0 \gamma^\ast \gamma} (Q,|A|=1) &=& \frac{2f}{N_c} \left [
\log \frac{Q^2}{a}+\psi^{(0)} \left ( \frac{M^2}{a} \right ) \right ] \nonumber \\
&&+ {\cal O}(1/Q^2). \end{aligned}$$ We note the $\log Q^2$ term, whose presence can be traced back to the singular end-point behavior in the twist expansion (\[twist\]-\[J4\]). As a result, the pure twist expansion is violated. The QCD evolution cures this problem, leading to the asymptotic behavior in accordance to the Brodsky-Lepage limit, indicated with the upper dashed line in Fig. \[fig:pex\]. Therefore the QCD evolution is necessary to comply to the formal limit, as well as to the experimental data. More pictorially, the evolution takes the tail of the model calculation and brings it down to the upper dashed line, compatible with the data. We stress again that the data should not be directly compared to the un-evolved model results plotted in the figure, yet we notice that at lower $Q^2$, where the effects of evolution should be smaller, the comparison is quite reasonable. At lower values of $|A|$ the effects of evolution are not as strong as at $|A|=1$, moreover, the pure twist expansion ([*i.e.*]{} the expansion in powers of $1/Q^2$ without logs) holds. In the symmetric limit of $A=0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\pi^0 \gamma^\ast \gamma^\ast} (Q,A=0) = \frac{2f}{N_c a}
\psi^{(1)}\left ( \frac{2M^2+Q^2}{2a} \right ).\end{aligned}$$
Finally, let us mention that the determination of the reference scale $Q_0$ can only be done at present using perturbative evolution. In our previous work [@RuizArriola:2002bp] we used the second Gegenbauer moment $a_2 =0.12 \pm 0.03 $ at $Q=2.4~{\rm GeV}$ extracted from the experiment [@Schmedding:1999ap] with the assumption $a_k =0 $ for $k > 2$. This allowed us to make the LO estimate for the evolution ratio $\alpha(Q) / \alpha(Q_0)=0.15 \pm 0.06 $. In Fig. \[fig:pda-evol\] we show the corresponding LO Gegenbauer evolution for $N_c=3 $ and $N_c= \infty$ to the scale $Q^2 = 5.8~{\rm
GeV}^2$. As we see the $N_c$-effect is tiny and is in fact comparable with the uncertainties induced by the evolution ratio [@RuizArriola:2002bp]. Let us note that despite the perturbative nature of our evolution the similarity of these evolved results to non-perturbative transverse lattice calculations with a transverse lattice size of about $a_\perp \sim 0.5-0.7~{\rm fm}$ is indeed striking [^1]. The LO reference scale of our estimate turns out to be $Q_0 =0.320 \pm 0.045~{\rm GeV}
$ (for $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}= 0.224~{\rm GeV}$) – a rather low value which suggests the usage of higher-order evolution [@Mueller:1994cn] or even non-perturbative evolution [@Dalley:2001gj; @Burkardt:2001mf]. Our constant DA evolved at LO to the CLEO scale $Q^2 = 5.8~{\rm GeV}^2$ yields the value $Q^2 F_{\gamma^*, \pi \gamma} (Q) / (2 f_\pi) = 1.25 \pm 0.10 $ [@RuizArriola:2002bp], higher but compatible within two standard deviations to the experimental CLEO value of $0.83 \pm 0.12$. This actually speaks in favor of small NLO corrections, however work on higher-order evolution should definitely be pursued in the future. In addition, the higher twist corrections should also be included in such an analysis, which is nontrivial.
Expansion of Eq. (\[full\]) at low-$Q^2$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\pi^0 \gamma^\ast \gamma^\ast} (Q,A) &=&
\frac{2f}{3a} \psi^{(1)} \left ( \frac{M^2}{a}\right ) +
\frac{f Q^2}{3a^2} \psi^{(2)} \left ( \frac{M^2}{a}\right ) \nonumber \\
&+& \frac{f (A^2+3)Q^4}{36a^3} \psi^{(3)} \left ( \frac{M^2}{a}\right ) +
\dots \label{lq} \end{aligned}$$ Note that the $Q^2$ term is independent of the asymmetry $A$, as is also apparent from Fig. \[fig:pex\]. The corresponding slope reads $$\begin{aligned}
b_\pi &=& -\left[\frac1{F_{\pi^0 \gamma \gamma^\ast} (Q,0)}
\frac{d}{d Q^2} F_{\pi^0 \gamma \gamma^\ast} (Q,0)
\right]\Big|_{Q^2=0} \nonumber \\ &=& -\frac1{2 a}
\frac{\psi^{(2)} \left ( \frac{M^2}{a}\right )} {\psi^{(1)} \left (
\frac{M^2}{a}\right )}\end{aligned}$$ Numerically, taking $M = m_\rho=770$ MeV we get the value $b_\pi = 1.39~{\rm
GeV}^{-2}$ for $\sigma=(400~{\rm MeV})^2$, $b_\pi = 1.51~{\rm
GeV}^{-2}$ for $\sigma=(500~{\rm MeV})^2$, and $b_\pi = 1.58~{\rm
GeV}^{-2}$ for $\sigma=(600~{\rm MeV})^2$. These Regge model estimates are in very reasonable agreement with the experimental values quoted in the PDG [@PDBook]: $b_\pi = (1.79 \pm 0.14 \pm
14) {\rm GeV}^{-2}$ originally reported by the CELLO collaboration [@Behrend:1990sr], obtained from an extrapolation from high-$Q^2$ data to low $Q^2$ by means of generalized vector meson dominance, $b_\pi = (1.4 \pm 1.3 \pm 2.6) {\rm GeV}^{-2}$ given in [@Farzanpay:1992pz], and $b_\pi = (1.4 \pm 0.8 \pm 1.4) {\rm
GeV}^{-2}$ given in [@MeijerDrees:1992qb].
Finally, let us comment on the recent findings within the holographic approach [@Brodsky:2005en; @Brodsky:2006uq] where the light-cone wave functions have been computed appealing to the AdS/CFT correspondence and the meromorpization approach of Ref. [@Radyushkin:2006iz]. The holographic wave-functions correspond to a spectrum which behaves linearly in the mass, $M(n)
\sim n$. Based on a conformal-based mapping Brodsky and Teramond [@Brodsky:2005en] get the asymptotic DA $
\varphi_\pi^{(2)}(x) = 6 x (1-x) $ while the corresponding Parton Distribution Function (PDF) is $f_\pi (x)= 6x (1-x) $. If, instead, a twist-based mapping is considered [@Brodsky:2006uq] these authors get $\varphi_\pi^{(2)}(x) = (8 /\pi) \sqrt{x(1-x)} $ and a PDF $f_\pi
(x) = 1$. According to the meromorphization approach of Radyushkin [@Radyushkin:2006iz] one gets $\varphi_\pi^{(2)}(x) =
(8 /\pi) \sqrt{x(1-x)} $ and $f_\pi (x) =1 $ for scalar quarks and $
\varphi_\pi^{(2)}(x) = 6 x (1-x)$ , the asymptotic DA, and $f_\pi (x)
= 6 x(1-x)$ for spin 1/2 quarks. This latter situation is exactly the kind of situation that was found in the NJL quantized on the light cone [@Heinzl:2000ht]. An asymptotic PDA suggests a reference scale $Q_0 = \infty$ or the lack of LO evolution of $\phi^2$, which assumes the asymptotic form at all scales. On the other hand the corresponding PDF yields a $100\%$ momentum fraction carried by the quarks, while for $Q_0=\infty$ one expects that all momentum fraction is carried by the gluons. This poses an interpretation difficulty for these approaches which should be cleared out.
![ The pion distribution amplitude evolved to the scale $Q^2 =
(2.4 {\rm GeV})^2 $ for the cases $N_c=3$ and $N_c=\infty$. The value for the evolution ratio $\alpha(Q) / \alpha(Q_0)=0.15$ is based on the analysis of the CLEO data of Ref. [@Schmedding:1999ap]. We also show the un-evolved DA, $\varphi_\pi(x,Q_0)=1$, and the asymptotic DA, $\varphi_\pi (x,\infty)=6x(1-x)$.[]{data-label="fig:pda-evol"}](pda-evol.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Conclusion {#sec:conc}
==========
We summarize our main points. The radial Regge model predictions for the $\pi^0 \gamma^\ast \gamma^\ast$ amplitude can be matched to the QCD twist expansion in the absence of radiative corrections in the large-$N_c$ limit. The matching requires that the coupling of the pion to a pair of Regge $\rho$ and $\omega$ mesons, $G_{\pi V V'}$, is constant for highly excited Regge states and large momenta. The twist-2 pion distribution amplitude is then found to be constant in the $x$-variable, conforming to the earlier predictions made in a class of chiral quark models. Thus, we provide an explicit example of quark-hadron duality for an exclusive process. Moreover, higher-twist DAs may or may not be constant, depending on the details of the Regge model. If $m_\rho=m_\omega$, then the twist-4 DA is also constant. The Regge model couplings are constrained by matching the chiral anomaly for real photons and the high-momentum behavior, [*cf.*]{} Eqs. (\[BLnorm\],\[nd0\]) for highly virtual photons. If we further assume a model with constant diagonal couplings, a consistency relation (\[rel\]) involving the string tension is found, which is well supported by the data. As a result the string tension is found to scale with the square of the $\rho$-meson mass. The Regge model results is very reasonable predictions for the slope of the pion electromagnetic transition form factor at zero momentum. The estimates depend weakly on the string tension, and compare quite well to the existent measurements. Finally, we have noted that similarly to the case of chiral quark models, the QCD evolution is necessary in the present Regge model to achieve the correct large-momentum behavior of the pion transition form factor.
Useful correspondence with Anatoly V. Radyushkin, Guy de Teramond and Stan Brodsky is gratefully acknowledged. This research is supported by the Polish Ministry of Education and Science, grants 2P03B 02828 and 2P03B 05925, by the Spanish Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores and the Polish Ministry of Education and Science, project 4990/R04/05, by the Spanish DGI and FEDER funds with grant no. FIS2005-00810, Junta de Andalucía grant No. FQM-225, and EU RTN Contract CT2002-0311 (EURIDICE).
LO evolution of DA {#sec:gegen}
==================
The LO-evolved distribution amplitude reads [@Lepage:1980fj; @Mueller:1994cn] $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{\pi}^{(2)}(x,Q) &=& 6x(1-x){\sum_{n=0}^\infty}' C_n^{3/2} ( 2 x -1)
a_n (Q),
\label{eq:evolpda} \end{aligned}$$ where the prime indicates summation over even values of $n$ only. The matrix elements, $a_n(Q)$, are the Gegenbauer moments given by $$\begin{aligned}
a_n (Q)&=& \frac23 \frac{2n+3}{(n+1)(n+2)} \left(
\frac{\alpha(Q_{})}{\alpha(Q_0) } \right)^{\gamma_n^{(0)} / (2
\beta_0)} \times \nonumber \\ &&\int_0^1 dx C_n^{3/2} ( 2x -1)
\varphi_{\pi}^{(2)} (x ,Q_0),
\label{Geg}\end{aligned}$$ with $C_n^{3/2}$ denoting the Gegenbauer polynomials, and the non-singlet anomalous dimension reads $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_n^{(0)} &=& -2 C_F \left[ 3 + \frac{2}{(n+1)(n+2)}- 4
\sum_{k=1}^{n+1} \frac1k \right], \nonumber \\
\beta_0 &=& \frac{11}3 C_A -
\frac23 N_F,\end{aligned}$$ with $C_A = N_c $, $C_F = (N_c^2 - 1)/(2N_c)$, and $N_F$ being the number of active flavors, which we take equal to three. The LO running is then $\alpha(Q) = (4 \pi / \beta_0)/ \log (Q^2 / \Lambda_{\rm
QCD}^2)$. Taking as initial condition $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{\pi}^{(2)} (x,Q_0) = 1 \, ,
\label{start}\end{aligned}$$ one we gets immediately $$\begin{aligned}
a_n (Q)&=& \frac23 \frac{2n+3}{(n+1)(n+2)} \left(
\frac{\alpha(Q_{})}{\alpha(Q_0) } \right)^{\gamma_n^{(0)} / (2
\beta_0)} \, .
\label{OurGeg}\end{aligned}$$
[61]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, ****, ().
(), .
, ****, (), .
(), ****, ().
(), ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
(), ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
(), .
, , , , , ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, , , , ****, (), .
(), .
(), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
(), .
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, (), <http://pdg.lbl.gov>.
, ****, ().
(), ****, ().
[^1]: This could be understood if a conversion factor to $\overline{\rm MS}$ scale of $\mu = 2 \pi / a_\perp $ would be taken, yielding $Q^2 \sim 3.2-6.3~{\rm GeV}^2$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Let $K/{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}}}$ be a finite Galois extension, and let $s_0\neq 1$ be a complex number. We present two new criteria for the Artin L-functions to be holomorphic at $s_0$.
[*Key words:*]{} Artin L-function
MSC: 11R42
address: |
Simion Stoilow Institute of Mathematics\
of the Romanian Academy\
P.O.BOX 1-764\
RO-014700 Bucharest, Romania
author:
- Florin Nicolae
title: '**On the Semigroup of Artin’s L-functions holomorphic at $s_0$. II**'
---
Let $K/{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}}$ be a finite Galois extension with the Galois group $G$, $\chi_1,\ldots,\chi_r$ the irreducible characters of $G$, $d_j=\chi_j(1)$ the dimension of $\chi_j$, $j=1,\ldots,r$, $f_1=L(s, \chi_1, K/{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}}),\ldots,f_r=L(s, \chi_r, K/{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}})$ the corresponding Artin $L$-functions, $Ar:=\{f_1^{k_1}\ldots f_r^{k_r}\mid k_1\geq 0,\ldots,k_r\geq 0\}$ the multiplicative semigroup of all Artin $L$-functions. Artin proved ([@Ar], Satz 5, P. 106) that $f_1,\ldots,f_r$ are multiplicatively independent, that is, a relation $$f_1^{k_1}\cdot\ldots\cdot f_r^{k_r}=1,$$ where $k_1,\ldots,k_r$ are integers, implies $k_1=\ldots=k_r=0$. This implies that $Ar$ is a free semigroup on the generators $f_1,\ldots,f_r.$ For $f,g\in Ar$ we write $f\mid g$ if there exists $h\in Ar$ such that $g=fh$. For $s_0\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}},s_0\neq 1$, let $\mathit{Hol}(s_0)$ be the subsemigroup of $Ar$ consisting of the L-functions which are holomorphic at $s_0$. Artin has conjectured ([@Ar]) that every $L$-function is holomophic at $s_0$, that is $$\mathit{Hol}(s_0)=Ar.$$ I have proved in [@Ni], Theorem 1, that $\mathit{Hol}(s_0)$ is a finitely generated semigroup. The only invertible element in $\mathit{Hol}(s_0)$ is the identity. Every element of $\mathit{Hol}(s_0)$ is a product of irreducible elements. The set of irreducible elements , denoted by ${\rm
Hilb}(\mathit{Hol}(s_0))$ (the Hilbert basis of $\mathit{Hol}(s_0)$), is finite. By Brauer’s induction theorem of characters and by class field theory, every element of $Ar$ is a quotient of two elements of $\mathit{Hol}(s_0)$. This implies that the group generated by $\mathit{Hol}(s_0)$ is the free abelian group $\{f_1^{k_1}\cdot\ldots\cdot f_r^{k_r}\mid k_1,\ldots,k_r\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}\}$ of rank $r$. It follows that the number of elements in ${\rm Hilb}(\mathit{Hol}(s_0))$ is at least $r$. The semigroup $\mathit{Hol}(s_0)$ is factorial if and only if the number of elements in ${\rm Hilb}(\mathit{Hol}(s_0))$ is $r$. In [@Ni], Theorem 2, I have proved a necessary and sufficient condition for the holomorphy of the $L$-functions at $s_0$:
The following assertions are equivalent:\
i) Artin’s conjecture is true: $\mathit{Hol}(s_0)=Ar.$\
ii) The number of elements in ${\rm Hilb}(\mathit{Hol}(s_0))$ is $r$, and $\prod_{i\in
I}f_i\in \mathit{Hol}(s_0)$ for every subset $I\subset \{1,\ldots,r\}$ with $r-1$ elements.
Here I prove more:
The following assertions are equivalent:\
i) Artin’s conjecture is true: $\mathit{Hol}(s_0)=Ar.$\
ii) The semigroup $\mathit{Hol}(s_0)$ is factorial and for every $k,l\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$, $k\neq l$ there exists $f\in \mathit{Hol}(s_0)$ such that $f_k\mid f$ and $f_l\nmid f$.\
iii) The semigroup $\mathit{Hol}(s_0)$ is factorial and there exists $1\leq m<r$ such that for every set $M\subseteq \{1,\ldots,r\}$ with $m$ elements and for every $j\in M$ there exists $k_j>0$ such that $$\prod_{j\in M}f_j^{k_j}\in \mathit{Hol}(s_0).$$
For a meromorphic function $f$ we denote by ${{\rm ord}}f$ the order of $f$ at $s_0$. i)$\Rightarrow$ii): If $\mathit{Hol}(s_0)=Ar$ then $\mathit{Hol}(s_0)$ is factorial with the set of irreducibles $\{f_1,\ldots,f_r\}$. For $k,l\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$, $k\neq l$ and $f:=f_k$ we have $f_k\mid f$ and $f_l\nmid f$.\
ii)$\Rightarrow$i): If Artin’s conjecture is not true then there exists $l\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$ such that ${{\rm ord}}f_l<0$. The Dedekind zeta function of $K$ has the decomposition $$\zeta_K(s)=f_1^{d_1}\cdot\ldots\cdot f_r^{d_r}$$ and is holomorphic at $s_0$, so there exists $k\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$ such that ${{\rm ord}}f_k>0$. For $j\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$ let $m_j:=\min\{m\geq 0\mid {{\rm ord}}(f_k^mf_j)\geq 0\}$. The functions $\{f_k^{m_1}f_1,\ldots,f_k^{m_r}f_r\}$ are holomorphic at $s_0$ and are irreducible as elements of the multiplicative semigroup $\mathit{Hol}(s_0)$. By the hypothesis ii) $\mathit{Hol}(s_0)$ is factorial, so the set $\{f_k^{m_1}f_1,\ldots,f_k^{m_r}f_r\}$ is the set of all irreducible elements of $\mathit{Hol}(s_0)$. Since ${{\rm ord}}f_l<0$ we have $m_l>0$. By the hypothesis ii) there exists $f\in \mathit{Hol}(s_0)$ such that $f_l\mid f$ and $f_k\nmid f$. Since $f$ is a product of irreducible elements and is divisible by $f_l$ it must be divisible by $f_k^{m_l}f_l$, so $f_k\mid f$, a contradiction with $f_k\nmid f$. So Artin’s conjecture is true.\
i)$\Rightarrow$iii): If Artin’s conjecture is true then $f_1,\ldots,f_r\in \mathit{Hol}(s_0)$ and iii) is satisfied with $m=1$.\
iii)$\Rightarrow$ii): Let $k,l\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$, $k\neq l$. Let $M\subseteq \{1,\ldots,r\}$ a set with $m$ elements which contains $k$ and does not contain $l$. By the assumption iii) for every $j\in M$ there exists $k_j>0$ such that $$f:=\prod_{j\in M}f_j^{k_j}\in \mathit{Hol}(s_0).$$ It holds that $f_k\mid f$ and $f_l\nmid f$.
[9]{} Artin, E.: Über eine neue Art von L-Reihen. Abh. Math. Sem. Hamburg **3,** 89-108 (1924).
Nicolae, F.: On the semigroup of Artin’s L-functions holomorphic at $s_0$, J. Number Theory 128, No. 11, 2861-2864 (2008).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We recall a construction of non-commutative algebras related to a one-parameter family of (deformed) spheres and tori, and show that in the case of tori, the $\ast$-algebras can be completed into $C^\ast$-algebras isomorphic to the standard non-commutative torus. As the former was constructed in the context of matrix (or fuzzy) geometries, it provides an important link to the framework of non-commutative geometry, and opens up for a concrete way to study deformations of non-commutative tori.
Furthermore, we show how the well-known fuzzy sphere and fuzzy torus can be obtained as formal scaling limits of finite-dimensional representations of the deformed algebras, and their projective modules are described together with connections of constant curvature.
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Linköping University\
581 83 Linköping\
Sweden
- |
Mathematical Physics\
Boltzmanngasse 5\
1090 Vienna\
Austria
author:
- Joakim Arnlind
- Harald Grosse
bibliography:
- 'deformednctori.bib'
title: Deformed noncommutative tori
---
Introduction
============
In [@abhhs:fuzzy; @abhhs:noncommutative], sequences of matrix algebras where constructed as “fuzzy” analogues of surfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. In particular, a one parameter family of surfaces, interpolating between spheres tori, was considered and all finite dimensional (hermitian) representations of the corresponding non-commutative algebras were found and classified. It was shown that the representation theory clearly reflects the topology of the surfaces and that smooth deformations of the geometry induce smooth changes in the representations (see also [@a:repcalg; @as:affine]).
One may wonder if there is a relation between the non-commutative algebras constructed in this way and the $C^\ast$-algebra representing the standard non-commutative torus [@c:cstardiff]? Although the construction of the two algebras is completely different (and for the deformed algebras, there is a priori no concept of norm), they correspond to the same (non-commutative) topology. From this point of view a $C^*$-algebraic isomorphism between the two kind of algebras would be natural.
In this note, we review the construction of the non-commutative algebras related to (deformed) spheres and tori, and show that there exist formal scaling limits in which the representations become the standard fuzzy sphere and torus. Furthermore, we construct a basis in which one can complete the deformed torus algebras into $C^\ast$-algebras isomorphic to the standard non-commutative torus. Finally, we consider projective modules of the non-commutative torus in this framework, together with connections of constant curvature.
Construction of noncommutative algebras
=======================================
Let us briefly recall how to construct non-commutative algebras related to level sets of a polynomial in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ [@abhhs:noncommutative; @abhhs:fuzzy; @a:repcalg; @as:affine; @a:phdthesis]. Given a polynomial $C\in{\mathbb{R}}[x,y,z]\equiv{\mathbb{R}}[x^1,x^2,x^3]$, one can define a Poisson bracket by setting $$\begin{aligned}
\{f,g\}=\nabla C\cdot{\big(\nabla f\times\nabla g\big)},\end{aligned}$$ for $f,g\in C^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^3)$. In particular, it follows that $\{x^i,x^j\}={\varepsilon}^{ijk}{\partial}_kC$. By construction, the polynomial $C(x,y,z)$ Poisson commutes with all functions, which implies that the Poisson structure restricts to the inverse image $C^{-1}(0)$. Thus, it defines a Poisson structure on the quotient algebra ${\mathbb{R}}[x,y,z]/{\left\langle C(x,y,z) \right\rangle}$, which can be identified with polynomial functions on $C^{-1}(0)$.
To construct a non-commutative version of the above algebra, one starts with the free (non-commutative) associative algebra ${\mathbb{C}}[X,Y,Z]$ and imposes the relations $$\begin{aligned}
&[X,Y] = i\hbar :{\partial}_zC:\\
&[Y,Z] = i\hbar :{\partial}_xC:\\
&[Z,X] = i\hbar :{\partial}_yC:\end{aligned}$$ where $\hbar\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and $:{\partial}_i C:$ denotes a choice of ordering of the (commutative) polynomial ${\partial}_iC$. In [@abhhs:fuzzy; @abhhs:noncommutative], the authors considered the polynomial $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:torusSpherePolynomial}
C(x,y,z)=\frac{1}{2}{\big(x^2+y^2-\mu\big)}^2+\frac{1}{2}z^2-\frac{1}{2}\end{aligned}$$ whose inverse image $C^{-1}(0)$ describes a sphere for $\mu<1$ and a torus for $\mu>1$. One computes that $$\begin{aligned}
\{x,y\} = z\qquad
\{y,z\} = 2x(x^2+y^2-\mu)\qquad
\{z,x\} = 2y(x^2+y^2-\mu)\end{aligned}$$ and the corresponding non-commutative relations were chosen as $$\begin{aligned}
&[X,Y] = i\hbar Z\label{eq:XYCom}\\
&[Y,Z] = i\hbar{\Big( 2X^3+XY^2+Y^2X-2\mu X\Big)}\label{eq:YZCom}\\
&[Z,X] = i\hbar{\Big( 2Y^3+YX^2+X^2Y-2\mu Y\Big)}.\label{eq:ZXCom}\end{aligned}$$ The algebra is then defined as ${\mathcal{C}_{\hbar,\mu}}= {\mathbb{C}}[X,Y,Z]\slash I$, where $I$ is the two-sided ideal generated by the above relations. Using the “Diamond Lemma” [@b:diamondlemma], it was proved that ${\mathcal{C}_{\hbar,\mu}}$ is a non-trivial algebra for which a basis can be computed [@abhhs:noncommutative]. We shall also consider ${\mathcal{C}_{\hbar,\mu}}$ to be a $\ast$-algebra with $X^\ast=X$, $Y^\ast=Y$ and $Z^\ast=Z$.
In the Poisson algebra, the polynomial $C$ is a Poisson central element of the algebra. It turns out that a non-commutative analogue of $C$ is a central element in ${\mathcal{C}_{\hbar,\mu}}$. Namely, by setting $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ncCentralElement}
{\hat{C}}= {\big(X^2+Y^2-2\mu{\mathds{1}}\big)}^2+Z^2 \end{aligned}$$ one computes that $[X,{\hat{C}}]=[Y,{\hat{C}}]=[Z,{\hat{C}}]=0$. Thus, in analogy with (\[eq:torusSpherePolynomial\]) it is natural to also impose ${\hat{C}}={\mathds{1}}$ in ${\mathcal{C}_{\hbar,\mu}}$. As we shall see, the presentation of the algebra in terms of $X$, $Y$ and $Z$, is appropriate when comparing with spherical geometries (and the “fuzzy sphere”); there is, however, another choice of basis which naturally makes contact with non-commutative tori. By setting $W=X+iY$ and eliminating $Z=\frac{1}{i\hbar}[X,Y]$, the remaining relations may be written as $$\begin{aligned}
&{\left(W^2{W^*}+{W^*}W^2\right)}(1+{\hbar}^2)=4\mu{\hbar}^2W+2(1-{\hbar}^2)W{W^*}W\label{eq:W}\\
&\frac{1}{4}{\big(W{W^*}+{W^*}W-2\mu{\mathds{1}}\big)}^2+\frac{1}{4{\hbar}^4}{\big(W{W^*}-{W^*}W\big)}^2={\mathds{1}}.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, by introducing $$\begin{aligned}
&\Lambda = \frac{1}{2{\hbar}}{\big(W{W^*}-{W^*}W\big)}+
\frac{i}{2}{\big(W{W^*}+{W^*}W-2\mu{\mathds{1}}\big)}\end{aligned}$$ the above algebra can be presented as $$\begin{aligned}
&W\Lambda=q\Lambda W\quad;\quad {W^*}\Lambda = {\bar{q}}\Lambda {W^*}\label{eq:arel1}\\
&{W^*}{\Lambda^*}= q{\Lambda^*}{W^*}\quad;\quad W{\Lambda^*}={\bar{q}}{\Lambda^*}W\label{eq:arel2}\\
&{\Lambda^*}\Lambda=\Lambda{\Lambda^*}= {\mathds{1}}\label{eq:arel3}\\
&W{W^*}= z\Lambda +{\bar{z}}{\Lambda^*}+\mu{\mathds{1}}\label{eq:arel4}\\
&{W^*}W = -{\bar{z}}\Lambda - z{\Lambda^*}+ \mu{\mathds{1}},\label{eq:arel5}\end{aligned}$$ where $q=e^{2\pi i\theta}$, $z = e^{i\pi\theta}/2i\cos\pi\theta$ and $\theta$ is related to $\hbar$ via $\hbar=\tan\pi\theta$.
Note that the above relations are quite similar to those of the standard non-commutative torus, generated by two unitary operators. The difference is the deformed unitarity of the operator $W$. Let us now define the algebra together with the parameter ranges that we shall be interested in.
Let $\mu,\theta\in{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $\mu>0$ and $|\mu\cos\pi\theta|>1$. By ${A^0_{\mu,\theta}}$ we denote the quotient of the (unital) free $\ast$-algebra ${\mathbb{C}}{\left\langle W,{W^*},\Lambda,{\Lambda^*}\right\rangle}$ and the two-sided ideal generated by relations (\[eq:arel1\])–(\[eq:arel5\]).
Again, one can make use of the Diamond lemma [@b:diamondlemma] to explicitly compute a basis of ${A^0_{\mu,\theta}}$.
\[prop:basis\] A basis for ${A^0_{\mu,\theta}}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&{T_{{\vec{m}}}}= q^{m_1m_2/2}\Lambda^{m_1}W^{m_2}\\
&{S_{{\vec{n}}}}= q^{-n_1n_2/2}\Lambda^{n_1}({W^*})^{n_2}
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\vec{m}}=(m_1,m_2)\in{\mathbb{Z}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$ and ${\vec{n}}=(n_1,n_2)\in{\mathbb{Z}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 1}$. Moreover, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
&T_{{\vec{m}}}T_{{\vec{n}}} = q^{-{\vec{m}}\times{\vec{n}}/2}T_{{\vec{m}}+{\vec{n}}}\\
&S_{{\vec{m}}}S_{{\vec{n}}} = q^{{\vec{m}}\times{\vec{n}}/2}S_{{\vec{m}}+{\vec{n}}}
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\vec{m}}\times{\vec{n}}=m_1n_2-n_1m_2$.
To prove that ${T_{{\vec{m}}}}$ and ${S_{{\vec{n}}}}$ provide a basis for the algebra, we make use of the “Diamond Lemma”, and refer to [@b:diamondlemma] for details. Thus, relations (\[eq:arel1\])–(\[eq:arel5\]) are put into the reduction system $$\begin{aligned}
&S_1 = (W\Lambda,q\Lambda W)\quad
S_2 = (W{\Lambda^*},{\bar{q}}{\Lambda^*}W)\quad
S_3 = ({W^*}{\Lambda^*},q{\Lambda^*}{W^*})\\
&S_4 = ({W^*}\Lambda,{\bar{q}}\Lambda{W^*})\quad
S_5 = (\Lambda{\Lambda^*},{\mathds{1}})\quad
S_6 = ({\Lambda^*}\Lambda,{\mathds{1}})\\
&S_7 = (W{W^*},z\Lambda+{\bar{z}}{\Lambda^*}+\mu{\mathds{1}})\quad
S_8 = ({W^*}W,-{\bar{z}}\Lambda-z{\Lambda^*}+\mu{\mathds{1}}),
\end{aligned}$$ and a compatible ordering is chosen as follows: if two words are of different total order (in $W,{W^*},\Lambda,{\Lambda^*}$) then the one with lower order is smaller than the one with higher order. If two words are of the same order, they are comparable if the orders in $W,{W^*},\Lambda,{\Lambda^*}$ are separately equal. Then the ordering is lexicographic with respect to the alphabet $\Lambda,{\Lambda^*},W,{W^*}$. With this ordering one easily checks that $p_i\geq q_{ij}$, where $S_i=(p_i,\sum_{j}q_{ij})$. Furthermore, this ordering has the descending chain condition.
There are several ambiguities to be checked in this reduction system. For instance, let us consider $W{W^*}\Lambda$. One needs to check that it reduces to the same expression if we use $S_7$ to replace $W{W^*}$ or $S_4$ to replace ${W^*}\Lambda$. One computes $$\begin{aligned}
&{\big(z\Lambda+{\bar{z}}{\Lambda^*}+\mu{\mathds{1}}\big)}\Lambda-
W{\big({\bar{q}}\Lambda{W^*}\big)}=
{\big(z\Lambda+{\bar{z}}{\Lambda^*}+\mu{\mathds{1}}\big)}\Lambda-q{\bar{q}}\Lambda W{W^*}\\
&\qquad = {\big(z\Lambda+{\bar{z}}{\Lambda^*}+\mu{\mathds{1}}\big)}\Lambda
-\Lambda{\big(z\Lambda+{\bar{z}}{\Lambda^*}+\mu{\mathds{1}}\big)} = 0.
\end{aligned}$$ The other ambiguities can also be checked to be resolvable. Hence, by the Diamond Lemma, a basis for the algebra is provided by the irreducible words. Denoting $({\Lambda^*})^n=\Lambda^{-n}$ the irreducible words are given by ${T_{{\vec{m}}}}$ and ${S_{{\vec{n}}}}$. To prove the product formulas, one simply uses the relations to reorder the expressions.
Scaling limits
--------------
Let us now show that the algebras defined above have two formal scaling limits reproducing the fuzzy sphere and the standard non-commutative torus, as well as their finite dimensional representations.
For the sphere, one introduces ${\tilde{X}}=X/{\varepsilon}$, ${\tilde{Y}}=Y{\varepsilon}$, ${\tilde{Z}}=Z/{\varepsilon}$ as well as $k=\hbar/{\varepsilon}$. In terms of the rescaled variables, relations (\[eq:XYCom\])– (\[eq:ZXCom\]) become $$\begin{aligned}
&[{\tilde{X}},{\tilde{Y}}] = ik{\tilde{Z}}\\
&[{\tilde{Y}},{\tilde{Z}}] = -2ik\mu{\tilde{X}}+ik{\varepsilon}^2\Phi({\tilde{X}},{\tilde{Y}})\\
&[{\tilde{Z}},{\tilde{X}}] = -2ik\mu{\tilde{Y}}+ik{\varepsilon}^2\Phi({\tilde{Y}},{\tilde{X}}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi(X,Y)=2X^3+XY^2+Y^2X$. For $-1<\mu<0$ one finds an algebra isomorphic to su(2) as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$. In [@abhhs:noncommutative], the non-zero matrix elements of $W=X+iY$, in an $N$-dimensional irreducible representation, were found to be $$\begin{aligned}
W_{l,l+1} = \sqrt{\frac{2\sin(\pi l\theta)\sin\pi(n-l)\theta}{\cos\pi\theta}}\end{aligned}$$ for $l=1,\ldots,N-1$. Setting ${\tilde{W}}={\tilde{X}}+i{\tilde{Y}}$ and $k=\tan{\tilde{\theta}}$, one finds that $\theta={\varepsilon}{\tilde{\theta}}$ for small ${\varepsilon}$, and $$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde{W}}_{l,l+1} \approx \frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\sqrt{2\pi^2{\varepsilon}^2l(n-l){\tilde{\theta}}^2}
\quad\to\quad \sqrt{2}\pi{\tilde{\theta}}\sqrt{l(n-l)},\end{aligned}$$ which reproduces a standard representation of su(2).
To obtain the non-commutative torus, one considers relations (\[eq:arel1\])– (\[eq:arel5\]) and introduces ${\tilde{W}}={\varepsilon}W$ and sets $\mu=1/{\varepsilon}^2$. Relations (\[eq:arel4\]) and (\[eq:arel5\]) then become $$\begin{aligned}
&{\tilde{W}}{\tilde{W}}^\ast={\varepsilon}^2{\big(z\Lambda+{\bar{z}}{\Lambda^*}\big)}+{\mathds{1}}\\
&{\tilde{W}}^\ast{\tilde{W}}={\varepsilon}^2{\big(-z\Lambda-{\bar{z}}{\Lambda^*}\big)}+{\mathds{1}}\end{aligned}$$ which reduces to the fact that ${\tilde{W}}$ is unitary as ${\varepsilon}\to
0$. Clearly, equations (\[eq:arel1\])–(\[eq:arel3\]) are invariant under this rescaling. The corresponding non-zero matrix elements are $$\begin{aligned}
&W_{N,1} = \sqrt{\mu+\frac{1}{\cos\theta}}\\
&W_{l,l+1} = \sqrt{\mu+\frac{\cos2\pi l\theta}{\cos\theta}}\end{aligned}$$ for $l=1,\ldots,N-1$, which implies that $$\begin{aligned}
&{\tilde{W}}_{N,1} = {\varepsilon}\sqrt{\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^2}+\frac{1}{\cos\theta}}\quad\to\quad 1\\
&{\tilde{W}}_{l,l+1} = {\varepsilon}\sqrt{\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^2}+\frac{\cos2\pi l\theta}{\cos\theta}}
\quad\to\quad 1\end{aligned}$$ as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$. Even without any rescaling, it holds that $\Lambda$ is a matrix with the $N$ roots of unity on the diagonal. This reproduces the finite dimensional representations of the non-commutative torus.
Relation to the standard non-commutative torus
==============================================
Let $U,V$ be the generators of the non-commutative torus $C_\theta$ [@c:cstardiff; @c:ncgbook; @cr:yangmillstori]; i.e. the universal $C^\ast$-algebra generated by the relations $$\begin{aligned}
&VU = e^{i2\pi\theta}UV\\
&U^\ast U=UU^\ast = {\mathds{1}}\\
&V^\ast V=VV^\ast = {\mathds{1}}.\end{aligned}$$ In what follows, we will show that one can map ${A^0_{\mu,\theta}}$ into $C_\theta$ and use the induced norm to complete ${A^0_{\mu,\theta}}$ to a $C^\ast$-algebra isomorphic to $C_\theta$. Let us start by proving a result about the spectrum of a particular element in $C_\theta$, that is used to construct a $\ast$-homomorphism from ${A^0_{\mu,\theta}}$ to $C_\theta$.
\[lemma:invelement\] If $|\mu\cos\pi\theta|>1$ and $\mu>0$ then the element $\mu{\mathds{1}}+ze^{i\pi\varphi}U+{\bar{z}}e^{-i\pi\varphi}U^\ast$, with $z=e^{i\pi\theta}/2i\cos\pi\theta$, is positive and invertible in $C_\theta$ for all $\varphi\in{\mathbb{R}}$.
The element is clearly hermitian and let us write $$\begin{aligned}
\mu{\mathds{1}}+ze^{i\pi\varphi}U+{\bar{z}}e^{-i\pi\varphi}U^\ast\equiv
\mu{\mathds{1}}-B.
\end{aligned}$$ To study the spectrum, we consider the invertibility of the element $(\mu-\lambda){\mathds{1}}-B$ for different $\lambda$. It is a standard fact that this element is invertible if $\frac{1}{|\mu-\lambda|}{\left|\left|B\right|\right|}<1$. One computes $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{|\mu-\lambda|}{\left|\left|B\right|\right|}
=\frac{1}{2|(\mu-\lambda)\cos\pi\theta|}
{\left|\left|e^{i\pi\varphi}U+e^{i\pi\varphi}{U^\ast}\right|\right|}
\leq \frac{1}{|(\mu-\lambda)\cos\pi\theta|},
\end{aligned}$$ which is less than one if $|(\mu-\lambda)\cos\pi\theta|>1$. Since $|\mu\cos\pi\theta|>1$ by assumption (and $\mu>0$), it follows that $\frac{1}{|\mu-\lambda|}{\left|\left|B\right|\right|}<1$ for all $\lambda\leq 0$. Hence, $\mu{\mathds{1}}-B$ is invertible and the spectrum is contained in $(0,\infty)$.
Thus, it follows from Lemma \[lemma:invelement\] that if $\mu>0$ is chosen such that $|\mu\cos\pi\theta|>1$ then both $\sqrt{\mu{\mathds{1}}+zU+{\bar{z}}{U^\ast}}$ and its inverse exist in $C_\theta$.
The map $\phi$, defined by $$\begin{aligned}
&\phi(W) = {\Big(\sqrt{\mu{\mathds{1}}+zU+{\bar{z}}{U^\ast}}\Big)}V\\
&\phi(\Lambda) = U,
\end{aligned}$$ induces an injective $\ast$-homomorphism from ${A^0_{\mu,\theta}}$ to $C_\theta$.
First of all, one has to check that the map is well defined, i.e. that it respects the relations in ${A^0_{\mu,\theta}}$; for instance, denoting $R=\mu{\mathds{1}}+zU+{\bar{z}}{U^\ast}$, one computes $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(WW^\ast-z\Lambda-{\bar{z}}{\Lambda^*}-\mu{\mathds{1}})
&= \sqrt{R}VV^\ast\sqrt{R}-zU-{\bar{z}}{U^\ast}-\mu{\mathds{1}}\\
&= R - zU-{\bar{z}}{U^\ast}-\mu{\mathds{1}}= 0,
\end{aligned}$$ by using the relations in $C_\theta$. The remaining relations are checked in a similar way. Now, let us prove that $\phi$ is injective. It follows from Proposition \[prop:basis\] that an arbitrary element $a\in{A^0_{\mu,\theta}}$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
a = \sum_{{\vec{m}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}}a_{{\vec{m}}}\Lambda^{m_1}W^{m_2}
+\sum_{{\vec{n}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 1}}b_{{\vec{n}}}\Lambda^{n_1}({W^*})^{n_2}
\end{aligned}$$ (where all but a finite number of coefficients are zero) which implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(a) = \sum_{{\vec{m}}}a_{{\vec{m}}}U^{m_1}(\sqrt{R}V)^{m_2}
+\sum_{{\vec{n}}}b_{{\vec{n}}}U^{n_1}(V^\ast\sqrt{R})^{n_2}.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that Lemma \[lemma:invelement\] implies that $R(q^k)=\mu{\mathds{1}}+zq^kU+{\bar{z}}q^k{U^\ast}$ is positive and invertible for all $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, which in particular implies that $(\sqrt{R})V=V\sqrt{R({\bar{q}})}$ and $V^\ast\sqrt{R}
= {\big(\sqrt{R({\bar{q}})}\big)}V^\ast$. Thus, one concludes that $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(a) = \sum_{{\vec{m}}}a_{{\vec{m}}}{\Bigg(\prod_{k=0}^{m_2-1}\sqrt{R({\bar{q}}^{k})}\Bigg)}U^{m_1}V^{m_2}
+\sum_{{\vec{n}}}b_{{\vec{n}}}{\Bigg(\prod_{k=1}^{n_2}\sqrt{R({\bar{q}}^k)}\Bigg)}U^{n_1}(V^\ast)^{n_2}.
\end{aligned}$$ Since elements of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{{\vec{m}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}}c_{{\vec{m}}}U^{m_1}V^{m_2}
\end{aligned}$$ form a basis of a dense subset of $C_\theta$, it follows that if $\phi(a)=0$ then one must have $a_{{\vec{m}}}=b_{{\vec{n}}}=0$ for all ${\vec{m}}$ and ${\vec{n}}$. Hence, $a=0$, which proves that $\phi$ is injective.
Since $\phi$ is injective, one can define a $C^\ast$-norm on ${A^0_{\mu,\theta}}$ by setting ${\left|\left|a\right|\right|}={\left|\left|\phi(a)\right|\right|}$ for all $a\in{A^0_{\mu,\theta}}$, and by ${A_{\mu,\theta}}$ we denote the completion of ${A^0_{\mu,\theta}}$ in this norm. Moreover, $\phi$ can be extended to ${A_{\mu,\theta}}$ by continuity, and (by a slight abuse of notation) we shall also denote the extended map by $\phi$.
The map $\phi:{A_{\mu,\theta}}\to C_\theta$ is an isomorphism of $C^\ast$-algebras.
As in Lemma \[lemma:invelement\], one can show that $\mu{\mathds{1}}+z\Lambda+{\bar{z}}{\Lambda^*}$ is positive and invertible in ${A_{\mu,\theta}}$. Hence, one constructs the inverse of $\phi$ by setting $$\begin{aligned}
&\phi^{-1}(V) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu{\mathds{1}}+z\Lambda+{\bar{z}}{\Lambda^*}}}W\\
&\phi^{-1}(U) = \Lambda.
\end{aligned}$$ (which is easily shown to be a well defined map) and extending it as a $\ast$-homomorphism through continuity.
Projective modules
------------------
In [@abhhs:noncommutative] all finite-dimensional hermitian $\ast$-representations of ${\mathcal{C}_{\hbar,\mu}}$ were constructed and classified. It was found that, in the case of algebras related to tori, the parameter $\theta$ has to be a rational number for finite dimensional representations to exist; which is in the same spirit as for $C_\theta$. For the sake of comparison, let us see how the standard projective modules of the non-commutative torus can be presented for ${A_{\mu,\theta}}$.
Let ${\xi_{m,n}}$ be the vector space ${\mathcal{S}}({\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}_n)$, i.e. the space of Schwartz functions in one real variable $x$ and one discrete variable $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_n$. By defining $$\begin{aligned}
&{\big(\phi W\big)}(x,k) = W(x,k)\phi(x-{\varepsilon},k-1)\\
&{\big(\phi W^*\big)}(x,k) = W(x+{\varepsilon},k+1)\phi(x+{\varepsilon},k+1)\\
&{\big(\phi\Lambda\big)}(x,k)=e^{2\pi i(x-mk/n)}\phi(x,k)\\
&{\big(\phi{\Lambda^*}\big)}(x,k)=e^{-2\pi i(x-mk/n)}\phi(x,k),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\varepsilon}=(m+n\theta)/n$ and $$\begin{aligned}
W(k,x)={\bigg(\mu+\frac{\sin{\big(2\pi(x-mk/n)-\pi\theta\big)}}{\cos\pi\theta}\bigg)}^{\frac{1}{2}},\end{aligned}$$ one can check that ${\xi_{m,n}}$ becomes a right ${A^0_{\mu,\theta}}$ module.
The standard derivations on $C_\theta$, defined by $$\begin{aligned}
&{\partial}_1 U = iU \qquad {\partial}_2 U = 0\\
&{\partial}_1 V = 0\qquad {\partial}_2V = iV,\end{aligned}$$ and extended to the smooth part of $C_\theta$, can be pulled back to the smooth part of ${A_{\mu,\theta}}$ (defined as the inverse image of the smooth part of $C_\theta$) giving $$\begin{aligned}
&{\partial}_1\Lambda = i\Lambda\qquad {\partial}_2\Lambda = 0\\
&{\partial}_1W = i(z\Lambda-{\bar{z}}{\Lambda^*}){\big(\mu{\mathds{1}}+z\Lambda+{\bar{z}}{\Lambda^*}\big)}^{-1}W\\
&{\partial}_2W = iW.\end{aligned}$$
Furthermore, a connection may be defined on the above modules in a standard manner. Namely, the linear operators $\nabla_1,\nabla_2:{\xi_{m,n}}\to{\xi_{m,n}}$, given as $$\begin{aligned}
&{\big(\nabla_1\phi\big)}(x,k) = \frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{d\phi}{dx}(x,k)\\
&{\big(\nabla_2\phi\big)}(x,k) = \frac{i}{{\varepsilon}}x\phi(x,k),\end{aligned}$$ define a connection on ${\xi_{m,n}}$, i.e. they fulfill $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:connectionDef}
\nabla_i(\phi\cdot a) = {\big(\nabla_i\phi\big)}\cdot a+\phi\cdot{\big({\partial}_i a\big)}\end{aligned}$$ for $i=1,2$ and $a$ in the smooth part of ${A_{\mu,\theta}}$. One easily computes that $$\begin{aligned}
[\nabla_1,\nabla_2] = \frac{i}{2\pi{\varepsilon}}{\mathds{1}},\end{aligned}$$ i.e. the connection has constant curvature.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'No real-world reward function is perfect. Sensory errors and software bugs may result in RL agents observing higher (or lower) rewards than they should. For example, a reinforcement learning agent may prefer states where a sensory error gives it the maximum reward, but where the true reward is actually small. We formalise this problem as a generalised Markov Decision Problem called Corrupt Reward MDP. Traditional RL methods fare poorly in CRMDPs, even under strong simplifying assumptions and when trying to compensate for the possibly corrupt rewards. Two ways around the problem are investigated. First, by giving the agent richer data, such as in inverse reinforcement learning and semi-supervised reinforcement learning, reward corruption stemming from systematic sensory errors may sometimes be completely managed. Second, by using randomisation to blunt the agent’s optimisation, reward corruption can be partially managed under some assumptions.'
author:
- Tom Everitt
- Victoria Krakovna
- Laurent Orseau
- Marcus Hutter
- Shane Legg
bibliography:
- 'cleanlib.bib'
title: Reinforcement Learning with a Corrupted Reward Channel
---
Introduction
============
In many application domains, artificial agents need to learn their objectives, rather than have them explicitly specified. For example, we may want a house cleaning robot to keep the house clean, but it is hard to measure and quantify “cleanliness” in an objective manner. Instead, machine learning techniques may be used to teach the robot the concept of cleanliness, and how to assess it from sensory data.
Reinforcement learning (RL) [@Sutton1998] is one popular way to teach agents what to do. Here, a reward is given if the agent does something well (and no reward otherwise), and the agent strives to optimise the total amount of reward it receives over its lifetime. Depending on context, the reward may either be given manually by a human supervisor, or by an automatic computer program that evaluates the agent’s performance based on some data. In the related framework of inverse RL (IRL) [@Ng2000], the agent first infers a reward function from observing a human supervisor act, and then tries to optimise the cumulative reward from the inferred reward function.
None of these approaches are safe from error, however. A program that evaluates agent performance may contain bugs or misjudgements; a supervisor may be deceived or inappropriately influenced, or the channel transmitting the evaluation hijacked. In IRL, some supervisor actions may be misinterpreted.
\[ex:reward-misspecification\] @openai2016 trained an RL agent on a boat racing game. The agent found a way to get high observed reward by repeatedly going in a circle in a small lagoon and hitting the same targets, while losing every race.
\[ex:sensory-error\] \[ex:db\] A house robot discovers that standing in the shower short-circuits its reward sensor and/or causes a buffer overflow that gives it maximum observed reward.
\[ex:wireheading\] An intelligent RL agent hijacks its reward channel and gives itself maximum reward.
\[ex:irl\] A cooperative inverse reinforcement learning (CIRL) agent [@Hadfield-menell2016cirl] systematically misinterprets the supervisor’s action in a certain state as the supervisor preferring to stay in this state, and concludes that the state is much more desirable than it actually is.
The goal of this paper is to unify these types of errors as *reward corruption problems*, and to assess how vulnerable different agents and approaches are to this problem.
Learning to (approximately) optimise the true reward function in spite of potentially corrupt reward data.
Most RL methods allow for a stochastic or noisy reward channel. The reward corruption problem is harder, because the observed reward may not be an unbiased estimate of the true reward. For example, in the boat racing example above, the agent consistently obtains high observed reward from its circling behaviour, while the true reward corresponding to the designers’ intent is very low, since the agent makes no progress along the track and loses the race.
Previous related works have mainly focused on the wireheading case of \[ex:wireheading\] [@Bostrom2014; @Yampolskiy2014], also known as self-delusion [@Ring2011], and reward hacking [@Hutter2005 p. 239]. A notable exception is @Amodei2016, who argue that corrupt reward is not limited to wireheading and is likely to be a problem for much more limited systems than highly capable RL agents (cf. above examples).
The main contributions of this paper are as follows:
- The corrupt reward problem is formalised in a natural extension of the MDP framework, and a performance measure based on worst-case regret is defined (\[sec:formal\]).
- The difficulty of the problem is established by a No Free Lunch theorem, and by a result showing that despite strong simplifying assumptions, Bayesian RL agents *trying to compensate for the corrupt reward* may still suffer near-maximal regret (\[sec:problem\]).
- We evaluate how alternative value learning frameworks such as CIRL, learning values from stories (LVFS), and semi-supervised RL (SSRL) handle reward corruption (\[sec:drl\]), and conclude that LVFS and SSRL are the safest due to the structure of their feedback loops. We develop an abstract framework called *decoupled RL* that generalises all of these alternative frameworks.
We also show that an agent based on quantilisation [@Taylor2016a] may be more robust to reward corruption when high reward states are much more numerous than corrupt states (\[sec:quant\]). Finally, the results are illustrated with some simple experiments (\[sec:experiments\]). concludes with takeaways and open questions.
Formalisation {#sec:formal}
=============
We begin by defining a natural extension of the MDP framework [@Sutton1998] that models the possibility of reward corruption. To clearly distinguish between true and corrupted signals, we introduce the following notation.
We will let a dot indicate the *true* signal, and let a hat indicate the *observed* (possibly corrupt) counterpart. The reward sets are represented with $\iR=\oR=\R$. For clarity, we use $\iR$ when referring to true rewards and $\oR$ when referring to possibly corrupt, observed rewards. Similarly, we use $\ir$ for true reward, and $\dr$ for (possibly corrupt) observed reward.
\[def:crmdp\] A *corrupt reward MDP* (CRMDP) is a tuple $\mu=\crmdp$ with
- $\langle\S,\A,\R,T,\irf\rangle$ an MDP with [^1] a finite set of states $\S$, a finite set of actions $\A$, a finite set of rewards $\R=\iR=\oR\subset[0,1]$, a transition function $T(s'| s,a)$, and a (true) reward function $\irf:\S\!\to\!\iR$; and
- a reward corruption function $\d:\S\times\iR\to\oR$.
The state dependency of the corruption function will be written as a subscript, so $\d_s(\ir):=\d(s,\ir)$.
\[def:observed\] Given a true reward function $\irf$ and a corruption function $\d$, we define the *observed reward function* [^2] $\orf:\S\to\oR$ as $\orf(s) := \d_s(\irf(s))$.
A CRMDP $\mu$ induces an *observed MDP* $\hat\mu=\langle\S,\A,\R,T,\orf\rangle$, but it is not $\orf$ that we want the agent to optimise.
The *corruption function $\d$* represents how rewards are affected by corruption in different states. For example, if in \[ex:db\] the agent has found a state $s$ (the shower) where it always gets full observed reward $\orf(s) = 1$, then this can be modelled with a corruption function $\d_{s}:\ir\mapsto 1$ that maps any true reward $\ir$ to $1$ in the shower state $s$. If in some other state $s'$ the observed reward matches the true reward, then this is modelled by an identity corruption function $\d_{s'}:\r\mapsto\r$.
; ; ;
Let us also see how CRMDPs model some of the other examples in the introduction:
- In the boat racing game, the true reward may be a function of the agent’s final position in the race or the time it takes to complete the race, depending on the designers’ intentions. The reward corruption function $\d$ increases the observed reward on the loop the agent found. has a schematic illustration.
- In the wireheading example, the agent finds a way to hijack the reward channel. This corresponds to some set of states where the observed reward is (very) different from the true reward, as given by the corruption function $\d$.
The CIRL example will be explored in further detail in \[sec:drl\].
#### CRMDP classes
Typically, $T$, $\irf$, and $\d$ will be fixed but unknown to the agent. To make this formal, we introduce classes of CRMDPs. Agent uncertainty can then be modelled by letting the agent know only which class of CRMDPs it may encounter, but not which element in the class.
For given sets $\Tf$, $\iRf$, and $\D$ of transition, reward, and corruption functions, let $\M=\crmdpclass$ be the class of CRMDPs containing $\crmdp$ for $(T,\irf,\d)\in \Tf\times\iRf\times\D$.
#### Agents
Following the POMDP [@Kaelbling1998] and general reinforcement learning [@Hutter2005] literature, we define an agent as a (possibly stochastic) policy $\pi:\H\leadsto\A$ that selects a next action based on the *observed history* $\oh_n=s_0\dr_0a_1s_1\dr_1\dots a_ns_n\dr_n$. Here $X^*$ denotes the set of finite sequences that can be formed with elements of a set $X$. The policy $\pi$ specifies how the agent will learn and react to any possible experience. Two concrete definitions of agents are given in \[sec:rl-agents\] below.
When an agent $\pi$ interacts with a CRMDP $\mu$, the result can be described by a (possibly non-Markov) stochastic process $P^\pi_\mu$ over $X=(s,a,\ir,\dr)$, formally defined as: $$\label{eq:mupi}
P_\mu^\pi(h_n) = P_\mu^\pi(s_0\ir_0\dr_0a_1s_1\ir_1\dr_1\dots a_ns_n\ir_n\dr_n) :=
\prod_{i=1}^{n}P(\pi(\oh_{i-1})=a_{i})T(s_{i}\mid s_{i-1},a_{i})P(\irf(s_i)=\ir_i,\orf(s_{i})=\dr_{i}).$$ Let $\EE^\pi_\mu$ denote the expectation with respect to $P_\mu^\pi$.
#### Regret
A standard way of measuring the performance of an agent is *regret* [@Berry1985]. Essentially, the regret of an agent $\pi$ is how much less true reward $\pi$ gets compared to an optimal agent that knows which $\mu\in\M$ it is interacting with.
\[def:regret\] For a CRMDP $\mu$, let $\iG_t(\mu,\pi,s_0)\! =\!\EE^\pi_\mu\left[\!\sum_{k=0}^t\irf(s_k)\!\right]$ be the *expected cumulative true reward* until time $t$ of a policy $\pi$ starting in $s_0$. The *regret* of $\pi$ is $$\Reg(\mu, \pi, s_0, t) =
\max_{\pi'}
\left[
\iG_t(\mu,\pi',s_0) - \iG_t(\mu,\pi,s_0)
\right],$$ and the *worst-case regret* for a class $\M$ is $\Reg(\M,\pi,s_0,t) = \max_{\mu\in\M}\Reg(\mu,\pi,s_0,t)$, i.e. the difference in expected cumulative true reward between $\pi$ and an optimal (in hindsight) policy that knows $\mu$.
The Corrupt Reward Problem {#sec:problem}
==========================
In this section, the difficulty of the corrupt reward problem is established with two negative results. First, a No Free Lunch theorem shows that in general classes of CRMDPs, the true reward function is unlearnable (\[th:impossibility\]). Second, \[th:rl-imp1\] shows that even under strong simplifying assumptions, Bayesian RL agents trying to compensate for the corrupt reward still fail badly.
No Free Lunch Theorem {#sec:impossibility}
---------------------
Similar to the No Free Lunch theorems for optimisation [@Wolpert1997], the following theorem for CRMDPs says that without some assumption about what the reward corruption can look like, all agents are essentially lost.
\[th:impossibility\] Let $\R=\{\r_1,\dots,\r_n\}\subset[0,1]$ be a uniform discretisation of $[0,1]$, $0=\r_1<\r_2<\cdots<\r_n=1$. If the hypothesis classes $\iRf$ and $\D$ contain all functions $\irf:\S\to \iR$ and $\d:\S\times\iR\to \oR$, then for any $\pi$, $s_0$, $t$, $$\label{eq:regbound}
\Reg(\M,\pi,s_0, t)\geq \frac{1}{2}\max_{\check\pi}\Reg(\M,\check\pi,s_0, t).$$ That is, the worst-case regret of any policy $\pi$ is at most a factor 2 better than the maximum worst-case regret.
Recall that a policy is a function $\pi:\H\to\A$. For any $\irf,\d$ in $\iRf$ and $\D$, the functions $\irf^-(s) := 1-\irf(s)$ and $\d^-_s(x) := \d_s(1-x)$ are also in $\iRf$ and $\D$. If $\mu=\crmdp$, then let $\mu^-=\crmdpm$. Both $(\irf,\d)$ and $(\irf^-,\d^-)$ induce the same observed reward function $\orf(s) = \d_s(\irf(s)) = \d^-_s(1-\irf(s)) = \d^-_s(\irf^-(s))$, and therefore induce the same measure $P_\mu^\pi = P_{\mu^-}^\pi$ over histories (see Eq. \[eq:mupi\]). This gives that for any $\mu, \pi, s_0, t$, $$\label{eq:sumt}
G_t(\mu,\pi,s_0) + G_t(\mu^-,\pi,s_0) = t$$ since $$\begin{aligned}
G_t(\mu, \pi,s_0)&= \EE_{\mu}^\pi\left[\sum_{k=1}^t\irf(s_k)\right]
= \EE_{\mu}^\pi\left[\sum_{k=1}^t1-\irf^-(s_k)\right]\\
&= t-\EE_{\mu}^\pi\left[\sum_{k=1}^t\irf^-(s_k)\right]
= t- G_t(\mu^-,\pi,s_0).
\end{aligned}$$
Let $M_\mu=\max_\pi G_t(\mu, \pi, s_0)$ and $m_\mu=\min_\pi G_t(\mu, \pi, s_0)$ be the maximum and minimum cumulative reward in $\mu$. The maximum regret of any policy $\pi$ in $\mu$ is $$\label{eq:max-regret}
\max_\pi \Reg(\mu, \pi, s_0, t)
= \max_{\pi',\pi} (G_t(\mu, \pi', s_0) - G_t(\mu, \pi, s_0))
= \max_{\pi'} G_t(\mu, \pi', s_0) - \min_{\pi}G_t(\mu, \pi, s_0)
= M_\mu - m_\mu.$$ By \[eq:sumt\], we can relate the maximum reward in $\mu^-$ with the minimum reward in $\mu$: $$\label{eq:M-to-m}
M_{\mu^-}
= \max_\pi G_t(\mu^-, \pi, s_0)
= \max_\pi(t - G_t(\mu, \pi, s_0))
= t - \min_\pi G_t(\mu, \pi, s_0)
= t - m_\mu.$$ Let $\mu_*$ be an environment that maximises possible regret $M_\mu-m_\mu$.
Using the $M_\mu$-notation for optimal reward, the worst-case regret of any policy $\pi$ can be expressed as: $$\begin{aligned}
\Reg(\M,\pi,s_0, t)
& = \max_{\mu} (M_\mu - G_t(\mu,\pi,s_0)) \\
& \geq \max \{
M_{\mu_*} - G_t(\mu_*, \pi, s_0),
M_{\mu_*^-} - G_t(\mu_*^{-}, \pi, s_0)
\}
& \text{restrict max operation} \\
& \geq \frac{1}{2} (
M_{\mu_*} - G_t(\mu_*, \pi, s_0) +
M_{\mu_*^-} - G_t(\mu_*^{-}, \pi, s_0)
)
& \text{max dominates the mean} \\
& = \frac{1}{2}(M_{\mu_*} + M_{\mu_*^-} - t)
& \text{by \cref{eq:sumt}} \\
&= \frac{1}{2}(M_{\mu_*} + t - m_{\mu_*} - t)
& \text{by \cref{eq:M-to-m}} \\
& = \frac{1}{2} \max_{\check\pi} \Reg(\mu_*, \check\pi, s_0, t)
& \text{by \cref{eq:max-regret}}\\
& = \frac{1}{2} \max_{\check\pi} \Reg(\M, \check\pi, s_0, t).
& \text{ by definition of $\mu_*$ }
\end{aligned}$$ That is, the regret of any policy $\pi$ is at least half of the regret of a worst policy $\check\pi$.
For the robot in the shower from \[ex:db\], the result means that if it tries to optimise observed reward by standing in the shower, then it performs poorly according to the hypothesis that “shower-induced” reward is corrupt and bad. But if instead the robot tries to optimise reward in some other way, say baking cakes, then (from the robot’s perspective) there is also the possibility that “cake-reward” is corrupt and bad and the “shower-reward” is actually correct. Without additional information, the robot has no way of knowing what to do.
The result is not surprising, since if all corruption functions are allowed in the class $\D$, then there is effectively no connection between observed reward $\orf$ and true reward $\irf$. The result therefore encourages us to make precise in which way the observed reward is related to the true reward, and to investigate how agents might handle possible differences between true and observed reward.
Simplifying Assumptions
-----------------------
shows that general classes of CRMDPs are not learnable. We therefore suggest some natural simplifying assumptions, illustrated in \[fig:simplifying-assumptions\].
#### Limited reward corruption
The following assumption will be the basis for all positive results in this paper. The first part says that there may be some set of states that the designers have ensured to be non-corrupt. The second part puts an upper bound on how many of the other states can be corrupt.
\[as:lim-cor\] A CRMDP class $\M$ has *reward corruption limited by $\Ssafe\subseteq\S$ and $q\in\SetN$* if for all $\mu\in\M$
all states s in $\Ssafe$ are non-corrupt, and \[as:safe-state\]
at most $q$ of the non-safe states $\Srisky=\S\setminus\Ssafe$ are corrupt. \[as:lim-del\]
Formally, $\d_s:r\mapsto r$ for all $s\in\Ssafe$ and for at least $|\Srisky|-q$ states $s\in\Srisky$ for all $\d\in\D$.
For example, $\Ssafe$ may be states where the agent is back in the lab where it has been made (virtually) certain that no reward corruption occurs, and $q$ a small fraction of $|\Srisky|$. Both parts of \[as:lim-cor\] can be made vacuous by choosing $\Ssafe=\emptyset$ or $q=|\S|$. Conversely, they completely rule out reward corruption with $\Ssafe=\S$ or $q=0$. But as illustrated by the examples in the introduction, no reward corruption is often not a valid assumption.
; ; coordinates [(1,0) (3,0) (10,1)]{}; ;
An alternative simplifying assumption would have been that the true reward differs by at most $\eps>0$ from the observed reward. However, while seemingly natural, this assumption is violated in all the examples given in the introduction. Corrupt states may have high observed reward and 0 or small true reward.
#### Easy environments
To be able to establish stronger negative results, we also add the following assumption on the agent’s manoeuvrability in the environment and the prevalence of high reward states. The assumption makes the task easier because it prevents *needle-in-a-haystack* problems where all reachable states have true and observed reward 0, except one state that has high true reward but is impossible to find because it is corrupt and has observed reward 0.
\[def:communicating\] Let ${\it time}(s'\mid s,\pi)$ be a random variable for the time it takes a stationary policy $\pi:\S\to\A$ to reach $s'$ from $s$. The *diameter* of a CRMDP $\mu$ is $
D_\mu:=\max_{s,s'}\min_{\pi:\S\to\A}\EE[{\it time}(s'\mid s,\pi)]
$, and the diameter of a class $\M$ of CRMDPs is $D_\M=\sup_{\mu\in\M}D_\mu$. A CRMDP (class) with finite diameter is called *communicating*.
\[as:easy\] A CRMDP class $\M$ is *easy* if
\[as:communicate\] it is communicating,
\[as:stay\] in each state $s$ there is an action $\astay_s\in\A$ such that $T(s\mid s,\astay_s)=1$, and
\[as:high-ut\] for every $\delta\in[0,1]$, at most $\delta|\Srisky|$ states have reward less than $\delta$, where $\Srisky= \S\setminus\Ssafe$.
means that the agent can never get stuck in a trap, and \[as:stay\] ensures that the agent has enough control to stay in a state if it wants to. Except in bandits and toy problems, it is typically not satisfied in practice. We introduce it because it is theoretically convenient, makes the negative results stronger, and enables a simple explanation of quantilisation (\[sec:quant\]). says that, for example, at least half the risky states need to have true reward at least $1/2$. Many other formalisations of this assumption would have been possible. While rewards in practice are often sparse, there are usually numerous ways of getting reward. Some weaker version of \[as:high-ut\] may therefore be satisfied in many practical situations. Note that we do not assume high reward among the safe states, as this would make the problem too easy.
Bayesian RL Agents {#sec:rl-agents}
------------------
Having established that the general problem is unsolvable in \[th:impossibility\], we proceed by investigating how two natural Bayesian RL agents fare under the simplifying \[as:lim-cor,as:easy\].
\[def:db-agent\] Given a countable class $\M$ of CRMDPs and a belief distribution $b$ over $\M$, define:
- The *CR agent* $\pidb = \argmax_\pi\sum_{\mu\in\M}\!b(\mu)\iG_t(\mu, \pi, s_0)$ that maximises expected true reward.
- The *RL agent* $\pirl =
\argmax_\pi\sum_{\mu\in\M}b(\mu)\oG_t(\mu, \pi, s_0)$ that maximises expected observed reward, where $\oG$ is the *expected cumulative observed reward* $\oG_t(\mu,\pi,s_0)\! =\!\EE^\pi_\mu\left[\!\sum_{k=0}^t\orf(s_k)\!\right]$.
To avoid degenerate cases, we will always assume that $b$ has full support: $b(\mu)>0$ for all $\mu\in\M$.
To get an intuitive idea of these agents, we observe that for large $t$, good strategies typically first focus on learning about the true environment $\mu\in\M$, and then exploit that knowledge to optimise behaviour with respect to the remaining possibilities. Thus, both the CR and the RL agent will first typically strive to learn about the environment. They will then use this knowledge in slightly different ways. While the RL agent will use the knowledge to optimise for observed reward, the CR agent will use the knowledge to optimise true reward. For example, if the CR agent has learned that a high reward state $s$ is likely corrupt with low true reward, then it will not try to reach that state. One might therefore expect that at least the CR agent will do well under the simplifying assumptions \[as:lim-cor,as:easy\]. below shows that this is *not* the case.
In most practical settings it is often computationally infeasible to compute $\pirl$ and $\pidb$ exactly. However, many practical algorithms converge to the optimal policy in the limit, at least in simple settings. For example, tabular Q-learning converges to $\pirl$ in the limit [@Jaakkola1994]. The more recently proposed CIRL framework may be seen as an approach to build CR agents [@Hadfield-menell2016cirl; @Hadfield-menell2016osg]. The CR and RL agents thus provide useful idealisations of more practical algorithms.
\[th:rl-imp1\] For any $|\Srisky|\geq q>1$ there exists a CRMDP class $\M$ that satisfies \[as:lim-cor,as:easy\] such that $\pirl$ and $\pidb$ suffer near worst possible time-averaged regret $$\apl(\M, \pirl, s_0, t)=\apl(\M, \pidb, s_0, t)=1-1/|\Srisky|.$$ For $\pidb$, the prior $b$ must be such that for some $\mu\in\M$ and $s\in\S$, $\EE_b[\irf(s) \mid h_\mu]>\EE_b[\irf(s') \mid h_\mu]$ for all $s'$, where $\EE_b$ is the expectation with respect to $b$, and $h_\mu$ is a history containing $\mu$-observed rewards for all states. [^3]
; ; ;
The result is illustrated in \[fig:rl-imp1\]. The reason for the result for $\pirl$ is the following. The RL agent $\pirl$ always prefers to maximise observed reward $\dr$. Sometimes $\dr$ is most easily maximised by reward corruption, in which case the true reward may be small. Compare the examples in the introduction, where the house robot preferred the corrupt reward in the shower, and the boat racing agent preferred going in circles, both obtaining zero true reward.
That the CR agent $\pidb$ suffers the same high regret as the RL agent may be surprising. Intuitively, the CR agent only uses the observed reward as evidence about the true reward, and will not try to optimise the observed reward through reward corruption. However, when the $\pidb$ agent has no way to learn which states are corrupt and not, it typically ends up with a preference for a particular value $\dr^*$ of the observed reward signal (the value that, from the agent’s perspective, best corresponds to high true reward). More abstractly, a Bayesian agent cannot learn without sufficient data. Thus, CR agents that use the observed reward as evidence about a true signal are not fail-safe solutions to the reward corruption problem.
Let $\Srisky = \{s_1,\dots,s_n\}$ for some $n\geq 2$, and let $\S=\Ssafe\dunion\Srisky$ for arbitrary $\Ssafe$ disjoint from $\Srisky$. Let $\A=\{a_1,\dots,a_n\}$ with the transition function $T(s_i\mid s_j,a_k)=1$ if $i=k$ and 0 otherwise, for $1\leq i,j,k\leq n$. Thus \[as:communicate,as:stay\] are satisfied.
Let $\R=\{\r_1,\dots,\r_n\}\subset[0,1]$ be uniformly distributed between [^4] $\r_{\min}=1/|\Srisky|=\r_1<\dots<\r_n=1$. Let $\iRf$ be the class of functions $\S\to\iR$ that satisfy \[as:high-ut\] and are constant and equal to $\ir_{\min}$ on $\Ssafe$. Let $\D$ be the class of corruption functions that corrupt at most two states ($q=2$).
Let $\M$ be the class of CRMDPs induced by $\Tf=\{T\}$, $\iRf$, and $\D$ with the following constraints. The observed reward function $\orf$ should satisfy \[as:high-ut\]: For all $\delta\in[0,1]$, $|\{s\in\Srisky:\orf(s)>\delta\}| \geq (1-\delta)|\Srisky|$. Further, $\orf(s')=\r_{\min}$ for some state $s'\in\Srisky$.
Let us start with the CR agent $\pidb$. Assume $\mu\in\M$ is an element where there is a single preferred state $s^*$ after all states have been explored. For sufficiently large $t$, $\pidb$ will then always choose $a^*$ to go to $s^*$ after some initial exploration. If another element $\mu'\in\M$ has the same observed reward function as $\mu$, then $\pidb$ will take the same actions in $\mu'$ as in $\mu$. To finish the proof for the $\pidb$ agent, we just need to show that $\M$ contains such a $\mu'$ where $s^*$ has true reward $\r_{\min}$. We construct $\mu'$ as follows.
- Case 1: If the lowest observed reward is in $s^*$, then let $\irf(s^*)=\r_{\min}$, and the corruption function be the identity function.
- Case 2: Otherwise, let $s'\not=s^*$ be a state with $\orf(s')=\min_{ s\in\Srisky}\{\orf(s)\}$. Further, let $\irf(s')=1$, and $\irf(s^*)=\r_{\min}$. The corruption function $C$ accounts for differences between true and observed rewards in $s^*$ and $s'$, and is otherwise the identity function.
To verify that $\irf$ and $C$ defines a $\mu'\in\M$, we check that $C$ satisfies \[as:lim-del\] with $q=2$ and that $\irf$ has enough high utility states (\[as:high-ut\]). In Case 1, this is true since $C$ is the identity function and since $\orf$ satisfies \[as:high-ut\]. In Case 2, $C$ only corrupts at most two states. Further, $\irf$ satisfies \[as:high-ut\], since compared to $\orf$, the states $s^*$ and $s'$ have swapped places, and then the reward of $s'$ has been increased to 1.
From this construction it follows that $\pidb$ will suffer maximum asymptotic regret. In the CRMDP $\mu'$ given by $C$ and $\irf$, the $\pidb$ agent will always visit $s^*$ after some initial exploration. The state $s^*$ has true reward $\r_{\min}$. Meanwhile, a policy that knows $\mu'$ can obtain true reward 1 in state $s'$. This means that $\pidb$ will suffer maximum regret in $\M$: $$\apl(\M,\pidb,s_0,t)\geq \apl(\mu',\pidb,s_0,t)= 1-\r_{\min}=1-1/|\Srisky|.$$
The argument for the RL agent is the same, except we additionally assume that only one state $s^*$ has observed reward 1 in members of $\M$. This automatically makes $s^*$ the preferred state, without assumptions on the prior $b$.
Decoupled Reinforcement Learning {#sec:drl}
================================
One problem hampering agents in the standard RL setup is that each state is *self-observing*, since the agent only learns about the reward of state $s$ when in $s$. Thereby, a “self-aggrandising” corrupt state where the observed reward is much higher than the true reward will never have its false claim of high reward challenged. However, several alternative value learning frameworks have a common property that the agent can learn the reward of states other than the current state. We formalise this property in an extension of the CRMDP model, and investigate when it solves reward corruption problems.
Alternative Value Learning Methods
----------------------------------
Here are a few alternatives proposed in the literature to the RL value learning scheme:
- Cooperative inverse reinforcement learning (CIRL) [@Hadfield-menell2016cirl]. In every state, the agent observes the actions of an expert or supervisor who knows the true reward function $\irf$. From the supervisor’s actions the agent may infer $\irf$ to the extent that different reward functions endorse different actions.
- Learning values from stories (LVFS) [@Riedl2016]. Stories in many different forms (including news stories, fairy tales, novels, movies) convey cultural values in their description of events, actions, and outcomes. If $\irf$ is meant to represent human values (in some sense), stories may be a good source of evidence.
- In (one version of) semi-supervised RL (SSRL) [@Amodei2016], the agent will from time to time receive a careful human evaluation of a given situation.
These alternatives to RL have one thing in common: they let the agent learn something about the value of some states $s'$ different from the current state $s$. For example, in CIRL the supervisor’s action informs the agent not so much about the value of the current state $s$, as of the relative value of states reachable from $s$. If the supervisor chooses an action $a$ rather than $a'$ in $s$, then the states following $a$ must have value higher or equal than the states following $a'$. Similarly, stories describe the value of states other than the current one, as does the supervisor in SSRL. We therefore argue that CIRL, LVFS, and SSRL all share the same abstract feature, which we call *decoupled reinforcement learning*:
A *CRMDP with decoupled feedback*, is a tuple $\drmdp$, where $\S,\A,\R,T,\irf$ have the same definition and interpretation as in \[def:crmdp\], and $\{\orf_s\}_{s\in\S}$ is a collection of observed reward functions $\orf_s:\S\to\R\bigcup\{\#\}$. When the agent is in state $s$, it sees a pair $\langle s',\orf_s(s')\rangle$, where $s'$ is a randomly sampled state that may differ from $s$, and $\orf_s(s')$ is the reward observation for $s'$ from $s$. If the reward of $s'$ is not observable from $s$, then $\orf_s(s')=\#$.
The pair $\langle s',\orf_s(s')\rangle$ is observed in $s$ instead of $\orf(s)$ in standard CRMDPs. The possibility for the agent to observe the reward of a state $s'$ different from its current state $s$ is the key feature of CRMDPs with decoupled feedback. Since $\orf_s(s')$ may be blank $(\#)$, all states need not be observable from all other states. Reward corruption is modelled by a mismatch between $\orf_s(s')$ and $\irf(s')$.
For example, in RL only the reward of $s'=s$ can be observed from $s$. Standard CRMDPs are thus the special cases where $\orf_s(s')=\#$ whenever $s\not=s'$. In contrast, in LVFS the reward of any “describable” state $s'$ can be observed from any state $s$ where it is possible to hear a story. In CIRL, the (relative) reward of states reachable from the current state may be inferred. One way to illustrate this is with observation graphs (\[fig:obs-graph\]).
[0.48]{}
in [1,...,]{} [ () at ([360/ (- 1)]{}:) [$\s$]{}; () edge \[dashed, loop right\] (); ]{}
[0.48]{}
in [1,...,]{} [ () at ([360/ (- 1)]{}:) [$\s$]{}; ]{} (1)–(2); (1)–(4); (1)–(5); (5) edge \[bend right\] (1); (3)–(4); (3)–(2); (3)–(1); (5)–(3); (1)–(2); (4)–(5);
Overcoming Sensory Corruption {#sec:observation-graphs}
-----------------------------
What are some sources of reward corruption in CIRL, LVFS, and SSRL? In CIRL, the human’s actions may be misinterpreted, which may lead the agent to make incorrect inferences about the human’s preferences (i.e. about the true reward). Similarly, sensory corruption may garble the stories the agent receives in LVFS. A “wireheading” LVFS agent may find a state where its story channel only conveys stories about the agent’s own greatness. In SSRL, the supervisor’s evaluation may also be subject to sensory errors when being conveyed. Other types of corruption are more subtle. In CIRL, an irrational human may systematically take suboptimal actions in some situations [@Evans2016]. Depending on how we select stories in LVFS and make evaluations in SSRL, these may also be subject to systematic errors or biases.
The general impossibility result in \[th:impossibility\] can be adapted to CRMDPs with decoupled feedback. Without simplifying assumptions, the agent has no way of distinguishing between a situation where no state is corrupt and a situation where all states are corrupt in a consistent manner. The following simplifying assumption is an adaptation of \[as:lim-cor\] to the decoupled feedback case.
[\[as:lim-cor\]$\bf '$]{}\[Decoupled feedback with limited reward corruption\] \[as:lim-cor-df\] A class of CRMDPs with decoupled feedback has *reward corruption limited by $\Ssafe\subseteq\S$ and $q\in\SetN$* if for all $\mu\in\M$
$\orf_s(s')=\irf(s')$ or $\#$ for all $s'\in\S$ and $s\in\Ssafe$, i.e. all states in $\Ssafe$ are non-corrupt, and \[as:safe-state-df\]
$\orf_s(s')=\irf(s')$ or $\#$ for all $s'\in\S$ for at least $|\Srisky|-q$ of the non-safe states $\Srisky=\S\setminus\Ssafe$, i.e. at most $q$ states are corrupt. \[as:lim-del-df\]
This assumption is natural for reward corruption stemming from sensory corruption. Since sensory corruption only depends on the current state, not the state being observed, it is plausible that some states can be made safe from corruption (part (i)), and that most states are completely non-corrupt (part (ii)). Other sources of reward corruption, such as an irrational human in CIRL or misevaluations in SSRL, are likely better analysed under different assumptions. For these cases, we note that in standard CRMDPs the source of the corruption is unimportant. Thus, techniques suitable for standard CRMDPs are still applicable, including quantilisation described in \[sec:quant\] below.
How \[as:lim-cor-df\] helps agents in CRMDPs with decoupled feedback is illustrated in the following example, and stated more generally in \[th:irf-learnability,th:cr-sublinear\] below.
Let $\S=\{s_1,s_2\}$ and $\R=\{0,1\}$. We represent true reward functions $\irf$ with pairs $\langle\irf(s_1), \irf(s_2)\rangle\in \{0,1\}^2$, and observed reward functions $\orf_s$ with pairs $\langle\orf_{s}(s_1),\orf_{s}(s_2)\rangle\in\{0,1,\#\}^2$.
Assume that a Decoupled RL agent observes the same rewards from both states $s_1$ and $s_2$, $\orf_{s_1}=\orf_{s_2} = \langle 0,1 \rangle$. What can it say about the true reward $\irf$, if it knows that at most $q=1$ state is corrupt? By \[as:lim-cor-df\], an observed pair $\langle\orf_{s}(s_1),\orf_{s}(s_2)\rangle$ disagrees with the true reward $\langle\irf(s_1), \irf(s_2)\rangle$ only if $s$ is corrupt. Therefore, any hypothesis other than $\irf=\langle 0,1 \rangle$ must imply that *both* states $s_1$ and $s_2$ are corrupt. If the agent knows that at most $q=1$ states are corrupt, then it can safely conclude that $\irf=\langle 0,1 \rangle$.
$\orf_{s_1}$ $\orf_{s_2}$ $\irf$ possibilities
-------------- -------------- -------------- ---------------------------
Decoupled RL $(0,1)$ $(0,1)$ $(0,1)$
RL $(0, \#)$ $(\#, 1)$ $(0,0)$, $(0,1)$, $(1,1)$
In contrast, an RL agent only sees the reward of the current state. That is, $\orf_{s_1} = \langle 0, \#\rangle$ and $\orf_{s_2} = \langle \#, 1 \rangle$. If one state may be corrupt, then only $\irf=\langle 1,0 \rangle$ can be ruled out. The hypotheses $\irf=\langle 0,0 \rangle$ can be explained by $s_2$ being corrupt, and $\irf=\langle 1,1 \rangle$ can be explained by $s_1$ being corrupt.
\[sec:no-corruption\]
\[th:irf-learnability\] Let $\M$ be a countable, communicating class of CRMDPs with decoupled feedback over common sets $\S$ and $\A$ of actions and rewards. Let $\Sobs_{s'} = \{s\in\S: \orf_s(s')\not=\# \}$ be the set of states from which the reward of $s'$ can be observed. If $\M$ satisfies \[as:lim-cor-df\] for some $\Ssafe\subseteq\S$ and $q\in\SetN$ such that for every $s'$, either
- $\Sobs_{s'}\bigcap \Ssafe\not=\emptyset$ or
- $|\Sobs_{s'}|>2q$,
then the there exists a policy $\piexp$ that learns the true reward function $\irf$ in a finite number $N(|S|,|\A|, D_\M)<\infty$ of expected time steps.
The main idea of the proof is that for every state $s'$, either a safe (non-corrupt) state $s$ or a majority vote of more than $2q$ states is guaranteed to provide the true reward $\irf(s')$. A similar theorem can be proven under slightly weaker conditions by letting the agent iteratively figure out which states are corrupt and then exclude them from the analysis.
Under \[as:lim-cor-df\], the true reward $\irf(s')$ for a state $s'$ can be determined if $s'$ is observed from a safe state $s\in\Ssafe$, or if it is observed from more than $2q$ states. In the former case, the observed reward can always be trusted, since it is known to be non-corrupt. In the latter case, a majority vote must yield the correct answer, since at most $q$ of the observations can be wrong, and all correct observations must agree. It is therefore enough that an agent reaches all pairs $(s,s')$ of current state $s$ and observed reward state $s'$, in order for it to learn the true reward of all states $\irf$.
There exists a policy $\hat\pi$ that transitions to $s$ in $X_s$ time steps, with $\EE[ X_s ] \leq D_\M$, regardless of the starting state $s_0$ (see \[def:communicating\]). By Markov’s inequality, $P(X_s \leq 2D_\M)\geq 1/2$. Let $\piexp$ be a random walking policy, and let $Y_s$ be the time steps required for $\piexp$ to visit $s$. In any state $s_0$, $\piexp$ follows $\hat\pi$ for $2D_\M$ time steps with probability $1/|\A|^{2D_\M}$. Therefore, with probability at least $1/(2|\A|^{2D_\M})$ it will reach $s$ in at most $2D_\M$ time steps. The probability that it does *not* find it in $k2D_\M$ time steps is therefore at most $(1 - 1 / (2 |\A|^{2D_\M}) )^k$, which means that: $$P\Big(Y_s/(2 D_\M) \leq k\Big)
\geq 1 - \left(1 - \frac{1}{2|\A|^{2D_\M}}\right)^k$$ for any $k\in\SetN$. Thus, the CDF of $W_s = \lceil Y_s/(2D_\M) \rceil$ is bounded from below by the CDF of a Geometric variable $G$ with success probability $p=1/(2|\A|^{2D_\M})$. Therefore, $\EE[W_s] \leq \EE[G]$, so $$\EE[Y_s] \leq 2D_\M \EE[W_s] \leq 2D_\M \EE[G] = 2D_\M (1-p)/p \leq 2D_\M 1/p \leq 2D_\M 2 |\A|^{2D_\M}.$$
Let $Z_{ss'}$ be the time until $\piexp$ visits the pair $(s, s')$ of state $s$ and observed state $s'$. Whenever $s$ is visited, a randomly chosen state is observed, so $s'$ is observed with probability $1/|S|$. The number of visits to $s$ until $s'$ is observed is a Geometric variable $V$ with $p=1/|S|$. Thus $\EE[Z_{ss'}] = \EE[Y_s V] = \EE[Y_s] \EE[V]$ (since $Y_s$ and $V$ are independent). Then, $$\EE[Z_{ss'}] \leq \EE[Y_s] |\S| \leq 4 D_\M |\A|^{ 2D_\M }|\S|.$$
Combining the time to find each pair $(s, s')$, we get that the total time $\sum_{s,s'}Z_{ss'}$ has expectation $$\EE\left[ \sum_{s,s'} Z_{ss'} \right]
= \sum_{s,s'}\EE[Z_{ss'}] \leq 4 D_\M |\A|^{2D_\M} |\S|^3 = N(|S|,|\A|, D_\M)
< \infty. \qedhere$$
Learnability of the true reward function $\irf$ implies sublinear regret for the CR-agent, as established by the following theorem.
\[th:cr-sublinear\] Under the same conditions as \[th:irf-learnability\], the CR-agent $\pidb$ has sublinear regret: $$\apl(\M,\pidb,s_0,t)=0.$$
To prove this theorem, we combine the exploration policy $\piexp$ from \[th:irf-learnability\], with the UCRL2 algorithm [@Jaksch2010] that achieves sublinear regret in standard MDPs without reward corruption. The combination yields a policy sequence $\pi_t$ with sublinear regret in CRMDPs with decoupled feedback. Finally, we show that this implies that $\pidb$ has sublinear regret.
*Combining $\piexp$ and UCRL2.* UCRL2 has a free parameter $\delta$ that determines how certain UCRL2 is to have sublinear regret. $\UCRL(\delta)$ achieves sublinear regret with probability at least $1-\delta$. Let $\pi_t$ be a policy that combines $\piexp$ and UCRL2 by first following $\piexp$ from \[th:irf-learnability\] until $\irf$ has been learned, and then following $\UCRL(1/\sqrt{t})$ with $\irf$ for the rewards and with $\delta=1/\sqrt{t}$.
*Regret of UCRL2*. Given that the reward function $\irf$ is known, by [@Jaksch2010 Thm. 2], $\UCRL(1/\sqrt{t})$ will in any $\mu\in\M$ have regret at most $$\label{eq:ucrl-regret}
\Reg(\mu, \UCRL(1/\sqrt{t}), s_0, t \mid {\rm success})
\leq c D_\M |\S| \sqrt{ t |\A| \log(t)}$$ for a constant [^5] $c$ and with success probability at least $1-1/\sqrt{t}$. In contrast, if UCRL2 fails, then it gets regret at worst $t$. Taking both possibilities into account gives the bound $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:exp-ucrl-regret}
\Reg(\mu, \UCRL(1/\sqrt{t}), s_0, t)
&= P({\rm success}) \Reg(\cdot \mid {\rm success})
+ P({\rm fail}) \Reg(\cdot \mid {\rm fail})\nonumber\\
&= (1 - 1/\sqrt{t}) \cdot c D_\M |\S| \sqrt{ t |\A| \log(t) }
\;\;+\;\; 1/\sqrt{t} \cdot t \nonumber\\
&\leq c D_\M |\S| \sqrt{ t |\A| \log(t)} + \sqrt{t}.
\end{aligned}$$
*Regret of $\pi_t$.* We next consider the regret of $\pi_t$ that combines an $\piexp$ exploration phase to learn $\irf$ with UCRL2. By \[th:irf-learnability\], $\irf$ will be learnt in at most $N(|\S|,|\A|,D_\M)$ expected time steps in any $\mu\in\M$. Thus, the regret contributed by the learning phase $\piexp$ is at most $N(|\S|,|\A|,D_\M)$, since the regret can be at most 1 per time step. Combining this with \[eq:exp-ucrl-regret\], the regret for $\pi_t$ in any $\mu\in\M$ is bounded by: $$\label{eq:exp-pit-regret}
\Reg(\mu, \pi_t, s_0, t)
\leq N(|\S|, |\A|, D_\M)
+ c D_\M |\S| \sqrt{ t |\A| \log(t) }
+ \sqrt{t} = o(t).$$
*Regret of $\pidb$.* Finally we establish that $\pidb$ has sublinear regret. Assume on the contrary that $\pidb$ suffered linear regret. Then for some $\mu'\in\M$ there would exist positive constants $k$ and $m$ such that $$\label{eq:linear-regret}
\Reg(\mu',\pidb,s_0,t) > kt - m.$$ This would imply that the $b$-expected regret of $\pidb$ would be higher than the $b$-expected regret than $\pi_t$: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\mu\in\M}b(\mu)\Reg_t(\mu, \pidb, s_0, t)
&\geq b(\mu')\Reg_t(\mu', \pidb, s_0, t)
&\text{sum of non-negative elements}\\
&\geq b(\mu')(kt-m)
&\text{by \cref{eq:linear-regret}}\\
&> \sum_{\mu\in\M}b(\mu)\Reg_t(\mu, \pi_t, s_0, t)
&\text{by \cref{eq:exp-pit-regret} for sufficiently large $t$.}
\end{aligned}$$ But $\pidb$ minimises $b$-expected regret, since it maximises $b$-expected reward $\sum_{\mu\in\M}b(\mu)\oG_t(\mu, \pi, s_0)$ by definition. Thus, $\pidb$ must have sublinear regret.
Implications {#sec:implications}
------------
gives an abstract condition for which decoupled RL settings enable agents to learn the true reward function in spite of sensory corruption. For the concrete models it implies the following:
- RL. Due to the “self-observation” property of the RL observation graph $\Sobs_{s'}=\{s'\}$, the conditions can only be satisfied when $\S=\Ssafe$ or $q=0$, i.e. when there is no reward corruption at all.
- CIRL. The agent can only observe the supervisor action in the current state $s$, so the agent essentially only gets reward information about states $s'$ reachable from $s$ in a small number of steps. Thus, the sets $\Sobs_{s'}$ may be smaller than $2q$ in many settings. While the situation is better than for RL, sensory corruption may still mislead CIRL agents (see \[ex:cirl-corruption\] below).
- LVFS. Stories may be available from a large number of states, and can describe any state. Thus, the sets $\Sobs_{s'}$ are realistically large, so the $|\Sobs_{s'}|>2q$ condition can be satisfied for all $s'$.
- SSRL. The supervisor’s evaluation of any state $s'$ may be available from safe states where the agent is back in the lab. Thus, the $\Sobs_{s'}\bigcap\Ssafe\not=\emptyset$ condition can be satisfied for all $s'$.
Thus, we find that RL and CIRL are unlikely to offer complete solutions to the sensory corruption problem, but that both LVFS and SSRL do under reasonably realistic assumptions.
Agents drawing from multiple sources of evidence are likely to be the safest, as they will most easily satisfy the conditions of \[th:irf-learnability,th:cr-sublinear\]. For example, humans simultaneously learn their values from pleasure/pain stimuli (RL), watching other people act (CIRL), listening to stories (LVFS), as well as (parental) evaluation of different scenarios (SSRL). Combining sources of evidence may also go some way toward managing reward corruption beyond sensory corruption. For the showering robot of \[ex:db\], decoupled RL allows the robot to infer the reward of the showering state when in other states. For example, the robot can ask a human in the kitchen about the true reward of showering (SSRL), or infer it from human actions in different states (CIRL).
#### CIRL sensory corruption
Whether CIRL agents are vulnerable to reward corruption has generated some discussion among AI safety researchers (based on informal discussion at conferences). Some argue that CIRL agents are not vulnerable, as they only use the sensory data as evidence about a true signal, and have no interest in corrupting the evidence. Others argue that CIRL agents only observe a function of the reward function (the optimal policy or action), and are therefore equally susceptible to reward corruption as RL agents.
sheds some light on this issue, as it provides sufficient conditions for when the corrupt reward problem can be avoided. The following example illustrates a situation where CIRL does not satisfy the conditions, and where a CIRL agent therefore suffers significant regret due to reward corruption.
\[ex:cirl-corruption\] Formally in CIRL, an agent and a human both make actions in an MDP, with state transitions depending on the joint agent-human action $(a, a^H)$. Both the human and the agent is trying to optimise a reward function $\irf$, but the agent first needs to infer $\irf$ from the human’s actions. In each transition the agent observes the human action. Analogously to how the reward may be corrupt for RL agents, we assume that CIRL agents may systematically misperceive the human action in certain states. Let $\hat a^H$ be the observed human action, which may differ from the true human action $\dot a^H$.
In this example, there are two states $s_1$ and $s_2$. In each state, the agent can choose between the actions $a_1$, $a_2$, and $w$, and the human can choose between the actions $a^H_1$ and $a^H_2$. The agent action $a_i$ leads to state $s_i$ with certainty, $i=1,2$, regardless of the human’s action. Only if the agent chooses $w$ does the human action matter. Generally, $a^H_1$ is more likely to lead to $s_1$ than $a^H_2$. The exact transition probabilities are determined by the unknown parameter $p$ as displayed on the left:
(s1) at (0,0) [$s_1$]{}; (s2) at (6,0)[$s_2$]{};
(h2) at (5.2,-0.6) ; (h3) at (6,-1.2) ; (h4) at (5.2,0.6) ; (h5) at (6,1.2) ;
(s2) – (h4); (h4) edge\[->,>=latex,out=145,in=35\] node\[above,pos=0.43,yshift=-1mm\] [$1-p$]{} (s1); (h4) edge\[out=135,in=150\] (h5); (h5) edge\[->,>=latex,out=-30,in=30\] (s2); ; ;
(s2) – (h2); (h2) edge\[->,>=latex,out=-145,in=-35\] node\[above,pos=0.43,yshift=-1mm\] [$0.5-p$]{} (s1); (h2) edge\[out=-135,in=-150\] (h3); (h3) edge\[->,>=latex,out=30,in=-30\] (s2); ; ;
(s2) edge \[loop right\] node\[right,align=center\] [$(a_2, \cdot)$]{} (s2); (s1) edge \[loop left\] node\[left,align=center\] [$(a_1, \cdot)$\
$(w, \cdot)$]{} (s1);
(s1) edge \[bend right=13\] node\[above,yshift=-1mm\] [$(a_2,\cdot)$]{} (s2); (s2) edge \[bend right=13\] node\[above,yshift=-1mm\] [$(a_1,\cdot)$]{} (s1);
[|c|c|c|c|]{}
--------
Hypo-
thesis
--------
& $p$ &
-------
Best
state
-------
&
---------
$s_2$
corrupt
---------
\
H1 & $0.5$ & $s_1$ & Yes\
H2 & $0$ & $s_2$ & No\
The agent’s two hypotheses for $p$, the true reward/preferred state, and the corruptness of state $s_2$ are summarised to the right. In hypothesis H1, the human prefers $s_1$, but can only reach $s_1$ from $s_2$ with $50\%$ reliability. In hypothesis H2, the human prefers $s_2$, but can only remain in $s_2$ with $50\%$ probability. After taking action $w$ in $s_2$, the agent always observes the human taking action $\hat a^H_2$. In H1, this is explained by $s_2$ being corrupt, and the true human action being $a^H_1$. In H2, this is explained by the human preferring $s_2$. The hypotheses H1 and H2 are empirically indistinguishable, as they both predict that the transition $s_1\to s_2$ will occur with $50\%$ probability after the observed human action $\hat a^H_2$ in $s_2$.
Assuming that the agent considers non-corruption to be likelier than corruption, the best inference the agent can make is that the human prefers $s_2$ to $s_1$ (i.e. H2). The optimal policy for the agent is then to always choose $a_2$ to stay in $s_2$, which means the agent suffers maximum regret.
provides an example where a CIRL agent “incorrectly” prefers a state due to sensory corruption. The sensory corruption is analogous to reward corruption in RL, in the sense that it leads the agent to the wrong conclusion about the true reward in the state. Thus, highly intelligent CIRL agents may be prone to wireheading, as they may find (corrupt) states $s$ where all evidence in $s$ points to $s$ having very high reward.[^6] In light of \[th:irf-learnability\], it is not surprising that the CIRL agent in \[ex:cirl-corruption\] fails to avoid the corrupt reward problem. Since the human is unable to affect the transition probability from $s_1$ to $s_2$, no evidence about the relative reward between $s_1$ and $s_2$ is available from the non-corrupt state $s_1$. Only observations from the corrupt state $s_2$ provide information about the reward. The observation graph for \[ex:cirl-corruption\] therefore looks like
(s1) at (0,0) [$s_1$]{}; (s2) at (1, 0)[$s_2$]{}; (s2) edge\[->,>=latex\] (s1); (s2) edge \[dashed,loop right\] (s2);
, with no information being provided from $s_1$.
Quantilisation: Randomness Increases Robustness {#sec:quant}
===============================================
Not all contexts allow the agent to get sufficiently rich data to overcome the reward corruption problem via \[th:irf-learnability,th:cr-sublinear\]. It is often much easier to construct RL agents than it is to construct CIRL agents, which in turn may often be more feasible than designing LVFS or SSRL agents. Is there anything we can do to increase robustness without providing the agent additional sources of data?
Going back to the CR agents of \[sec:problem\], the problem was that they got stuck on a particular value $\dr^*$ of the observed reward. If unlucky, $\dr^*$ was available in a corrupt state, in which case the CR agent may get no true reward. In other words, there were *adversarial* inputs where the CR agent performed poorly. A common way to protect against adversarial inputs is to use a randomised algorithm. Applied to RL and CRMDPs, this idea leads to *quantilising agents* [@Taylor2016a]. Rather than choosing the state with the highest observed reward, these agents instead randomly choose a state from a top quantile of high-reward states.
Simple Case {#sec:simple-quant}
-----------
; ; ; ;
To keep the idea simple, a quantilisation agent is first defined for the simple case where the agent can stay in any state of its choosing (\[as:stay\]). establishes a simple regret bound for this setting. A more general quantilisation agent is developed in \[sec:gen-quant\].
\[def:quant\] For $\delta<1$, the $\delta$-quantilising agent $\piquant$ random walks until all states have been visited at least once. Then it selects a state $\tilde s$ uniformly at random from $\S^\delta=\{s:\orf(s)\geq \delta\}$, the top quantile of high observed reward states. Then $\piquant$ goes to $\tilde s$ (by random walking or otherwise) and stays there.
For example, a quantilising robot in \[ex:db\] would first try to find many ways in which it could get high observed reward, and then randomly pick one of them. If there are many more high reward states than corrupt states (e.g. the shower is the only place with inflated rewards), then this will yield a reasonable amount of true reward with high probability.
\[th:quant\] In any CRMDP satisfying \[as:lim-del,as:easy\], the $\delta$-quantilising agent $\pi^\delta$ with $\delta=1-\sqrt{q/|\S|}$ suffers time-averaged regret at most $$\label{eq:quant-regret}
\apl(\M,\pi^\delta,s_0,t)\leq 1- \left(1-\sqrt{q/|\S|}\right)^2.$$
By \[as:communicate\], $\piquant$ eventually visits all states when random walking. By \[as:stay\], it can stay in any given state $s$.
The observed reward $\orf(s)$ in any state $s\in\S^\delta$ is at least $\delta$. By \[as:lim-del\], at most $q$ of these states are corrupt; in the worst case, their true reward is 0 and the other $|\S^\delta|-q$ states (if any) have true reward $\delta$. Thus, with probability at least $(|\S^\delta|-q)/|\S^\delta| =
1-q/|\S^\delta|$, the $\delta$-quantilising agent obtains true reward at least $\delta$ at each time step, which gives $$\label{eq:quant}
\apl(\M,\pi^\delta,s_0,t)\leq 1- \delta(1-q/|\S^\delta|).$$ (If $q\geq|\S^\delta|$, the bound is vacuous.)
Under \[as:high-ut\], for any $\delta\in[0,1]$, $|\S^\delta|\geq (1-\delta) |\S|$. Substituting this into \[eq:quant\] gives: $$\label{eq:opt-reg-bound}
\apl(\M,\pi^\delta,s_0,t)\leq 1- \delta\left(1-\frac{q}{(1-\delta)|\S|}\right).$$ is optimised by $\delta=1-\sqrt{q/|\S|}$, which gives the stated regret bound.
The time-averaged regret gets close to zero when the fraction of corrupt states $q/|\S|$ is small. For example, if at most $0.1\%$ of the states are corrupt, then the time-averaged regret will be at most $1-(1-\sqrt{0.001})^2\approx 0.06$. Compared to the $\pirl$ and $\pidb$ agents that had regret close to 1 under the same conditions (\[th:rl-imp1\]), this is a significant improvement.
If rewards are stochastic, then the quantilising agent may be modified to revisit all states many times, until a confidence interval of length $2\eps$ and confidence $1-\eps$ can be established for the expected reward in each state. Letting $\piquant_t$ be the quantilising agent with $\eps=1/t$ gives the same regret bound \[eq:quant-regret\] with $\piquant$ substituted for $\piquant_t$.
#### Interpretation
It may seem odd that randomisation improves worst-case regret. Indeed, if the corrupt states were chosen randomly by the environment, then randomisation would achieve nothing. To illustrate how randomness can increase robustness, we make an analogy to Quicksort, which has average time complexity $O(n\log n)$, but worst-case complexity $O(n^2)$. When inputs are guaranteed to be random, Quicksort is a simple and fast sorting algorithm. However, in many situations, it is not safe to assume that inputs are random. Therefore, a variation of Quicksort that randomises the input before it sorts them is often more robust. Similarly, in the examples mentioned in the introduction, the corrupt states precisely coincide with the states the agent prefers; such situations would be highly unlikely if the corrupt states were randomly distributed. @Li1992 develops an interesting formalisation of this idea.
Another way to justify quantilisation is by Goodhart’s law, which states that most measures of success cease to be good measures when used as targets. Applied to rewards, the law would state that cumulative reward is only a good measure of success when the agent is not trying to optimise reward. While a literal interpretation of this would defeat the whole purpose of RL, a softer interpretation is also possible, allowing reward to be a good measure of success as long as the agent does not try to optimise reward *too hard*. Quantilisation may be viewed as a way to build agents that are more conservative in their optimisation efforts [@Taylor2016a].
#### Alternative randomisation
Not all randomness is created equal. For example, the simple randomised soft-max and $\eps$-greedy policies do not offer regret bounds on par with $\pi^\delta$, as shown by the following example. This motivates the more careful randomisation procedure used by the quantilising agents.
Consider the following simple CRMDP with $n>2$ actions $a_1,\dots,a_n$:
(s1) at (0,0) [$s_1$]{}; (s2) at (3,0)[$s_2$]{}; ; ; ;
(s2) edge \[loop right\] node\[right\] [$a_2,\dots,a_n$]{} (s2); (s1) edge \[loop left\] node\[left\] [$a_1$]{} (s1);
(s1) edge \[bend right\] node\[below\] [$a_2,\dots,a_n$]{} (s2); (s2) edge \[bend right\] node\[above\] [$a_1$]{} (s1);
State $s_1$ is non-corrupt with $\orf(s_1)=\irf(s_1)=1-\eps$ for small $\eps>0$, while $s_2$ is corrupt with $\orf(s_2)=1$ and $\irf(s_2)=0$. The Soft-max and $\eps$-greedy policies will assign higher value to actions $a_2,\dots,a_n$ than to $a_1$. For large $n$, there are many ways of getting to $s_2$, so a random action leads to $s_2$ with high probability. Thus, soft-max and $\eps$-greedy will spend the vast majority of the time in $s_2$, regardless of randomisation rate and discount parameters. This gives a regret close to $1-\eps$, compared to an informed policy always going to $s_1$. Meanwhile, a $\delta$-quantilising agent with $\delta\leq 1/2$ will go to $s_1$ and $s_2$ with equal probability, which gives a more modest regret of $(1-\eps)/2$.
General Quantilisation Agent {#sec:gen-quant}
----------------------------
This section generalises the quantilising agent to RL problems not satisfying \[as:easy\]. This generalisation is important, because it is usually not possible to remain in one state and get high reward. The most naive generalisation would be to sample between high reward policies, instead of sampling from high reward states. However, this will typically not provide good guarantees. To see why, consider a situation where there is a single high reward corrupt state $s$, and there are many ways to reach and leave $s$. Then a wide range of *different* policies all get high reward from $s$. Meanwhile, all policies getting reward from other states may receive relatively little reward. In this situation, sampling from the most high reward policies is not going to increase robustness, since the sampling will just be between different ways of getting reward from the same corrupt state $s$.
For this reason, we must ensure that different “sampleable” policies get reward from different states. As a first step, we make a couple of definitions to say which states provide reward to which policies. The concepts of \[def:value-support\] are illustrated in \[fig:value-support\].
A CRMDP $\mu$ is *unichain* if any stationary policy $\pi:\S\to\Delta\A$ induces a stationary distribution $d_\pi$ on $\S$ that is independent of the initial state $s_0$.
\[def:value-support\] In a unichain CRMDP, let the *asymptotic value contribution* of $s$ to $\pi$ be $\vc^\pi(s)=d_\pi(s)\orf(s)$. We say that a set $\S^\delta_i$ is *$\delta$-value supporting* a policy $\pi_i$ if $$\forall s\in\S^\delta_i\colon \vc^{\pi_i}(s)\geq \delta/|\S^\delta_i|.$$
(s1) at (0, 1) [$s_1$]{}; (s2) at (-1,0) [$s_2$]{}; (s3) at (0,-1) [$s_3$]{}; (s4) at (1, 0) [$s_4$]{}; ; ; ; ; (s1) edge\[<->,>=latex\] (s2); (s2) edge\[<->,>=latex\] (s3); (s3) edge\[<->,>=latex\] (s4); (s4) edge\[<->,>=latex\] (s1); (-2.5,-0.5) rectangle (2.5,0.5); at (2.5,-0.7) [$S^\delta_i$]{};
We are now ready to define a general $\delta$-Quantilising agent. The definition is for theoretical purposes only. It is unsuitable for practical implementation both because of the extreme data and memory requirements of Step 1, and because of the computational complexity of Step 2. Finding a practical approximation is left for future research.
\[def:gen-quant\] In a unichain CRMDP, the *generalised $\delta$-quantilising agent $\pi^\delta$* performs the following steps. The input is a CRMDP $\mu$ and a parameter $\delta\in[0,1]$.
1. Estimate the value of all stationary policies, including their value support.
2. Choose a collection of disjoint sets $\S^\delta_i$, each $\delta$-value supporting a stationary policy $\pi_i$. If multiple choices are possible, choose one maximising the cardinality of the union $\S^\delta=\bigcup_i\S^\delta_i$. If no such collection exists, return: “Failed because $\delta$ too high”.
3. Randomly sample a state $s$ from $\S^\delta=\bigcup_i\S^\delta_i$.
4. Follow the policy $\pi_i$ associated with the set $\S^\delta_i$ containing $s$.
The general quantilising agent of \[def:gen-quant\] is a generalisation of the simple quantilising agent of \[def:quant\]. In the special case where \[as:easy\] holds, the general agent reduces to the simpler one by using singleton sets $\S^\delta_i=\{s_i\}$ for high reward states $s_i$, and by letting $\pi_i$ be the policy that always stays in $s_i$. In situations where it is not possible to keep receiving high reward by remaining in one state, the generalised \[def:gen-quant\] allows policies to solicit rewards from a range of states. The intuitive reason for choosing the policy $\pi_i$ with probability proportional to the value support in Steps 3–4 is that policies with larger value support are better at avoiding corrupt states. For example, a policy only visiting one state may have been unlucky and picked a corrupt state. In contrast, a policy obtaining reward from many states must be “very unlucky” if all the reward states it visits are corrupt.
\[th:gen-quant\] In any unichain CRMDP $\mu$, a general $\delta$-quantilising agent $\pi^\delta$ suffers time-averaged regret at most $$\label{eq:gen-quant-bound}
\apl(\M,\pi^\delta,s_0,t)\leq 1- \delta(1-q/|\S^\delta|)$$ provided a non-empty collection $\{\S^\delta_i\}$ of $\delta$-value supporting sets exists.
We will use the notation from \[def:gen-quant\].
Step 1 is well-defined since the CRMDP is unichain, which means that for all stationary policies $\pi$ the stationary distribution $d_\pi$ and the value support $\vc^\pi$ are well-defined and may be estimated simply by following the policy $\pi$. There is a (large) finite number of stationary policies, so in principle their stationary distributions and value support can be estimated.
To bound the regret, consider first the average reward of a policy $\pi_i$ with value support $\S^\delta_i$. The policy $\pi_i$ must obtain asymptotic average observed reward at least: $$\begin{aligned}
\oginf(\mu,\pi_i,s_0)
&= \sum_{s\in\S}d_\pi(s)\orf(s)
&\text{by definition of $d_\pi$ and $\oG_t$}\\
&\geq \sum_{s\in\S^\delta_i}d_\pi(s)\orf(s)
&\text{sum of positive terms}\\
&\geq\sum_{s\in\S^\delta_i}\delta/|\S^\delta_i|
&\text{$\S^\delta_i$ is $\delta$-value support for $\pi_i$}\\
&=|\S^\delta_i|\cdot\delta/|\S^\delta_i| = \delta
\end{aligned}$$ If there are $q_i$ corrupt states in $\S^\delta_i$ with true reward 0, then the average true reward must be $$\label{eq:ginf}
\iginf(\mu, \pi_i,s_0)\geq(|\S^\delta_i|-q_i)\cdot \delta/|\S^\delta_i|
=(1-q_i/|\S^\delta_i|)\cdot\delta$$ since the true reward must correspond to the observed reward in all the $(|\S^\delta_i|-q_i)$ non-corrupt states.
For any distribution of corrupt states, the quantilising agent that selects $\pi_i$ with probability $P(\pi_i)=|\S^\delta_i|/|\S^\delta|$ will obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\ginf(\mu,\pi^\delta,s_0)
&= \lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{t}\sum_iP(\pi_i)G_t(\mu,\pi_i,s_0)\\
&\geq \sum_iP(\pi_i) (1-q_i/|\S^\delta_i|) \cdot\delta & \text{by equation \cref{eq:ginf}}\\
&= \delta\sum_i \frac{|S^\delta_i|}{|\S^\delta|}(1-q_i/|\S^\delta_i|) & \text{by construction of $P(\pi_i)$}\\
&= \frac{\delta}{|\S^\delta|}\sum_i (|S^\delta_i|-q_i) & \text{elementary algebra}\\
&= \frac{\delta}{|\S^\delta|}(|\S^\delta|-q)
= \delta(1-q/|\S^\delta|) & \text{by summing $|\S^\delta_i|$ and $q_i$}
\end{aligned}$$ The informed policy gets true reward at most 1 at each time step, which gives the claimed bound .
When \[as:easy\] is satisfied, the bound is the same as for the simple quantilising agent in \[sec:simple-quant\] for $\delta=1-\sqrt{q/|\S|}$. In other cases, the bound may be much weaker. For example, in many environments it is not possible to obtain reward by remaining in one state. The agent may have to spend significant time “travelling” between high reward states. So typically only a small fraction of the time will be spent in high reward states, which in turn makes the stationary distribution $d_\pi$ is small. This puts a strong upper bound on the value contribution $\vc^\pi$, which means that the value supporting sets $\S^\delta_i$ will be empty unless $\delta$ is close to 0. While this makes the bound of \[th:gen-quant\] weak, it nonetheless bounds the regret away from 1 even under weak assumptions, which is a significant improvement on the RL and CR agents in \[th:rl-imp1\].
#### Examples
To make the discussion a bit more concrete, let us also speculate about the performance of a quantilising agent in some of the examples in the introduction:
- In the boat racing example (\[ex:reward-misspecification\]), the circling strategy only got about $20\%$ higher score than a winning strategy [@openai2016]. Therefore, a quantilising agent would likely only need to sacrifice about $20\%$ observed reward in order to be able to randomly select from a large range of winning policies.
- In the wireheading example (\[ex:wireheading\]), it is plausible that the agent gets significantly more reward in wireheaded states compared to “normal” states. Wireheading policies may also be comparatively rare, as wireheading may require very deliberate sequences of actions to override sensors. Under this assumption, a quantilising agent may be less likely to wirehead. While it may need to sacrifice a large amount of observed reward compared to an RL agent, its true reward may often be greater.
#### Summary
In summary, quantilisation offers a way to increase robustness via randomisation, using only reward feedback. Unsurprisingly, the strength of the regret bounds heavily depends on the assumptions we are willing to make, such as the prevalence of high reward states. Further research may investigate efficient approximations and empirical performance of quantilising agents, as well as dynamic adjustments of the threshold $\delta$. Combinations with imperfect decoupled RL solutions (such as CIRL), as well as extensions to infinite state spaces could also offer fruitful directions for further theoretical investigation. @Taylor2016a discusses some general open problems related to quantilisation.
Experimental Results {#sec:experiments}
====================
In this section the theoretical results are illustrated with some simple experiments. The setup is a gridworld containing some true reward tiles (indicated by yellow circles) and some corrupt reward tiles (indicated by blue squares). We use a setup with 1, 2 or 4 goal tiles with true reward $0.9$ each, and one corrupt reward tile with observed reward $1$ and true reward $0$ (Figure \[fig:start\] shows the starting positions). Empty tiles have reward $0.1$, and walking into a wall gives reward $0$. The state is represented by the $(x,y)$ coordinates of the agent. The agent can move up, down, left, right, or stay put. The discounting factor is $\gamma=0.9$. This is a continuing task, so the environment does not reset when the agent visits the corrupt or goal tiles. The experiments were implemented in the AIXIjs framework for reinforcement learning [@Aslanides2017] and the code is available online in the AIXIjs repository (<http://aslanides.io/aixijs/demo.html?reward_corruption>).
[0.3]{} ![Starting positions: the blue square indicates corrupt reward, and the yellow circles indicate true rewards. []{data-label="fig:start"}](foo_starting_position1.png "fig:")
[0.3]{} ![Starting positions: the blue square indicates corrupt reward, and the yellow circles indicate true rewards. []{data-label="fig:start"}](foo_starting_position2.png "fig:")
[0.3]{} ![Starting positions: the blue square indicates corrupt reward, and the yellow circles indicate true rewards. []{data-label="fig:start"}](foo_starting_position4.png "fig:")
[0.5]{} ![Trajectories of average observed and true rewards for Q-learning, softmax and quantilising agents, showing mean $\pm$ standard deviation over 100 runs. Q-learning and quantilising agents converge to a similar observed reward, but very different true rewards (much higher for the quantiliser with high variance). The value of $\delta$ that gives the highest true reward varies for different numbers of goal tiles.[]{data-label="fig:plots"}](foo_scaled_g1_1M_.pdf "fig:")
[0.5]{} ![Trajectories of average observed and true rewards for Q-learning, softmax and quantilising agents, showing mean $\pm$ standard deviation over 100 runs. Q-learning and quantilising agents converge to a similar observed reward, but very different true rewards (much higher for the quantiliser with high variance). The value of $\delta$ that gives the highest true reward varies for different numbers of goal tiles.[]{data-label="fig:plots"}](foo_scaled_g1_1M_true_.pdf "fig:")
[0.5]{} ![Trajectories of average observed and true rewards for Q-learning, softmax and quantilising agents, showing mean $\pm$ standard deviation over 100 runs. Q-learning and quantilising agents converge to a similar observed reward, but very different true rewards (much higher for the quantiliser with high variance). The value of $\delta$ that gives the highest true reward varies for different numbers of goal tiles.[]{data-label="fig:plots"}](foo_scaled_g2_1M_.pdf "fig:")
[0.5]{} ![Trajectories of average observed and true rewards for Q-learning, softmax and quantilising agents, showing mean $\pm$ standard deviation over 100 runs. Q-learning and quantilising agents converge to a similar observed reward, but very different true rewards (much higher for the quantiliser with high variance). The value of $\delta$ that gives the highest true reward varies for different numbers of goal tiles.[]{data-label="fig:plots"}](foo_scaled_g2_1M_true_.pdf "fig:")
[0.5]{} ![Trajectories of average observed and true rewards for Q-learning, softmax and quantilising agents, showing mean $\pm$ standard deviation over 100 runs. Q-learning and quantilising agents converge to a similar observed reward, but very different true rewards (much higher for the quantiliser with high variance). The value of $\delta$ that gives the highest true reward varies for different numbers of goal tiles.[]{data-label="fig:plots"}](foo_scaled_g4_1M_.pdf "fig:")
[0.5]{} ![Trajectories of average observed and true rewards for Q-learning, softmax and quantilising agents, showing mean $\pm$ standard deviation over 100 runs. Q-learning and quantilising agents converge to a similar observed reward, but very different true rewards (much higher for the quantiliser with high variance). The value of $\delta$ that gives the highest true reward varies for different numbers of goal tiles.[]{data-label="fig:plots"}](foo_scaled_g4_1M_true_.pdf "fig:")
**goal tiles** **agent** **average observed reward** **average true reward**
---------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- -------------------------
Q-learning $0.923 \pm 0.0003$ $0.00852 \pm 0.00004$
Softmax Q-learning $0.671 \pm 0.0005$ $0.0347 \pm 0.00006$
Quantilising ($\delta=0.2$) $0.838 \pm 0.15$ $0.378 \pm 0.35$
Quantilising ($\delta=0.5$) $0.943 \pm 0.12$ $0.133 \pm 0.27$
Quantilising ($\delta=0.8$) $0.979 \pm 0.076$ $0.049 \pm 0.18$
Q-learning $0.921 \pm 0.00062$ $0.0309 \pm 0.0051$
Softmax Q-learning $0.671 \pm 0.0004$ $0.0738 \pm 0.0005$
Quantilising ($\delta=0.2$) $0.934 \pm 0.047$ $0.594 \pm 0.43$
Quantilising ($\delta=0.5$) $0.931 \pm 0.046$ $0.621 \pm 0.42$
Quantilising ($\delta=0.8$) $0.944 \pm 0.05$ $0.504 \pm 0.45$
Q-learning $0.924 \pm 0.0002$ $0.00919 \pm 0.00014$
Softmax Q-learning $0.657 \pm 0.0004$ $0.111 \pm 0.0006$
Quantilising ($\delta=0.2$) $0.918 \pm 0.038$ $0.738 \pm 0.35$
Quantilising ($\delta=0.5$) $0.926 \pm 0.044$ $0.666 \pm 0.39$
Quantilising ($\delta=0.8$) $0.915 \pm 0.036$ $0.765 \pm 0.32$
: Average true and observed rewards after 1 million cycles, showing mean $\pm$ standard deviation over 100 runs. Q-learning achieves high observed reward but low true reward, and softmax achieves medium observed reward and a slightly higher true reward than Q-learning. The quantilising agent achieves similar observed reward to Q-learning, but much higher true reward (with much more variance). Having more than 1 goal tile leads to a large improvement in true reward for the quantiliser, a small improvement for softmax, and no improvement for Q-learning.[]{data-label="tab:exp-results"}
We demonstrate that RL agents like Q-learning and softmax Q-learning cannot overcome corrupt reward (as discussed in Section \[sec:problem\]), while quantilisation helps overcome corrupt reward (as discussed in \[sec:quant\]). We run Q-learning with $\epsilon$-greedy ($\epsilon=0.1$), softmax with temperature $\beta=2$, and the quantilising agent with $\delta=0.2,0.5,0.8$ (where $0.8 =1-\sqrt{q/|\S|} = 1-\sqrt{1/25}$) for 100 runs with 1 million cycles. Average observed and true rewards after 1 million cycles are shown in \[tab:exp-results\], and reward trajectories are shown in \[fig:plots\]. Q-learning gets stuck on the corrupt tile and spend almost all the time there (getting observed reward around $1 \cdot (1-\epsilon)=0.9$), softmax spends most of its time on the corrupt tile, while the quantilising agent often stays on one of the goal tiles.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
This paper has studied the consequences of corrupt reward functions. Reward functions may be corrupt due to bugs or misspecifications, sensory errors, or because the agent finds a way to inappropriately modify the reward mechanism. Some examples were given in the introduction. As agents become more competent at optimising their reward functions, they will likely also become more competent at (ab)using reward corruption to gain higher reward. Reward corruption may impede the performance of a wide range of agents, and may have disastrous consequences for highly intelligent agents [@Bostrom2014].
To formalise the corrupt reward problem, we extended a Markov Decision Process (MDP) with a possibly corrupt reward function, and defined a formal performance measure (regret). This enabled the derivation of a number of formally precise results for how seriously different agents were affected by reward corruption in different setups (). The results are all intuitively plausible, which provides some support for the choice of formal model.
The main takeaways from the results are:
- *Without simplifying assumptions, no agent can avoid the corrupt reward problem* (\[th:impossibility\]). This is effectively a No Free Lunch result, showing that unless some assumption is made about the reward corruption, no agent can outperform a random agent. Some natural simplifying assumptions to avoid the No Free Lunch result were suggested in \[sec:formal\].
- *Using the reward signal as evidence rather than optimisation target is no magic bullet, even under strong simplifying assumptions* (\[th:rl-imp1\]). Essentially, this is because the agent does not know the exact relation between the observed reward (the “evidence”) and the true reward. [^7] However, when the data enables sufficient crosschecking of rewards, agents can avoid the corrupt reward problem (\[th:irf-learnability,th:cr-sublinear\]). For example, in SSRL and LVFS this type of crosschecking is possible under natural assumptions. In RL, no crosschecking is possible, while CIRL is a borderline case. Combining frameworks and providing the agent with different sources of data may often be the safest option.
- *In cases where sufficient crosschecking of rewards is not possible, quantilisation may improve robustness* (\[th:quant,th:gen-quant\]). Essentially, quantilisation prevents agents from overoptimising their objectives. How well quantilisation works depends on how the number of corrupt solutions compares to the number of good solutions.
The results indicate that while reward corruption constitutes a major problem for traditional RL algorithms, there are promising ways around it, both within the RL framework, and in alternative frameworks such as CIRL, SSRL and LVFS.
#### Future work
Finally, some interesting open questions are listed below:
- (Unobserved state) In both the RL and the decoupled RL models, the agent gets an accurate signal about which state it is in. What if the state is hidden? What if the signal informing the agent about its current state can be corrupt?
- (Non-stationary corruption function) In this work, we tacitly assumed that both the reward and the corruption functions are stationary, and are always the same in the same state. What if the corruption function is non-stationary, and influenceable by the agent’s actions? (such as if the agent builds a *delusion box* around itself [@Ring2011])
- (Infinite state space) Many of the results and arguments relied on there being a finite number of states. This makes learning easy, as the agent can visit every state. It also makes quantilisation easy, as there is a finite set of states/strategies to randomly sample from. What if there is an infinite number of states, and the agent has to generalise insights between states? What are the conditions on the observation graph for \[th:irf-learnability,th:cr-sublinear\]? What is a good generalisation of the quantilising agent?
- (Concrete CIRL condition) In \[ex:cirl-corruption\], we only heuristically inferred the observation graph from the CIRL problem description. Is there a general way of doing this? Or is there a direct formulation of the no-corruption condition in CIRL, analogous to \[th:irf-learnability,th:cr-sublinear\]?
- (Practical quantilising agent) As formulated in \[def:quant\], the quantilising agent $\piquant$ is extremely inefficient with respect to data, memory, and computation. Meanwhile, many practical RL algorithms use randomness in various ways (e.g. $\eps$-greedy [@Sutton1998]). Is there a way to make an efficient quantilisation agent that retains the robustness guarantees?
- (Dynamically adapting quantilising agent) In \[def:gen-quant\], the threshold $\delta$ is given as a parameter. Under what circumstances can we define a “parameter free” quantilising agent that adapts $\delta$ as it interacts with the environment?
- (Decoupled RL quantilisation result) What if we use quantilisation in decoupled RL settings that nearly meet the conditions of \[th:irf-learnability,th:cr-sublinear\]? Can we prove a stronger bound?
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Thanks to Jan Leike, Badri Vellambi, and Arie Slobbe for proofreading and providing invaluable comments, and to Jessica Taylor and Huon Porteous for good comments on quantilisation. This work was in parts supported by ARC grant DP150104590.
[^1]: We let rewards depend only on the state $s$, rather than on state-action pairs $s,a$, or state-action-state transitions $s,a,s'$, as is also common in the literature. Formally it makes little difference, since MDPs with rewards depending only on $s$ can model the other two cases by means of a larger state space.
[^2]: A CRMDP could equivalently have been defined as a tuple $\langle \S, \A, \R, T, \irf, \orf\rangle$ with a true and an observed reward function, with the corruption function $C$ implicitly defined as the difference between $\irf$ and $\orf$.
[^3]: The last condition essentially says that the prior $b$ must make some state $s^*$ have strictly higher $b$-expected true reward than all other states after all states have been visited in some $\mu\in\M$. In the space of all possible priors $b$, the priors satisfying the condition have Lebesgue measure 1 for non-trivial classes $\M$. Some highly uniform priors may fail the condition.
[^4]: \[as:high-ut\] prevents any state from having true reward 0.
[^5]: The constant can be computed to $c=34\sqrt{3/2}$ [@Jaksch2010].
[^6]: The construction required in \[ex:cirl-corruption\] to create a “wireheading state” $s_2$ for CIRL agents is substantially more involved than for RL agents, so they may be less vulnerable to reward corruption than RL agents.
[^7]: In situations where the exact relation is known, then a non-corrupt reward function can be defined. Our results are not relevant for this case.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present a rigorous explicit expression for an extensive number of local conserved quantities in the spin-$1/2$ XYZ chain with general coupling constants. Moreover, in the case of the XXZ chain, we show that local conserved quantities constructed are conserved even though a magnetic field in the z-axis direction exists.'
author:
- Yuji Nozawa
- Kouhei Fukai
title: 'Explicit Construction of Local Conserved Quantities in the XYZ Spin-1/2 Chain'
---
*Introduction.—* An extensive number of local conserved quantities are key elements of nonequilibrium dynamics in integrable systems. For example, these quantities prevent systems from thermalizing, and it is proposed that the steady states in integrable systems are described by the generalized Gibbs ensemble [@PhysRevLett.98.050405; @Essler_2016], whose density matrix is constructed from an extensive number of local and quasi-local conserved quantities [@PhysRevLett.115.120601; @PhysRevLett.115.157201]. The second example is the generalized hydrodynamics [@PhysRevX.6.041065; @PhysRevLett.117.207201], which describes large scale nonequilibrium dynamics in integrable systems and is formulated from the set of continuity equations for conserved quantities.
In many interacting integrable systems which are solved by the Bethe ansatz and the quantum inverse scattering methods [@korepin_bogoliubov_izergin_1993; @baxter2007exactly], the existence of local conserved quantities and the mutual commutativity of them were proved from the commutativity of transfer matrices $T{\left(\lambda\right)}$ with different values of the spectral parameter $\lambda$: $[T{\left(\lambda\right)},T{\left(\mu\right)}]=0$. Local conserved quantities are obtained from the expansion of $\ln T{\left(\lambda\right)}$ in terms of $\lambda$, which includes the Hamiltonian. Another standard method to construct local conserved quantities is to use the boost operator $B$ [@tetelman1982lorentz; @10.1143/PTP.69.431; @THACKER1986348]. In this method, local conserved quantities are obtained recursively from the commutation relations as $[B, Q_{n}]=Q_{n+1}$.
Although how to prove the existence of local conserved quantities and construct them are known, it is still difficult to obtain the explicit expressions for them because the calculation is complicated in general, and one needs to find the pattern of coefficients of local conserved quantities to express general local conserved quantities. Grabowski and Mathieu investigated the problem for the XYZ spin-$1/2$ chain, which is a generalization of the Heisenberg spin-$1/2$ chain and known as an integrable spin chain [@baxter2007exactly; @mccoy1968hydrogen; @sutherland1970two; @PhysRevLett.26.832; @PhysRevLett.26.834; @BAXTER1972193; @BAXTER1972323; @BAXTER19731; @BAXTER197325; @BAXTER197348] with the use of the boost operator. As a result, they found the explicit expression in the case of the Heisenberg chain [@grabowski1994quantum; @GRABOWSKI1995299]. In more general cases, they derived a recursive way to obtain the explicit expression, however, the analytical solution was not found.
In this Letter, we present an explicit expression for local conserved quantities in the XYZ spin-$1/2$ chain with general coupling constants. To obtain the expression, we have used a more straightforward way with a notation called *doubling-product*, which is introduced to prove the absence of local conserved quantities in the spin-$1/2$ XYZ chain with a magnetic field [@shiraishi2019proof], and its extension. We have directly derived the conditions for the commutator of each local conserved quantity and the Hamiltonian to be zero. With the doubling-product notation, we have found the pattern of coefficients of local conserved quantities and obtained an extensive number (almost the number of sites $L$) of local conserved quantities. In particular, we have obtained all the $k$-support conserved quantities for $1\leq k\leq L/2$, where the support is defined later.
In the case of the XXZ spin-$1/2$ chain, it is known that the model with a magnetic field in the z-axis direction is solvable by the Bethe ansatz methods [@korepin_bogoliubov_izergin_1993; @takahashi_1999]. We apply our results to the XXZ spin-$1/2$ chain with the magnetic field and prove that the quantities we obtain are conserved even in the case.
*Model and local conserved quantities.—* We consider the XYZ spin-$1/2$ chain without a magnetic field for periodic boundary conditions: $$\begin{aligned}
H=\sum_{i=1}^{L}{\left(J_{X}X_{i}X_{i+1}+J_{Y}Y_{i}Y_{i+1}+J_{Z}Z_{i}Z_{i+1}\right)},\end{aligned}$$ where $X_{i}$, $Y_{i}$, and $Z_{i}$ represent the Pauli matrices $\sigma^{x}$, $\sigma^{y}$, and $\sigma^{z}$ acting on the spin at site $i$, respectively. We set all the coupling constants $J_{X}$, $J_{Y}$, and $J_{Z}$ nonzero. Following Ref. [@shiraishi2019proof], we define $k$-support local conserved quantities $Q_{k}$: $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{k}=\sum_{l=1}^{k}\sum_{\bm{A}^{l}}\sum_{i=1}^{L}q_{\bm{A}^{l}}\bm{A}_{i}^{l}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\bm{A}_{i}^{l}\equiv A_{i}^{1}A_{i+1}^{2}\cdots A_{i+l-1}^{l}$ is a sequence of $l$ operators acting from the site $i$ to the site $i+l-1$. Operators at both ends $A^{1}$, $A^{l}$ take $X$, $Y$, or $Z$, and the other operators $A^{2},\ldots, A^{l-1}$ take $X$, $Y$, $Z$, or the identity operator $I$. $\sum_{i}\bm{A}_{i}^{l}$ is called an $l$-support operator. Coefficients ${\left\{q_{\bm{A}^{l}}\right\}}$ are determined from the commutation relation $\left[Q_{k},H\right]=0$. For example, the Hamiltonian itself is a trivial $2$-support conserved quantity, and it is easily proved that all the $1$-support conserved quantities are $\sum_{i}X_{i}$ if $J_{Y}=J_{Z}$, $\sum_{i}Y_{i}$ if $J_{Z}=J_{X}$, and $\sum_{i}Z_{i}$ if $J_{X}=J_{Y}$. Therefore, we consider $Q_{k}$ for $k\geq 2$ hereafter, and our aim is to determine the coefficients ${\left\{q_{\bm{A}^{l}}\right\}}$ of $Q_{k}$.
To describe commutation relations, we use the following notation [@shiraishi2019proof]: $$\begin{aligned}
&\begin{array}{cccc}
X_{i}&Y_{i+1}&Z_{i+2}&\\
&&X_{i+2}&X_{i+3}
\end{array}\nonumber\\
\equiv&-{\mathrm{i}}\left[X_{i}Y_{i+1}Z_{i+2},X_{i+2}X_{i+3}\right]/2\nonumber\\
=&X_{i}Y_{i+1}Y_{i+2}X_{i+3},\end{aligned}$$ and we drop the subscripts hereafter for visibility. Fundamental formulae using the notation are $$\begin{aligned}
&\begin{array}{rcc}
&X&Y\\
&X&X\\
=-&I&Z,
\end{array}
\quad
\begin{array}{rcc}
&X&Y\\
&Y&Y\\
=&Z&I,
\end{array}
\quad
\begin{array}{rcc}
&X&Y\\
&Z&Z\\
=&0,&
\end{array}\label{eq:com1}\\
&\ \ \ \begin{array}{rcc}
&X&X\\
&X&X\\
=&0,&
\end{array}
\quad
\begin{array}{rcc}
&X&X\\
&Y&Y\\
=&0,&
\end{array}
\quad
\begin{array}{rcc}
&X&X\\
&Z&Z\\
=&0,&
\end{array}\label{eq:com2}\\
&\ \ \ \begin{array}{rcc}
&X&I\\
&X&X\\
=&0,&
\end{array}
\quad
\begin{array}{rcc}
&X&I\\
&Y&Y\\
=&Z&Y,
\end{array}
\quad
\begin{array}{rcc}
&X&I\\
&Z&Z\\
=-&Y&Z.\label{eq:com3}
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$
*Doubling-product operators and their extension—* First we consider the case that the site number $L$ satisfies $k\leq L/2$. As shown in Ref. [@shiraishi2019proof], by considering $(k+1)$-support operators in $\left[Q_{k},H\right]$, $k$-support operators in $Q_{k}$ are restricted to doubling-product operators defined as $$\begin{aligned}
&~~~~~\overline{A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2}A_{k-1}}\nonumber\\
&\begin{array}{ccccccc}
=~c&A_{1}&{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\right)}&{\left(A_{2}A_{3}\right)}&\cdots&{\left(A_{k-2}A_{k-1}\right)}&A_{k-1}\\
=~~&A_{1}&A_{1,2}&A_{2,3}&\cdots &A_{k-2,k-1}&A_{k-1},
\end{array}
\label{eq:doubling}\end{aligned}$$ where $A_{\alpha}$ takes one of ${\left\{X,Y,Z\right\}}$ and it is required that $A_{\alpha}\neq A_{\alpha+1}$. We define $A_{\alpha,\beta}$ by ${\left\{A_{\alpha},A_{\beta},A_{\alpha,\beta}\right\}}={\left\{X,Y,Z\right\}}$ when $A_{\alpha}\neq A_{\beta}$. The coefficient $c\in{\left\{\pm1,\pm{\mathrm{i}}\right\}}$ is determined from Eq. . Furthermore, after fixing a normalization factor of $Q_{k}$, nonzero coefficients of $k$-support operators are uniquely given by $$\begin{aligned}
&q_{\overline{A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2}A_{k-1}}}\nonumber\\
=~&s{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2}A_{k-1}\right)}J_{A_{1}}J_{A_{2}}\cdots J_{A_{k-2}}J_{A_{k-1}},
\label{eq:k-0-c}\end{aligned}$$ where $s{\left(XY\right)}=s{\left(YZ\right)}=s{\left(ZX\right)}=-s{\left(YX\right)}=-s{\left(ZY\right)}=-s{\left(XZ\right)}\equiv1$, and $s{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2}A_{k-1}\right)}\equiv s{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\right)}s{\left(A_{2}A_{3}\right)}\cdots s{\left(A_{k-2}A_{k-1}\right)}$. Therefore, for $2\leq k\leq L/2$, $Q_{k}$ is unique up to differences of smaller support conserved quantities $Q_{k^{\prime}<k}$. Note that $Q_{k}+Q_{k^{\prime}<k}$ is also a $k$-support conserved quantity.
To express $k^{\prime}(<k)$-support operators in $Q_{k}$, it is useful to extend the definition of doubling-product operators. Let us allow the case that neighboring symbols in doubling-product operators are the same $A_{\alpha}= A_{\alpha+1}$. Then, in the definition Eq. , $A_{\alpha,\alpha +1}$ is replaced by $I$ if $A_{\alpha}= A_{\alpha+1}$. When the condition $A_{\alpha}= A_{\alpha+1}$ satisfies at $m$ places in an $l$-support operators, we call it an $(l, m)$ operator. $m$ is called the number of *holes* and used to study the structure of conserved quantities [@grabowski1994quantum; @GRABOWSKI1995299]. Under this definition, all the $k$-support operators in $Q_{k}$ are $(k,0)$ operators.
We can express $(l, m)$ operators as $$\begin{aligned}
&\overline{\underbrace{A_{1}\cdots A_{1}}_{1+m_{1}}\underbrace{A_{2}\cdots A_{2}}_{1+m_{2}}\cdots\cdots \underbrace{A_{l-m-1}\cdots A_{l-m-1}}_{1+m_{l-m-1}}}\nonumber\\
\equiv~& \overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{l-m-1}^{1+m_{l-m-1}}},
\label{eq:lmops}\end{aligned}$$ where $A_{\alpha}\neq A_{\alpha+1}$ and $m_{j}\geq 0$ is an integer which satisfies $\sum_{j=1}^{l-m-1}m_{j}=m$. For example, $\overline{X^{2}Z^{2}}=\overline{XXZZ}=XIYIZ$ and $\overline{X^{3}Z}=\overline{XXXZ}=XIIYZ$ are both $(5,2)$ operators. When we consider commutation relations of $(l, m)$ operators, we use the following notation $$\begin{aligned}
&\begin{array}{cccc}
\cline{1-3}
X&Y&Z^{2}\\
\cline{2-2}
&Z&&
\end{array}
\equiv
\begin{array}{ccccc}
X&Z&X&I&Z\\
&Z&Z&&
\end{array}\nonumber\\
=&
\begin{array}{rccccc}
-&X&I&Y&I&Z
\end{array}
=
\begin{array}{rcccc}
\cline{2-3}
-&X^{2}&Z^{2},&&
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ where $\overline{XYZ^{2}}$ is a $(5,1)$ operator, and $\overline{X^{2}Z^{2}}$ is a $(5,2)$ operator
![Structure of a $k$-support local conserved quantity $Q_{k}$ for $k=10$. Circles represent $(l, m)$ operators in $Q_{k}$, where $l=k-2n-m$. Crosses represent operators generated by the commutation relation of $H$ and operators represented as circles, which are to be cancelled.[]{data-label="fig:structure"}](k10n-1.pdf){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
*Structure of $Q_{k}$.—* Let us consider the commutation relation of an $(l, m)$ operator $\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{l-m-1}^{1+m_{l-m-1}}}$ in $Q_{k}$ and $H$. Candidates of operators in the commutator are $(l\pm 1)$ and $l$-support. First, $(l-1)$-support operators are constructed by removing $A_{1}$ or $A_{l-m-1}$. As for $A_{1}$, the operator is $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\cline{1-5}
A_{1}&A_{1}^{m_{1}}&A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}&\cdots&A_{l-m-1}^{1+m_{l-m-1}}\\
\cline{1-1}
A_{1}
\end{array}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that this term is nonzero only if $m_{1}=0$ and $A_{1}\neq A_{2}$. Therefore, the number of holes is conserved, and it is an $(l-1,m)$ operator. The same holds for $A_{l-m-1}$. Second, $(l+1)$-support operators are constructed by adding $A_{0}{\left(\neq A_{1}\right)}$ on the left side of $A_{1}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\cline{2-5}
&A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}&A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}&\cdots&A_{l-m-1}^{1+m_{l-m-1}}\\
\cline{1-1}
A_{0}&&&&
\end{array},\end{aligned}$$ or $A_{l-m}{\left(\neq A_{l-m-1}\right)}$ on the right side of $A_{l-m-1}$. Therefore, these operators are $(l+1,m)$ operators. The third case of $l$-support operators is a bit more complicated. For example, they are given as $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\cline{1-5}
A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}&\cdots&A_{p}&\cdots&A_{l-m-1}^{1+m_{l-m-1}}\\
\cline{3-3}
&&B_{p}&&
\end{array}.\end{aligned}$$ If $A_{p}=B_{p}$ for $1<p<l-1$, these operators cannot be expressed as $(l, m)$ operators. However, these terms are cancelled and do not contribute to the commutator. In the case of $A_{p}\neq B_{p}$, from Eqs. -, only $(l, m\pm1)$ operators are obtained (see Supplemental Material for the details).
Consequently, operators in $Q_{k}$ are classified as $(l, m)$ operators as shown in Fig. \[fig:structure\]. Here, we fix the degrees of freedom to add $Q_{k^{\prime}<k}$. For example, coefficients of $(k-2n-1,0)$ operators ($n=0,1,\ldots$) are set to zero. In Fig. \[fig:structure\], circles represent $(l, m)$ operators in $Q_{k}$, and crosses shown by arrows represent operators generated by the commutation relations of $(l, m)$ operators in $Q_{k}$ and $H$.
*Explicit expression for $Q_{k}$.—* We present the explicit expression for $Q_{k}$. See Supplemental Material for the detailed derivation. The result is that $Q_{k}$ is represented as
$$\begin{gathered}
Q_{k}=\sum_{\substack{0\leq n+m \leq \lfloor \frac{k}{2}\rfloor-1,\\ n,m\geq 0}}\sum_{\substack{\overline{\bm{A}}:\\
(k-2n-m,m)~\text{operators}}}q^{k-2n-m,m}_{\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}}}\ \overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}},
\label{eq:Qqlm}\\
q^{k-2n-m,m}_{\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}}}
= s{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}\right)}{\left(J_{X}J_{Y}J_{Z}\right)}^{m}{\left(\prod_{j=1}^{k-2n-2m-1}J_{A_{j}}^{1-m_{j}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\times R^{k-2n-m, m}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}\right)},
\label{eq:qandr}\\
R^{k-2n-m,m}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}\right)}
\equiv\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}f{\left(n-\tilde{n},m+\tilde{n}\right)}S_{\tilde{n}}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}\right)},
\label{eq:defr}\\
f{\left(0,m\right)}\equiv 1, \quad
f{\left(n,m\right)}\equiv
\frac{m}{n+m}\sum_{p=1}^{n}\binom{n+m}{p}\sum_{\substack{j1,j2,\ldots,jp\geq 1\\\\j1+j2+\cdots+jp=n}}a_{j1}a_{j2}\cdots a_{jp} \quad (n\geq 1),
\label{eq:deff}\\
a_{n}\equiv \frac{J^{2}_{X}(J^{2(n+2)}_{Y}-J^{2(n+2)}_{Z})+J^{2}_{Y}(J^{2(n+2)}_{Z}-J^{2(n+2)}_{X})+J^{2}_{Z}(J^{2(n+2)}_{X}-J^{2(n+2)}_{Y})}{(J^{2}_{X}-J^{2}_{Y})(J^{2}_{Y}-J^{2}_{Z})(J^{2}_{Z}-J^{2}_{X})},
\label{eq:defa}\\
S_{0}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{l}\right)}\equiv 1, \quad
S_{p}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{l}\right)}\equiv \sum_{1\leq j1\leq j2\leq\cdots\leq jp\leq l} J^{2}_{A_{j1}}J^{2}_{A_{j2}}\cdots J^{2}_{A_{jp}} \quad (p\geq 1).
\label{eq:sp}\end{gathered}$$
In Eq. , the sum of $\overline{\bm{A}}\equiv\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}}$ runs over all $(k-2n-m, m)$ operators that satisfy $n\geq 0$, $m\geq 0$, and $k-2n-2m\geq 2$, which corresponds to circles in Fig. \[fig:structure\]. ${\left(k-2n-m, m\right)}$ operators are defined in Eq. , and $\sum_{j=1}^{k-2n-2m-1}m_{j}=m$ is satisfied. Eq. represents the coefficients of the operators, and the function $R$ is introduced. $s$ is the function we introduced in Eq. . For example, $q^{5,2}_{\overline{X^{2}Z^{2}}}=(J_{X}J_{Y}J_{Z})^{2}R^{5,2}(XZ)$ and $q^{5,2}_{\overline{X^{3}Z}}=(J_{X}J_{Y}J_{Z})^{2}(J_{Z}/J_{X})R^{5,2}(XZ)$. A remarkable point is that $R$ does not depend on where holes are because it does not depend on $m_{1},m_{2},\ldots,m_{k-2n-2m-1}$. $A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{l}$ is a character string of length $l\geq 1$, and $A_{1}$, $A_{2}$, …, $A_{l}$ take one of ${\left\{X,Y,Z\right\}}$, respectively. By definition, Eq. is a symmetric polynomial in $J^{2}_{A_{1}},J^{2}_{A_{2}},\ldots , J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1}}$. $a_{n}$ is characterized as the coefficient of $t^{2}$ in the remainder of the division of a monomial $t^{n+2}$ by $(t-J^{2}_{X})(t-J^{2}_{Y})(t-J^{2}_{Z})$. We note that even if $J_{X}=J_{Y}$, $a_{n}$ does not diverge by the characterization. In addition, $a_{n}$ follows the recurrence relation $a_{n+3}={\left(J^{2}_{X}+J^{2}_{Y}+J^{2}_{Z}\right)}a_{n+2}-{\left(J^{2}_{X}J^{2}_{Y}+J^{2}_{Y}J^{2}_{X}+J^{2}_{Z}J^{2}_{
X}\right)}a_{n+1}+J^{2}_{X}J^{2}_{Y}J^{2}_{Z}a_{n}$, $a_{-2}=a_{-1}=0$, and $a_{0}=1$.
For $k\leq 6$, the explicit expression of $Q_{k}$ was calculated in Ref. [@GRABOWSKI1995299]. Here, as an example, we present the coefficients of $0$-hole operators in $Q_{8}$. They are given as $q^{8,0}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{7}}\right)}=s{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{7}\right)}\prod_{j=1}^{7}J_{A_{j}}$, $q^{6,0}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{5}}\right)}=s{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{5}\right)}{\left(\prod_{j=1}^{5}J_{A_{j}}\right)}\sum_{j=1}^{5}J_{A_{j}}^{2}$, $q^{4,0}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}A_{3}}\right)}=s{\left(A_{1}A_{2}A_{3}\right)}{\left(\prod_{j=1}^{3}J_{A_{j}}\right)} [J_{A_{1}}^{4}+J_{A_{2}}^{4}+J_{A_{3}}^{4}+J_{A_{1}}^{2}J_{A_{2}}^{2}+J_{A_{2}}^{2}J_{A_{3}}^{2}+J_{A_{3}}^{2}J_{A_{1}}^{2}+{\left(J_{X}^{2}+J_{Y}^{2}+J_{Z}^{2}\right)}\sum_{j=1}^{3}J^{2}_{A_{j}}]$, and $q^{2,0}{\left(\overline{A_{1}}\right)}=J_{A_{1}}[J_{A_{1}}^{6}+2{\left(J^{2}_{X}+J^{2}_{Y}+J^{2}_{Z}\right)}J_{A_{1}}^{4}+
{\left(2J^{4}_{X}+2J^{4}_{Y}+2J^{4}_{Z}+3J^{2}_{X}J^{2}_{Y}+3J^{2}_{Y}J^{2}_{Z}+3J^{2}_{Z}J^{2}_{X}\right)}J^{2}_{A_{1}}]$.
We note that even if one or two coupling constants are zero, $Q_{k}$ we obtained is conserved. A different point is that $k$-support local conserved quantities are not unique even for $2\leq k\leq L/2$.
*Recursive way.—* We obtain the expression Eqs. - from the fact that the coefficients are determined in the following simple procedure (see Supplemental Material for the proof). First $R^{k-m, m}$ is obtained as $R^{k-m, m}=1$. Suppose that $R^{k-2(n+1)-(m-1),m-1}$ and $R^{k-2n-(m+1),m+1}$ are obtained as $R^{k-2(n+1)-(m-1),m-1}=\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n+1}h_{n+1-\tilde{n}}S_{\tilde{n}}$ and $R^{k-2n-(m+1),m+1}=\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}g_{n-\tilde{n}}S_{\tilde{n}}$. Then $R^{k-2(n+1)-m, m}$ is determined as $\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n+1}h_{n+1-\tilde{n}}a_{\tilde{n}}S_{0}+\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}g_{n-\tilde{n}}S_{\tilde{n}+1}$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:procedure\]. Here, in the case of $m=0$, the term with respect to $R^{k-2(n+1)-(m-1),m-1}$ is regarded as zero. In the case of the XXX chain ($J_{X}=J_{Y}=J_{Z}=1$), the pattern becomes more simple. It is satisfied that $R^{k-2(n+1)-m, m}=R^{k-2(n+1)-(m-1),m-1}+R^{k-2n-(m+1),m+1}$ for $m\geq 1$, which reproduces the known structure called a Catalan tree in Refs. [@grabowski1994quantum; @GRABOWSKI1995299] (see Supplemental Material).
![Recursive way to obtain the function $R^{k-2(n+1)-m, m}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-3}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-3}}}\right)}$ from $R^{k-2(n+1)-(m-1), m-1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}}\right)}$ and $R^{k-2n-(m+1), m+1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-3}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-3}}}\right)}$ in Eq. .[]{data-label="fig:procedure"}](procedure-1.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
*Commutativity with a magnetic filed in the case of the XXZ chain.—* One can prove directly that $[Q_{k}, \sum_{i}Z_{i}]=0$ in the case of $J_{X}=J_{Y}$, *i.e.*, $Q_{k}$ is also conserved in the XXZ spin-$1/2$ chain with a magnetic field in the z-axis direction. Here, we outline the proof (see Supplemental Material for details). Take an $(l, m)$ operator in $Q_{k}$: $\overline{\cdots Z^{1+m_{\alpha-1}} C_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}C_{\alpha+1}^{1+m_{\alpha+1}}\cdots C_{\beta}^{1+m_{\beta}} Z^{1+m_{\beta+1}}\cdots}$, where $C_{j}\in {\left\{X,Y\right\}}$. Corresponding this operator, let us consider an operator $\overline{\cdots Z^{1+m_{\alpha-1}} D_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}D_{\alpha+1}^{1+m_{\alpha+1}}\cdots D_{\beta}^{1+m_{\beta}} Z^{1+m_{\beta+1}}\cdots}$, where $D_{j}$ is defined as ${\left\{C_{j},D_{j}\right\}}={\left\{X,Y\right\}}$. Obviously, it is also an $(l, m)$ operator. In the case of $J_{X}=J_{Y}$, it is proved that contributions to $[Q_{k}, \sum_{i}Z_{i}]$ from commutation relations $$\begin{aligned}
&\begin{array}{ccccc}
\cline{1-5}
\cdots&Z^{1+m_{\alpha-1}}~C_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}&\cdots&C_{\beta}^{1+m_{\beta}}~Z^{1+m_{\beta+1}}&\cdots\\
&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!Z&&&
\end{array}
\nonumber\\
=&
\begin{array}{cccc}
\cdots&I^{m_{\alpha-1}}&D_{\alpha}&I^{m_{\alpha}}\cdots I^{m_{\beta}}D_{\beta}I^{m_{\beta+1}}\cdots\\
&&Z&
\end{array},
$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&\begin{array}{ccccc}
\cline{1-5}
\cdots&Z^{1+m_{\alpha-1}}~D_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}&\cdots&D_{\beta}^{1+m_{\beta}}~Z^{1+m_{\beta+1}}&\cdots\\
&&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!Z&
\end{array}
\nonumber\\
=&
\begin{array}{cccc}
\cdots&I^{m_{\alpha-1}}C_{\alpha}I^{m_{\alpha}}\cdots I^{m_{\beta}}&C_{\beta}&I^{m_{\beta+1}}\cdots\\
&&Z&
\end{array}
$$ are cancelled. This is proved by using the identity $s{\left(D_{\alpha}Z\right)}s{\left(ZC_{\alpha}\cdots C_{\beta}Z\right)}+s{\left(C_{\beta}Z\right)}s{\left(ZD_{\alpha}\cdots D_{\beta}Z\right)}=0$ and $R^{l, m}{\left(\overline{\cdots Z^{1+m_{\alpha-1}}C_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}\cdots C_{\beta}^{1+m_{\beta}}Z^{1+m_{\beta+1}}\cdots}\right)}
=R^{l, m}{\left(\overline{\cdots Z^{1+m_{\alpha-1}}D_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}\cdots D_{\beta}^{1+m_{\beta}}Z^{1+m_{\beta+1}}\cdots}\right)}$ for $J_{X}=J_{Y}$. In a similar manner, one can show contributions of all the $(l, m)$ operators are cancelled, and therefore $[Q_{k}, \sum_{i}Z_{i}]=0$ is proved. Furthermore, the uniqueness of $k$-support local conserved quantities for $2\leq k\leq L/2$ also holds in this case because commutation relations of the magnetic field and $k$-support operators generate no $(k+1)$-support operators.
*Case of $L/2<k\leq L$.—* In the case of $L/2<k\leq L$, a different point from the case of $2\leq k\leq L/2$ is that commutators of different support operators can be cancelled. In this case, the conditions we impose in the above discussion for $2\leq k\leq L/2$ become not necessary but sufficient for $[Q_{k}, H]=0$. Therefore, $Q_{k}$ we obtain is also conserved for $L/2<k\leq L$, although it is not necessarily the unique $k$-support local conserved quantity.
*Summary.—* We have presented the rigorous explicit expression for $k$-support local conserved quantities in the XYZ spin-$1/2$ chain ${\left\{Q_{k}\right\}}$ for $1\leq k\leq L$. Doubling product is a useful notation to find and express them. By using the notation, we have derived a recursive relation to obtain the coefficients of $Q_{k}$ directly and have found the solution. Since the only case that the expression was known is that of the XXX chain [@grabowski1994quantum; @GRABOWSKI1995299], the solution we have obtained is interesting in that it has coupling constants dependence. We have also proved that $Q_{k}$ is conserved even in the case of the XXZ model with a magnetic field in the z-axis direction.
*Acknowledgements.—* We thank H. Tsunetsugu for fruitful discussion and comments on the manuscript. K. F. acknowledges support by FoPM, WINGS Program, the University of Tokyo.
[99]{}
M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, V. Yurovsky, and M. Olshanii, Relaxation in a Completely Integrable Many-Body Quantum System: An *Ab Initio* Study of the Dynamics of the Highly Excited States of 1D Lattice Hard-Core Bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 050405 (2007).
F. H. L. Essler and M. Fagotti, Quench dynamics and relaxation in isolated integrable quantum spin chains, J. Stat. Mech. 064002 (2016).
E. Ilievski, M. Medenjak, and T. Prosen, Quasilocal Conserved Operators in the Isotropic Heisenberg Spin-$1/2$ Chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{}, 120601 (2015).
E. Ilievski, J. De Nardis, B. Wouters, J.-S. Caux, F. H. L. Essler, and T. Prosen, Complete Generalized Gibbs Ensembles in an Interacting Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{}, 157201 (2015).
O. A. Castro-Alvaredo, B. Doyon, and T. Yoshimura, Emergent Hydrodynamics in Integrable Quantum Systems Out of Equilibrium, Phys. Rev. X [**6**]{}, 041065 (2016).
B. Bertini, M. Collura, J. De Nardis, and M. Fagotti, Transport in Out-of-Equilibrium $XXZ$ Chains: Exact Profiles of Charges and Currents, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**117**]{}, 207201 (2016).
V. E. Korepin, N. M. Bogoliubov, and A. G. Izergin, Quantum Inverse Scattering Method and Correlation Functions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993).
R. J. Baxter, Exactly Solved Models in Statistical Mechanics (Dover Publications, New York, 2007).
M. Tetel’man, Lorentz group for two-dimensional integrable lattice systems, Sov. Phys. JETP [**55**]{}, 306 (1982).
K. Sogo and M. Wadati, , Prog. Theor. Phys. [**69**]{}, 431 (1983).
H. B. Thacker, Corner transfer matrices and Lorentz invariance on a lattice, Physica D [**18**]{}, 348 (1986).
B. M. McCoy and T. T. Wu, Hydrogen-bonded crystals and the anisotropic heisenberg chain, Il Nuovo Cimento B (1965-1970) [**56**]{}, 311 (1968).
B. Sutherland, Two-Dimensional Hydrogen Bonded Crystals without the Ice Rule, J. Math. Phys. [**11**]{}, 3183 (1970).
R. J. Baxter, Eight-Vertex Model in Lattice Statistics, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**26**]{}, 832 (1971).
R. J. Baxter, One-Dimensional Anisotropic Heisenberg Chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**26**]{}, 834 (1971).
R. J. Baxter, Partition Function of the Eight-Vertex Lattice Model, Ann. Phys. [**70**]{}, 193 (1972).
R. J. Baxter, One-Dimensional Anisotropic Heisenberg Chain, Ann. Phys. [**70**]{}, 323 (1972).
R. J. Baxter, Eight-Vertex Model in Lattice Statistics and One-Dimensional Anisotropic Heisenberg Chain. I. Some Fundamental Eigenvectors, Ann. Phys. [**76**]{}, 1 (1973).
R. J. Baxter, Eight-Vertex Model in Lattice Statistics and One-Dimensional Anisotropic Heisenberg Chain. II. Equivalence to a Generalized Ice-type Lattice Model, Ann. Phys. [**76**]{}, 25 (1973).
R. J. Baxter, Eight-Vertex Model in Lattice Statistics and One-Dimensional Anisotropic Heisenberg Chain. III. Eigenvectors of the Transfer Matrix and Hamiltonian, Ann. Phys. [**76**]{}, 48 (1973).
M. P. Grabowski and P. Mathieu, Quantum Integrals of Motion for the Heisenberg Spin Chain, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**9**]{}, 2197 (1994).
M. P. Grabowski and P. Mathieu, Structure of the conservation laws in quantum integrable spin chains with short range interactions, Ann. Phys. [**243**]{}, 299 (1995).
N. Shiraishi, Proof of the absence of local conserved quantities in the XYZ chain with a magnetic field, EPL [**128**]{}, 17002 (2019).
M. Takahashi, Thermodynamics of One-Dimensional Solvable Models (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999).
@\#1[@@@[(S\#1)]{}]{}
\
Yuji Nozawa$ ^{\ast}$ and Kouhei Fukai\
The Institute for Solid State Physics, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8581, Japan
S1. Derivation of local conserved quantities {#s1.-derivation-of-local-conserved-quantities .unnumbered}
============================================
We derive $k$-support local conserved quantities $Q_{k}$ for $k\geq 3$. Here, we assume that $k\leq L/2$, although $Q_{k}$ obtained under the assumption is conserved for the case of $L/2<k\leq L $ as discussed in the main text. We prove that all operators in $Q_{k}$ are $(l,m)$ operators defined in the main text and derive that all coefficients of the operators are expressed as Eqs. (15)-(19). Our proof is organized as follows. First, we derive coefficients of $(k-m, m)$ operators for $m>1$ by using that of $(k, 0)$ operators Eq. (8). Then we derive conditions that the other coefficients satisfy for $Q_{k}$ to be conserved, and we present a recursive way to construct these coefficients. Finally, we derive them in closed form as shown in Eqs. (14)-(19). For later use, we define the function $r$ as $$\begin{aligned}
q^{k-2n-m,m}_{\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}}}
\equiv s{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}\right)}{\left(J_{X}J_{Y}J_{Z}\right)}^{m}{\left(\prod_{j=1}^{k-2n-2m-1}J_{A_{j}}^{1-m_{j}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\times r^{k-2n-m, m}{\left(A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}\right)}.
\label{supeq:defr}\end{aligned}$$ In this section, we prove that $$\begin{aligned}
r^{k-2n-m, m}{\left(A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}\right)}=R^{k-2n-m, m}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}\right)}, \end{aligned}$$ where the function $R$ is defined in Eqs. (16)-(19).
A. Coefficients of $(k-m, m)$ operators
---------------------------------------
In this subsection, we calculate the coefficients of $(k-m, m)$ operators in $Q_{k}$. As shown in Ref. [@shiraishi2019proof], all the $k$-support operators in $Q_{k}$ are $(k,0)$ operators. We show commutators of $(k,0)$ operators and $H$ generate only $(k-1,0)$ and $(k,1)$ operators.
Let $\overline{A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-1}}$ be an arbitrary $(k,0)$ operator. By definition, $A_{p}\neq A_{p+1}$ for all $1\leq p \leq k-2$. From the commutator of $\overline{A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-1}}$ and $H$, $(k-1)$-support operators are only generated by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{cccc}
\cline{1-4}
A_{1}&A_{2}&\cdots&A_{k-1}\\
\cline{1-1}
A_{1}
\end{array}=
\begin{array}{rcccc}
\cline{2-4}
s{\left(A_{1,2}A_{1}\right)}&A_{2}&\cdots&A_{k-1}
\end{array},\\
\begin{array}{cccc}
\cline{1-4}
A_{1}&\cdots&A_{k-2}&A_{k-1}\\
\cline{4-4}
&&&A_{k-1}
\end{array}=
\begin{array}{rccc}
\cline{2-4}
s{\left(A_{k-2,k-1}A_{k-1}\right)}&A_{1}&\cdots&A_{k-2}
\end{array},\end{aligned}$$ where $A_{\alpha,\beta}$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\{A_{\alpha},A_{\beta},A_{\alpha,\beta}\right\}}={\left\{X,Y,Z\right\}} \quad \text{for}~ A_{\alpha}\neq A_{\beta}.\end{aligned}$$ In both cases, $(k-1,0)$ operators are generated.
$k$-support operators are only generated by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{cccc}
\cline{1-4}
A_{1}&A_{2}&\cdots&A_{k-1}\\
\cline{1-1}
A_{1,2}
\end{array}=
\begin{array}{rcccc}
\cline{2-5}
s{\left(A_{1}A_{1,2}\right)}&A_{2}&A_{2}&\cdots&A_{k-1}
\end{array},\\
\begin{array}{cccc}
\cline{1-4}
A_{1}&\cdots&A_{k-2}&A_{k-1}\\
\cline{4-4}
&&&A_{k-2,k-1}
\end{array}=
\begin{array}{rcccc}
\cline{2-5}
s{\left(A_{k-1}A_{k-2,k-1}\right)}&A_{1}&\cdots&A_{k-2}&A_{k-2}
\end{array},\end{aligned}$$ and if $A_{p+1}\neq A_{p-1}$ for $1< p < k-1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
\cline{1-7}
A_{1}&\cdots&A_{p-1}&A_{p}&A_{p+1}&\cdots&A_{k-1}\\
\cline{4-4}
&&&A_{p-1}&&&
\end{array}=
\begin{array}{rccccccc}
\cline{2-8}
s{\left(A_{p+1}A_{p-1}\right)}&A_{1}&\cdots&A_{p-1}&A_{p+1}&A_{p+1}&\cdots&A_{k-1}
\end{array},\\
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
\cline{1-7}
A_{1}&\cdots&A_{p-1}&A_{p}&A_{p+1}&\cdots&A_{k-1}\\
\cline{4-4}
&&&A_{p+1}&&&
\end{array}=
\begin{array}{rccccccc}
\cline{2-8}
s{\left(A_{p-1}A_{p+1}\right)}&A_{1}&\cdots&A_{p-1}&A_{p-1}&A_{p+1}&\cdots&A_{k-1}
\end{array}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, only $(k,1)$ operators are generated. Note that since $A_{p-1}\neq A_{p}$ and $A_{p}\neq A_{p+1}$, $A_{p+1}=A_{p-1,p}$ if $A_{p-1}\neq A_{p+1}$.
Here, let us consider $(k,1)$ operators generated by the commutators. In the case of $k>3$, $(k-1,1)$ operators are needed in $Q_{k}$ to cancel coefficients of them. To calculate coefficients of $(k-1,1)$ operators, we first consider a $(k,1)$ operator whose hole is at the leftmost side, namely, $\overline{A_{1}^{2}A_{2}A_{3}\cdots A_{k-2}}$. In the exceptional case of $k=3$, $(k-1,1)$ operators cannot exist because $(l, m)$ operators satisfy $l-m\geq 2$ by definition. In this case, $\overline{A_{1}A_{2}A_{3}\cdots A_{k-2}}=\overline{A_{1}^{2}}$, and its hole is also at the rightmost side, and the coefficients of $(3,1)$ operators are cancelled by only $(3,0)$ operators because $$\begin{aligned}
&s{\left(A_{1}A_{1,2}\right)}J_{A_{1,2}}q_{\overline{A_{1}A_{2}}}^{3,0}+s{\left(A_{1,2}A_{1}\right)}J_{A_{1}}q_{\overline{A_{1,2}A_{2}}}^{3,0}+
s{\left(A_{1}A_{1,2}\right)}J_{A_{1,2}}q_{\overline{A_{2}A_{1}}}^{3,0}+s{\left(A_{1,2}A_{1}\right)}J_{A_{1}}q_{\overline{A_{2}A_{1,2}}}^{3,0}\nonumber\\
=~&J_{X}J_{Y}J_{Z}{\left[-r^{3.0}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}}\right)}-r^{3.0}{\left(\overline{A_{1,2}A_{2}}\right)}+r^{3.0}{\left(\overline{A_{2}A_{1}}\right)}+r^{3.0}{\left(\overline{A_{2}A_{1,2}}\right)}\right]}=0\end{aligned}$$ is satisfied. We assume $k>3$ hereafter. The only commutator of $(k-1,1)$ operator and $H$ that the $(k,1)$ operator generates is $$\begin{aligned}
\centering
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\cline{1-4}
A_{1}^{2}&A_{2}&\cdots&A_{k-3}&\\
\cline{5-5}
&&&&A_{k-2}
\end{array}=
\begin{array}{rccccc}
\cline{2-5}
s{\left(A_{k-3}A_{k-2}\right)}&A_{1}^{2}&A_{2}&\cdots&A_{k-3}A_{k-2}.
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&s{\left(A_{k-3}A_{k-2}\right)}J_{A_{k-2}}q^{k-1,1}_{\overline{A_{1}^{2}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-3}}}+s{\left(A_{2}A_{1,2}\right)}J_{A_{1,2}}q^{k,0}_{\overline{A_{2}A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2}}}
+s{\left(A_{1,2}A_{2}\right)}J_{A_{2}}q^{k,0}_{\overline{A_{1,2}A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2}}}
\nonumber\\
&+s{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\right)}J_{A_{2}}q^{k,0}_{\overline{A_{1}A_{1,2}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2}}}
=0.\label{supeq:(k,1)}\end{aligned}$$ By using the function $r$ in Eq. , Eq. becomes $$\begin{aligned}
r^{k-1,1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{2}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-3}}\right)}-r^{k,0}{\left(\overline{A_{2}A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2}}\right)}-r^{k,0}{\left(\overline{A_{1,2}A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2}}\right)}+r^{k,0}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{1,2}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2}}\right)}=0,\end{aligned}$$ therefore, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
r^{k-1,1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{2}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-3}}\right)}=1.
\label{supeq:(k-1,1)r1}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we have used identities for $A_{\alpha}\neq A_{\beta}$: $$\begin{aligned}
&s{\left(A_{\alpha}A_{\beta}A_{\alpha,\beta}\right)}=1,\quad s{\left(A_{\alpha}A_{\beta}\right)}=-s{\left(A_{\beta}A_{\alpha}\right)},\quad s{\left(A_{\alpha}A_{\beta}\right)}=-s{\left(A_{\alpha}A_{\alpha,\beta}\right)},\\
&J_{A_{\alpha}}J_{A_{\beta}}J_{A_{\alpha,\beta}}=J_{X}J_{Y}J_{Z}.\end{aligned}$$ In a similar manner, we have $$\begin{aligned}
r^{k-1,1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-3}^{2}}\right)}=1.
\label{supeq:(k-1,1)r2}\end{aligned}$$
We next consider a $(k,1)$ operator $\overline{A_{1}\cdots A_{p-1}A_{p}^{2}A_{p+1}\cdots A_{k-2}}$ for $1<p<k-2$. In this case, there exist two $(k-1,1)$ operators which generate it: $$\begin{aligned}
&\begin{array}{cccccccc}
\cline{2-8}
&A_{2}&\cdots&A_{p-1}&A_{p}^{2}&A_{p+1}&\cdots&A_{k-2}\\
\cline{1-1}
A_{1}&&&&&&&
\end{array}=
\begin{array}{rcccccccc}
\cline{2-9}
s{\left(A_{2}A_{1}\right)}&A_{1}&A_{2}&\cdots&A_{p-1}&A_{p}^{2}&A_{p+1}&\cdots&A_{k-2}
\end{array},\\
&\begin{array}{cccccccc}
\cline{1-7}
A_{1}&\cdots&A_{p-1}&A_{p}^{2}&A_{p+1}&\cdots&A_{k-3}&\\
\cline{8-8}
&&&&&&&A_{k-2}
\end{array}=
\begin{array}{rcccccccc}
\cline{2-9}
s{\left(A_{k-3}A_{k-2}\right)}&A_{1}&\cdots&A_{p-1}&A_{p}^{2}&A_{p+1}&\cdots&A_{k-3}&A_{k-2}
\end{array}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we obtain the condition to cancel the coefficient of $\overline{A_{1}\cdots A_{p-1}A_{p}^{2}A_{p+1}\cdots A_{k-2}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
&r^{k-1,1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}\cdots A_{p-1}A_{p}^{2}A_{p+1}\cdots A_{k-3}}\right)}
-r^{k-1,1}{\left(\overline{A_{2}\cdots A_{p-1}A_{p}^{2}A_{p+1}\cdots A_{k-2}}\right)}\nonumber\\
&+r^{k,0}{\left(\overline{A_{1}\cdots A_{p-1}A_{p}A_{p, p+1}A_{p+1}\cdots A_{k-2}}\right)}
-r^{k,0}{\left(\overline{A_{1}\cdots A_{p-1}A_{p-1,p}A_{p}A_{p+1}\cdots A_{k-2}}\right)}=0,\end{aligned}$$ and we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
r^{k-1,1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}\cdots A_{p-1}A_{p}^{2}A_{p+1}\cdots A_{k-3}}\right)}
=r^{k-1,1}{\left(\overline{A_{2}\cdots A_{p-1}A_{p}^{2}A_{p+1}\cdots A_{k-2}}\right)}.
\label{supeq:(k-1,1)r3}\end{aligned}$$ Combining Eq. , , and , we obtain all the coefficients of $(k-1,1)$ operators: $$\begin{aligned}
r^{k-1,1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}\cdots A_{p-1}A_{p}^{2}A_{p+1}\cdots A_{k-3}}\right)}=1 \quad\text{for}~1\leq p \leq k-3.\end{aligned}$$
We prove by induction that all the coefficients of $(k-m,m)$ operators $(0\leq m\leq \lfloor k/2\rfloor -1)$ $\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2m-1}}}$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
r^{k-m,m}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2m-1}}}\right)}=1.
\label{supeq:(k-m,m)r1}\end{aligned}$$ Suppose that Eq. is satisfied for an $m=m^{\prime}<\lfloor k/2\rfloor -1$. By considering the cancellation of the coefficient of a $(k-m^{\prime},m^{\prime}+1)$ operator $\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}^{1+m_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}} A_{k-2m^{\prime}-2}}$, where $m_{1}\geq 1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&r^{k-m^{\prime}-1,m^{\prime}+1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}^{1+m_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}}}\right)}
-r^{k-m^{\prime},m^{\prime}}{\left(\overline{A_{2}A_{1}^{m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-2}}\right)}\nonumber\\
&-r^{k-m^{\prime},m^{\prime}}{\left(\overline{A_{1,2}A_{1}^{m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-2}}\right)}+r^{k-m^{\prime},m^{\prime}}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{m_{1}}A_{1,2}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-2}}\right)}\nonumber\\
&+\sum_{\substack{p=2\\m_{p}\geq 1}}^{k-2m^{\prime}-3}\left[r^{k-m^{\prime},m^{\prime}}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}\cdots A_{p}^{m_{p}}A_{p, p+1}A_{p+1}^{1+m_{p+1}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-2}}\right)}\right.
\nonumber\\
&-\left. r^{k-m^{\prime},m^{\prime}}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}\cdots A_{p-1}^{1+m_{p-1}}A_{p-1, p}A_{p}^{m_{p}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-2}}\right)}\right]
\nonumber\\
&=0,\end{aligned}$$ and by using the supposition, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
r^{k-m^{\prime}-1,m^{\prime}+1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}^{1+m_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}}}\right)}=1 \quad \text{for}~m_{1}\geq 1.
\label{supeq:(k-m,m)r2}\end{aligned}$$ In a similar manner, by considering a $(k-m^{\prime},m^{\prime}+1)$ operator $\overline{A_{0}A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}^{1+m_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}}}$, where $m_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}\geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
r^{k-m^{\prime}-1,m^{\prime}+1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}^{1+m_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}}}\right)}=1 \quad \text{for}~m_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}\geq 1,
\label{supeq:(k-m,m)r3}\end{aligned}$$ is obtained. We next consider the cancellation of the coefficient of a $(k-m^{\prime},m^{\prime}+1)$ operator $\overline{A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}^{1+m_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}} A_{k-2m^{\prime}-2}}$, and we have $$\begin{aligned}
&r^{k-m^{\prime}-1,m^{\prime}+1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}^{1+m_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}}}\right)}
-r^{k-m^{\prime}-1,m^{\prime}+1}{\left(\overline{A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}^{1+m_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}}A_{k-2m^{\prime}-2}}\right)}\nonumber\\
&+\sum_{\substack{p=2\\m_{p}\geq 1}}^{k-2m^{\prime}-3}
\left[r^{k-m^{\prime},m^{\prime}}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{p}^{m_{p}}A_{p, p+1}A_{p+1}^{1+m_{p+1}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}^{1+m_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}}A_{k-2m^{\prime}-2}}\right)}\right .\nonumber\\
&\left .-r^{k-m^{\prime},m^{\prime}}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{p-1}^{1+m_{p-1}}A_{p-1, p}A_{p}^{m_{p}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}^{1+m_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}}A_{k-2m^{\prime}-2}}\right)}\right]\nonumber\\
&=0,\end{aligned}$$ and by using the supposition, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
r^{k-m^{\prime}-1,m^{\prime}+1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}^{1+m_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}}}\right)}
=r^{k-m^{\prime}-1,m^{\prime}+1}{\left(\overline{A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}^{1+m_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}}A_{k-2m^{\prime}-2}}\right)}.
\label{supeq:(k-m,m)r4}\end{aligned}$$ Combining Eqs. -, and , all the coefficients of $(k-m^{\prime}-1,m^{\prime}+1)$ operators are determined as $$\begin{aligned}
r^{k-m^{\prime}-1,m^{\prime}+1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}^{1+m_{k-2m^{\prime}-3}}}\right)}=1.
\label{supeq:(k-m,m)r5}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, in the case of $k-2m^{\prime}-4\geq 1$, there exists a consistency condition for the cancellation of the coefficient of a $(k-m^{\prime}-1,m^{\prime}+2)$ operator $\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-4}^{1+m_{k-2m^{\prime}-4}}}$, where $m_{1}\geq 1$, and $m_{k-2m^{\prime}-4}\geq 1$. For convenience, we write commutators of $(l, m)$ operators and $H$ as $[(l, m),H]$. Note that the operator cannot be generated by $[(k-m^{\prime}-2,m^{\prime}+2),H]$. The condition is represented as $$\begin{aligned}
&-r^{k-m^{\prime}-1,m^{\prime}+1}{\left(\overline{A_{2}A_{1}^{m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-4}^{1+m_{k-2m^{\prime}-4}}}\right)}-r^{k-m^{\prime}-1,m^{\prime}+1}{\left(\overline{A_{1,2}A_{1}^{m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-4}^{1+m_{k-2m^{\prime}-4}}}\right)}\nonumber\\
&+r^{k-m^{\prime}-1,m^{\prime}+1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{m_{1}}A_{1,2}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-4}^{1+m_{k-2m^{\prime}-4}}}\right)}
-r^{k-m^{\prime}-1,m^{\prime}+1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-5}^{1+m_{k-2m^{\prime}-5}}A_{{k-2m^{\prime}-5},k-2m^{\prime}-4}A_{k-2m^{\prime}-4}^{m_{k-2m^{\prime}-4}}}\right)}\nonumber\\
&+r^{k-m^{\prime}-1,m^{\prime}+1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-5}^{1+m_{k-2m^{\prime}-5}}A_{k-2m^{\prime}-4}^{m_{k-2m^{\prime}-4}}A_{{k-2m^{\prime}-5},k-2m^{\prime}-4}}\right)}\nonumber\\
&+r^{k-m^{\prime}-1,m^{\prime}+1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-5}^{1+m_{k-2m^{\prime}-5}}A_{k-2m^{\prime}-4}^{m_{k-2m^{\prime}-4}}A_{{k-2m^{\prime}-5}}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
&+\sum_{\substack{p=2\\m_{p}\geq 1}}^{k-2m^{\prime}-5}\left [r^{k-m^{\prime}-1,m^{\prime}+1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}\cdots A_{p}^{m_{p}}A_{p, p+1}A_{p+1}^{1+m_{p+1}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-2}}\right)}\right.\nonumber\\
&\left. -r^{k-m^{\prime}-1,m^{\prime}+1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}\cdots A_{p-1}^{1+m_{p-1}}A_{p-1, p}A_{p}^{m_{p}}\cdots A_{k-2m^{\prime}-2}}\right)}\right]\nonumber\\
&=0,\end{aligned}$$ and from Eq. , it is satisfied, and therefore, Eq. is proved.
B. Consistency condition for structure of $Q_{k}$
-------------------------------------------------
In the previous subsection, we obtain the coefficients of $(k-m, m)$ operators. We next consider $[(k-m, m),H]$. In addition to $(k-m, m\pm 1)$ operators, operators which are not included in $(l, m)$ operators such as $$\begin{aligned}
&\begin{array}{cccccccc}
\cline{1-8}
A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}&\cdots& A_{p-1}^{1+m_{p-1}}&A_{p}^{m_{p}}&A_{p}&A_{p+1}^{1+m_{p+1}}&\cdots &A_{k-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2m-1}}\\
\cline{5-5}
&&&&A_{p}&&&
\end{array} \quad \text{for}~1\leq p <k-2m-1,
\label{supeq:i1}\\\nonumber\\
&\begin{array}{cccccccc}
\cline{1-8}
A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}&\cdots& A_{p-1}^{1+m_{p-1}}&A_{p}&A_{p}^{m_{p}}&A_{p+1}^{1+m_{p+1}}&\cdots &A_{k-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2m-1}}\\
\cline{4-4}
&&&A_{p}&&&&
\end{array} \quad \text{for}~1< p \leq k-2m-1,
\label{supeq:i2}\end{aligned}$$ can be generated if $m_{p}\geq 1$. However, one can prove that all the coefficients of these operators are zero by using Eq. . Here, we derive a condition of the cancellation for general $(l,m)$ operators and prove that Eq. satisfies the condition.
Let $\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{p}^{1+m_{p}}\cdots A_{l-m-1}^{1+m_{l-m-1}}}$ be an $(l,m)$ operator, where $m_{p}\geq 1$ and $1\leq p <l-m-1$. The commutator of it and $H$ generates an operator such as Eq. : $$\begin{aligned}
&\begin{array}{cccccccc}
\cline{1-8}
A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}&\cdots& A_{p-1}^{1+m_{p-1}}&A_{p}^{m_{p}}&I&A_{p+1}^{1+m_{p+1}}&\cdots &A_{l-m-1}^{1+m_{l-m-1}}
\end{array}
\nonumber\\\nonumber\\
\equiv~&
s{\left(A_{p,p+1}A_{p}\right)}\times
\begin{array}{cccccccc}
\cline{1-8}
A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}&\cdots& A_{p-1}^{1+m_{p-1}}&A_{p}^{m_{p}}&A_{p}&A_{p+1}^{1+m_{p+1}}&\cdots &A_{l-m-1}^{1+m_{l-m-1}}\\
\cline{5-5}
&&&&A_{p}&&&
\end{array}.\end{aligned}$$ This operator is also generated in a similar manner of Eq. as $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{cccccccc}
\cline{1-8}
A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}&\cdots& A_{p-1}^{1+m_{p-1}}&A_{p}^{m_{p}}&A_{p+1}&A_{p+1}^{1+m_{p+1}}&\cdots &A_{l-m-1}^{1+m_{l-m-1}}\\
\cline{5-5}
&&&&A_{p+1}&&&
\end{array}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we obtain the condition for these terms to be cancelled using the function $r$: $$\begin{aligned}
r^{l,m}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}\cdots A_{p-1}^{1+m_{p-1}}A_{p}^{1+m_{p}}A_{p+1}^{1+m_{p+1}}\cdots A_{l-m-1}^{1+m_{l-m-1}}}\right)}=r^{l,m}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}\cdots A_{p-1}^{1+m_{p-1}}A_{p}^{m_{p}}A_{p+1}^{2+m_{p+1}}\cdots A_{l-m-1}^{1+m_{l-m-1}}}\right)},
\label{supeq:condition}\end{aligned}$$ for all $1\leq p <l-m-1$.
Obviously, Eq. satisfies Eq. . In addition, all the coefficients we obtain below, *i.e.*, Eqs. (15)-(19), also satisfy the condition, and therefore, only $(l, m)$ operators are included in $Q_{k}$.
C. Conditions for coefficients of $Q_{k}$
-----------------------------------------
We derive conditions for coefficients of $(k-2n-m,m)$ operators for $n>0$. Suppose that, for all $0\leq n^{\prime}<n$ and $0\leq m^{\prime}\leq k/2 -n^{\prime}-1$, all the coefficients of $(k-2n^{\prime}-m^{\prime},m^{\prime})$ operators are determined. We can add $(k-2n+1,0)$ operators to $Q_{k}$ if $(k-2n+2,0)$ operators generated by their commutators with $H$ are cancelled. This degree of freedom corresponds to the addition of $Q_{k-2n+1}$ to $Q_{k}$. Here, we set coefficients of $(k-2n+1,0)$ operators zero. To obtain coefficients of $(k-2n,0)$ operators, we next consider $(k-2n+1,0)$ operators generated by commutators. Let $\overline{A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n}}$ be a $(k-2n+1,0)$ operator. The condition for coefficients of them to be cancelled is given as $$\begin{aligned}
&r^{k-2n,0}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n-1}}\right)}-r^{k-2n,0}{\left(\overline{A_{2}A_{3}\cdots A_{k-2n}}\right)}\nonumber\\
+~&J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}r^{k-2n+1,1}{\left(\overline{A_{2}A_{2}A_{3}\cdots A_{k-2n}}\right)}
-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-1,k-2n}}r^{k-2n+1,1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}\cdots A_{k-2n-2}A_{k-2n-1}A_{k-2n-1}}\right)}\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{p=2}^{k-2n-1}{\left[J^{2}_{A_{p-1}}r^{k-2n-1,1~\text{or}~2}{\left(\overline{A_{1}\cdots A_{p-1}A_{p+1}A_{p+1}\cdots A_{k-2n}}\right)}-J^{2}_{A_{p+1}}r^{k-2n-1,1~\text{or}~2}{\left(\overline{A_{1}\cdots A_{p-1}A_{p-1}A_{p+1}\cdots A_{k-2n}}\right)}\right]}
\nonumber\\
+~&J^{2}_{A_{2}}r^{k-2n+2,0}{\left(\overline{A_{2}A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n}}\right)}
+J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}r^{k-2n+2,0}{\left(\overline{A_{1,2}A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
-~&J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-1}}r^{k-2n+2,0}{\left(\overline{A_{1}\cdots A_{k-2n-1}A_{k-2n}A_{k-2n-1}}\right)}
-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-1,k-2n}}r^{k-2n+2,0}{\left(\overline{A_{1}\cdots A_{k-2n-1}A_{k-2n}A_{k-2n-1,k-2n}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
=~&0.
\label{supeq:condition0hole}\end{aligned}$$ In the third line, $r^{k-2n-1,1~\text{or}~2}=r^{k-2n-1,1}$ if $A_{p-1}\neq A_{p+1}$, and $r^{k-2n-1,2}$ if $A_{p-1}= A_{p+1}$. However, Eq. does not depend on the function $r^{k-2n-1,2}$ because if $A_{p-1}=A_{p+1}$, the sum of two terms of $p$ in the third line is zero. Eq. is invariant under the transformation $r^{k-2n,0}\to r^{k-2n,0}+a$, where $a$ is an arbitrary constant. This corresponds to the addition of $a Q_{k-2n}$ to $Q_{k}$, and we can fix this degree of freedom freely. In this Letter, we fix it for the coefficients of $S_{0}\equiv 1$ to be zero. After this fixing, the function $r^{k-2n,0}$ is uniquely determined.
We further suppose that, for $0\leq m^{\prime\prime}\leq m-1$, all the coefficients of $(k-2n-m^{\prime\prime},m^{\prime\prime})$ operators are determined. We derive conditions for coefficients of $(k-2n-m,m)$ operators for $n>0$ and $m>0$. We consider $(k-2n-m+1,m)$ operators generated by commutators. Let $\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m}}}$ be a $(k-2n-m+1,m)$ operator. We first consider the case of $m_{1}\geq 1$ and $m_{k-2n-2m}=0$. In this case, conditions of the cancellation are given as $$\begin{aligned}
&r^{k-2n-m,m}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}}\right)}
-r^{k-2n-m+1,m-1}{\left(\overline{A_{2}A_{1}^{m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
-~&r^{k-2n-m+1,m-1}{\left(\overline{A_{1,2}A_{1}^{m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
+~&r^{k-2n-m+1,m-1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{m_{1}}A_{1,2}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{\substack{p=2\\m_{p}\geq 1}}^{k-2n-2m-1}
\left[r^{k-2n-m+1,m-1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}\cdots A_{p}^{m_{p}}A_{p, p+1} A_{p+1}^{1+m_{p+1}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}}\right)}\right .
\nonumber\\
-~&\left. r^{k-2n-m+1,m-1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}\cdots A_{p-1}^{1+m_{p-1}}A_{p-1,p}A_{p}^{m_{p}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}}\right)}\right]
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{\substack{p=2\\m_{p}=0}}^{k-2n-2m-1}
\left[J^{2}_{A_{p-1}}r^{k-2n-m+1,m+1~\text{or}~m+2}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}\cdots
A_{p-1}^{1+m_{p-1}}A_{p+1}^{2+m_{p+1}}A_{p+2}^{1+m_{p+2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}}\right)}\right.
\nonumber\\
-~&\left. J^{2}_{A_{p+1}}r^{k-2n-m+1,m+1~\text{or}~m+2}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}\cdots
A_{p-2}^{1+m_{p-2}}A_{p-1}^{2+m_{p-1}}A_{p+1}^{1+m_{p+1}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}}\right)}\right ]
\nonumber\\
-~&J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}r^{k-2n-m+1,m+1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-2}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-2}}A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{2+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
+~&J^{2}_{A_{2}}r^{k-2n-m+2,m}{\left(\overline{A_{2}A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
+~&J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}r^{k-2n-m+2,m}{\left(\overline{A_{1,2}A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
-~&J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1}}r^{k-2n-m+2,m}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}A_{k-2n-2m-1}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
-~&J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}r^{k-2n-m+2,m}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
=~&0.
\label{supeq:conditionmhole1}\end{aligned}$$
In the case of $m_{1}=0$ and $m_{k-2n-2m}=0$, conditions are given as $$\begin{aligned}
&r^{k-2n-m,m}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}}\right)}
-r^{k-2n-m,m}{\left(\overline{A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{\substack{p=2\\m_{p}\geq 1}}^{k-2n-2m-1}
\left[r^{k-2n-m+1,m-1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{p}^{m_{p}}A_{p, p+1} A_{p+1}^{1+m_{p+1}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}}\right)}\right .
\nonumber\\
-~&\left. r^{k-2n-m+1,m-1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{p-1}^{1+m_{p-1}}A_{p-1,p}A_{p}^{m_{p}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}}\right)}\right]
\nonumber\\
+~&J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}r^{k-2n-m+1,m+1}{\left(\overline{A_{2}^{2+m_{2}}A_{3}^{1+m_{3}}\cdots
A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
-~&J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}r^{k-2n-m+1,m+1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}A_{3}^{1+m_{3}}\cdots
A_{k-2n-2m-2}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-2}}A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{2+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{\substack{p=2\\m_{p}=0}}^{k-2n-2m-1}
\left[J^{2}_{A_{p-1}}r^{k-2n-m+1,m+1~\text{or}~m+2}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots
A_{p-1}^{1+m_{p-1}}A_{p+1}^{2+m_{p+1}}A_{p+2}^{1+m_{p+2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}}\right)}\right.
\nonumber\\
-~&\left. J^{2}_{A_{p+1}}r^{k-2n-m+1,m+1~\text{or}~m+2}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots
A_{p-2}^{1+m_{p-2}}A_{p-1}^{2+m_{p-1}}A_{p+1}^{1+m_{p+1}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}}\right)}\right ]
\nonumber\\
+~&J^{2}_{A_{2}}r^{k-2n-m+2,m}{\left(\overline{A_{2}A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
+~&J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}r^{k-2n-m+2,m}{\left(\overline{A_{1,2}A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
-~&J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1}}r^{k-2n-m+2,m}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}A_{k-2n-2m-1}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
-~&J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}r^{k-2n-m+2,m}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
=~&0,
\label{supeq:conditionmhole2}\end{aligned}$$ which relates two coefficients in the first line. By using Eqs. -, all the coefficients of $(k-2n-2m,m)$ operators are determined.
Consistency conditions are as follows. First, we consider the case of $m_{1}=0$ and $m_{k-2n-2m}\geq 1$. Conditions for the case are similar to Eq. and given as $$\begin{aligned}
-~&r^{k-2n-m,m}{\left(\overline{A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m}}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
+~&r^{k-2n-m+1,m-1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}^{m_{k-2n-2m}}A_{k-2n-2m-1}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
+~&r^{k-2n-m+1,m-1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}^{m_{k-2n-2m}}A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
-~&r^{k-2n-m+1,m-1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}A_{k-2n-2m}^{m_{k-2n-2m}}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{\substack{p=2\\m_{p}\geq 1}}^{k-2n-2m-1}
\left[r^{k-2n-m+1,m-1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{p}^{m_{p}}A_{p, p+1} A_{p+1}^{1+m_{p+1}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m}}}\right)}\right .
\nonumber\\
-~&\left. r^{k-2n-m+1,m-1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{p-1}^{1+m_{p-1}}A_{p-1,p}A_{p}^{m_{p}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m}}}\right)}\right]
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{\substack{p=2\\m_{p}=0}}^{k-2n-2m-1}
\left[J^{2}_{A_{p-1}}r^{k-2n-m+1,m+1~\text{or}~m+2}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots
A_{p-1}^{1+m_{p-1}}A_{p+1}^{2+m_{p+1}}A_{p+2}^{1+m_{p+2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m}}}\right)}\right.
\nonumber\\
-~&\left. J^{2}_{A_{p+1}}r^{k-2n-m+1,m+1~\text{or}~m+2}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots
A_{p-2}^{1+m_{p-2}}A_{p-1}^{2+m_{p-1}}A_{p+1}^{1+m_{p+1}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m}}}\right)}\right ]
\nonumber\\
+~&J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}r^{k-2n-m+1,m+1}{\left(\overline{A_{2}^{2+m_{2}}A_{3}^{1+m_{3}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m}}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
-~&J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1}}r^{k-2n-m+2,m}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m}}A_{k-2n-2m-1}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
-~&J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}r^{k-2n-m+2,m}{\left(\overline{A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}^{k-2n-2m}A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
+~&J^{2}_{A_{2}}r^{k-2n-m+2,m}{\left(\overline{A_{2}A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m}}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
+~&J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}r^{k-2n-m+2,m}{\left(\overline{A_{1,2}A_{1}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}A_{k-2n-2m}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m}}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
=~&0.
\label{supeq:conditionmhole3}\end{aligned}$$ Second, in the case of $k-2n-2m-2\geq 1$, by considering the cancellation of the coefficient of a $(k-2n-m, m+1)$ operator $\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-2}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-2}}}$, where $m_{1}\geq 1$ and $m_{k-2n-2m-2}\geq 1$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
-~&r^{k-2n-m,m}{\left(\overline{A_{2}A_{1}^{m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-2}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-2}}}\right)}-r^{k-2n-m,m}{\left(\overline{A_{1,2}A_{1}^{m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-2}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-2}}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
+~&r^{k-2n-m,m}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{m_{1}}A_{1,2}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-2}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-2}}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
+~&r^{k-2n-m,m}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-3}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-3}}A_{k-2n-2m-2}^{m_{k-2n-2m-2}}A_{k-2n-2m-3}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
+~&r^{k-2n-m,m}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-3}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-3}}A_{k-2n-2m-2}^{m_{k-2n-2m-2}}A_{k-2n-2m-3,k-2n-2m-2}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
-~&r^{k-2n-m,m}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-3}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-3}}A_{k-2n-2m-3,k-2n-2m-2}A_{k-2n-2m-2}^{m_{k-2n-2m-2}}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{\substack{p=2\\m_{p}\geq 1}}^{k-2n-2m-3}
\left[r^{k-2n-m,m}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}\cdots A_{p}^{m_{p}}A_{p, p+1} A_{p+1}^{1+m_{p+1}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-2}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-2}}}\right)}\right .
\nonumber\\
-~&\left. r^{k-2n-m,m}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}\cdots A_{p-1}^{1+m_{p-1}}A_{p-1,p}A_{p}^{m_{p}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-2}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-2}}}\right)}\right]
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{\substack{p=2\\m_{p}=0}}^{k-2n-2m-3}
\left[J^{2}_{A_{p-1}}r^{k-2n-m,m+2~\text{or}~m+3}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}\cdots
A_{p-1}^{1+m_{p-1}}A_{p+1}^{2+m_{p+1}}A_{p+2}^{1+m_{p+2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-2}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-2}}}\right)}\right.
\nonumber\\
-~&\left. J^{2}_{A_{p+1}}r^{k-2n-m,m+2~\text{or}~m+3}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}\cdots
A_{p-2}^{1+m_{p-2}}A_{p-1}^{2+m_{p-1}}A_{p+1}^{1+m_{p+1}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-2}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-2}}}\right)}\right ]
\nonumber\\
+~&J^{2}_{A_{2}}r^{k-2n-m+1,m+1}{\left(\overline{A_{2}A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-2}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-2}}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
+~&J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}r^{k-2n-m+1,m+1}{\left(\overline{A_{1,2}A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-2}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-2}}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
-~&J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-3}}r^{k-2n-m+1,m+1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-2}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-2}}A_{k-2n-2m-3}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
-~&J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-3,k-2n-2m-2}}r^{k-2n-m+1,m+1}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-2}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-2}}A_{k-2n-2m-3,k-2n-2m-2}}\right)}
\nonumber\\
=~&0.
\label{supeq:conditionlrhole}\end{aligned}$$
As a result, by solving Eqs. -, one can obtain all the coefficients.
D. Recursive way to construct coefficients of $Q_{k}$
-----------------------------------------------------
In the previous subsections, we derive the conditions for the coefficients. Here, we show that one can calculate them in a simple recursive way. We first present the way and prove that the coefficients calculated by it are the solution of Eqs. -. Suppose that $r^{k-2n-m, m}$ does not depend on where holes are, *i.e.*, $r^{l, m}$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
r^{k-2n-m, m}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}}\right)}\equiv R^{k-2n-m, m}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}\right)},
\label{supeq:defrR}\end{aligned}$$ We note that the function $R$ is unknown here. From Eq. , in the case of $m=0$, $$\begin{aligned}
R^{k-m, m}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2m-1}\right)}=1=S_{0}.\end{aligned}$$ $S_{p}$ is the function defined in Eq. (19): $$\begin{aligned}
S_{p}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{l}\right)}\equiv
\begin{cases}
\sum_{1\leq j1\leq j2\leq\cdots\leq jp\leq l} J^{2}_{A_{j1}}J^{2}_{A_{j2}}\cdots J^{2}_{A_{jp}} & (p\geq 1),\\
1 & (p=0),
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where $A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{l}$ is a character string of length $l\geq 1$, and $A_{1}$, $A_{2}$, …, $A_{l}$ take one of ${\left\{X,Y,Z\right\}}$, respectively. By definition, $S_{p}$ is symmetric with respect to the exchange of the characters $A_{\alpha}\leftrightarrow A_{\beta}$. Therefore, $S_{p}$ is a symmetric polynomial in $J^{2}_{A_{1}},J^{2}_{A_{2}},\ldots , J^{2}_{A_{l}}$ and depends only on the number of $X$, $Y$, and $Z$ in $A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{l}$. In addition, we introduce $a_{n}$ in Eq. (18): $$\begin{aligned}
a_{n}\equiv \frac{J^{2}_{X}(J^{2(n+2)}_{Y}-J^{2(n+2)}_{Z})+J^{2}_{Y}(J^{2(n+2)}_{Z}-J^{2(n+2)}_{X})+J^{2}_{Z}(J^{2(n+2)}_{X}-J^{2(n+2)}_{Y})}{(J^{2}_{X}-J^{2}_{Y})(J^{2}_{Y}-J^{2}_{Z})(J^{2}_{Z}-J^{2}_{X})}.\end{aligned}$$ For example, $a_{-2}=a_{-1}=0$, $a_{0}=1$, $a_{1}=J^{2}_{X}+J^{2}_{Y}+J^{2}_{Z}$, and $a_{2}=J^{4}_{X}+J^{4}_{Y}+J^{4}_{Z}+J^{2}_{X}J^{2}_{Y}+J^{2}_{Y}J^{2}_{Z}+J^{2}_{Z}J^{2}_{X}$. $a_{n}$ is characterized as follows. Let us consider the division of a monomial $t^{n+2}$ by $(t-J^{2}_{X})(t-J^{2}_{Y})(t-J^{2}_{Z})$. $a_{n}$ is the coefficient of $t^{2}$ in the remainder: $$\begin{aligned}
t^{n+2}=(t-J^{2}_{X})(t-J^{2}_{Y})(t-J^{2}_{Z})(\text{a polynomial with respect to}~t)+
a_{n}t^{2}+(a_{n+1}-a_{1}a_{n})t+J^{2}_{X}J^{2}_{Y}J^{2}_{Z}a_{n-1},\end{aligned}$$ and therefore, we obtain an identity $$\begin{aligned}
J^{2(n+2)}_{A}=a_{n}J^{4}_{A}+(a_{n+1}-a_{1}a_{n})J^{2}_{A}+J^{2}_{X}J^{2}_{Y}J^{2}_{Z}a_{n-1}\quad \text{for}~ A=X, Y, \text{or} ~Z.
\label{supeq:anid}\end{aligned}$$
After calculating $R^{k-2n-m^{\prime}, m^{\prime}}$ for all $0\leq m^{\prime}\leq k/2-n-1$, $R^{k-2(n+1)-m, m}$ for $0\leq m\leq k/2-(n+1)-1$ is obtained as follows. Suppose that $R^{k-2n-(m+1), m+1}$ calculated is written as $$\begin{aligned}
R^{k-2n-(m+1), m+1}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-3}\right)}=\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}g^{k-2n-(m+1), m+1}_{n-\tilde{n}}S_{\tilde{n}}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-3}\right)},
\label{supeq:rec1o}\end{aligned}$$ where $g^{k-2n-(m+1), m+1}_{n+1-\tilde{n}}$ does not depend on $A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-3}$, and $g^{k-2n-(m+1), m+1}_{0}=1$. Then $R^{k-2(n+1)-m, m}$ is obtained by the replacement $S_{\tilde{n}}\to S_{\tilde{n}+1}$ and the addition of $g^{k-2(n+1)-m, m}_{n+1}$: $$\begin{aligned}
R^{k-2(n+1)-m, m}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-3}\right)}=&\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}g^{k-2n-(m+1), m+1}_{n-\tilde{n}}S_{\tilde{n}+1}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-3}\right)}
\label{supeq:rec1a}\nonumber\\
&+g^{k-2(n+1)-m, m}_{n+1}\\
\equiv&\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n+1}g^{k-2(n+1)-m,m}_{n+1-\tilde{n}}S_{\tilde{n}}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-3}\right)}\end{aligned}$$ where $g^{k-2(n+1)-m, m}_{\tilde{n}}$ is determined as $$\begin{aligned}
g^{k-2(n+1)-m,m}_{\tilde{n}}&=g^{k-2n-(m+1),m+1}_{\tilde{n}}\quad \text{for}~0\leq \tilde{n}\leq n,
\label{supeq:rec1d}\\
g^{k-2(n+1), 0}_{n+1}&=0,\label{supeq:rec1b}\\
g^{k-2(n+1)-m, m}_{n+1}&=g^{k-2(n+1)-(m-1), m-1}_{n+1}+\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}~g^{k-2n-m, m}_{n-\tilde{n}}a_{\tilde{n}+1}\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n+1}g^{k-2(n+1)-(m-1), m-1}_{n+1-\tilde{n}}a_{\tilde{n}}.
\label{supeq:rec1c}\end{aligned}$$ In this way, all the coefficients can be constructed. For example, Figure. \[supfig:rexample\] shows the function $R^{k-2n-m,m}$ for $2\leq k\leq 11$.
![$R^{k-2n-m,m}$ for $2\leq k\leq 11$, where the support is $k-2n-m$, and the hole is $m$.[]{data-label="supfig:rexample"}](rexample-1.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
We prove that the coefficients satisfy Eqs. -. From Eq. , Eq. is satisfied obviously. We next consider Eq. . It is useful for our proof to use properties of $S_{p}$ given as $$\begin{aligned}
S_{p}{\left(A_{0}A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{l}\right)}&=
\sum_{\tilde{p}=0}^{p}J^{2\tilde{p}}_{A_{0}}S_{p-\tilde{p}}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{l}\right)},
\label{supeq:sp1}\\
S_{p}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{\tilde{l}-1}A_{\tilde{l}+1}\cdots A_{l}\right)}&=S_{p}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{\tilde{l}-1}A_{\tilde{l}}A_{\tilde{l}+1}\cdots A_{l}\right)}-J^{2}_{A_{\tilde{l}}}S_{p-1}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{\tilde{l}-1}A_{\tilde{l}}A_{\tilde{l}+1}\cdots A_{l}\right)}.
\label{supeq:sp2}\end{aligned}$$ $R^{k-2(n-1),0}$ and $R^{k-2(n-1)-1,1}$ can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
R^{k-2(n-1),0}&=g_{0}S_{n-1}+g_{1}S_{n-2}+\cdots+g_{n-3}S_{2}+g_{n-2}S_{1}+g_{n-1}S_{0},
\label{supeq:k-2n+20}\\
R^{k-2(n-1)-1,1}&=h_{0}S_{n-1}+h_{1}S_{n-2}+\cdots+h_{n-3}S_{2}+h_{n-2}S_{1}+h_{n-1}S_{0},
\label{supeq:k-2n+11}\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{0}=h_{0}=1$ and $g_{n-1}=0$. Then, by using Eqs. -, $$\begin{aligned}
R^{k-2n,0}&=h_{0}S_{n}+h_{1}S_{n-1}+\cdots+h_{n-3}S_{3}+h_{n-2}S_{2}+h_{n-1}S_{1},
\label{supeq:k-2n0}\\
h_{l}&=\sum_{\tilde{l}=0}^{l}g_{l-\tilde{l}}a_{\tilde{l}}
\label{supeq:hl}.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting Eqs. - into the left-hand side of Eq. and using the properties Eqs. , -, and with a notation $\overline{S}_{p}\equiv S_{p}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n}\right)}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&{\left(J^{2}_{A_{1}}-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&{\left(J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-1,k-2n}}\right)}
\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
+{\left(J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-1,k-2n}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n}}-J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}J^{2}_{A_{1}}\right)}
\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{p=2}^{k-2n-1}{\left[{\left(J^{2}_{A_{p-1}}-J^{2}_{A_{p+1}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}+
{\left(J^{2}_{A_{p}}J^{2}_{A_{p+1}}-J^{2}_{A_{p-1}}J^{2}_{A_{p}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}\right]}
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}\sum_{n_{1}=0}^{\tilde{n}}{\left(J^{2(n_{1}+1)}_{A_{2}}+J^{2(n_{1}+1)}_{A_{1,2}}-J^{2(n_{1}+1)}_{A_{k-2n-1}}-J^{2(n_{1}+1)}_{A_{k-2n-1,k-2n}}\right)}g_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}-n_{1}}\nonumber\\
=~&{\left(J^{2}_{A_{1}}-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&{\left(J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-1,k-2n}}\right)}
\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
+{\left(J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-1,k-2n}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n}}-J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}J^{2}_{A_{1}}\right)}
\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&{\left(J^{2}_{A_{1}}+J^{2}_{A_{2}}-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-1}}-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}+
{\left(J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-1}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n}}-J^{2}_{A_{1}}J^{2}_{A_{2}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}\sum_{n_{1}=0}^{\tilde{n}}{\left[a_{n_{1}}{\left(J^{2}_{A_{k-2n}}-J^{2}_{A_{1}}\right)}+a_{n_{1}-1}J^{2}_{X}J^{2}_{Y}J^{2}_{Z}{\left(1/J^{2}_{A_{k-2n}}-1/J^{2}_{A_{1}}\right)}\right]}g_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}-n_{1}}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
=~&{\left(J^{2}_{A_{1}}-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&{\left(J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-1}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n}}+J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-1,k-2n}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n}}-J^{2}_{A_{1}}J^{2}_{A_{2}}-J^{2}_{A_{1}}J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}\right)}
\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}\sum_{n_{1}=0}^{n-\tilde{n}-1}{\left[a_{n_{1}}{\left(J^{2}_{A_{k-2n}}-J^{2}_{A_{1}}\right)}+a_{n_{1}-1}{\left(J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-1}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-1,k-2n}}-J^{2}_{A_{2}}J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}\right)}\right]}g_{n-n_{1}-\tilde{n}-1}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
=~&{\left(J^{2}_{A_{1}}-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&{\left(J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-1}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n}}+J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-1,k-2n}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n}}-J^{2}_{A_{1}}J^{2}_{A_{2}}-J^{2}_{A_{1}}J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}\right)}
\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&{\left(J^{2}_{A_{k-2n}}-J^{2}_{A_{1}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}+{\left(J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-1}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-1,k-2n}}-J^{2}_{A_{2}}J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
=~&\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}{\left(J^{2}_{X}J^{2}_{Y}+J^{2}_{Y}J^{2}_{Z}+J^{2}_{Z}J^{2}_{X}-J^{2}_{X}J^{2}_{Y}-J^{2}_{Y}J^{2}_{Z}-J^{2}_{Z}J^{2}_{X}\right)}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}=0,\end{aligned}$$ therefore, Eq. is satisfied.
We prove that Eq. is satisfied. $R^{k-2(n-1)-m,m}$ and $R^{k-2(n-1)-(m+1),m+1}$ for $m\geq 1$ can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
R^{k-2(n-1)-m,m}&=g_{0}S_{n-1}+g_{1}S_{n-2}+\cdots+g_{n-3}S_{2}+g_{n-2}S_{1}+g_{n-1}S_{0},
\label{supeq:k-2(n-1)-mm}\\
R^{k-2(n-1)-(m+1),m+1}&=h_{0}S_{n-1}+h_{1}S_{n-2}+\cdots+h_{n-3}S_{2}+h_{n-2}S_{1}+h_{n-1}S_{0},
\label{supeq:k-2(n-1)-(m+1)m+1}\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{0}=h_{0}=1$. $R^{k-2n-(m-1),m-1}$ and $R^{k-2n-m,m}$ are expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
R^{k-2n-(m-1),m-1}&=g_{0}S_{n}+g_{1}S_{n-1}+\cdots+g_{n-3}S_{3}+g_{n-2}S_{2}+g_{n-1}S_{1}+g_{n},
\label{supeq:k-2n-(m-1)m-1}\\
R^{k-2n-m,m}&=h_{0}S_{n}+h_{1}S_{n-1}+\cdots+h_{n-3}S_{3}+h_{n-2}S_{2}+h_{n-1}S_{1}+h_{n},
\label{supeq:k-2n-mm}\end{aligned}$$ Eq. is satisfied also in this case. Substituting Eqs. - into the left-hand side of Eq. and using the properties Eqs. , -, and with a notation $\overline{S}_{p}\equiv S_{p}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m}\right)}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}h_{n-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
-\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}\sum_{n_{1}=0}^{\tilde{n}}J^{2n_{1}}_{A_{2}}g_{n-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}-n_{1}}
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{\substack{p=2\\m_{p}\geq 1}}^{k-2n-2m-1}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}\sum_{n_{1}=0}^{\tilde{n}}{\left(J^{2n_{1}}_{A_{p, p+1}}-J^{2n_{1}}_{A_{p-1, p}}\right)}g_{n-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}-n_{1}}
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{\substack{p=2\\m_{p}=0}}^{k-2n-2m-1}{\left[{\left(J^{2}_{A_{p-1}}-J^{2}_{A_{p+1}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}+{\left(J^{2}_{A_{p}}J^{2}_{A_{p+1}}-J^{2}_{A_{p-1}}J^{2}_{A_{p}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}\right]}
\nonumber\\
-~&J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}+J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}\sum_{n_{1}=0}^{\tilde{n}}{\left(J^{2(n_{1}+1)}_{A_{2}}+J^{2(n_{1}+1)}_{A_{1,2}}-J^{2(n_{1}+1)}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1}}-J^{2(n_{1}+1)}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}\right)}g_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}-n_{1}}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
=~&\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}h_{n-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
-~&\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}\sum_{n_{1}=0}^{n-\tilde{n}}{\left(a_{n_{1}-1}J^{2}_{A_{2}}+a_{n_{1}}-a_{1}a_{n_{1}-1}+a_{n_{1}-2}J^{2}_{A_{1}}J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}\right)}g_{n-n_{1}-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{\substack{p=2\\m_{p}\geq 1}}^{k-2n-2m-1}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}\sum_{n_{1}=0}^{n-\tilde{n}}{\left[a_{n_{1}-1}{\left(J^{2}_{A_{p, p+1}}-J^{2}_{A_{p-1,p}}\right)}+a_{n_{1}-2}{\left(J^{2}_{A_{p}}J^{2}_{A_{p+1}}-J^{2}_{A_{p-1}}J^{2}_{A_{p}}\right)}\right]}g_{n-n_{1}-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{\substack{p=2\\m_{p}=0}}^{k-2n-2m-1}{\left[{\left(J^{2}_{A_{p-1}}-J^{2}_{A_{p+1}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}+{\left(J^{2}_{A_{p}}J^{2}_{A_{p+1}}-J^{2}_{A_{p-1}}J^{2}_{A_{p}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}\right]}
\nonumber\\
-~&J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}+J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&{\left(J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m}}-J^{2}_{A_{1}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}+{\left(J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}-J^{2}_{A_{2}}J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
=~&\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}h_{n-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
-\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}h_{n-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
+\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}{\left(J^{2}_{A_{1}}+J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}\right)}h_{n-\tilde{n}-1}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
-\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}J^{2}_{A_{1}}J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}h_{n-\tilde{n}-2}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{\substack{p=2\\m_{p}\geq 1}}^{k-2n-2m-1}{\left[{\left(J^{2}_{A_{p, p+1}}-J^{2}_{A_{p-1, p}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-\tilde{n}-1}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}+{\left(J^{2}_{A_{p}}J^{2}_{A_{p+1}}-J^{2}_{A_{p-1}}J^{2}_{A_{p}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-\tilde{n}-2}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}\right]}
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{\substack{p=2\\m_{p}=0}}^{k-2n-2m-1}{\left[{\left(J^{2}_{A_{p-1}}-J^{2}_{A_{p+1}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}+{\left(J^{2}_{A_{p}}J^{2}_{A_{p+1}}-J^{2}_{A_{p-1}}J^{2}_{A_{p}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}\right]}
\nonumber\\
-~&J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}+J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&{\left(J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m}}-J^{2}_{A_{1}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}+{\left(J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}-J^{2}_{A_{2}}J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
=~&-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
+{\left(J^{2}_{A_{1}}+J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-\tilde{n}-1}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
-J^{2}_{A_{1}}J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-\tilde{n}-2}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{p=2}^{k-2n-2m-1}{\left[{\left(J^{2}_{A_{p-1}}-J^{2}_{A_{p+1}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}+{\left(J^{2}_{A_{p}}J^{2}_{A_{p+1}}-J^{2}_{A_{p-1}}J^{2}_{A_{p}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}\right]}
\nonumber\\
-~&J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}+J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&{\left(J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m}}-J^{2}_{A_{1}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}+{\left(J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}-J^{2}_{A_{2}}J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
=~&-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
+{\left(J^{2}_{A_{1}}+J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-\tilde{n}-1}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
-J^{2}_{A_{1}}J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-\tilde{n}-2}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&{\left(J^{2}_{A_{1}}+J^{2}_{A_{2}}-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1}}-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}+{\left(J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m}}-J^{2}_{A_{1}}J^{2}_{A_{2}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
-~&J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}+J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&{\left(J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m}}-J^{2}_{A_{1}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}+{\left(J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}-J^{2}_{A_{2}}J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
=~&{\left(J^{2}_{X}+J^{2}_{Y}+J^{2}_{Z}-J^{2}_{X}-J^{2}_{Y}-J^{2}_{Z}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
+{\left(J^{2}_{X}J^{2}_{Y}+J^{2}_{Y}J^{2}_{Z}
+J^{2}_{Z}J^{2}_{X}-J^{2}_{X}J^{2}_{Y}-J^{2}_{Y}J^{2}_{Z}-J^{2}_{Z}J^{2}_{X}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
=~&0,\end{aligned}$$ therefore, Eq. is satisfied. Subtracting the left-hand side of Eq. from that of Eq. , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
-~&\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}h_{n-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}+J^{2}_{A_{1}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
+J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
-J^{2}_{A_{1}}J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
+\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}\sum_{n_{1}=0}^{\tilde{n}}J^{2n_{1}}_{A_{2}}g_{n-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}-n_{1}}
\nonumber\\
=~&-\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}h_{n-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}+J^{2}_{A_{1}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
+J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
-J^{2}_{A_{1}}J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}h_{n-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
-\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}{\left(J^{2}_{A_{1}}+J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}\right)}h_{n-\tilde{n}-1}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
+\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}J^{2}_{A_{1}}J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}h_{n-\tilde{n}-2}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}=0,\end{aligned}$$ therefore, Eq. is satisfied. Subtracting the left-hand side of Eq. from that of Eq. , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}h_{n-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
-\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}\sum_{n_{1}=0}^{\tilde{n}}J^{2n_{1}}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1}}g_{n-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}-n_{1}}
\nonumber\\
=~&\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}h_{n-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
-\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}h_{n-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}{\left(J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m}}+J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}\right)}h_{n-\tilde{n}-1}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
-\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-1m}}h_{n-\tilde{n}-2}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}=0,\end{aligned}$$ therefore, Eq. is satisfied.
We next prove that Eq. is satisfied. $R^{k-2(n-1)-(m+1),m+1}$ and $R^{k-2(n-1)-(m+2),m+2}$ for $m\geq 1$ can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
R^{k-2(n-1)-(m+1),m+1}&=g_{0}S_{n-1}+g_{1}S_{n-2}+\cdots+g_{n-3}S_{2}+g_{n-2}S_{1}+g_{n-1}S_{0},
\label{supeq:k-2(n-1)-(m+1)m+1lrhole}\\
R^{k-2(n-1)-(m+2),m+2}&=h_{0}S_{n-1}+h_{1}S_{n-2}+\cdots+h_{n-3}S_{2}+h_{n-2}S_{1}+h_{n-1}S_{0},
\label{supeq:k-2(n-1)-(m+2)m+2lrhole}\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{0}=h_{0}=1$ and $h_{l}=\sum_{\tilde{l}=0}^{l}a_{l-\tilde{l}}g_{\tilde{l}}$ are satisfied. $R^{k-2n-m, m}$ is expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
R^{k-2n-m,m}&=g_{0}S_{n}+g_{1}S_{n-1}+\cdots+g_{n-3}S_{3}+g_{n-2}S_{2}+g_{n-1}S_{1}+g_{n}.
\label{supeq:k-2n-mmlrhole}\end{aligned}$$ In this proof, we use a notation $\overline{S}_{p}\equiv S_{p}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-2}\right)}$. In a similar manner to the case of Eq. , the left-hand side of Eq. becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}\sum_{n_{1}=0}^{\tilde{n}}{\left(J^{2n_{1}}_{A_{k-2n-2m-3}}-J^{2n_{1}}_{A_{2}}\right)}g_{n-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}-n_{1}}
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{p=2}^{k-2n-2m-3}{\left[{\left(J^{2}_{A_{p-1}}-J^{2}_{A_{p+1}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}+{\left(J^{2}_{A_{p}}J^{2}_{A_{p+1}}-J^{2}_{A_{p-1}}J^{2}_{A_{p}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}\right]}
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}\sum_{n_{1}=0}^{\tilde{n}}{\left(J^{2(n_{1}+1)}_{A_{2}}+J^{2(n_{1}+1)}_{A_{1,2}}-J^{2(n_{1}+1)}_{A_{k-2n-2m-3}}-J^{2(n_{1}+1)}_{A_{k-2n-2m-3,k-2n-2m-2}}\right)}g_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}-n_{1}}
\nonumber\\
=~&\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}{\left(J^{2}_{A_{1}}+J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-2}}-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-3,k-2n-2m-2}}\right)}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}{\left(J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-2}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-3,k-2n-2m-3}}-J^{2}_{A_{1}}J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}\right)}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&{\left(J^{2}_{A_{1}}+J^{2}_{A_{2}}-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-3}}-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-2}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}+{\left(J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-3}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-2}}-J^{2}_{A_{1}}J^{2}_{A_{2}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
+~&{\left(J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-2}}-J^{2}_{A_{1}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}+{\left(J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-3}}J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-3,k-2n-2m-2}}-J^{2}_{A_{2}}J^{2}_{A_{1,2}}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
=~&{\left(J^{2}_{X}+J^{2}_{Y}+J^{2}_{Z}-J^{2}_{X}-J^{2}_{Y}-J^{2}_{Z}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-1}h_{n-1-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}
\nonumber\\
~+&{\left(J^{2}_{X}J^{2}_{Y}+J^{2}_{Y}J^{2}_{Z}
+J^{2}_{Z}J^{2}_{X}-J^{2}_{X}J^{2}_{Y}-J^{2}_{Y}J^{2}_{Z}-J^{2}_{Z}J^{2}_{X}\right)}\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n-2}h_{n-2-\tilde{n}}\overline{S}_{\tilde{n}}=0,\end{aligned}$$ therefore, Eq. is satisfied. As a result, all the conditions Eqs. - are satisfied.
E. Coefficients of $Q_{k}$ in closed form
-----------------------------------------
In this subsection, we derive the coefficients of $Q_{k}$ in closed form, namely, Eqs. (14)-(19). As shown in the previous subsection, the function $r$ for $(k-2n-m,m)$ operators can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
r^{k-2n-m,m}{\left(\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}}\right)}
&\equiv R^{k-2n-m,m}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}\right)}
\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}g^{k-2n-m,m}_{n-\tilde{n}}S_{\tilde{n}}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ We define $f{\left(n, m\right)}\equiv g^{k-2n-m, m}_{n}$. Then, from the recursive way in the previous subsection, $$\begin{aligned}
R^{k-2n-m,m}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}\right)}
=\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}f{\left(n-\tilde{n},m+\tilde{n}\right)}S_{\tilde{n}}{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}\right)},\end{aligned}$$ where the function $f$ is determined as $$\begin{aligned}
f{\left(0,m\right)}&=1,
\label{supeq:f1}\\
f{\left(n,0\right)}&=0\quad (n\geq 1),
\label{supeq:f2}\\
f{\left(n,m\right)}&=\sum_{p=1}^{n}\sum_{\tilde{m}=1}^{m}a_{p}f{\left(n-p,p+\tilde{m}-1\right)} \quad (n\geq 1~\text{and}~m\geq 1).
\label{supeq:f3}\end{aligned}$$ We prove that Eq. (17) satisfies Eqs. -. Obviously, Eqs. - are satisfied. Substituting Eq. (17) into the right hand side of Eq. , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{p=1}^{n}\sum_{\tilde{m}=1}^{m}a_{p}\frac{p+\tilde{m}-1}{n+\tilde{m}-1}\sum_{p_{1}=1}^{n-p}\binom{n+\tilde{m}-1}{p_{1}}\sum_{\substack{j1,j2,\ldots,jp_{1}\geq 1\\\\j1+j2+\cdots+jp_{1}=n-p}}a_{j1}a_{j2}\cdots a_{jp_{1}}.\end{aligned}$$ Let us focus on the coefficient of $a^{n_{1}}_{j_{1}}a^{n_{2}}_{j_{2}}\cdots a^{n_{c}}_{j_{c}}$, where $j_{1}<j_{2}<\cdots <j_{c}$, $n_{1}+n_{2}+\cdots +n_{c}=N$, and $n_{1}j_{1}+n_{2}j_{2}+\cdots + n_{c}j_{c}=n$. It is given as $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{\tilde{m}=1}^{m}\sum_{l=1}^{c}\frac{j_{l}+\tilde{m}-1}{n+\tilde{m}-1}
\binom{n+\tilde{m}-1}{N-1}\frac{n_{l}(N-1)!}{n_{1}!n_{2}!\cdots n_{c}!}
=\sum_{\tilde{m}=1}^{m}\frac{n+{\left(\tilde{m}-1\right)}N}{n+\tilde{m}-1}\cdot \frac{(n+\tilde{m}-1)!}{(n+\tilde{m}-N)! n_{1}!n_{2}!\cdots n_{c}!}
\nonumber\\
=~&\frac{m(n+m-1)!}{(n+m-N)!n_{1}!n_{2}!\cdots n_{c}!}.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, the coefficient of $a^{n_{1}}_{j_{1}}a^{n_{2}}_{j_{2}}\cdots a^{n_{c}}_{j_{c}}$ in $f{\left(n, m\right)}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{m}{n+m}\binom{n+m}{N}\frac{N!}{n_{1}!n_{2}!\cdots n_{c}!}=\frac{m(n+m-1)!}{(n+m-N)!n_{1}!n_{2}!\cdots n_{c}!},\end{aligned}$$ therefore, Eq. (17) satisfies Eq. .
S2. Proof of $[Q_{k},Z]=0$ in the case of the XXZ chain {#s2.-proof-of-q_kz0-in-the-case-of-the-xxz-chain .unnumbered}
=======================================================
For the case of the $XXZ$ chain ($J_{X}=J_{Y}$), we prove that $Q_{k}$ for $k\geq 2$ is commutative with a magnetic field in the z-axis direction, *i.e.*, $[Q_{k},Z]=0$. To prove this, we focus on $(l,m)$ operators in $Q_{k}$. First, $\overline{ZZ\cdots Z}=\overline{Z^{l-m-1}}$ is commutative with $Z$ obviously. For the other $(l,m)$ operators $\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{l-m-1}^{1+m_{l-m-1}}}$, at least one character in $A_{1}$, $A_{2}$, …, $A_{l-m-1}$ is $X$ or $Y$, therefore each $(l,m)$ operator can be expressed as at least one of the following forms: $$\begin{aligned}
&\overline{C_{1}^{1+m_{1}}C_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots C_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}Z^{1+m_{\alpha+1}}\cdots},
\label{supeq:cz}\\
&\overline{\cdots Z^{1+m_{\alpha-1}}C_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}C_{\alpha+1}^{1+m_{\alpha+1}}\cdots C_{l-m-1}^{1+m_{l-m-1}}},
\label{supeq:zc}\\
&\overline{\cdots Z^{1+m_{\alpha-1}}C_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}C_{\alpha+1}^{1+m_{\alpha+1}}\cdots C_{\beta}^{1+m_{\beta}}Z^{1+m_{\beta+1}}\cdots},
\label{supeq:zcz}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{j}\in {\left\{X,Y\right\}}$ for all $j$. In addition, we define $D_{j}$ as ${\left\{C_{j},D_{j}\right\}}={\left\{X, Y\right\}}$. In the case of Eq. , we consider a commutator $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{cccc}
\cline{1-4}
C_{1}^{1+m_{1}}C_{2}^{1+m_{2}}&\cdots&C_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}~Z^{1+m_{\alpha+1}}&\cdots\\
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!Z&
\end{array}
&=
\begin{array}{ccc}
C_{1}I^{m_{1}}Z I^{m_{2}}\cdots I^{m_{\alpha}}&D_{\alpha}&I^{m_{\alpha+1}}\cdots\\
&Z&
\end{array}
\nonumber\\
&=s{\left(D_{\alpha}Z\right)}
\begin{array}{c}
C_{1}I^{m_{1}}Z I^{m_{2}}\cdots I^{m_{\alpha}}C_{\alpha}I^{m_{\alpha+1}}\cdots
\end{array}.\end{aligned}$$ The same operator is also generated from $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\cline{2-6}
&D_{1}^{1+m_{1}}&D_{2}^{1+m_{2}}&\cdots&D_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}~Z^{1+m_{\alpha+1}}&\cdots\\
&\hspace{-1.2cm}Z&&&&
\end{array}
&=
\begin{array}{ccc}
D_{1}&I^{m_{1}}Z I^{m_{2}}\cdots I^{m_{\alpha}}C_{\alpha}I^{m_{\alpha+1}}\cdots\\
\!\!Z&
\end{array}
\nonumber\\
&=s{\left(D_{1}Z\right)}
\begin{array}{c}
C_{1}I^{m_{1}}Z I^{m_{2}}\cdots I^{m_{\alpha}}C_{\alpha}I^{m_{\alpha+1}}\cdots
\end{array}.\end{aligned}$$ We prove that these two terms in $[Q_{k},Z]$ are cancelled. In the case of $J_{X}=J_{Y}$, $r^{l, m}{\left(\overline{C_{1}^{1+m_{1}}C_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots C_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}Z^{1+m_{\alpha}}\cdots}\right)}=r^{l, m}{\left(\overline{D_{1}^{1+m_{1}}D_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots D_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}Z^{1+m_{\alpha}}\cdots}\right)}$, and therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
&s{\left(D_{\alpha}Z\right)}q^{l, m}_{\overline{C_{1}^{1+m_{1}}C_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots C_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}Z^{1+m_{\alpha}}\cdots}}+
s{\left(D_{1}Z\right)}q^{l, m}_{\overline{D_{1}^{1+m_{1}}D_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots D_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}Z^{1+m_{\alpha}}\cdots}}
\nonumber\\
\propto~&s{\left(D_{\alpha}Z\right)}s{\left(C_{1}C_{2}\cdots C_{\alpha}Z\right)}+s{\left(D_{1}Z\right)}s{\left(D_{1}D_{2}\cdots D_{\alpha}Z\right)}
\nonumber\\
=~&-s{\left(C_{1}C_{2}\cdots C_{\alpha}\right)}+s{\left(D_{1}Z\right)}s{\left(D_{\alpha}Z\right)}s{\left(D_{1}D_{2}\cdots D_{\alpha}\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ By using $s{\left(XY\right)}=-s{\left(YX\right)}=1$ and $s{\left(XYX\right)}=s{\left(YXY\right)}=-1$, $$\begin{aligned}
s{\left(C_{1}C_{2}\cdots C_{\alpha}\right)}/s{\left(D_{1}D_{2}\cdots D_{\alpha}\right)}=
\begin{cases}
+1& (D_{1}=D_{\alpha}),\\
-1& (D_{1}\neq D_{\alpha}),
\end{cases}
\label{supeq:ddpm1}\end{aligned}$$ and in both cases, $$\begin{aligned}
s{\left(D_{1}Z\right)}s{\left(D_{\alpha}Z\right)}s{\left(D_{1}D_{2}\cdots D_{\alpha}\right)}=s{\left(C_{1}C_{2}\cdots C_{\alpha}\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
s{\left(D_{\alpha}Z\right)}q^{l, m}_{\overline{C_{1}^{1+m_{1}}C_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots C_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}Z^{1+m_{\alpha}}\cdots}}+
s{\left(D_{1}Z\right)}q^{l, m}_{\overline{D_{1}^{1+m_{1}}D_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots D_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}Z^{1+m_{\alpha}}\cdots}}=0\end{aligned}$$ is satisfied.
In the case of Eq. , we consider two commutators $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\cline{1-5}
\cdots&Z^{1+m_{\alpha-1}}~C_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}&C_{\alpha+1}^{1+m_{\alpha+1}}&\cdots&C_{l-m-1}^{1+m_{l-m-1}}\\
&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!Z&&&
\end{array}
&=
\begin{array}{ccc}
\cdots I^{m_{\alpha-1}}&D_{\alpha}&I^{m_{\alpha}}Z I^{m_{\alpha+1}}\cdots I^{m_{l-m-1}}C_{l-m-1}\\
&Z&
\end{array}
\nonumber\\
&=s{\left(D_{\alpha}Z\right)}
\begin{array}{c}
\cdots I^{m_{\alpha-1}}C_{\alpha}I^{m_{\alpha}}Z I^{m_{\alpha+1}}\cdots I^{m_{l-m-1}}C_{l-m-1}
\end{array},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\cline{1-5}
\cdots&Z^{1+m_{\alpha-1}}~D_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}&D_{\alpha+1}^{1+m_{\alpha+1}}&\cdots&D_{l-m-1}^{1+m_{l-m-1}}\\
&&&&\hspace{1.5cm}Z
\end{array}
&=
\begin{array}{cc}
\cdots I^{m_{\alpha-1}}C_{\alpha}I^{m_{\alpha}}Z I^{m_{\alpha+1}}\cdots I^{m_{l-m-1}}&D_{l-m-1}\\
&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!Z
\end{array}
\nonumber\\
&=s{\left(D_{l-m-1}Z\right)}
\begin{array}{c}
\cdots I^{m_{\alpha-1}}C_{\alpha}I^{m_{\alpha}}Z I^{m_{\alpha+1}}\cdots I^{m_{l-m-1}}C_{l-m-1}
\end{array}.\end{aligned}$$ In a similar manner to the case of Eq. , $$\begin{aligned}
s{\left(D_{\alpha}Z\right)}q^{l, m}_{\overline{\cdots Z^{1+m_{\alpha-1}}C_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}C_{\alpha+1}^{1+m_{\alpha+1}}\cdots C_{l-m-1}^{1+m_{l-m-1}}}}+
s{\left(D_{l-m-1}Z\right)}q^{l, m}_{\overline{\cdots Z^{1+m_{\alpha-1}}D_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}D_{\alpha+1}^{1+m_{\alpha+1}}\cdots D_{l-m-1}^{1+m_{l-m-1}}}}=0,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used $$\begin{aligned}
s{\left(D_{\alpha}Z\right)}s{\left(ZC_{\alpha}C_{\alpha+1}\cdots C_{l-m-1}\right)}=s{\left(D_{l-m-1}Z\right)}s{\left(ZD_{\alpha+1}D_{\alpha}\cdots D_{l-m-1}\right)}.\end{aligned}$$
In the case of Eq. , we consider four commutators $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\cline{1-5}
\cdots&Z^{1+m_{\alpha-1}}~C_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}&C_{\alpha+1}^{1+m_{\alpha+1}}&\cdots&C_{\beta}^{1+m_{\beta}}~Z^{1+m_{\beta+1}}\cdots\\
&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!Z&&&
\end{array}
&=
\begin{array}{ccc}
\cdots I^{m_{\alpha-1}}&D_{\alpha}&I^{m_{\alpha}}Z I^{m_{\alpha+1}}\cdots I^{m_{\beta}}D_{\beta}I^{m_{\beta+1}}\cdots\\
&Z&
\end{array}
\nonumber\\
&=s{\left(D_{\alpha}Z\right)}
\begin{array}{c}
\cdots I^{m_{\alpha-1}}C_{\alpha}I^{m_{\alpha}}Z I^{m_{\alpha+1}}\cdots I^{m_{\beta}}D_{\beta}I^{m_{\beta+1}}\cdots
\end{array},
\label{supeq:zcz1}\\
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\cline{1-5}
\cdots&Z^{1+m_{\alpha-1}}~D_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}&D_{\alpha+1}^{1+m_{\alpha+1}}&\cdots&D_{\beta}^{1+m_{\beta}}~Z^{1+m_{\beta+1}}\cdots\\
&&&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!Z
\end{array}
&=
\begin{array}{ccc}
\cdots I^{m_{\alpha-1}}C_{\alpha}I^{m_{\alpha}}Z I^{m_{\alpha+1}}\cdots I^{m_{\beta}}&C_{\beta}& I^{m_{\beta+1}}\cdots\\
&Z&
\end{array}
\nonumber\\
&=s{\left(C_{\beta}Z\right)}
\begin{array}{c}
\cdots I^{m_{\alpha-1}}C_{\alpha}I^{m_{\alpha}}Z I^{m_{\alpha+1}}\cdots I^{m_{\beta}}D_{\beta}I^{m_{\beta+1}}\cdots
\end{array},
\label{supeq:zcz2}\\
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\cline{1-5}
\cdots&Z^{1+m_{\alpha-1}}~D_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}&D_{\alpha+1}^{1+m_{\alpha+1}}&\cdots&D_{\beta}^{1+m_{\beta}}~Z^{1+m_{\beta+1}}\cdots\\
&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!Z&&&
\end{array}
&=
\begin{array}{ccc}
\cdots I^{m_{\alpha-1}}&C_{\alpha}&I^{m_{\alpha}}Z I^{m_{\alpha+1}}\cdots I^{m_{\beta}}C_{\beta}I^{m_{\beta+1}}\cdots\\
&Z&
\end{array}
\nonumber\\
&=s{\left(C_{\alpha}Z\right)}
\begin{array}{c}
\cdots I^{m_{\alpha-1}}D_{\alpha}I^{m_{\alpha}}Z I^{m_{\alpha+1}}\cdots I^{m_{\beta}}C_{\beta}I^{m_{\beta+1}}\cdots
\end{array},
\label{supeq:zcz3}\\
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\cline{1-5}
\cdots&Z^{1+m_{\alpha-1}}~C_{\alpha}^{1+m_{\alpha}}&C_{\alpha+1}^{1+m_{\alpha+1}}&\cdots&C_{\beta}^{1+m_{\beta}}~Z^{1+m_{\beta+1}}\cdots\\
&&&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!Z
\end{array}
&=
\begin{array}{ccc}
\cdots I^{m_{\alpha-1}}D_{\alpha}I^{m_{\alpha}}Z I^{m_{\alpha+1}}\cdots I^{m_{\beta}}&D_{\beta}& I^{m_{\beta+1}}\cdots\\
&Z&
\end{array}
\nonumber\\
&=s{\left(D_{\beta}Z\right)}
\begin{array}{c}
\cdots I^{m_{\alpha-1}}D_{\alpha}I^{m_{\alpha}}Z I^{m_{\alpha+1}}\cdots I^{m_{\beta}}C_{\beta}I^{m_{\beta+1}}\cdots
\end{array}.
\label{supeq:zcz4}\end{aligned}$$ Two commutators Eqs.- in $Q_{k}$ are cancelled from the identity $$\begin{aligned}
s{\left(D_{\alpha}Z\right)}s{\left(ZC_{\alpha}C_{\alpha+1}\cdots C_{\beta}Z\right)}
+s{\left(C_{\beta}Z\right)}s{\left(ZD_{\alpha}D_{\alpha+1}\cdots D_{\beta}Z\right)}=0,\end{aligned}$$ which is proved from Eq. . In a similar manner, Two commutators Eqs.- in $Q_{k}$ are cancelled. Therefore, all the commutators in $[Q_{k},Z]$ are cancelled, and $[Q_{k},Z]=0$.
S3. Case of the XXX chain {#s3.-case-of-the-xxx-chain .unnumbered}
=========================
![Values of $R^{k-2n-m, m}$ for $Q_{k}$ and $\tilde{R}^{k-2n-m, m}$ for $\tilde{Q}_{k}$, respectively in the XXX chain. $\tilde{Q}_{10},~\tilde{Q}_{8},~\tilde{Q}_{6}$, and $\tilde{Q}_{4}$ are linear combinations of $Q_{10},~Q_{8},~Q_{6}$, and $Q_{4}$. The support is $k-2n-m$, and the hole is $m$.[]{data-label="supfig:tildeq"}](qtildeq-1.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
In this section, we consider the case of the XXX chain. Without loss of generality, we can set $J_{X}=J_{Y}=J_{Z}=1$. In this case, the coefficients of the conserved quantities $Q_{k}$ we obtained in Eqs. (15)-(19) becomes $$\begin{gathered}
q^{k-2n-m,m}_{\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}}}
= s{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}\right)}R^{k-2n-m, m},
\\
R^{k-2n-m,m}
=\sum_{\tilde{n}=0}^{n}f{\left(n-\tilde{n},m+\tilde{n}\right)}S_{\tilde{n}},
\label{supeq:defxxxR}\\
f{\left(0,m\right)}=1, \quad
f{\left(n,m\right)}=
\frac{m}{n+m}\sum_{p=1}^{n}\binom{n+m}{p}\sum_{\substack{j1,j2,\ldots,jp\geq 1\\\\j1+j2+\cdots+jp=n}}\binom{j1+2}{2}\binom{j2+2}{2}\cdots \binom{jp+2}{2} \quad (n\geq 1),
\\
S_{0}= 1, \quad
S_{p}= \sum_{1\leq j1\leq j2\leq\cdots\leq jp\leq l} 1 \quad (p\geq 1),\end{gathered}$$ where we have used $a_{n}=\binom{n+2}{2}$. One main difference is that $R^{k-2n-m,m}$ does not depend on $A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}$. Using this property, we prove that $$\begin{aligned}
R^{k-2n-m,m}=R^{k-2n-(m-1),m-1}+R^{k-2(n-1)-(m+1),m+1} \quad \text{for}~m\geq 1,
\label{supeq:xxxR}\end{aligned}$$ which is discussed in the main text. To prove it, instead of calculating Eq. explicitly, we consider Eq. , which is one of the conditions $R^{k-2n-m,m}$ satisfies. Substituting $J_{X}=J_{Y}=J_{Z}=1$ into Eq. and using the property of $R^{k-2n-m,m}$, many terms are cancelled and we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&R^{k-2n-m,m}-R^{k-2n-m+1,m-1}-J^{2}_{A_{k-2n-2m-1,k-2n-2m}}R^{k-2n-m+1,m+1}
\nonumber\\
=~&R^{k-2n-m,m}-R^{k-2n-(m-1),m-1}-R^{k-2(n-1)-(m+1),m+1}=0.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, Eq. is proved, and the recursive way to obtain $R^{k-2n-m, m}$ becomes more simple.
We note that our way to fix the degrees of freedom of $Q_{k}$ is not convenient for the case of the XXX chain because $R^{k-2n,0}=R^{k-2(n-1)-1,1}$, which corresponds to Eq. for $m=0$, is not satisfied in general. However, by considering a linear combination of $Q_{k} $’s, we can obtain a set of the conserved quantities $\tilde{Q}_{k}$ ’s: $$\begin{gathered}
\tilde{Q}_{k}=\sum_{\substack{0\leq n \leq \lfloor \frac{k}{2} \rfloor-1,\\
0\leq m \leq \lfloor \frac{k-2n}{2}\rfloor-1}}\sum_{\substack{\overline{\bm{A}}:\\
(k-2n-m,m)~\text{operators}}}\tilde{q}^{k-2n-m,m}_{\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}}}\ \overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}},
\\
\tilde{q}^{k-2n-m,m}_{\overline{A_{1}^{1+m_{1}}A_{2}^{1+m_{2}}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}^{1+m_{k-2n-2m-1}}}}
= s{\left(A_{1}A_{2}\cdots A_{k-2n-2m-1}\right)}\tilde{R}^{k-2n-m, m},\end{gathered}$$ where $\tilde{R}^{k-2n-m, m}$ satisfies $$\begin{gathered}
\tilde{R}^{k-m,m}=1 \quad \text{for}~m\geq 0,
\label{supeq:tilder1}\\
\tilde{R}^{k-2n,0}=\tilde{R}^{k-2(n-1)-1,1},
\label{supeq:tilder2}\\
\tilde{R}^{k-2n-m,m}=\tilde{R}^{k-2n-(m-1),m-1}+\tilde{R}^{k-2(n-1)-(m+1),m+1} \quad \text{for}~m\geq 1.
\label{supeq:tilder3}\end{gathered}$$ The solution of Eqs. - is obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{R}^{k-2n-m,m}=\frac{(m+1)(2n+m)!}{n!(n+m+1)!},\end{aligned}$$ and we have reproduced the known structure called a Catalan tree in Refs. [@supgrabowski1994quantum; @supGRABOWSKI1995299] from our procedure. Here, $\tilde{R}^{k-2n,0}=\frac{(2n)!}{n!(n+1)!}$ is known as a Catalan number. For example, $\tilde{Q}_{10}=Q_{10}-6Q_{8}+2Q_{6}-2Q_{4}$ as shown in Fig. \[supfig:tildeq\].
[99]{} M. P. Grabowski and P. Mathieu, Quantum Integrals of Motion for the Heisenberg Spin Chain, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**9**]{}, 2197 (1994).
M. P. Grabowski and P. Mathieu, Structure of the conservation laws in quantum integrable spin chains with short range interactions, Ann. Phys. [**243**]{}, 299 (1995).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Katrin Becker$^{a}$, Melanie Becker$^{a,b}$ and Johannes Walcher$^{c}$ \
*$^a$ Texas A & M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA\
*$^b$ Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA\
*$^c$ Institute for Advanced Study, *Princeton, NJ 08540, USA****
date: June 2007
title: Runaway in the Landscape
---
‘=11
draftcontrol
[255=255 by 60 255 by-60255 by]{}
makepapertitle
=1 5em to 4cm 5em
[^1] 2em
.5em
--------
author
--------
1em [bstract]{}
date 1.5em
------------------------------------------------------------------------
email
pubnum \#1[ pubnum[\#1]{}]{}
bstract \#1[ bstract[ ]{} ]{}
email \#1[ email[ [Email: [\#1]{}]{}]{} ]{}
PS. @paper[mkbothgobbletwo =1 oddfoot[to -to ]{} oddfoot[to ]{} evenfootoddfoot ]{}
version\#1
=1
version \#1[=1 @false currentlabel @label[\#1]{} \[\#1\] ]{} @bibitembibitem @lbibitemlbibitem =1 bibitem\#1[ @bibitem[\#1]{}@@label[\#1]{}]{} lbibitem\[\#1\]\#2[ @lbibitem\[\#1\][\#2]{}@@label[\#2]{}]{} @@label\#1[ @lab @inlabel labels ]{}
1em
Introduction
============
One of the most important lessons we learned about flux compactifications in the past couple of years is that moduli fields of the internal geometry can be stabilized in these compactifications (for a review and an extensive list of references see [@Grana:2005jc],[@dk:2006]). In a vast majority of the compactifications the addition of non-perturbative effects coming from gluino condensation or wrapped branes is needed in order to stabilize all the moduli. This is not totally unexpected [@dise] if one insists on working with a small parameter controlling a semi-classical expansion.
It therefore came as a surprise when an explicit model with non-zero masses for all geometric moduli fields at the classical level ([*i.e.*]{} in terms of fluxes only) appeared in [@wati] in the context of the massive type IIA theory. One of the most interesting aspects of this proposal is that it exhibits a direction in the space of flux configurations on the internal manifold which is not constrained by tadpole cancellation while maintaining $\caln=1$ supersymmetry. Along this direction, one gains back a small parameter, the inverse flux number, which can be used for a perturbative expansion.
One may wonder if by going to the large flux limit one isn’t throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Namely, it has been emphasized that the masses of the geometric moduli appearing in [@wati] are actually proportional to the cosmological constant of the four-dimensional anti de Sitter (AdS) space. In other words, their Compton wavelengths are comparable to the AdS radius. So just as “tachyons” with negative mass squared above the Breitenlohner-Freedman bound, those moduli can be considered as effectively massless for all practical purposes. Note that this does not stand in the way of the fact that the vacua of [@wati] are indeed four-dimensional because the Kaluza-Klein scale is parametrically larger that the inverse AdS radius.
The question arises whether this sort of behavior of moduli masses will bear out in any runaway direction in the landscape in which one is gaining parametric control over the expansion by dialing some fluxes to be large. In this paper, we will find evidence that the answer to this question is in the affirmative. We will address this question by extending the type IIB models recently proposed in [@BVW]. Similar in spirit as in [@wati] the models proposed in [@BVW] have all moduli stabilized in terms of fluxes only, but in distinction to those of [@wati], were constructed without any small parameter at all. Control is provided by a powerful non-renormalization theorem for the flux superpotential.
Our first aim is to deform the models of [@BVW] and show that they exhibit a runaway direction in flux space similar to [@wati]. In the context of this model it will then be shown in section 4 that parametric control over the expansion is indeed closely related to masses of the size of the AdS scale.
The advantage of working in type IIB is that one has technical control over a larger variety of fluxes than in type IIA. This greater amount of freedom in dialing the fluxes might lead to the expectation that the masses of moduli are not necessarily linked to the AdS scale. We will not be able to realize this expectation, and although we will come relatively close, we view our failure as evidence that it might simply not be possible to do so. In fact, we conjecture that [*for any sequence of supersymmetric weakly coupled string vacua reaching out to the boundary of moduli space the masses of some of the moduli fields are of the order of the cosmological constant.*]{}[^2] Moduli fields emerging in compactifications of string theory to AdS or Minkowski space can be stabilized at best at strong coupling and could only be described explicitly if a weakly coupled dual conformal field theory with a large mass gap can be constructed.
Our conjecture is somewhat reminiscent of one of the general swampland conjectures of [@Ooguri] according to which boundary regions of moduli space are always signaled by the appearance of new light fields in the spectrum. This might help to further delineate features of the swampland [@swamp], and also gives support to the conjecture that the number of string vacua passing the most basic of physical cuts is finite [@Ooguri], [@finite].
It is expected that the situation changes after supersymmetry is broken (and the vacua are uplifted to de Sitter (dS) space), because then moduli fields may acquire masses that in principle could be much larger than the cosmological constant. Flux compactifications offer several mechanisms for supersymmetry breaking. In the type IIB context, the main mechanism that uplifts the AdS vacua to dS space is the one proposed in [@Kachru] by using anti-branes. This is close to the local models of [@kpv]. In [@Aganagic],[@Heckman] it was proposed that a system of branes and anti-branes on the resolved conifold is holographically dual to a flux configuration with appropriate sign flips on the deformed conifold. The advantage of the dual formulation is that supersymmetry can be broken spontaneously to ${\cal N}=0$ in terms of only fluxes. One may wonder if supersymmetry can be broken spontaneously for the compact models considered herein. In the type IIA context, such a mechanism was considered in [@vandoren]. (See [@Kallosh] for a general discussion of uplifting in IIA.) The type IIB version, on which we shall elaborate in Section 5, has two ingredients (which are mirror dual to those considered in [@vandoren]). To begin with, one turns on only fluxes of RR type, which by themselves break supersymmetry [*spontaneously*]{}, but lead to a runaway potential for the dilaton. This runaway can then be stabilized similarly to [@Kachru] in the presence of suitable non-perturbative effects, and lead to a vacuum with a positive cosmological constant! We will also show that masses of moduli can become much larger than the scale of the cosmological constant in this type of vacua.
A byproduct of our analysis is that the models first constructed in [@wati] in type IIA in fact admit a [*mirror dual*]{} description in terms of a more familiar construction in type IIB. Namely, all the fluxes considered in [@wati] (in their explicit examples, not necessarily the general case) in fact transform under mirror symmetry into ordinary RR and NS-NS three-form fluxes. The mirror transform can be done using the SYZ approach by taking into account that the 3 T-dualities are done along the directions in which there is no $H_{NS}$ flux. This claim might be surprising if one recalls that in the usual type IIB construction, supersymmetric flux configurations have an imaginary self-dual (ISD) property and therefore lead to a positive definite contribution to the D3-brane tadpole. As a consequence, there should not be any supersymmetric runaway direction in flux space which is not constrained by the tadpole. The reason for the unexpected existence of a runaway direction in flux space is an unusual prefactor in the Kähler potential for the dilaton. This prefactor is peculiar to the [*non-geometric models*]{} we consider here, and is predicted by mirror symmetry as we explain in some detail. Supersymmetric fluxes in the non-geometric type IIB models are not constrained to be ISD.
This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we review some of the relevant formulas of the type IIB model constructed in [@BVW] that will be needed in the later sections. Due to its importance in connection to the existence of strong coupling solutions, we will elaborate the non-renormalization theorem presented in [@BVW] in some more detail. In section 3 we present the equations that constrain weak coupling type IIB flux vacua. In section 4 it is shown that AdS type weak coupling solutions can be found with masses of the order of the cosmological constant. Minkowski space solutions are shown to live at strong coupling. In section 5 we present a mechanism to break supersymmetry in terms of fluxes and argue that the masses of states can in principle be much larger than the cosmological constant once the theory is uplifted to dS space. In section 6 we present our conclusions and open questions.
A Reminder of the Basics
========================
In this section we summarize some material concerning the type IIB non-geometric model constructed in [@BVW] that will be relevant in the later sections.
The concrete example we are interested in is a non-geometric model described in terms of an orientifold a of Landau-Ginzburg (LG) model. In [@BVW] it was shown that several types of four-dimensional supersymmetric vacua (Minkowski as well as AdS) exist at the Fermat point of this model. Even though these vacua emerge at strong coupling their existence is warranted due to a powerful non-renormalization theorem for the type IIB superpotential [@Vafaaug], [@DV], [@Burgess], [@BVW]. We will discuss the non-renormalization theorem in some detail in this section. In order to compute e.g. the explicit value of the masses of moduli, it is of importance to find weak coupling solutions, as will be done in the following sections.
The model {#model}
---------
We would like to compactify the type IIB theory on the mirror of a rigid Calabi-Yau manifold [^3]with $h_{11}=0$ and $h_{21}=84$. The theory we are interested in is constructed in terms of a LG model based on nine minimal models and worldsheet superpotential $$\eqlabel{fermat}
W=\sum_{i=1}^9 x_i^3,$$ divided by a ${\zet}_3$ symmetry generated by $$g:x_i \rightarrow \omega x_i,$$ with $i=1,\dots,9$ and $\omega=e^{{2\pi i\over 3}}$. Having $h_{11}=0$ the model has no Kähler moduli (or hypermultiplets except for the universal hypermultiplet) so that it is intrinsically non-geometric.
Constraints following from the tadpole cancellation condition can be satisfied by considering an orientifold of this LG model which can be obtained by dividing by worldsheet parity $\Omega_B$ dressed with a holomorphic involution $P$ in space-time $$P: (x_1,x_2, x_3 \dots x_9)=-(x_2,x_1,x_3,x_4,\dots , x_9).$$ Complex structure deformations emerge as deformations of $W$ and a basis of such deformations is given in terms of the invariant monomials of the chiral ring $$x_ix_jx_k,$$ where $i\neq j\neq k\neq i$. There are $h_{21}=63$ monomials which are invariant under the ${\zet}_3$ action as well as the orientifold action. There are no Kähler structure deformations so that the size of the manifold is not a modulus. Due to this fact, the supergravity approximation is (strictly speaking) not valid and CFT techniques need to be used to describe the internal theory. Nevertheless the vacua that we will present are perturbatively and non-perturbatively stable. As argued in [@BVW] this is due to the existence of a non-renormalization theorem of the type IIB flux superpotential, which will be presented in the next subsection in some detail.
The above LG model can also be thought of as a toroidal orbifold, where the orbifold group is a non-geometrically acting quantum symmetry [@Vafaorbifold] [@BVW]. The type IIA mirror of this model is however geometric. It can be represented in terms of a torus $T^6=(T^2)^3$ divided by a ${\zet}_3 \times {\zet}_3$ symmetry generated by $$\eqlabel{generated}
\begin{split}
g_{12}&: (z_1,z_2,z_3) \rightarrow (\omega z_1,\omega^{-1} z_2,z_3),
\\
g_{23}&: (z_1,z_2,z_3) \rightarrow (z_1,\omega z_2,\omega^{-1}z_3),
\end{split}$$ where $z_i$, $i=1,2,3$ are the coordinates of the torus.
From this representation it becomes obvious that the mirror of our model is related to the toroidal model presented in [@wati], though the action of the orbifold symmetry is somewhat different. Similarly as in [@wati] our model has three bulk moduli that correspond to the complex structures of the three tori, while the remaining moduli correspond to blow up modes.
Here we will focus on stabilizing the bulk moduli and we shall assume that blow up modes have been stabilized at a different scale. This will already give us some useful information about the moduli space. In the next section it is shown how the equations constraining the bulk moduli of the toroidal orbifold of [@wati] emerge as a special case of our equations.
Non-renormalization theorem
---------------------------
There are several arguments supporting the non-renormalization theorem of the superpotential for complex structure moduli in the type IIB theory. First indirect evidence came from the matrix model calculation of [@DV]. Here we shall elaborate a more direct argument based on supersymmetry that was already presented in [@BVW]. In general, the superpotential of an $\caln=1$ theory receives non-perturbative corrections. However, the particular $\caln=1$ theory we are interested in has its origin in a theory with $\caln=2$ supersymmetry, so that corrections to the superpotential are absent.
Compactifying the type IIB theory on a Calabi-Yau threefold will in general result in a theory with $\caln=2$ supersymmetry in $d=4$ containing $h^{21}$ vector multiplets and $h^{11}+1$ hypermultiplets (where the ‘1’ denotes the universal hypermultiplet). The $\caln=2$ supersymmetry can be broken to $\caln=1$ by adding a Fayet-Iliopoulos term [@APT], [@TV], [@Ivanov]. We are interested in the case $h^{11}=0$ which describes a theory with $h^{21}$ abelian vector multiplets and the universal hypermultiplet. To illustrate the argument it suffices to consider the simpler case of a theory with only one abelian $\caln=2$ vector multiplet, which has an expansion in terms of $\caln=1$ superfields $$\Phi=\phi^{(1)}(\tilde y,\theta)+{\sqrt 2} \tilde \theta^{\alpha}
\phi^{(2)}_{\alpha}(\tilde y,\theta)+\tilde \theta^{\alpha} \tilde
\theta_{\alpha} \phi ^{(3)}(\tilde y,\theta),$$ where $\tilde y^{\mu}=x^{\mu}+i\theta \sigma^{\mu}\bar \theta +i
\tilde \theta \sigma ^{\mu} \bar{\tilde{\theta}}$, and $\theta$, $\tilde \theta$ and their complex conjugates are superspace coordinates. The action for the $\caln=2$ vector then takes the form $$\int d^2\theta d^2\tilde \theta {\cal F}_0(\Phi),$$ where ${\cal F}_0$ is the $\caln=2$ prepotential. Supersymmetry can be broken by adding an FI term $$\int d^2\theta d^2\tilde \theta {\cal F}_0(\Phi)+\xi D,$$ where $D$ is one of the three auxiliary fields of the $\caln=2$ vector multiplet. Integrating out the auxiliary field exactly reproduces the $\caln=1$ flux superpotential containing $H_{RR}$ $$W=\int H_{RR} \wedge \Omega,$$ as $H_{RR}$ appears as an auxiliary field in the ${\cal N}=2$ vector multiplet. The superpotential is not renormalized neither perturbatively nor non-perturbatively as the $\caln=2$ prepotential for vector multiplets is not renormalized [@Vafaaug]. One simple argument for this is that in $\caln=2$ supersymmetric theories neutral hypermultiplets and vector multiplets do not couple and the dilaton is part of a hypermultiplet. Furthermore, $\alpha'$ corrections can be excluded as they contain the size of the Calabi-Yau which is a Kähler modulus. Using the $SL(2,\zet)$ symmetry of the type IIB theory we can write down the unique $SL(2,\zet)$ invariant combination of the superpotential $$W=\int G \wedge \Omega,$$ where $G=H_{RR}-\tau H_{NS}$. The complete superpotential is then not renormalized as the $\caln=2$ prepotential is not corrected. This argument is already enough to ensure the existence of Minkowski vacua, which are solutions to the equation $\partial_i W=0$, where ‘$i$’ denotes the moduli. Some more thought is needed to guarantee the existence of supersymmetric AdS vacua which are solutions to the equation $D_iW=\partial_iW+\partial_iK W=0$. This is due to Kähler invariance [@BVW]. Namely suppose we can choose the coordinates for the moduli $t_i$ in such a way that the Kähler potential has an expansion $$K=t_i\bar t_i+a_{ij}t_i\bar t_j f(t,\bar t),$$ where $t_i=\bar t_i=0$ describes our solution. Quantum corrections to $\partial_iK$ evaluated at $t_i=\bar t_i=0$ will affect the solution only by terms which are purely holomorphic $$\delta K=\delta f(t)+cc.$$ Such a correction can, however, be absorbed into the superpotential which is a holomorphic section of a line bundle $W\rightarrow
exp(-\delta f(t))W$, so that the solution is unaffected.
The non-perturbative non-renormalization theorem of the type IIB superpotential is valid for models containing no Kähler moduli. The mirror type IIA interpretation of this result is that for models with only one three-cycle there are no non-perturbative corrections, as the only available three-cycle contains $H_{NS}$ flux. We will return to possible non-perturbative corrections in Section 5.
IIB Flux Vacua at Weak Coupling
===============================
In this section we derive the equations constraining the three bulk moduli. We shall see that mirror symmetry and the duality to the IIA model of [@wati] predicts a subtle correction to the dilaton Kähler potential in type IIB, which cannot be obtained by a Kaluza-Klein reduction, in accord with the fact that our model is not geometric in the first place. We will see that this correction opens new directions in the landscape leading to an infinite set of new AdS type vacua in the large complex structure limit! Minkowski vacua with stabilized moduli are unaffected and constrained to live at strong coupling [@BVW].
Deformations
------------
The first step in our construction is to go away from the Fermat point . More precisely, we shall be interested in the LG model with superpotential $$\eqlabel{deform}
W = \sum_{i=1}^9 x_i^3 + a_1 x_1x_2x_3 + a_2x_4x_5x_6+a_3 x_7x_8x_9
+ \cdots$$ We intend to make $a_1$, $a_2$, $a_3$ large, and the dots are all other possible cubic monomials which however we will assume to be small compared with the $a_i$. The point of the deformation is that in the limit of large $a_i$, the LG-model is precisely mirror to the rigid $T^6$ orbifold . This is clear from the standard LG description of the moduli space of $T^2$. The remaining deformations of $W$ correspond to blowup moduli from the $T^6$ perspective. By going to this region of moduli space, we are able to focus on the stabilization of the three “bulk moduli” $a_1$, $a_2$, $a_3$. (All other $T^6$ moduli are projected out by the orbifold.) Thus we reduce our computation to one in the neighborhood of three copies of the large complex structure limit of $T^2$. The twisted sector moduli can then in principle be stabilized by turning on fluxes through the blowup cycles. This can be justified in principle by an exact computation of the periods, which was done for the model at hand in [@cdp], or alternatively along the lines of [@wati].
Potentials for bulk moduli
--------------------------
Let us denote the three (complex) bulk moduli as $t_1$, $t_2$, $t_3$. These moduli fields (which are related to the $a_i$ in in the usual way [@Candelas], [@Lerche]) represent the three complex structures of $T^6=(T^2)^3$. At this point we will write the formulas with all $t_i$’s in place and consider the case $t_1=t_2=t_3$ later on for calculational simplicity (though we would like to conjecture that our conclusions also hold for the more generic situation).
Let us first describe the superpotentials and Kähler potentials that are needed to describe the constraining equations for the bulk moduli. The type IIB flux superpotential [^4] $$W = \int (H_{RR} - \tau H_{NS}) \wedge\Omega = W_{RR}- \tau W_{NS},$$ is described in terms of complex structure moduli and the dilaton, while Kähler structure moduli do not appear. Here $\Omega$ denotes the holomorphic three form of the internal space and $\tau=C_0+ie^{-\phi}$ is the axio-dilaton combination. Let us rewrite this superpotential in terms of the bulk moduli by expanding the three form fluxes in terms of a cohomology basis dual to the symplectic basis $(A^I,B_J)$ of $H_3(M,\zet)$. We choose the intersection numbers to satisfy $$A^I \cap B_J=-B_J \cap A^I = \delta_J^I \qquad{\rm and } \qquad
A^I\cap A^J=B_I\cap B_J=0.$$ The dual cohomology basis is denoted by $(\alpha_I, \beta^J)$ and satisfies $$\eqlabel{basis} \int_{A^J}\alpha_I=\int \alpha_I \wedge \beta^J =
\delta_I^J \qquad{\rm and } \qquad \int_{B_J} \beta^I=\int \beta^I
\wedge \alpha_J=-\delta_J^I.$$
In terms of this basis the fluxes can be expanded as $$\eqlabel{fluxes}
\begin{split}
H_{RR}&=M_0 \a_0+M_2(\a_1+\a_2+\a_3)
-M_4(\b^1+\b^2+\b^3)-M_6\b^0,\\
H_{NS}&=N_0 \a_0+N_2(\a_1+\a_2+\a_3)
-N_4(\b^1+\b^2+\b^3)-N_6\b^0,\\
\end{split}$$ where the $M_p$’s and $N_p$’s are the flux numbers. Furthermore we take into account that the A-periods of $\Omega$ determine the coordinates on moduli space, while the B-periods determine the derivatives of the prepotential
$$z^I=\int_{A^I} \Omega, \qquad {\cal G}_I(z) = \int_{B_I}
\Omega.$$
In the large complex structure limit the prepotential of the model takes the form [@Candelas] $${\cal G}(z)=-{\frac{1}{3!}} \kappa_{IJK} {\frac{z^I z^J z^K}{z^0}} ,$$ where $\kappa_{IJK}$ are the Yukawa couplings. Since the model can be related to a torus $T^6$ the only non-vanishing Yukawa coupling is $\kappa_{123}=1$ (and symmetric permutations of the indices). The resulting superpotential is $$\begin{split}
W_{RR} &= -t_1t_2t_3 M_0 + (t_1t_2+t_1t_3+t_2t_3) M_2 + (t_1+t_2+t_3)M_4 + M_6 ,\\
W_{NS} &= - t_1t_2t_3 N_0 + (t_1t_2+t_1t_3+t_2t_3) N_2 + (t_1+t_2+t_3)N_4 + N_6, \\
\end{split}$$ which is written in terms of the affine coordinates $t^\alpha=z^\alpha/z^0$.
Having the form of the superpotential we need the form of the Kähler potential for the axio-dilaton and bulk moduli. This potential takes the form $$\eqlabel{ourkahler} K =-\log\left[ \ii (t_1-\bar t_1) (t_2-\bar
t_2)(t_3-\bar t_3) (\tau-\bar\tau)^4\right].$$ We need to pause to explain the structure of the Kähler potential for the axio-dilaton, $-4\log(\tau-\bar\tau)$ as opposed to the familiar $-\log(\tau-\bar\tau)$ (compare e.g. with the appendix of [@Giddings]). Recall that one way to define the model is to start on a large volume $T^6$, go to a symmetric point in Kähler moduli space and then orbifold in such a way as to project out all Kähler moduli (see Section \[model\]). Let us rephrase this in supergravity language, as this allows for an easier comparison with type IIA analysis of [@wati]. Assume that we have a four dimensional $\caln=2$ supergravity with some number $n_h$ of hypermultiplets, one of which is the universal hypermultiplet and some number $n_v$ of vector multiplets. In many cases, the moduli space of hypermultiplets contains a region in which the prepotential is cubic, and which can be derived by dimensional reduction from ten dimensional supergravity. Let us call it the cubic region. In type IIB this is simply the large volume regime. In type IIA, we have to be in the large volume and also in the “large complex structure limit”.
We now break $\caln=2$ to $\caln=1$ by an orientifold action and fluxes. After the orientifold projection we remain with $n_v^-$ $\caln=1$ vector multiplets and $n_h+n_v^+$ $\caln=1$ chiral multiplets. As is customary, we will continue to call the $\caln=1$ chiral multiplets which come from $\caln=2$ vector multiplets as vector multiplet moduli and those which come from $\caln=2$ hypermultiplets as hypermultiplet moduli.
Now it was shown in [@grilo], [@grimm] that after orientifold projection the Kähler potential for the hypermultiplets in the cubic region is of the form $$\eqlabel{gl} K = - \log(\tau-\bar\tau) - 2\log
\ee^{-3\phi/2}\kappa_{abc} v^av^bv^c,$$ where $v^a$ are some real coordinates on the hypermultiplet moduli space (Kähler moduli in type IIB) and $\kappa_{abc}$ are the Yukawa couplings. See in particular chapter 3, section 3 of [@grimm]. The main point of the discussion is that one should view the $v^a$ as the worldsheet couplings, whereas the holomorphic coordinates on the hypermultiplet moduli space from the spacetime point of view contain as real part the ${\rm Re}(T_a) \sim
\ee^{-\phi/2}v^a$, where $\ee^{-\phi}= {\rm Im}(\tau)$ is the dilaton. Therefore, in the large volume limit, the Kähler potential for the dilaton indeed reduces to just $-\log(\tau-\bar\tau)$, as expected from a Kaluza-Klein reduction.
Now on the torus the cubic expression is exact (as there are no worldsheet instanton corrections). We can then go to the $\zet_3\times \zet_3$ symmetric point $v^a=1/2$, and orbifold. Since orbifolding is a worldsheet operation it projects the worldsheet variables $v^a$ to their value at the orbifold point but does not touch the dilaton directly. It then follows easily from that after orientifold and orbifold the Kähler potential for the dilaton is $$K(\tau) = - 4\log(\tau-\bar\tau).$$ In a certain sense, one should view the factor of $4$ as a small volume correction to the usual expression and which emerges for the type IIB non-geometric models. This correction can only be derived by mirror symmetry and not by analytic continuation from a geometric Kaluza-Klein reduction in type IIB! In fact, [@grilo; @grimm] give a more general expression for the Kähler potential valid (in the supergravity approximation) throughout the hypermultiplet moduli space and this is what is used in [@wati] in their general analysis.
Notice that this [*non-geometric*]{} modification of the Kähler potential only affects AdS type vacua, because the determining equations for Minkowski vacua do not depend on the Kähler potential.
Tadpole cancellation and supersymmetry constraints
--------------------------------------------------
The single most interesting aspect of the modified Kähler potential for the axio-dilaton is that unbroken supersymmetry no longer requires the three-form flux to be imaginary self-dual (ISD) even in the absence of non-perturbative corrections. This renders the flux contribution to the tadpole non-positive definite and makes the tadpole cancellation condition less constraining than in the usual cases. This is essentially what allows the existence of the sequence of flux vacua with arbitrarily large flux numbers found in [@wati].
More concretely, using the explicit form of the flux superpotential the supersymmetry constraint for the axio-dilaton reads [^5] $$\eqlabel{dileom} D_\tau W =
-{1\over \tau - \bar \tau}\int (3 G + \bar G)\wedge \Omega = 0,$$ which is solved by $$\eqlabel{dilsolv} \tau = {1\over 2} {W_{RR}\over W_{NS}} \left( 3 -
e^{i \varphi}\right)\qquad {\rm where}\qquad \varphi={\rm Arg}\left(
W_{NS} \over W_{RR}\right).$$ The supersymmetry constraint for the complex structure moduli is expressed in terms of a basis $\chi_i$ of harmonic $(2,1)$ forms $$D_i W = \int G\wedge \chi_i = 0.$$ From this we see that unbroken supersymmetry requires the Hodge decomposition of $G$ to be $$G = A^i\chi_i + A^0 (-3\Omega+\bar\Omega),$$ where the $A$’s are constants. As a result $G$ can have a component in the $(3,0)$ direction which is IASD, as opposed to the $(2,1)$ and $(0,3)$ components which are ISD. This violates the standard lore according to which supersymmetric three-form fluxes in Calabi-Yau compactifications of type IIB string theory are constrained to be $(2,1)$ and in particular ISD. Moreover, this renders the flux contribution to the tadpole non-positive definite. To see this we write the tadpole in the form $$\int H_{RR} \wedge H_{NS} =\ii\ee^{\phi} \int G\wedge \bar G.$$ Using that the metric on moduli space $g_{i \bar j}$ and the Kähler potential $K$ are represented by $$g_{i \bar j}=\ii e^K \int\chi_i \wedge\bar\chi_j > 0 \qquad {\rm and } \qquad
\ii\int\bar\Omega\wedge\Omega = e^K> 0,$$ and are both positive definite we obtain a negative contribution to the tadpole from a particular component of $G$ namely $$i\int (-3\Omega + \bar\Omega) \wedge(-3\bar\Omega+\Omega) = - 8 e^K <
0.$$ Thus by turning on enough of this flux component we get an indefinite space of supersymmetric fluxes. This results in flux vacua with a finite tadpole in new directions of flux space. Some of these directions allow flux numbers tending to infinity. In the following we would like to discuss the properties of the string theory landscape along these directions.
Supersymmetric Solutions
========================
Our goal in this section is to search for supersymmetric solutions at weak coupling and for large values of the complex structure. We shall look for solutions with diagonal complex structure $(t_1=t_2=t_3)$ and will later conjecture that this simpler situation reproduces all the features of the more generic situation. For three equal complex structures the flux superpotentials take the form $$\eqlabel{diagonal}
\begin{split}
W_{RR}&= - t^3 M_0 + 3 t^2 M_2 + 3 t M_4 + M_6, \\
W_{NS} &= - t^3 N_0 + 3 t^2 N_2 + 3 tN_4+N_6.
\end{split}$$ The Kähler potential for the bulk moduli and axio-dilaton is $$\eqlabel{kahler} K =-\log\left[ \ii (t-\bar t)^3 (\tau -
\bar\tau)^4\right].$$ Using this form of the potentials we shall now look for Minkowski as well as AdS type supersymmetric solutions.
Minkowski space solutions
-------------------------
In the following we will see that supersymmetric Minkowski space solutions do not emerge for large complex structure but are confined to finite value of the complex structure and strong coupling. These are the solutions presented in [@BVW]. Groundstates corresponding to a four-dimensional Minkowski space are obtained as solutions of $$\eqlabel{minkow1} W=D_\tau W=D_t W=0,$$ which can equivalently be written as $$\eqlabel{minkow2} W_{RR}=W_{NS}=0\qquad {\rm and } \qquad \tau =
{W'_{RR}(t)\over W'_{NS}(t)}.$$ We are interested in finding physical solutions for which the imaginary parts of $t$ and $\tau$ are non-vanishing, because otherwise the solutions lie at the boundary of the moduli space. Since vanishing of the superpotentials results in cubic equations with real coefficients, complex solutions of these equations only exist if the cubic polynomials $W_{RR}$ and $W_{NS}$ have two common complex conjugate roots, [*i.e.*]{} if they factorize according to $$\begin{split}
W_{RR}& =C(t-\alpha)(t-a)(t-\bar a), \\
W_{NS}&= D(t-\beta)(t-a)(t-\bar a), \\
\end{split}$$ where $C,D,\alpha,\beta$ are real and $a$ is complex. These numbers are constrained by flux quantization condition. The complex structure is then determined from the zeros of a quadratic equation, or equivalently $$\eqlabel{quads}
t = a=a_1+i a_2.$$ Moreover, taking into account Eqs. (\[basis\]), (\[fluxes\]), (\[minkow1\]), (\[minkow2\]) the tadpole can be written in the form $$\eqlabel{tads} \int H_{RR} \wedge H_{NS}=4(M_2 N_0-N_2 M_0) (a_2)^2.$$ Note that the coefficient in front of $(a_2)^2$ is integer and cannot be made arbitrarily small nor equal to zero (the lhs of the equation does never vanish in Minkowski). As a result $a_2$ is bounded by the O3 plane charge. In the concrete examples considered in [@BVW] the largest value of the RR charge arising from an O3 plane was 12. As a result Minkowski space solutions only exist if the imaginary part of the complex structure is small like for example in the solutions found in [@BVW]. In the type IIA mirror these are solutions at small volume of the internal geometry, for which no perturbative control is expected. In the following we will see that AdS solutions do exist in the large complex structure limit.
Constraints for AdS type solutions
----------------------------------
Supersymmetric flux configurations which allow a negative cosmological constant in the external space-time are the solutions of $$D_\tau W=D_t W=0.$$ Since the vanishing of $W$ is no longer required, solutions of AdS type are less constrained. It is useful to first rewrite the superpotential in a more practical manner. For this take into account that the equation $D_{\tau}W=0$ allows us to write $\tau$ in the form[^6] $$\eqlabel{tau}
\tau = \frac 12 {W_{RR}\over W_{NS}}(3-e^{i \varphi}).$$ Inserting this form of $\tau$ into the superpotential we get a representation of the superpotential in terms of $W_{RR}$ up to a phase $$\label{superpot} W=\frac 12 W_{RR} (-1+e^{i \varphi}).$$ Using Eqs. (\[tau\]) and (\[superpot\]) as well as the form of the Kähler potential (\[kahler\]) it is easy to see that the constraint $D_t W=0$ takes the form $$\label{ci}
{\partial_t W_{RR}\over W_{RR}} -\frac 12 (3-e^{i \varphi})
{\partial_t W_{NS}\over W_{NS}}=- \frac 32 \frac{1}{t-\bar t}
(1-e^{i \varphi}).$$ This will be our starting point in the search for supersymmetric AdS configurations.
Weak coupling AdS type solutions
--------------------------------
Using the ansatz (\[diagonal\]) for the superpotentials and the constraints (\[tau\]) and (\[ci\]) we obtain the solution to the supersymmetry constraints. Different types of solutions are possible. Our aim is to present some concrete examples, leaving the search for the most general solution for future work.
### Constant $W_{NS}$
The simplest solution of Eq. (\[ci\]) is given by flux configurations in which $W_{NS}$ is constant, [*i.e.*]{}, $$W_{NS}=N_6\qquad {\rm while} \qquad W_{RR}=-t^3 M_0 + 3 t^2 M_2 + 3
t M_4 + M_6,$$ where the flux numbers $N_0$, $N_2$ and $N_4$ are set to zero. The corresponding fluxes given by Eq. (\[fluxes\]) induce a contribution to the tadpole of the form $$\int H_{RR} \wedge H_{NS}=-M_0 N_6,$$ which only constrains the flux numbers $M_0$ and $N_6$.
The modulus $t=t_1 + i t_2$ is determined from Eq. (\[ci\]) which for real and constant $W_{NS}$ takes the form $$\partial_t W_{RR} +\frac 32 {{\rm Im}(W_{RR}) \over {\rm Im} (t)} =0.$$ The imaginary part of this equation determines the real part of the complex structure $$t_1={M_2 \over M_0},$$ while the real part of the equation determines $t_2$ $$t_2 = \sqrt{\frac 53}\sqrt{-\frac{M_2^2}{M_0^2}-\frac{M_4}{M_0}}.$$ The imaginary part of the axio-dilaton which follows from Eq. (\[tau\]) is $$\tau_2 = - \frac {24}{5} \frac{M_0}{N_6} (t_2)^3.$$ Since $M_2$, $M_4$ and $M_6$ are not bounded by the orientifold charge they can be made arbitrarily large, giving us small parameters controlling the expansion, the inverse of the flux numbers. As a result solutions exist in the large complex structure and weak coupling limit, as becomes evident from the above expressions for $t_2$ and $\tau_2$. Further, the axion $\tau_1$ is fixed by Eq. (\[tau\]). This example describes the solution discussed in [@wati] as can be seen by comparing to expressions (4.6), (4.20)-(4.22) of that paper[^7]. We thus see that the non-geometric type IIB model is mirror to the massive type IIA model of [@wati] for a particular choice of our flux quantum numbers! However in type IIB we have more freedom to dial the fluxes, so that more general solutions can be constructed. Let us see an example of this next.
### Non-constant $W_{NS}$
Besides the solutions described in the previous paragraph there are more directions in the landscape parametrized by different combinations of flux numbers $N_i$ and $M_i$. One such example can be constructed in terms of flux configurations with $$W_{RR}=3 M_2 t^2 + M_6 \qquad {\rm and } \qquad W_{NS}=3 N_4 t.$$ The contribution of the fluxes to the tadpole is $$\int H_{RR} \wedge H_{NS} = 3 M_2 N_4,$$ and as a result the O3 plane charge limits the values of $M_2$ and $N_4$ while $M_6$ can be taken to be arbitrarily large. The imaginary part of the complex structure and the axio-dilaton are given by $$\label{adsweak} t_2 = \sqrt{-\frac{M_6}{9 M_2}} \qquad {\rm and }
\qquad \tau_2= - 8 i \frac{M_2}{N_4} \sqrt{t_2},$$ while the corresponding axionic partners (described in terms of the real part of $t$) vanish. (But, as will be clear from the expressions for the mass matrix in the next subsection, both $\tau_1$ and $t_1$ have a non-zero mass in those solutions.) From the result (\[adsweak\]) we observe that by taking $M_2,N_4\sim O(1)$ and $M_6$ large we obtain a weak coupling solution in the large complex structure limit. The value of the moduli scale in a different manner with the fluxes as for the solutions in the previous subsection.
The mass matrix
---------------
In the following we would like to show that in the large complex structure limit a generic property of the mass matrix of the moduli fields at the supersymmetric AdS groundstates is that it is of the order of the space-time cosmological constant.
The masses of moduli fields are determined from the second derivatives of the scalar potential at the groundstate which are given by $$\eqlabel{hessian}
\begin{split}
\partial_{\bar b} \partial_a V & = e^K\left( D_a D_c W \overline{D_d D_a W}
g^{c \bar d} - 2 g_{a \bar b} \mid W \mid^2 \right),\\
\partial_a \partial_b V & = -e^K \left(D_a D_b W\right) \bar W. \\
\end{split}$$ Here the indices $a,b,\dots$ label all the fields, [*i.e.*]{} the complex structure and the axio-dilaton. To obtain these expressions we have repeatedly used $D_a W=0$ at the groundstate. For the diagonal ansatz , we find the following expression for the second Kähler derivatives of the superpotential at the supersymmetric groundstate $$\begin{split}
D_\tau D_\tau W &= -\frac{12 W}{(\tau-\taubar)^2},\\
D_t D_\tau W & = -D_t W_{NS}, \\
D_t D_t W &= -\frac{2(\tau-\taubar)}{t-\tb} \overline{D_t W_{NS}}.
\end{split}$$ By introducing the parameters $$\eqlabel{pars} x=(\tau-\taubar)(t-\tb)\frac{D_t W_{NS}}{W} \qquad
{\rm and } \qquad y = (\tau-\taubar)(t-\tb)\frac{\overline{D_t
W_{NS}}}{W},$$ the canonically normalized mass matrix for the moduli $t$, $\tau$ written as a hermitian matrix whose entries are given in Planck units is $$M_{\rm phys}^2/\Lambda_{AdS} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac 23 -\frac{10}{108} |x|^2 & \frac{2}{9} \bar y & -\frac{\bar x}{2\sqrt{3}}
-\frac{\bar y x}{9\sqrt{3}} & \frac{\bar x}{6 \sqrt{3}} \\
\frac 29y & \frac 23 - \frac{10}{108} |x|^2 & \frac{x}{6\sqrt{3}}
& -\frac x{2\sqrt{3}} -\frac{y \bar x}{9\sqrt{3}} \\
-\frac{x}{2\sqrt{3}} - \frac{y\bar x}{9\sqrt{3}} & \frac{\bar x}{6\sqrt{3}}
& -\frac 73-\frac{1}{36}|x|^2 & 1\\
\frac{x}{6\sqrt{3}} & -\frac{\bar x}{2\sqrt{3}} -\frac{x \bar y}{9\sqrt{3}}
& 1 & -\frac{7}{3}-\frac{1}{36} |x|^2
\end{pmatrix}.$$ From this explicit expression we see that the essential parameter that controls the masses is $x$ from (note that $y=\bar
x$ up to a phase). So we need to look for solutions of $D_t W=0$ with large $|x|$ and large $t_2$.
Next we use that $W_{RR}$ and $W_{NS}$ have one real and a pair of complex conjugate roots. Since $W_{NS}$ is a polynomial of third degree in $t$, having small $x$ is only possible if $t$ is close to a zero of $W_{NS}$. Since moreover $t$ is a physical field, its imaginary part should be non-vanishing. By Eq. (\[ci\]) we also need to be close to the zeros of $W_{RR}$. We write the factorization of the cubic polynomials as $$\eqlabel{factorize}
\begin{split}
W_{RR} &= C(t-\alpha)(t-a)(t-\bar a) \qquad \text{$\alpha$ real}\\
W_{NS} &= D(t-\beta)(t-b)(t-\bar b) \qquad \text{$\beta$ real}.
\end{split}$$ Using this ansatz Eq. (\[ci\]) reduces to $$\label{ask1}
\frac {1}{t-\alpha}+\frac {1}{t-a}+\frac {1}{t-\bar a}\approx\frac
12 (3-e^{i \varphi}) \left( \frac {1}{t-\beta}+\frac {1}{t-b}+\frac
{1}{t-\bar b}\right),$$ where we have neglected the term on the right hand side of Eq. (\[ci\]) since it is subleading in the large complex structure limit. In order to satisfy our constraints, the parameters $a$ and $b$ need to have a large imaginary part, and we need to look for a solution for which the real and imaginary parts of $t-a$, $t-b$ are of order 1. It is not difficult to see that Eq. (\[ask1\]) then reduces to $$\label{ask2}
( t-b)\approx (t-a) A(t) ,$$ where we have introduced the variable $A(t)$ related to the phase $\varphi$ by $$A(t) = \frac 12 (3-e^{i \varphi}).$$ Note that $\varphi$ is approximately given by $$e^{ i \varphi} \approx e^{ i \tilde \varphi} \left( {t-b \over \bar
t- \bar b}\right)\left( {\bar t-\bar a \over t- a}\right) \qquad
{\rm where} \qquad e^{i \tilde \varphi } =\left( {{t-\alpha}\over
\bar t - \alpha}\right)\left( {\bar t - \beta \over t -
\beta}\right).$$ The solvability of Eq. (\[ask2\]) now depends on the value of the phase $\tilde \varphi$. It is not difficult to see that if $e^{i
\tilde \varphi}$ is real Eq. (\[ask2\]) has trivial solutions only. On the other hand note that $$e^{i \tilde \varphi}=\left( t_1 - \alpha+ i t_2 \over t_1 - \alpha-
i t_2\right) \left( t_1 - \beta- i t_2\over t_1 - \beta+ i t_2
\right).$$ Since in the fundamental domain of $SL(2,\zet)$, $|t_1 |\leq 1/2$, a complex phase can only be obtained in the large complex structure limit if $\alpha$ and/or $\beta$ are proportional to $t_2$. However, under this assumption the tadpole reduces to $$\int H_{RR}\wedge H_{NS} = M_0 N_6-\frac 13 M_0N_0+\frac 13
M_2N_4-M_4N_2\approx C D \frac 23 (\alpha-\beta) {\rm Im}(a)^2 +
O({\rm Im} (a))$$ which implies that $\alpha=\beta$ to leading order. This forces the phase factor $e^{i \tilde \varphi}$ to be real.
We conclude that it is not possible to keep the masses large in such a large flux limit in which the complex structure moduli become very large while maintaining supersymmetry and the tadpole cancellation condition. Notice that although we have not strictly imposed that the dilaton also runs to infinity, this would not be an independent constraint in our ansatz, in which $\tau\sim C/D$, see eq. . We could have reached weak coupling if the tadpole had been satisfied.
Non-supersymmetric Solutions
============================
The supersymmetric AdS solutions of the previous section had moduli fields with masses that were too small (of the order of the AdS scale) so that these fields could be considered effectively as massless. We here want to explore the possibility that this situation is remedied after breaking supersymmetry by appropriate effects.
In a superficially similar situation, KKLT [@Kachru] proposed to uplift type IIB AdS vacua to dS space by adding anti-D3 branes. The resulting masses are of the order of the AdS scale [*before*]{} the uplift so by appropriate fine-tuning will be large compared to the positive cosmological constant after the uplift. Adding anti-D3-branes is certainly one possibility to uplift our AdS type vacua of Section 4 and to get masses of the right scale. However, anti-D3-branes break supersymmetry by hand and we would like to explore if a mechanism that breaks supersymmetry spontaneously (only with fluxes) can be found. Such a mechanism was proposed in [@Aganagic], [@Heckman] for [*non-compact*]{} models. It was shown there that a model with branes and anti-branes is holographically dual to a model containing only fluxes after a geometric transition. There is a simple generalization of spontaneous supersymmetry breaking by fluxes for [*compact*]{} models, that makes use of corrections to the scalar potential.
It was pointed out in [@vandoren] within the context of type IIA compactifications on Calabi-Yau orientifolds that perturbative corrections to the Kähler potential generate a contribution to the potential for the dilaton which is similar to the contribution of anti-D3 branes to the scalar potential for the radial modulus in KKLT. Supersymmetry can be broken spontaneously instead of by anti-branes. It was further argued in [@vandoren] that membrane instantons [@Strominger1] generate a non-perturbative correction to the superpotential of the dilaton, which resembles the non-perturbative correction to the superpotential for the radial modulus coming from gaugino condensation and wrapped D3 branes in KKLT.
Mirror symmetry implies that higher order terms in the type IIB theory result in perturbative corrections to the Kähler potential for the dilaton[^8]. Membrane instantons correspond to D(-1) instantons in the type IIB theory. The AdS type models discussed in Section 4 contain no hypermultiplets (except for the universal one), and do not have non-perturbative corrections to the superpotential according to the non-renormalization theorem. From the type IIA side this follows from the absence of membrane instantons, as the only available three-cycle contains $H_{NS}$ flux [@Strominger2]. Of course, more complicated models having more than one three-cycle could receive non-perturbative corrections, which will be discussed next or there could be corrections arising from branes wrapping cycles or the whole Calabi-Yau which are forbidden in supersymmetric solutions but which could appear once supersymmetry is broken. It is quiet possible that perturbative corrections to the Kähler potential lift the AdS type vacua of Section 4 to dS space with moduli field masses of the right magnitude. Once the numerical coefficients of all relevant type IIB interactions are known, this can be checked explicitly.
It is curious that there is a second type of rather simple type IIB vacua that break supersymmetry spontaneously. As we shall see these vacua require no sinks of RR charge in order to satisfy the tadpole cancellation condition on a compact Calabi-Yau three-fold since they have $H_{NS}=0$[^9]. Consider the scalar potential of ${\cal N}=1$ supergravity in four dimensions $$V=e^K \left( g^{a \bar b} D_a W \overline{ D_b W} - 3 |W|^2 \right),$$ where in our case $a,b$ label the axio-dilaton and complex structure moduli. It turns out that in this model moduli stabilization can be achieved using RR three-form fluxes only, [*i.e.*]{} by assuming the superpotential is of the form $$W = W_{RR} = \int H_{RR} \wedge \Omega.$$ Since in this case $W$ is independent of $\tau$ it is a matter of simple manipulations to show that $$\label{axxii}
V =e^K \left( g^{i \bar j} D_i W_{RR} \overline{D_j W_{RR}} + |
W_{RR}|^2 \right),$$ where $i,j$ label the complex structure moduli only. This expression which closely resembles the scalar potential for non-supersymmetric black holes is positive definite[^10] so we can hope to get vacua with a positive cosmological constant. However, $\tau_2$ is not stabilized since the only dependence in $\tau$ appears in the overall factor $e^K \sim {\rm Im}(\tau)^{-4}$. This last factor causes the dilaton to run to weak coupling.
One way to stabilize the axio-dilaton is to take non-perturbative corrections to the superpotential into account. Whereas we have argued in section 2 that non-perturbative effects do not affect our supersymmetric solutions discussed before, one generically expects such corrections in models with more than one hypermultiplet. However, as pointed out above, if we turn on only $H_{RR}$ flux, we can avoid orientifolding and then there are more possibilities for non-perturbative corrections even in our models. (In type IIA language, we have twice as many three-cycles to wrap membranes if we do not orientifold.) The superpotential could then take the schematic form $$\label{axxi}
W=W_{RR}+A e^{i a \tau}.$$ where $A$ and $a$ are in principle functions of the vector multiplet moduli. As a result of [*pushing down*]{} the previous vacua with non-perturbative effects, AdS type vacua with a stabilized axio-dilaton emerge! It is interesting to uplift these solutions to dS, so that the masses of moduli fields become large enough. This can again be done with perturbative corrections to the Kähler potential.
Conclusions and Open Questions
==============================
One of the simplest models in which moduli stabilization can be studied emerges when the type IIB theory is compactified on an internal [*non-geometric*]{} theory for which Kähler moduli are absent. Such a model was constructed in terms of a LG model in [@BVW]. Since the flux superpotential for the type IIB theory contains all the complex structure moduli and the dilaton, one could anticipate that the moduli can be stabilized at the classical level, [*i.e.*]{} in terms of flux only. The resulting theory is then extremely well under control because the anonymousness connected with non-perturbative effects coming from branes is lacking. In [@BVW] it was shown that Minkowski as well AdS solutions at strong coupling with all moduli stabilized by fluxes can be found. Even though these vacua live at strong coupling, their existence is guaranteed due to the non-renormalization of the type IIB flux superpotential.
In order to calculate physically relevant quantities for these vacua, such as the mass matrix, it is important to find weak coupling solutions. In this paper we have shown that four-dimensional Minkowski solutions live at strong coupling, so that the only Minkowski solutions of our model are the ones presented in [@BVW]. We have also shown that weak coupling solutions (large value of the complex structure and small value for the dilaton) of AdS type exist. For a particular choice of flux configuration our model is mirror to the type IIA model of [@wati].
We have computed the mass matrix of the AdS type weak coupling solutions and we have seen that the masses of the states are proportional to the four-dimensional cosmological constant. Being of the order of the cosmological constant, one might be worried that this implies that the masses of moduli are too small. However we anticipated that this situation would change once supersymmetry is broken and the model is uplifted to four-dimensional dS space. We have discussed that [*perturbative*]{} corrections to the Kähler potential coming from higher order interactions in the type IIB theory break supersymmetry spontaneously. Once the vacua are uplifted to dS space the moduli become heavy.
We further illustrated the existence of a simple supersymmetry breaking solution for which $H_{NS}=0$, so that no constraints are imposed by the tadpole. Non-perturbative corrections to the superpotential (if they exist) could stabilize the dilaton, while perturbative corrections to the Kähler potential could uplift these vacua to dS space.
There are several rather interesting open questions. We have considered the technically simpler case of a $T^6$ with three equal complex structures. It would be interesting to construct the generic weak coupling solutions, [*i.e.*]{} the solution for three arbitrary complex structures and to check if the masses of moduli are of order of the cosmological constant. We have conjectured that this is generically the case in all models where parametric control can be achieved, so that this would constitute a check of our conjecture.
Since our Minkowski vacua (as well as many other flux vacua in the literature) live at strong coupling, an important open question is to understand if there exists a weakly coupled dual gauge theory describing these vacua. Some earlier attempts to find a dual gauge theory for the vacua of [@wati] were made in [@Banks], where the precise form of this gauge theory was nevertheless not found. In this regard, it might be interesting to explore if a connection to the recently constructed four-dimensional Chern-Simons gauge theory in AdS can be found [@Schwarz], [@Gaiotto].
As opposed to what happens in KKLT, where free parameters coming from the number of branes and anti-branes are present, in our model there are no free constants, as these are determined by the value of the corrections to the Kähler potential and the superpotential. It will be fascinating, though probably a hard job, to compute the exact numerical value of these constants. This teaches us that in string theory there are no free lunches!
We would especially like to thank Shamit Kachru and Cumrun Vafa for many interesting discussions and comments on our manuscript. We further would like to thank Tom Banks, Aaron Bergmann, Yu-Chieh Chung, Michael Dine, Guangyu Guo, Simeon Hellerman, Joe Polchinski, Giovanni Villadoro, Stefan Vandoren, Edward Witten and Xi Yin for valuable discussions and communications. The work of K.B. was supported in part by NSF grants PHY-0505757 and the University of Texas A&M. The work of M.B. was supported by NSF grants PHY-0505757 and the University of Texas A&M. The work of J.W. was supported in part by the Roger Dashen Membership at the Institute for Advanced Study and by the NSF under grant number PHY-0503584. K.B. would like to thank the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, the Galileo Galilei Institute for Theoretical Physics and the CERN theory division for hospitality and financial support at different stages of this work. M.B. would like to thank the Harvard department of physics and the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton for hospitality and financial support while this work was carried out.
[99]{}
M. Grana, “Flux compactifications in string theory: A comprehensive review,” Phys. Rept. [**423**]{}, 91 (2006), \[\]. M. R. Douglas and S. Kachru, “Flux compactification,” \[\]. M. Dine and N. Seiberg, “Is The Superstring Weakly Coupled?,” Phys. Lett. B [**162**]{}, 299 (1985). O. DeWolfe, A. Giryavets, S. Kachru and W. Taylor, “Type IIA moduli stabilization,” JHEP [**0507**]{}, 066 (2005), \[\].
K. Becker, M. Becker, C. Vafa and J. Walcher, “Moduli stabilization in non-geometric backgrounds,” Nucl. Phys. B [**770**]{}, 1 (2007) \[\]. C. Vafa, “The string landscape and the swampland,” \[\]. H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “On the geometry of the string landscape and the swampland,” Nucl. Phys. B [**766**]{}, 21 (2007), \[\]. S. Gukov, H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, unpublished.
B. S. Acharya and M. R. Douglas, “A finite landscape?,” \[\]. M. R. Douglas, “Understanding the landscape,” \[\]. S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. Linde and S. P. Trivedi, “de Sitter vacua in string theory,” Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 046005 (2003), \[\]. S. Kachru, J. Pearson and H. L. Verlinde, “Brane/flux annihilation and the string dual of a non-supersymmetric field theory,” JHEP [**0206**]{}, 021 (2002) \[\]. K. Becker, Y. C. Chung and G. Guo, to appear.
M. Aganagic, C. Beem, J. Seo and C. Vafa, “Geometrically induced metastability and holography,”, \[\]. J. J. Heckman, J. Seo and C. Vafa, “Phase structure of a brane/anti-brane system at large N,” \[\]. R. Kallosh and M. Soroush, “Issues in type IIA uplifting,” \[\]. F. Saueressig, U. Theis and S. Vandoren, “On de Sitter vacua in type IIA orientifold compactifications,” Phys. Lett. B [**633**]{}, 125 (2006) \[\]. K. Becker, M. Becker, M. Haack and J. Louis, “Supersymmetry breaking and alpha’-corrections to flux induced potentials,” JHEP [**0206**]{}, 060 (2002), \[\].
M. B. Green and M. Gutperle, “Effects of D-instantons,” Nucl. Phys. B [**498**]{}, 195 (1997), \[\]. N. Berkovits and C. Vafa, “Type IIB R\*\*4 H\*\*(4g-4) conjectures,” Nucl. Phys. B [**533**]{}, 181 (1998), \[\].
K. Becker, M. Becker and A. Strominger, “Five-Branes, Membranes And Nonperturbative String Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B [**456**]{}, 130 (1995), \[\]. M. Marino, R. Minasian, G. W. Moore and A. Strominger, “Nonlinear instantons from supersymmetric p-branes,” JHEP [**0001**]{}, 005 (2000), \[\]. C. Vafa, “Superstrings and topological strings at large N,” J. Math. Phys. [**42**]{}, 2798 (2001) \[\].
R. Dijkgraaf and C. Vafa, “A perturbative window into non-perturbative physics,” \[\]. C. P. Burgess, C. Escoda and F. Quevedo, “Nonrenormalization of flux superpotentials in string theory,” JHEP [**0606**]{}, 044 (2006), \[\]. C. Vafa, “String Vacua and Orbifoldized L-G Models,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**4**]{}, 1169 (1989). I. Antoniadis, H. Partouche and T. R. Taylor, “Spontaneous Breaking of N=2 Global Supersymmetry,” Phys. Lett. B [**372**]{}, 83 (1996), \[\]. T. R. Taylor and C. Vafa, “RR flux on Calabi-Yau and partial supersymmetry breaking,” Phys. Lett. B [**474**]{}, 130 (2000), \[\]. E. A. Ivanov and B. M. Zupnik, “Modified N = 2 supersymmetry and Fayet-Iliopoulos terms,” Phys. Atom. Nucl. [**62**]{}, 1043 (1999) \[Yad. Fiz. [**62**]{}, 1110 (1999)\], \[\]. P. Candelas, E. Derrick and L. Parkes, “Generalized Calabi-Yau manifolds and the mirror of a rigid manifold,” Nucl. Phys. B [**407**]{}, 115 (1993), \[\]. P. Candelas, X. C. De La Ossa, P. S. Green and L. Parkes, “A pair of Calabi-Yau manifolds as an exactly soluble superconformal theory,” Nucl. Phys. B [**359**]{}, 21 (1991). W. Lerche, D. J. Smit and N. P. Warner, “Differential equations for periods and flat coordinates in two-dimensional topological matter theories,” Nucl. Phys. B [**372**]{}, 87 (1992), \[\]. S. B. Giddings, S. Kachru and J. Polchinski, “Hierarchies from fluxes in string compactifications,” Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 106006 (2002), \[\]. T. W. Grimm and J. Louis, “The effective action of type IIA Calabi-Yau orientifolds,” Nucl. Phys. B [**718**]{}, 153 (2005) \[\]. T. W. Grimm, “The effective action of type II Calabi-Yau orientifolds,” Fortsch. Phys. [**53**]{}, 1179 (2005) \[\]. T. Banks and K. van den Broek, “Massive IIA flux compactifications and U-dualities,” JHEP [**0703**]{}, 068 (2007), \[\].
J. H. Schwarz, “Superconformal Chern-Simons theories,” JHEP [**0411**]{}, 078 (2004), \[\]. D. Gaiotto and X. Yin, “Notes on superconformal Chern-Simons-matter theories,” \[\].
[^1]: -0to 1
[^2]: It seems likely that such a generic constraint on AdS vacua could be effectively studied using general properties of the putative dual conformal field theories. Such an approach was advocated by many people and was used concretely in [@Ooguritwo] in constraining the mass gap for AdS$_3$ vacua using the modularity of 2d CFT partition function.
[^3]: We restrict here to the model with $h_{21}=84$ for concreteness, even though a model with $h_{21}=90$ was also constructed in [@BVW]. Our subsequent analysis will be similar for the second model constructed in [@BVW].
[^4]: \[noted\] Note that the model is not geometric, so that the integrals that follow have to be interpreted from the conformal fields theory point of view, as was done in [@BVW].
[^5]: As noted in the foot of page , the integrals here and below obtain their meaning from the CFT/LG description of our model.
[^6]: It is sensible to divide by $W_{RR}$ or $W_{NS}$ as Minkowski solutions are not a subclass of the AdS type solutions derived in the following.
[^7]: The reader should not get confused by the counting of moduli, which is 36 in [@wati] and 63 for us. The precise statement is that a subclass of our models is mirror to [@wati]. Both models have 3 bulk moduli describing tori coordinates and only differ in the number of blow up modes, which are not considered here in detail.
[^8]: One of these terms was used in [@Louis] to correct the Kähler potential, but it is possible to have more contributions from the higher order terms in the action appearing in [@Green], [@Berkovits].
[^9]: These supersymmetry breaking configurations will be further discussed in [@stud].
[^10]: The factor 4 in the dilaton Kähler potential is important to achieve this.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We have observed a complete sample of 21 nearby ($D < 70h^{-1} {\rm
Mpc}$) Fanaroff & Riley Type I galaxies with [HST/WFPC2]{} and detected dust disks and lanes in 19 of them. The radio jets are roughly perpendicular to the dust which is used to constrain the Doppler boosting factors of the radio jet and cores. The VLBA core flux correlates with the central H$\alpha$+\[NII\] flux which might indicate that the VLBA core is dominated by an isotropic component. Twelve galaxies show nuclear optical sources. We discuss various possible origins for this emission.
author:
- 'G. A. Verdoes Kleijn, P. T. de Zeeuw'
- 'S. A. Baum, C. P. O’Dea, R. P. van der Marel, C. Xu'
- 'C. M. Carollo, J. Noel-Storr'
title: 'The Nuclei of Nearby Radio-Loud Ellipticals'
---
Introduction
============
The Fanaroff & Riley Type I (FR I) radio galaxies in the nearby ($z<0.03$) universe can be characterized as early-type galaxies with jets emanating from an AGN which is powered by a black hole (BH). These AGN display only weak nuclear optical line and continuum emission. The FR I stellar hosts and their unresolved cores bear resemblance to both normal early-type galaxies with radio cores, which constitute a considerable fraction of the nearby early-type population ($\sim 50\%$ at $M_B=-22$, cf. Sadler 1997) and to early-type galaxies with unresolved blue optical spikes (Carollo et al. 1997). On the other hand, the FR I galaxies appear to be scaled-down versions of powerful radio galaxies and quasars in the distant universe which have strong nuclear optical line and continuum emission. For a physical understanding of the connection between active and normal galaxies, it is important to determine how these low-luminosity active nuclei and their jets form and evolve. Relevant questions are then: where did the accreted matter come from, how does this accretion trigger jet formation, and what is the origin of the optical AGN luminosity? We are using [HST]{} to study the centers of a complete sample of FR I radio galaxies and to isolate weak optical nuclear activity from the stellar background (Verdoes Kleijn et al. 1999). Here we discuss further interpretation of the [WFPC2]{} data in combination with VLBA radio data presented by Xu et al. (2000).
Orientation of Dust and Radio Jets
==================================
We detected dust in the centres of 19 galaxies (Fig. 1). The dust extent ranges from a few hundred pc to a few kpc. In eleven galaxies, the dust morphology is smooth and elliptical (a ‘disk’), while in eight galaxies it is filamentary with wisps and bends (a ‘lane’). Lanes are roughly perpendicular to the radio jets: the position angle difference $\Delta {\rm PA}$ is in the range $68\deg -
90\deg$. Processes that cause such a preferred orientation are discussed in e.g., Quillen & Bower (1999). By contrast, all disks closely align with the galaxy major axis. The $\Delta {\rm PA}$ of the disk major axis and radio jet is in the range range $23\deg -
90\deg$. One can assume that (i) dust disks are circular and (ii) the brightest side of the radio jet is approaching the observer. The allowed range of the [*intrinsic*]{} angle $\alpha$ between the sides of both the dust disk symmetry axis and the radio jet axis that are closest to the direction of the line of sight, can then be computed. By definition, the radio jet inclination is in the range $0\deg-90\deg$, but $\alpha$ can take a value in the range $0\deg -
180\deg$. The right panel in Fig. 1 shows that the allowed range of $\alpha$ for each dust disk is constrained such that the dust disk symmetry axis and the radio jet axis tend to ‘align’ (i.e., $\alpha <
90\deg$). Further analysis indicates that the angle with the line of sight for jet and disk are expected to differ typically by only $\sim
10\deg - 20\deg$. A similar result was derived by Capetti & Celotti (1999) for a small pilot sample.
Doppler Boosting of Radio Jets and Cores
========================================
Xu et al. (2000) report the surface brightness ratio $S$ of VLBA jet and counter jet at 1670 MHz for the sample galaxies. If the jets are intrinsically symmetric and ejected in opposite directions, $S$ depends on jet inclination and velocity (e.g., Urry & Padovani 1995). As discussed in the previous section, the dust disk inclination is a reasonable estimator for the jet inclination and can constrain the jet velocity. Fig. 2 plots $S$ versus jet inclination together with model predictions for constant jet velocity $v$, assuming an isotropic continuous jet with no preferred direction of the magnetic field and a radio spectral index $\alpha=0.75$ ($f_{\nu} \sim
{\nu}^{-\alpha}$) typical for jets. The observed values of $S$ cannot constrain $v$ very well given that most are lower limits (i.e., the counter jet is not observed) and given the $\sim 20\deg$ uncertainty of the jet inclination. For NGC 315 we can constrain the Lorentz factor to be $\gamma > 10$.
The VLBA radio-core flux (unresolved at the parsec scale) correlates tightly with central [H$\alpha$+\[NII\]]{} flux (Fig. 2). Interestingly, a similar correlation is found for radio-core galaxies (Ho 1999). If the [H$\alpha$+\[NII\]]{} flux is emitted isotropically and correlates tightly with intrinsic VLBA core flux, the observed scatter in the correlation might be due to Doppler boosting. The low scatter in the correlation then constrains $\gamma < 2$. Indeed, no dependence of the VLBA core flux on dust disk inclination is found. Thus it seems that the VLBA core flux is dominated by a relatively isotropic component instead of a relativistic jet. This isotropic component might have uncollimated relativistic motion.
Nuclear Optical Sources
=======================
Twelve galaxies show blue nuclear optical sources (NOS) unresolved with [WFPC2]{}, corresponding to sizes of tens of parsec or less. The right panel in Fig. 2 shows NOS flux versus VLBA radio core flux. The observed correlation is significant at the 99.999% level (generalized Kendall’s Tau test). This agrees with results by Chiaberge, Capetti, & Celotti (1999). Radio core emission is generally assumed to be self-absorped synchrotron emission. The correlation might indicate that the NOS is also synchrotron emission. The radio-to-optical spectral index varies between 0.43 and 0.85. These values are consistent with those found for galaxies in our sample with extended optical jets: 3C 66B, 3C 31 and M87 (Butcher, van Breugel & Miley 1980; Biretta, Stern, & Harris 1991). The slope of the log-log correlation, $s=1.04 \pm 0.24$, although not well determined, is consistent with a power-law spectral energy distribution (SED) from radio to optical wavelengths.=-2
Alternatively, the NOS might be emission from the accretion disk and/or flow. For example, Di Matteo et al. (2000) obtain a reasonable fit to the nuclear radio to X-ray SED of M87 using an ADAF model with matter outflow. However, the models that fit the observed X-ray SED underpredict the nuclear optical emission by a factor of $\sim
4$. Furthermore, Di Matteo et al. note evidence for a contribution to the flux by the synchrotron jet at radio and millimeter fluxes. If the accretion disk is inside an optically thick torus, the NOS detection rate implies an opening angle $\sim 130\deg$. Broad emission-line regions are commonly detected in powerful AGN but typically not detected in FR Is. The large opening angle would then suggest BLRs are generally not present in FR I galaxies
Finally, the NOS might be produced by a nuclear starburst. The high NOS detection rate would require a continuous starburst on time scales on the order of the radio-source lifetime, typically estimated to be $10^{7-8}$ yr (cf. Chiaberge, Capetti, & Celotti 1999). However, detailed studies of the optical nuclear spectra of M87 and M84 indicate their NOS are indeed not produced by a starburst but by non-thermal AGN emission ( Kormendy 1992; van der Marel 1994; Bower et al. 2000).\
Biretta, J.A., Stern, C.P., & Harris, D.E. 1991, , 101, 1632
Bower, G.A., et al. 2000, , 534, 189
Butcher, H.R., van Breugel, W., & Miley, G.K. 1980, , 235, 749
Capetti, A., & Celotti, A. 1999, , 304, 434
Carollo, C.M., Franx, M., Illingworth, G.D., & Forbes, D.A. 1997 ApJ 481, 710
Chiaberge, M., Capetti, A., & Celotti, A. 1999, , 349, 77
Di Matteo, T., Quataert, E., Allen, S.W., Narayan, R., & Fabian, A.C. 2000, , 311, 507
Ho, L.C. 1999, , 510, 631
Kormendy, J. 1992, , 388, L9
Quillen, A.C., Bower, G.A. 1999, , 522, 718
Sadler, E.M. 1997, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 115, The Nature of Elliptical Galaxies, ed. M. Arnaboldi, G.S. Da Costa, & P. Saha (San Fransisco: ASP), 411
Urry, C.M., Padovani, P. 1995, , 107, 803
van der Marel, R.P. 1994, , 270, 271
Verdoes Kleijn, G.A., Baum, S.A., de Zeeuw, P.T., O’Dea, C.P. 1999, , 118, 2592
Xu, C., Baum, S.A., O’Dea, C.P., Wrobel, J.M., & Condon, J.J. 2000, , submitted (astro-ph/0009124)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We obtain macroscopic adiabatic thermodynamic transformations by space-time scalings of a microscopic Hamiltonian dynamics subject to random collisions with the environment. The microscopic dynamics is given by a chain of oscillators subject to a varying tension (external force) and to collisions with external independent particles of “infinite mass”. The effect of each collision is to change the sign of the velocity without changing the modulus. This way the energy is conserved by the resulting dynamics. After a diffusive space-time scaling and coarse-graining, the profiles of volume and energy converge to the solution of a deterministic diffusive system of equations with boundary conditions given by the applied tension. This defines an irreversible thermodynamic transformation from an initial equilibrium to a new equilibrium given by the final tension applied. Quasi-static reversible adiabatic transformations are then obtained by a further time scaling. Then we prove that the relations between the limit work, internal energy and thermodynamic entropy agree with the first and second principle of thermodynamics.'
address:
- |
CEREMADE, UMR CNRS 7534\
Université Paris-Dauphine\
75775 Paris-Cedex 16, France\
` [email protected]`
- 'Departamento de Matem'' atica, PUC-RIO, Rua Marquês de São Vicente, no. 225, 22453-900, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, ` [email protected]`'
- 'UMPA ENS Lyon, UMR CNRS 5669, 46 allée d’Italie, 69007 Lyon, FRANCE.'
author:
- Stefano Olla
- Marielle Simon
title: Microscopic derivation of an adiabatic thermodynamic transformation
---
[^1]
[Introduction]{}\[sec:intro\]
=============================
In classical thermodynamics, adiabatic transformations are defined as those processes that change the state of the system from an equilibrium to another only by the action of an external force. This means that the system is isolated, not in contact with any *heat bath*, and that the change in its internal energy $U$ is only due to the work done by the applied external force. The second law of thermodynamics states that the only possible adiabatic transformations are those that do not decrease the thermodynamic entropy $S$ of the system. Irreversible adiabatic transformations assume a strict increase of the entropy, while if entropy remains constant the transformation is called reversible or quasi-static.
When connecting this transformation to the microscopic dynamics of the atoms constituting the system, we understand this thermodynamic behaviour as the macroscopic *deterministic* change of the observables that characterize the thermodynamic equilibria (in the case studied in this article, the energy and the volume, or the temperature and the tension). We intend *macroscopic* in the sense that we would like to recover this behaviour in a large space and time scale: the thermodynamic system is composed by a huge number of atoms and we look at a very large time scale with respect to the typical frequency of atoms vibration. Mathematically this means a space-time scaling limit procedure.
We study these adiabatic transformations in a one dimensional model of a wire. Macroscopically the equilibrium states are characterized by the length $L$ and the energy $U$ (as extensive quantities), or by the temperature $T= \beta^{-1}$ and the tension $\tau$. Microscopically we model this wire by a Hamiltonian system constituted by a chain of springs attached at one extreme to a point, while at the other extreme a force $\bar\tau$ acts on the last particle. The Hamiltonian dynamics of the chain is perturbed by independent random changes of the sign of velocities. This random perturbation can be seen as the effect of collisions with *environment* particles of infinite mass moving independently, in orthogonal direction to the wire. Notice that these random collisions conserve the energy of particles, so that the dynamics is still adiabatic.
The first effect of these random perturbations is to ensure that the only parameters characterizing the macroscopic equilibrium states are the energy and the length, i.e. that the system obeys the so called 0th law of thermodynamics. In fact these random perturbations select the Gibbs probability measures on the configurations, parametrized by the conserved quantities, as the only stationary measures for the corresponding infinite dynamics (for details see [@ffl; @stefano]).
Another important consequence of these collisions is the suppression of momentum conservation, so that there is no ballistic transport on a macroscopic scale. Thus, we expect a diffusive behaviour of the energy and the volume stretch caused by a change of the exterior tension $\bar\tau$, before attaining the new equilibrium. Consequently the correct space-time macroscopic rescaling is diffusive. The change of the external force $\bar\tau$ should happen on the macroscopic time scale, i.e. very slowly with respect to the typical time scale of the dynamics of the atoms.
We expect that, under a diffusive space-time scale, the empirical profiles of the stretch and the energy, due to a change of the applied tension $\bar\tau$, evolve deterministically following the diffusive system of partial differential equations . The solution of this system eventually will converge to a new equilibrium state. This deterministic evolution of the profiles describes an irreversible adiabatic trasformation, and, as shown in , it increases the thermodynamic entropy of the system. The reversible or quasi-static transformations are then obtained by a further rescaling of time, see , similar as proposed in [@bertini-prl; @bertini-jsp; @olla]. It should be possible to obtain these quasi-static transformation in a direct limit at a larger (subdiffusive) time scale, this will be object of further investigation.
The scaling limit for the non-linear system is still out of the known mathematical techniques, as it requires to deal with the *non-gradient* energy current in the energy conservation law. Even though the convergence of the Green-Kubo formula defining the energy diffusivity is proven in [@bo2], the actual proof of the macroscopic equation requires a fluctuation-dissipation decomposition of the energy current (cf. [@os] for such decomposition in a non-linear dynamics conserving only energy). In the linear case (harmonic oscillators), there is an explicit fluctuation-dissipation decomposition of the energy current and it is possible to perform the scaling limit. This was done in [@simon] for the periodic boundary conditions case. We adapt here that proof for the case of mixed boundary conditions with slowly changing external tension.
In [@oe], the macroscopic limit was studied in the same model, for non-linear springs, but with a stochastic exchange of momentum between nearest neighbour particles. This dynamics also conserves the momentum, besides the energy and the volume. For that system the macroscopic space-time scale is hyperbolic, and the macroscopic equations are given by the Euler system of conservation laws. Notice that in the harmonic case these are just linear wave equations, and the corresponding macroscopic equation will not bring the system to a new equilibrium state, that can be reached only at a super-diffusive space-time scale [@jko]. In the non-linear case we need a better understanding of the entropy production of the shock waves that appear in the solution to Euler equations.
Isothermal transformations in this model have been deduced in [@olla] in the non-linear case, where the heat bath is modelled by Langevin thermostats. In this evolution only the volume evolves macroscopically. In [@olla] these heat baths act on the bulk of the chain, at every point. If we want to make them act only at the boundaries of the chain, then we should obtain the same macroscopic equations as in the present article, but with boundary conditions corresponding to the thermostat temperature (this will be object of further investigation).
With the result contained in the present article we complete the deduction of the macroscopic Carnot cycle from the microscopic dynamics.
Adiabatic microscopic dynamics {#sec:adiab-micr-dynam}
==============================
We consider a chain of $n$ coupled oscillators in one dimension. Each particle has the same mass that we set equal to 1. The position of atom $i$ is denoted by $q_i\in \mathbb R$, while its momentum is denoted by $p_i\in\mathbb R$. Thus the configuration space is $(\mathbb R\times \mathbb R)^n$. We assume that an extra particle $0$ is attached to a fixed point and does not move, i.e. $(q_0,p_0)\equiv(0,0)$, while on particle $n$ we apply a force $\bar\tau(t)$ depending on time. Observe that only the particle 0 is constrained to not move, and that $q_i$ can assume also negative values.
Denote ${\bf q} :=(q_1,\dots,q_n)$ and ${\bf p}
:=(p_1,\dots,p_n)$. The interaction between two particles $i$ and $i-1$ is described by the potential energy $V(q_i-q_{i-1})$ of an anharmonic spring relying the particles. We assume $V(r)$ to be a positive smooth function which for large $r$ grows faster than linear but at most quadratic, that means that there exists a constant $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{|r|\rightarrow\infty}\frac{V(r)}{|r|}=\infty,\\
~\\
&\limsup_{|r|\rightarrow\infty}V^{\prime\prime}(r)\leqslant C<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Energy is defined by the following Hamiltonian: $$\sum_{i=1}^{n} \left( \frac{p_i^2}2 + V(q_{i}-q_{i-1}) \right).$$ Since we focus on a nearest neighbor interaction, we may define the distance between particles by $$r_i=q_{i}-q_{i-1}, \qquad i=1,\dots,n.$$ The particles are subject to an interaction with the environment that does not change the energy: each particle has an independent Poissonian clock and its momentum changes sign when it rings. The equations of motion are given by $$\left\{ \begin{aligned}
dr_i(t) &= n^2 \big(p_i(t) - p_{i-1}(t)\big)\; dt\\
dp_i(t) &= n^2 \big(V'(r_{i+1}(t)) - V'(r_i(t))\big)\; dt - 2p_i(t^-)
\; d\mathcal N_i(\gamma n^2t), \quad i=1,\dots, n-1,\\
dp_n(t) &= n^2\big(\bar\tau(t) - V'(r_n(t))\big)\; dt - 2p_n(t^-)
\; d\mathcal N_n(\gamma n^2t).
\end{aligned}\right.$$ Here $\{\mathcal N_i(t)\}_i$ are n-independent Poisson processes of intensity 1, the constant $\gamma$ is strictly positive, and $p_0$ is set identically to $0$. We have already rescaled time according to the diffusive space-time scaling. Notice that $\bar\tau(t)$ changes at this macroscopic time scale. The generator of this diffusion is given by $$\mathcal L_n^{\bar\tau(t)}:= n^2 A^{\bar\tau(t)}_n + n^2 \gamma S_n.$$ Here the Liouville operator $A^{\tau}_n$ is given by $$A^{\tau}_n
=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\big(p_{i}-p_{i-1}\big)
\frac{\partial}{\partial r_i}+
\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\big(V^{\prime}(r_{i+1})-V^{\prime}(r_{i})\big)
\frac{\partial}{\partial p_i}+\big(\tau -V^{\prime}(r_n)\big)\frac{\partial}{\partial p_n},$$ while, for $f : ({{\mathbb R}}\times {{\mathbb R}})^n \to {{\mathbb R}}$, $$S_n f ({{\mathbf r}}, {{\mathbf p}}) = \sum_{i=1}^n \left( f({{\mathbf r}}, {{\mathbf p}}^i) -
f({{\mathbf r}},{{\mathbf p}})\right)$$ where $({{\mathbf p}}^i)_j = p_j$ if $j\neq i$ and $({{\mathbf p}}^i)_i = -p_i$. For $\bar\tau(t) = \tau$ constant, the system has a family of stationary measures given by the canonical Gibbs distributions $$\label{eq:gibbs}
d\mu^n_{\tau,T} = \prod_{i=1}^n e^{- \frac 1T ({{\mathcal E}}_i - \tau
r_i) - {{\mathcal G}}_{\tau,T}}\; dr_i\; dp_i, \qquad T>0,$$ where we denote $${{\mathcal E}}_i = \frac{p_i^2}{2} + V(r_i),$$ the energy that we attribute to the particle $i$, and $$\label{eq:pfunct}
{{\mathcal G}}_{\tau,T} = \log \left[\sqrt{2\pi T}\int e^{-\frac 1T
(V(r) - \tau r)}\; dr \right].$$ Observe that the function ${{\mathfrak r}}(\tau,T) = T \partial_\tau {{\mathcal G}}_{\tau,T}$ gives the average equilibrium length in function of the tension $\tau$, and $${{\mathfrak u}}(\tau,T) = \tau {{\mathfrak r}}(\tau,T) + T^2\partial_T {{\mathcal G}}_{\tau,T}$$ is the corresponding thermodynamic internal energy function. We denote the inverse of the average length ${{\mathfrak r}}$ by ${{\boldsymbol \tau}}({{\mathfrak r}},{{\mathfrak u}})$. Thermodynamic entropy $S({{\mathfrak r}}, {{\mathfrak u}})$ is defined as $$\label{eq:S}
S({{\mathfrak r}},{{\mathfrak u}}) = \frac 1T \left( {{\mathfrak u}} - {{\boldsymbol \tau}} {{\mathfrak r}}\right) + {{\mathcal G}}_{{{\boldsymbol \tau}},T}$$ so that $\partial_{{{\mathfrak u}}} S = T^{-1}$ and $\partial_{{{\mathfrak r}}} S = -T^{-1}{{\boldsymbol \tau}}$. From now on, we reindex notations by using the inverse temperature $\beta:=T^{-1}$. In the following we will need to consider local Gibbs measures (non homogeneous product), corresponding to profiles of tension and temperature $\{\tau(x),\beta^{-1}(x), x\in[0,1]\}$: $$\label{eq:gibbs}
d\mu^n_{\tau(\cdot),\beta(\cdot)} = \prod_{i=1}^n e^{-\beta(i/n) \big({{\mathcal E}}_i - \tau(i/n)
r_i\big) - {{\mathcal G}}_{\tau(i/n),\beta(i/n)}}\; dr_i\; dp_i.$$ Given an initial profile of tension $\tau(0,x)$ and temperature $\beta^{-1}(0,x)$, we assume that the initial probability state is given by the corresponding $\mu^n_{\tau(0,\cdot),\beta(0,\cdot)}$. This implies the following convergence in probability with respect to the initial distribution: $$\label{eq:4}
\begin{split}
\frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n G(i/n) r_i(0) \longrightarrow \int_0^1 G(x)
{{\mathfrak r}}(\tau(0,x),\beta(0,x))\; dx\\
\frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n G(i/n) {{\mathcal E}}_i(0) \longrightarrow \int_0^1 G(x)
{{\mathfrak u}}(\tau(0,x),\beta(0,x))\; dx
\end{split}$$ for any continuous compactly supported test function $G\in {{\mathcal C}}_0({{\mathbb R}})$. We expect the same convergence to happen at the macroscopic time $t$: $$\label{eq:4o}
\begin{split}
\frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n G(i/n) r_i(t) \longrightarrow \int_0^1 G(x)
r(t,x) \; dx\\
\frac 1n\sum_{i=1}^n G(i/n) {{\mathcal E}}_i(t) \longrightarrow \int_0^1 G(x)
u(t,x)\; dx
\end{split}$$ and the macroscopic evolution for the volume and energy profiles should follow the system of equations, for $ (t,x)\in {{\mathbb R}}_+\times [0,1]$ $$\label{eq:diff}
\begin{split}
\partial_t r(t,x) &= \frac 1{2\gamma} \partial_{xx}\big[ {{\boldsymbol \tau}}(r,u) \big]\\
\partial_t u(t,x) &= \partial_x \Big[{{\mathcal D}}(r,u) \partial_x \big[\beta^{-1}(r,u)\big]\Big] +
\frac 1{4\gamma} \partial_{xx} \left[{{\boldsymbol \tau}}^2(r,u)\right]
\end{split}$$ with the following boundary conditions: $$\left\{\begin{aligned}
\partial_x \big[{{\boldsymbol \tau}}(r,u)\big] (t,0) &=0 \\
\partial_x \big[\beta^{-1}(r, u)\big](t,0)&=0\end{aligned}\right. \qquad
\left\{\begin{aligned}
{{\boldsymbol \tau}}(r(t,1),u(t,1)) & = \bar\tau(t)\\
\partial_x \big[\beta^{-1}(r,u)\big](t,1) & = 0
\end{aligned}\right.$$ and initial conditions $$\left\{ \begin{aligned}
r(0,x)&= {{\mathfrak r}}\big(\tau(0,x),\beta(0,x)\big) \\
u(0,x)&={{\mathfrak u}}\big(\tau(0,x),\beta(0,x)\big).\end{aligned}\right.$$ Equation can be deduced by linear response theory (cf. [@bo2]) and the thermal diffusivity ${{\mathcal D}}$ is defined by the corresponding Green-Kubo formulas. The convergence of the corresponding Green-Kubo expression is proved in [@bo2]. Still a proof of the hydrodynamic limit is out of reach with the known techniques.
In the harmonic case $V(r) = r^2/2$, Equation is proven in [@simon] with periodic boundary conditions, and we will adapt here that proof in order to deal with the forcing boundary conditions.
The harmonic case {#sec:harmonic-case}
=================
When the interaction potential is harmonic, explicit computations are available, for instance $${{\mathcal G}}_{\tau,\beta}=\log\left[ \frac{\beta}{2\pi}
\exp\left(\frac{\tau^2\beta}{2}\right)\right].$$ The [thermodynamic relations]{} between the averaged conserved quantities ${{\mathfrak r}} \in {{\mathbb R}}$ and ${{\mathfrak u}} \in (0,+\infty)$, and the potentials $\tau \in {{\mathbb R}}$ and $\beta\in (0,+\infty)$ are given by $${{{\mathfrak u}}}(\tau,\beta) = \frac{1}{\beta}+ \frac{\tau^2}{2}, \qquad
{{\mathfrak r}}(\tau,\beta) =\tau. \label{rel2}$$ Furthermore the thermal diffusivity turns out to be equal to ${{\mathcal D}} =
(4\gamma)^{-1}$ (cf. [@bo2]).
Let $r_0$ and $u_0$ be two continuous initial profiles on $[0,1]$, and define the solutions $r(t,\cdot)$ and $u(t,\cdot)$ to the hydrodynamic equation , rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:linear}
\partial_t r(t,x)&=\frac{1}{2\gamma}\partial_{xx}r(t,x)\notag\\
\partial_t u(t,x)&=
\frac{1}{4\gamma}\partial_{xx}\left[u(t,x)+\frac{r^2(t,x)}{2}\right]\end{aligned}$$ with the boundary conditions, for $(t,x)\in{{\mathbb R}}_+\times[0,1]$ $$\label{eq:boundary}\left\{\begin{aligned}
\partial_x r(t,0)&=0 \\
r(t,1) & = \bar\tau(t) \\
r(0,x)&= r_0(x)
\end{aligned}\right. \qquad \qquad \left\{\begin{aligned}
\partial_x u(t,0)&=0\\
\partial_x u(t,1) & = \bar\tau(t) \partial_x r(t,1)\\
u(0,x)&=u_0(x).\end{aligned}\right.$$ The solutions $u,r$ are smooth when $t >0$ as soon as the initial condition satisfies $u_0 > r_0^2/2$ (the system of partial differential equations is parabolic).
In this case, the evolution of $r(t,x)$ is autonomous from $u(t,x)$, therefore we can call $R(t) = \int_0^1 r(t,x) dx$ the total length of the chain at time $t$, that also does not depend on $u(\cdot,\cdot)$, and write the boundary conditions for $u(t,x)$ as $$\label{eq:BC-GLOB}
\frac{d}{dt} \left[\int_0^1 u(t,x) dx\right] = \bar\tau(t) \dot R(t) = \frac d{dt} L(t)$$ where $L$ is the work done by the force $\bar\tau$ up to time $t$.
For a local function $\phi$, we denote by $\theta_i\phi$ the shift of the function $\phi$: $\theta_i\phi({\bf r},{\bf p})=\phi(\theta_i {\bf
r},\theta_i {\bf p})$. This is always well defined for $n$ sufficiently large. The main result is the following:
\[main\] We have $$\label{eq:7}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac {{{\mathcal H}}_n(t)}n = 0$$ where $$\label{eq:5}
{{\mathcal H}}_n(t) = \int f_{t}^n \log
\left(\frac{f_{t}^n}{\phi_t^n}\right)\; d{\bf r}d{\bf p}$$ with
(i) $f^n_t$ the density of the configuration of the system at time $t$,
(ii) $\phi_t^n$ the density of the “corrected” local Gibbs measure $\nu_{\tau(t,\cdot),\beta(t,\cdot)}^n$ defined as $$d\nu_{\tau(t,\cdot),\beta(t,\cdot)}^n =
\frac{1}{Z(t)}\prod_{i=1}^n
e^{ -\beta(t,\frac i n)\big({{\mathcal E}}_i-\tau(t,\frac i
n)r_i\big)+\frac 1n F(t,\frac i n)\cdot \theta_i h(\bf r,\bf p)}
dr_i dp_i.$$
Above $Z(t)$ is the partition function, and $F,h$ are explicit functions given in .
We denote by $\mu[\cdot ]$ the expectation with respect to the measure $\mu$. Theorem \[main\] implies the hydrodynamic limits in the following sense:
Let $G$ be a continuous function on $[0,1]$ and $\varphi$ be a local function which satisfies the following property: there exists a finite subset $\Lambda \subset {{\mathbb Z}}$ and a constant $C>0$ such that, for all $({\bf r,p}) \in ({{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb R}})^n$, $ \varphi({\bf r,p})
\leqslant C\left(1+\sum_{i \in \Lambda} {{\mathcal E}}_i\right)$. Then, $$\mu_t^n \left[\left\vert \frac{1}{n} \sum_i G(i/n) \theta_i \varphi -
\int_{[0,1]} G(x) \ \tilde{\varphi}(u(t,x),r(t,x)) dx
\right\vert \right] \xrightarrow[n \to \infty]{} 0$$ where $\tilde{\varphi}$ is the grand-canonical expectation of $\varphi$: in other words, for any $(u, r)$, $$\tilde{\varphi}({u},{r})=\mu_{\tau,\beta}[\varphi]=\int_{({{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb R}})^{{\mathbb Z}}} \varphi({\bf r,p})\ d\mu_{\tau,\beta}({\bf r,p})\ .$$
We prove Theorem \[main\] in Section \[sec:proof-hydr-limit\].
Thermodynamic consequences {#sec:therm-cons}
==========================
Second principle of thermodynamics
----------------------------------
Let us first compute the increase of the total thermodynamic entropy, under the macroscopic evolution given by the general equations : $$\begin{aligned}
\frac d{dt} \int_0^1 S(r(t,x), u(t,x))\; dx &= \int_0^1 \big[
-\beta {{\boldsymbol \tau}} \partial_t r + \beta \partial_t u \big] \; dx \notag\\
& = \int_0^1 \bigg[ {{\mathcal D}} \left(\frac{\partial_x
\beta}{\beta}\right)^2 + \frac 1{2\gamma} \beta
\left(\partial_x {{\boldsymbol \tau}}\right)^2 \bigg] \; dx \ \geqslant \ 0. \label{eq:2ndP}
\end{aligned}$$ Assume now that we start in equilibrium with a given constant tension $\tau_0$ and constant inverse temperature $\beta_0$. To these values correspond a constant profile of length $r(0,x)={{\mathcal L}}_0$ and of energy $u(0,x) = u_0$, that constitute the initial conditions for . The initial thermodynamic entropy is then $S_0 =
S({{\mathcal L}}_0, u_0)$.
We now apply a time depending tension $\bar
\tau(t)$, such that $\bar\tau(t) = \tau_1$ for $t\geqslant \bar t$. It is clear that the solution converges as $t\to \infty$ to a new global equilibrium state, with tension $\tau_1$. This final equilibrium state has total length ${{\mathcal L}}_1$ given by $$\label{eq:finL}
{{\mathcal L}}_1 = {{\mathcal L}}_0 + \frac{1}{2\gamma} \int_0^\infty \partial_x \big[{{\boldsymbol \tau}}(r,u)\big] (t,1) \; dt,$$ and energy $u_1 = u_0 + W$, where $W$ is the mechanical work done by the tension $\bar \tau(t)$. The total work $W$ can be computed by: $$\label{eq:work}
W = \frac{1}{2\gamma}\int_0^\infty \bar \tau(t) \partial_x \big[{{\boldsymbol \tau}}(r,u)\big] (t, 1) \; dt.$$ Consequently the thermodynamic entropy of the final equilibrium state equals $$\label{eq:finS}
S_1 = S({{\mathcal L}}_1, u_1) = S_0 + \int_0^\infty dt \int_0^1 \bigg[ {{\mathcal D}} \left(\frac{\partial_x
\beta}{\beta}\right)^2 + \frac 1{2\gamma} \beta
\left(\partial_x {{\boldsymbol \tau}}\right)^2 \bigg] \; dx.$$ This is in agreement with the second principle of thermodynamics, in the statement that an irreversible adiabatic transformation increases the thermodynamic entropy of the system.
In the harmonic case, the thermodynamic entropy is a function of the temperature only, and $$\label{eq:entvarh}
S_1 - S_0 = \log \left(\frac{\beta_0}{\beta_1}\right).$$ In other words, any increase of entropy implies an increase of temperature. It means that any adiabatic irreversible transformation can only increase the temperature of the system. In the harmonic case, the reversible transformations obtained by the quasi-static limit cannot change the entropy and the temperature.
Quasistatic limit {#sec:quasistatic-limit}
-----------------
Notice that suggests to define $$\beta^{-1}(t,x) = u(t,x) - \frac 12
r^2(t,x).$$ Equation can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:linear2}
\partial_t r(t,x)&=\frac{1}{2\gamma}\partial_{xx}r(t,x)\notag\\
\partial_t \big[\beta^{-1}\big](t,x)&=
\frac{1}{4\gamma}\partial_{xx} \big[\beta^{-1}\big](t,x) + \frac{1}{2\gamma}
\big(\partial_x r(t,x)\big)^2\end{aligned}$$ with the boundary conditions, for $(t,x)\in{{\mathbb R}}_+\times[0,1]$ $$\label{eq:boundary-lin2}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
\partial_x r(t,0)&=0 \\
r(t,1) & = \bar\tau(t) \\
r(0,x)&= r_0(x)
\end{aligned}\right. \qquad \qquad
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\partial_x \big[\beta^{-1}\big](t,0)&=0 = \partial_x \big[\beta^{-1}\big](t,1)\\
\beta^{-1}(0,x)&=u_0(x) - \frac {r_0^2(x)}{2}.
\end{aligned}\right.$$ Consider the case when the exterior tension $\bar\tau(t)$ is equal to a value $\bar\tau_1$ for any $t\geqslant t_1$. It is clear that we have the following convergence to equilibrium: $$\begin{split}
&r(t,x)\ \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{t\to\infty}\ \bar\tau_1, \\
&\beta^{-1}(t,x) \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{t\to\infty}\
\bar\beta_1^{-1} = \int_0^1 \left( u_0(x') - \frac {r_0(x')^2}{2}\right) \; dx' + \frac 1{2\gamma} \int_0^\infty dt
\int_0^1 \big(\partial_x r(t,x)\big)^2 dx.
\end{split}$$ Suppose, as above, that we start at equilibrium with tension $\tau_0$ and temperature $\beta_0^{-1}$. This means $r(0,x) = \tau_0$, $u(0,x) = \beta_0^{-1} - \tau_0^2/2$, and an initial exterior force $\bar\tau(0) = \tau_0$. Then, after the limit $t\to\infty$, we have reached a new equilibrium with tension $\bar\tau_1$ and a higher temperature $$\beta_1^{-1} = \beta_0^{-1} + \frac 1{2\gamma} \int_0^\infty dt
\int_0^1 \big(\partial_x r(t,x)\big)^2 dx.$$ In particular the temperature, and consequently the entropy, always increase in this irreversible transformation.
We now consider the quasi-static limit, where we slow down the changing of the exterior tension, i.e. we consider the same system , but one of the boundary conditions (precisely, the second one of ) is changed into $ r(t,1) = \bar\tau(\varepsilon t) $. The corresponding solution is denote by $(r^{\varepsilon}, u^{\varepsilon})$. Then Proposition 3.1 of [@olla] can be applied and it follows that $$\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0} \int_0^\infty dt
\int_0^1 \big(\partial_x r^{\varepsilon}(\varepsilon^{-1} t,x)\big)^2 dx \; = 0$$ and $r^{\varepsilon}(\varepsilon^{-1}t,x) \to \bar \tau(t)$, for all $(t,x) \in {{\mathbb R}}_+ \times [0,1]$. Consequently $$\big(\beta^{\varepsilon}(\varepsilon^{-1}t,x)\big)^{-1} \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{{\varepsilon}\to 0} \beta_0^{-1},
\qquad
u^{\varepsilon}(\varepsilon^{-1}t,x) \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{{\varepsilon}\to 0} \beta_0^{-1} - \frac{\bar\tau^2(t)}2$$ for all $(t,x) \in {{\mathbb R}}_+ \times [0,1]$. Similar considerations are valid in the non-linear case.
Proof of the hydrodynamic limit {#sec:proof-hydr-limit}
===============================
We approach this problem by using the relative entropy method [@yau]. We adapt the proof of [@simon], where the same harmonic perturbed chain is investigated, assuming periodic boundary conditions. We recall here the main steps of the argument, and give details only for computations that change due to boundary conditions.
In the context of diffusive systems, the relative entropy method works if the following conditions are satisfied.
1. First, the dynamics has to be *ergodic*: the only time and space invariant measures for the infinite system, with finite local entropy, are given by mixtures of Gibbs measures in infinite volume $\mu_{\tau,\beta}$. From [@ffl], we know that the velocity-flip model is ergodic in the sense above. For a precise statement, we refer to [@simon Theorem 1.3].
2. Next, we need to establish the so-called *fluctuation-dissipation equations*. Such equations express the microscopic currents $j_i^{{{\mathcal E}}}$ and $j_i^r$ (respectively of energy and deformation) as the sum of a discrete gradient and a fluctuating term. Here, the conservation laws write for $i \geqslant 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal L}}_n^\tau({{\mathcal E}}_i)&=n^2( j_{i+1}^{{{\mathcal E}}}-j_i^{{{\mathcal E}}}) \ \text{ with } j_i^{{{\mathcal E}}}:= \begin{cases} r_ip_{i-1}, & \text{ if } i\in \{1,\dots n\}, \\ \tau p_n, & \text{ if } i=n+1, \end{cases} \\
{{\mathcal L}}_n^\tau(r_i)&=n^2(j_{i+1}^{r}-j_i^r) \ \text{ with } j_i^r=p_{i-1} \text{ for any } i \in \{1,\dots, n+1\}.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $j_1^{{{\mathcal E}}}=0$ and $j_1^r=0$. If $\tau_if(\bf r,\bf p)$ is a local function on the configurations, we define its discrete gradient as $$\nabla(\theta_if):=\theta_{i+1}f-\theta_if.$$ We denote by $({{\mathcal L}}_n^\tau)^\star:=-n^2A_n^\tau+\gamma n^2S_n$ the adjoint of ${{\mathcal L}}_n^\tau$ in ${\bf L}^2(\mu_{\tau,\beta}^n)$. We write down the fluctuation-dissipation equations: for $i\in\{2,\dots, n\}$, $$\begin{aligned}
j_{i}^{{{\mathcal E}}}&=\nabla(u_i) + {({{\mathcal L}}_n^\tau)^\star} \left[-\frac{r_{i}\big(p_{i-1}+p_{i}-\gamma r_{i}\big)}{4\gamma n^2}\right] \label{eq:je}\\
j_{i}^r& = \nabla\left(-\frac{r_{i-1}}{2\gamma}\right)+({{\mathcal L}}_n^\tau)^\star\left[ -\frac{p_{i-1}}{2\gamma
n^2}\right] \label{eq:jr} \end{aligned}$$ where for $i\in\{2,\dots,n\}$, $$u_i=-\frac{p_{i-1}^2+r_{i-1}r_{i}}{4\gamma} \quad \text{ and } \quad
u_{n+1}=-\frac{p_n^2+\tau r_n}{4\gamma}.$$ For $i=n+1$, the fluctuation-dissipation equations read as $$\begin{aligned}
j_{n+1}^{{{\mathcal E}}}&=\tau\left(\frac{r_n - \tau}{2\gamma} + {({{\mathcal L}}_n^\tau)^\star} \left[-\frac{p_n}{2\gamma n^2}\right]\right) \\
j_{n+1}^r& =\frac{r_n - \tau}{2\gamma} + {({{\mathcal L}}_n^\tau)^\star} \left[-\frac{p_n}{2\gamma n^2}\right]\end{aligned}$$
3. Since we observe the system on a diffusive scale and the system is non-gradient, we need second order approximations. If we want to obtain the entropy estimate of order $o(n)$, we can not work directly with the local Gibbs measure $\mu_{\tau(t,\cdot),\beta(t,\cdot)}^n$: we have to correct it with a small term.
4. Finally, we need to control all the following moments, $$\label{eq:mombound}
\int \bigg\{\frac 1n \sum_{i=1}^n |{{{\mathcal E}}}_i|^k\bigg\} d\mu_t^n, \quad k\geqslant 2$$ uniformly in time and with respect to $n$. The harmonicity of the chain is crucial to get this result: roughly speaking, it ensures that the set of mixtures of Gaussian probability measures is left invariant during the time evolution.
In the two next subsections, we explain the relative entropy method, and highlight the role of the fluctuation-dissipation equations. In Subsection \[sec:mom-bounds\], we prove bounds .
Relative entropy method {#sec:rel-entropy}
-----------------------
Recall the definition of the relative entropy . The objective is to prove a Gronwall estimate of the entropy production in the form $$\frac{d}{dt} {{\mathcal H}}_n(t) \leqslant C \ {{\mathcal H}}_n(t)+o(n) , \label{gron}$$ where $C >0$ does not depend on $n$. We begin with the following lemma, proved in [@kipnis Chap. 6, Lemma 1.4].
\[entropy\] $$\frac{d}{dt}{{\mathcal H}}_n(t) \leqslant \int
\frac{1}{\phi_t^n}\big\{({{\mathcal L}}_n^{\bar
\tau(t)})^\star\phi_t^n-\partial_t\phi_t^n\big\} f_t^n \; d{\bf
r}d{\bf p}= \int \frac{1}{\phi_t^n}\big\{({{\mathcal L}}_n^{\bar\tau(t)})^\star\phi_t^n-\partial_t\phi_t^n\big\} \;
d\mu_t^n.$$
We now choose the correction term: for $i\neq n$ let us define $$\left\{
\begin{aligned} F\left(t,i/n\right) & :=\big(\partial_x\beta\left(t,i/n\right), - \partial_x(\tau\beta)\left(t,i/n\right) \big), \\
\theta_i h({\bf r},{\bf p}) & :=
\left(-\frac{r_{i+1}\big(p_{i}+p_{i+1}-\gamma r_{i+1}\big)}{4\gamma},
-\frac{p_{i}}{2\gamma}\right).
\end{aligned}\right. \label{eq:functions}$$ For $i=n$, we assume $$\left\{ \begin{aligned} F(t,1) & :=\big(0, (\beta\partial_x\tau)\left(t,1\right) \big), \\
\theta_n h({\bf r},{\bf p}) & := \Big(0,
-\frac{p_{n}}{2\gamma}\Big). \end{aligned}\right.$$ For the sake of simplicity, we introduce the following notations $$\xi_i:=({{\mathcal E}}_i,r_i), \quad \chi:=(\tau,\beta), \quad
\eta(t,x):=(u(t,x),r(t,x)).$$ If $f$ is a vectorial function, we denote its differential by $Df$. We are now able to state the main technical result of the relative entropy method.
\[prop\] The term $ (\phi_t^n)^{-1}\big\{({{\mathcal L}}_n^{\bar\tau(t)})^\star\phi_t^n-\partial_t\phi_t^n\big\}$ is given by a finite sum of microscopic expansions up to the first order. In other words, it can be written as a finite sum, for which each term $k$ is of the form $$\sum_{i=1}^n v_k\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)
\left[J_i^k-H_k\bigg({\eta}\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)\bigg)-(DH_k)\bigg({\eta}\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)\bigg)\cdot
\bigg({\xi}_i-{\eta}\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)\bigg)\right] +
o_t(n) \label{eq:tay}$$ where
- $o_t(n)$ is an error term in the sense that $$\int_0^t ds \int n^{-1} o_s(n) f_s^n \; d{\bf r} \; d{\bf p} \xrightarrow[n\to\infty]{} 0,$$
- $J_i^k$ are local functions on the configurations given in Subsection \[sec:taylor\],
- $v_k(t,x)$ are smooth functions that depends on $\tau,\beta$, given in Subsection \[sec:taylor\],
- the functions $H_k$ satisfy $$H_k\left({\eta}\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)\right)=
\mu_{\chi(t,i/n)}^n\big[J_0^k\big]. \label{eq:mean}$$
Before explaining the main steps to prove Proposition \[prop\], let us achieve the proof of Theorem \[main\]. A priori the first term on the right-hand side of is of order $n$, but we can take advantage of these microscopic Taylor expansions. First, we need to cut-off large energies in order to work with bounded variables only. Second, the strategy consists in performing a one-block estimate: we replace the empirical truncated current which is averaged over a microscopic box centered at $i$ by its mean with respect to a Gibbs measure with the parameters corresponding to the microscopic averaged profiles. This is achieved thanks to the ergodicity of the dynamics. A one-block estimate is performed for each term of the form $$\sum_{i=1}^n v_k\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big) \left[J_i^k-H_k\left({\eta}\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)\right)-(DH_k)\left({\eta}\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)\right)\cdot\left({\xi}_i-{\eta}\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)\right)\right].$$ We deal with error terms by taking advantage of and by using the large deviation properties of the probability measure $\nu_{\chi(t,\cdot)}^n$, that locally is almost homogeneous. Along the proof, we will need to control, uniformly in $n$, the quantity $$\int \sum_{i=1}^n \exp\left(\frac{{{\mathcal E}}_i}{n}\right) \ d\mu_t^n.$$ In fact, to get the convenient estimate, it is not difficult to see that it is sufficient to prove . The rest of the proof follows by the standard arguments of the relative entropy method (cf. [@kipnis; @oe; @ovy; @simon; @yau]).
Taylor expansion {#sec:taylor}
----------------
First, let us give the explicit expressions for all the functions given in Proposition \[prop\]. For $i=1,...,n-1$, we have:
$$\begin{array}{| c | c | c | c |}
\hline k & J_i^k & H_k(u,r) & v_k(t,{x}) \\
\hline \hline {\displaystyle}1 & {\displaystyle}p_i^2+r_ir_{i+1}+2\gamma r_i p_{i-1} & {\displaystyle}u+\frac{{r}^2}{2} & {\displaystyle}-\frac{1}{4\gamma} \partial_{xx} \beta(t,{x}) \\
2 & r_i+\gamma p_{i-1} & {r} & {\displaystyle}\frac{1}{2\gamma} \partial_{xx}(\tau\beta)(t,{x}) \\
3 & p_i^2\ (r_i+r_{i+1})^2 & {\displaystyle}(2u-{r}^2) \bigg(u+\frac{3}{2}{r}^2\bigg) &{\displaystyle}\frac{1}{8\gamma} [\partial_x \beta(t,{x})]^2 \\
4 & p_i^2 \ (r_i+r_{i+1}) & {r} \ (2u-{r}^2)& {\displaystyle}-\frac{1}{2\gamma} \partial_x\beta(t,{x}) \ \partial_x(\tau\beta)(t,{x}) \\
5 & p_i^2 & {\displaystyle}u-\frac{{r}^2}{2} & {\displaystyle}\frac{1}{2\gamma} [\partial_x (\tau\beta)(t,{x})]^2 \\ \hline \end{array}$$ For $i=n$, the local functions $J_n^k$ read: $$J_n^1=p_n^2+\tau r_n, \quad J_n^2=r_n, \quad J_n^3=J_n^4=0, \quad J_n^5=p_n^2$$ associated to $$v_1=-\frac1{4\gamma}\partial_{xx}\beta, \quad v_2=\frac1{2\gamma}\partial_{xx}(\tau\beta), \quad v_5= \frac1{2\gamma} (\beta \partial_x\tau)^2.$$ The fluctuation-dissipation equations are crucial: the role of functions $F,h$ is to compensate the fluctuating terms. For the sake of clarity, we write down three different lemmas. Let us introduce the notation, for $i \in \{1,\dots,n\}$, $$\delta_i({\bf r},{\bf p})= F\left(t,i/n\right) \cdot \theta_ih({\bf
r,p}),$$ where we denote by $a\cdot b$ the usual scalar product in ${{\mathbb R}}^2$.
\[lem:antisym\]
$$\begin{aligned}
n^2 A_n^{\bar\tau(t)}\phi_t^n =& {\phi_t^n} \sum_{i=0}^{n-1}
\left\{\partial_{xx}\beta\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)
\left[\frac{r_{i+1}p_{i}}{2}-u_{i+2}\right]
-\partial_{xx}(\beta\tau)\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)\left[\frac{p_{i}}{2}+\frac{r_{i+1}}{2\gamma}\right]
\right\}\notag\\
& + \phi_t^n n \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \Big\{(n^2{{\mathcal L}}_n^{\bar\tau(t)})^\star(\delta_i) + A_n^{\bar\tau(t)}(\delta_i)\Big\}
+ n\ \frac{\phi_t^n}{2\gamma} (\tau\beta\partial_x\tau)(t,1) +
o(n). \notag\end{aligned}$$
The first step consists in performing an integration by part coming from the conservation laws. One can easily check that $$\begin{aligned}
n^2 A_n^{\bar\tau(t)}\phi_t^n= & {\phi_t^n}\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} n
\left[ \partial_x\beta\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)j_{i+1}^{{{\mathcal E}}}
- \partial_x(\beta\tau)\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)j_{i+1}^r\right] \\
&+ {\phi_t^n}\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}
\frac{1}{2}\left[ \partial_{xx}\beta\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)j_{i+1}^{{{\mathcal E}}}
- \partial_{xx}(\beta\tau)\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)j_{i+1}^r\right]
+o\left(n\right) \\
& + \phi_t^n n \sum_{i=1}^{n} A_n^{\bar\tau(t)}(\delta_i)+
n^2\Big((\beta\tau)(t,1)p_n-\beta(t,1)\bar\tau(t)p_n\Big). \end{aligned}$$ Note that the boundary conditions $\partial_x\beta(t,0)=0$ and $\partial_x(\tau\beta)(t,0)=0$ permit to introduce the boundary gradients. Moreover, the condition $\tau(t,1)=\bar\tau(t)$ makes the last two terms compensate.
The next step makes use of the fluctuation-dissipation equations. The fluctuating terms in the range of $({{\mathcal L}}_n^{\bar\tau(t)})^\star$ give the contribution $\sum ({{\mathcal L}}_n^{\bar\tau(t)})^\star(\delta_i)$ (for $i=1,..., n-1$) whereas the gradient terms are turned into a second integration by parts. The term $A_n^{\bar\tau(t)}(\delta_n)$ is going to be treated separately. Then, one can check that $$\begin{aligned}
n^2 A_n^{\bar\tau(t)}\phi_t^n =& {\phi_t^n} \sum_{i=0}^{n-1}
\left\{\partial_{xx}\beta\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)
\left[\frac{r_{i+1}p_{i}}{2}-u_{i+2}\right]
-\partial_{xx}(\beta\tau)\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)\left[\frac{p_{i}}{2}+\frac{r_{i+1}}{2\gamma}\right]
\right\}\notag\\
& + n\phi_t^n \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \Big\{(
n^{-2}{{\mathcal L}}_n^{\bar\tau(t)})^\star(\delta_i) + A_n^{\bar\tau(t)}(\delta_i)\Big\}
+ o\left({n}\right) \notag\\
& + n{\phi_t^n}\left[- \partial_x\beta(t,1)
\frac{p_n^2+\bar\tau(t)r_n}{4\gamma} + \partial_x(\tau\beta)(t,1)
\frac{r_n}{2\gamma}+ A_n^{\bar\tau(t)}(\delta_n)\right].
\end{aligned}$$ Remind that $\partial_x\beta(t,1)=0$. After simplifications in the last line above, we get $$\begin{aligned}
n^2 A_n^{\bar\tau(t)}\phi_t^n = & {\phi_t^n} \sum_{i=0}^{n-1}
\left\{\partial_{xx}\beta\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)
\left[\frac{r_{i+1}p_{i}}{2}-u_{i+2}\right]
-\partial_{xx}(\beta\tau)\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)\left[\frac{p_{i}}{2}+\frac{r_{i+1}}{2\gamma}\right]
\right\}\notag\\
& + n {\phi_t^n} \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \Big\{(n^{-2} {{\mathcal L}}_n^{\bar\tau(t)})^\star(\delta_i) + A_n^{\bar\tau(t)}(\delta_i)\Big\}
+ n\ \frac{\phi_t^n}{2\gamma} (\tau\beta\partial_x\tau)(t,1) +
o\left({n}\right). \end{aligned}$$
The following lemma is widely inspired from [@simon]. As previously, we keep the term $S_n(\delta_n)=-2\gamma\delta_n$ isolated.
\[lem:sym\] $$\frac{ n^2S_n (\phi_t^n)}{\phi_t^n} = {n} \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} S_n(\delta_i) +
n (\beta\partial_x\tau)(t,1) p_n + \frac{1}{4}
\sum_{y=1}^{n} \left( \sum_{i=1}^{n} \delta_i({\bf p}^y)-\delta_i({\bf
p})\right)^2 + \ \varepsilon(n),$$ where $\displaystyle \mu_t^n\left[\varepsilon(n) \right] = o(n)$.
The proof of Lemma \[lem:sym\] is the same as in [@simon Lemma A.2], provided that moment bounds have been proved (see Section \[sec:mom-bounds\]). The last result below can also be proved by following straightforwardly [@simon].
\[lem:derivative\] $$\partial_t\{\log(\phi_t^n)\} = \sum_{i=1}^n -\Big[{{{\mathcal E}}}_i-u\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)\Big] \partial_t \beta\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big) + \Big[r_i -r\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)\Big] \partial_t (\tau\beta)\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big) + O(1).$$
We are now able to prove the Taylor expansion. According to the three previous results and to the notations introduced at the beginning of Subsection \[sec:taylor\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\phi_t^n}& ({{{\mathcal L}}}_n^{\bar\tau(t)})^\star \phi_t^n -\partial_t\{\log(\phi_t^n)\} = \sum_{k=1}^5 \sum_{i=1}^{n}v_k\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big) J_i^k \notag \\
& + \sum_{i=1}^n \left\{\Big[{{\mathcal E}}_i-u \Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)\Big] \partial_t \beta\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big) - \Big[r_i -{r}\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)\Big] \partial_t (\tau\beta)\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)\right\} \notag \\
& + n (\beta\partial_x\tau)(t,1)\Big(\frac{\tau(t,1)}{2\gamma}+p_n\Big)+ o(n). \label{part1} \end{aligned}$$ In , the two boundary terms are treated in the following way: the first term $$n (\beta\partial_x\tau)(t,1)\frac{\tau(t,1)}{2\gamma}$$ cancels out with the Taylor expansion (see below), and we are going to prove in Lemma \[lem:conv\] that the term $np_n$ is of order $o(n)$ when integrated with respect to $\mu_t^n$. Recall that $H_k$ is the function defined as follows: $$H_k\left(\eta\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)\right)=\mu^n_{\chi(t,i/n)}\left[J_0^k\right].$$ The next step consists in introducing in the sum $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma_n:=\sum_{i = 1}^n & \left\{-\frac{1}{4\gamma} \right. \partial_{xx} \beta\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big) H_1\left(\eta\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)\right)+\frac{1}{2\gamma} \partial_{xx}(\tau\beta)\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big) H_2\left(\eta\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)\right) \notag \\
& + \frac{1}{8\gamma}\left[\partial_{xx} \beta\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)\right]^2 H_3\left(\eta\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)\right) - \frac{1}{2\gamma} \partial_{x} \beta \partial_x (\tau\beta)\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big) H_4\left(\eta\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)\right) \notag \\
& \left. + \frac{1}{2\gamma} \left[\partial_x(\tau\beta)\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)\right]^2 H_5\left(\eta\Big(t,\frac{i}{n}\Big)\right)\right\}. \end{aligned}$$ Here, $\Sigma_n$ is not of order $o(n)$ because of the boundary conditions. We let the reader write the two suitable integrations by part implying the Riemann convergence $$\label{eq:conv} \frac1n \left( \Sigma_n - n \frac{(\beta\tau\partial_x\tau)(t,1)}{2\gamma}\right) \xrightarrow[n\to\infty]{} 0.$$ There is one remaining lemma to prove:
\[lem:conv\] Let $\varphi(t)$ a smooth function on $\mathbb R_+$. The following bound holds: $$\int_0^t ds \int \varphi(s)\; p_n\; f^n_s \; d{\bf r}d{\bf p} \leqslant
\frac Cn \left(\frac 1n +
\int_0^t {{\mathcal H}}_n(s) ds + {{\mathcal H}}_n(t) + {{\mathcal H}}_n(0)\right)$$ for some positive constant $C$ independent of $n$.
Since $\frac d{dt} \sum_{i=1}^n r_i(t) = n^2 p_n(t)$, we have: $$\int_0^t \varphi(s)\; p_n(s)\; ds = -\frac 1{n^2} \int_0^t
\varphi'(s) \sum_{i=1}^n r_i(s) \; ds + \frac 1{n^2} \varphi(t)
\sum_{i=1}^n r_i(t) - \frac 1{n^2} \varphi(0)
\sum_{i=1}^n r_i(0).$$ Recall the [entropy inequality]{}: for any $\alpha >0$ and any positive measurable function $F$ we have $$\int F \ d\mu \leqslant \frac{1}{\alpha} \left\{ \log \left(\int
e^{\alpha F} \ d\nu \right) + {{\mathcal H}}(\mu \vert \nu)
\right\}, \label{entropin}$$ where ${{\mathcal H}}(\mu|\nu)$ is the relative entropy of $\mu$ with respect to $\nu$. Therefore, $$\int \frac 1{n^2}\sum_{i=1}^n r_i \; f^n_s \; d{\bf
r}d{\bf p} \leqslant \frac1{\alpha n} \log
\int \exp\left(\frac {\alpha}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n r_i\right) \phi^n_s \; d{\bf
r}d{\bf p} + \frac1{\alpha n} {{\mathcal H}}_n(s)$$ and it is easy to see that the first term of the right-hand side of the above bound is bounded by $C n^{-2}$ for some constant $C>0$.
Eventually, further computations give $$\begin{gathered}
-\frac{ \partial_{xx} \beta}{4\gamma} \ \partial_{u} H_1 + \frac{ \partial_{xx} (\tau\beta)}{2\gamma} \ \partial_{u} H_2 + \frac{ \left[\partial_x\beta \right]^2}{8\gamma} \ \partial_{u} H_3 - \frac{ \partial_x\beta \partial_x(\tau\beta)}{2\gamma} \ \partial_{u} H_4 \\+ \frac{\left[\partial_x(\tau\beta) \right]^2}{2\gamma} \ \partial_{u} H_5 = -\partial_t \beta, \label{eq:comp1}\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
-\frac{ \partial_{xx} \beta}{4\gamma} \ \partial_{{r}} H_1 + \frac{ \partial_{xx}(\tau\beta)}{2\gamma} \ \partial_{{r}} H_2 + \frac{ \left[\partial_x\beta \right]^2}{8\gamma} \ \partial_{{r}} H_3 + \frac{ \partial_x\beta \partial_x(\tau\beta)}{2\gamma} \ \partial_{{r}} H_4 \\+ \frac{\left[\partial_x\tau\beta \right]^2}{2\gamma} \ \partial_{{r}} H_5 = -\partial_t (\tau\beta) . \label{eq:comp2}\end{gathered}$$ It remains to rewrite after introducing $\Sigma_n$, and making a suitable use of , and . Eventually, Proposition \[prop\] is proven.
Moment bounds {#sec:mom-bounds}
-------------
In this last part we are going to control all the energy moments. The precise statement is the following:
\[theo:moments\] For every positive integer $k \geqslant 1$, there exists a positive constant $C$ which does not depend on $n$ (but depends on $k$), such that $$\mu_t^n \left[\sum_{i=1}^n {{{\mathcal E}}}_i^{k} \right] \leqslant C \times n. \label{mom}$$
The dependence on $k$ could be precised: we refer the interested reader to [@simon]. The first two bounds ($k=1,2$) would be sufficient to justify the cut-off of currents, but here we need more bounds because of the Taylor expansion (Proposition \[prop\]). Since the chain is harmonic, Gibbs states are Gaussian. Remarkably, all Gaussian moments can be expressed in terms of variances and covariances. We start with a graphical representation of the dynamics of the process given by the generator ${{\mathcal L}}_n^{\bar\tau(t)} /
n^2$. Notice that time is not accelerated in the diffusive scale. To avoid any confusion, the law of this new process is denoted by ${\nu}_t^n$. Then, we recover the diffusive time accelerated process by: $$\mu_t^n= \nu^n_{tn^2}.$$ In the following, we always respect the decomposition of the space ${{\mathbb R}}^n \times {{\mathbb R}}^n$, where the first $n$ components stand for ${\bf r}$ and the last $n$ components stand for ${\bf p}$. All vectors and matrices are written according to this decomposition.
Let $\nu$ be a measure on ${{\mathbb R}}^n\times {{\mathbb R}}^n$. We denote by ${\bf m} \in {{\mathbb R}}^{2n}$ its mean vector and by ${\bf C} \in \mathfrak{M}_{2n}({{\mathbb R}})$ its covariance matrix. There exist $\rho:=\nu[{\bf r}] \in {{\mathbb R}}^n $ , $\pi: =\nu[{\bf
p}] \in {{\mathbb R}}^{n}$ and $U, V, Z \in \mathfrak{M}_{n}({{\mathbb R}})$ such that $${\bf m}=(\rho,\pi) \in {{\mathbb R}}^{2n} \quad \text{ and } \quad
{\bf C}=\begin{pmatrix} U & ^{\bf t}Z \\ Z & V \end{pmatrix} \in
\mathfrak{S}_{2n}({{\mathbb R}}). \label{eq:defmc}$$ Hereafter, we denote by $^{\bf t}Z$ the real transpose of the matrix $Z$. Thanks to a trivial convexity inequality, instead of proving we are going to show $$\nu_{t}^n
\bigg[\sum_{i=1}^n p_i^{2k} \bigg] \leqslant C \times n \quad
\text{ and } \quad \nu_{t}^n \bigg[\sum_{i=1}^n r_i^{2k} \bigg]
\leqslant C \times n, \label{eq:boundspr}$$ where $C$ is a constant that does not depend on $t$ nor on $n$.
*(i) Poisson Process and Gaussian Measures –* We start by giving a graphical representation of the process, based on the Harris description. Let us define the antisymmetric $(2n,2n)$-matrix, written by blocks as
$$A:= \begin{pmatrix}
0_n & {{{\mathfrak A}}}_n \\
\\
-^{\bf t}{{{\mathfrak A}}}_n & 0_n
\end{pmatrix} \quad \text{ where } \quad {{{\mathfrak A}}}_n:=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & & & (0) \\
-1 & \ddots & & \\
& \ddots & \ddots & \\
(0) & & -1 & 1 \end{pmatrix} \in \mathfrak{M}_{n}({{\mathbb R}}).$$ Above $0_n$ is the null $(n,n)$-matrix. We also define the $n$-vector $$b(t):=\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
\vdots \\
0 \\
\bar\tau(t)
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Let $(N_i)_{i=1...n}$ be a sequence of independent standard Poisson processes of intensity $\gamma$. At time 0 the process has an initial state $({\bf r,p})(0)$. Let $$T_1=\inf_{t \geqslant 0} \Big\{\text{ there exists } i\in\{1,\dots,n\} \text{ such that }\ N_i(t)=1 \Big\}$$ and $i_1$ the site where the infimum is achieved. During the interval $[0,T_1)$, the process (not accelerated in time) follows the deterministic evolution given by the generator $A_n^{\bar\tau(t)}$. More precisely, during the time interval $[0,T_1)$, $({\bf r,p})(t)$ follows the evolution given by the system: $$\frac{dy}{dt}=A \cdot y(t) + b(t). \label{eq:ode}$$ At time $T_1$, the momentum $p_{i_1}$ is flipped, and gives a new configuration. Then, the system starts again with the deterministic evolution up to the time of the next flip, and so on. Let $\xi:=(i_1, T_1), \dots, (i_q,T_q), \dots$ be the sequence of sites and ordered times for which we have a flip, and let us denote its law by $\mathbb{P}$. Conditionally to $\xi$, the evolution is deterministic, and the state of the process $({\bf r,p})^{\xi}(t)$ is given for all $ t \in [T_q,T_{q+1})$ by $$({\bf r,p})^{\xi}(t)=e^{(t-T_q)A} \circ F_{i_q} \circ e^{(T_q-T_{q-1})A} \circ F_{i_{q-1}} \circ \cdots \circ e^{T_1 A} ({\bf r,p})(0) + \Omega^\xi(t) \label{omega}$$ where
- $F_i$ is the map $({\bf r,p}) \mapsto ({\bf r,p}^i)$.
- $\Omega^\xi(t)$ is a vector that depends only on $A$, $b(t)$ and $\xi$, and can be written as $$\begin{gathered}
\Omega^\xi(t)= \sum_{\ell=0}^{q-1} e^{(t-T_q)A}\circ F_{i_q} \circ e^{(T_q-T_{q-1})A}\circ \cdots \circ F_{i_{\ell+1}}\circ e^{(T_{\ell+1}-T_\ell)A}\int_{T_\ell}^{T_{\ell+1}} e^{-uA}b(u)\ du \\
+ e^{(t-T_q)A} \int_{T_q}^{t} e^{-uA}b(u)\ du .\end{gathered}$$
If initially the process starts from $({\bf r,p})(0)$ which is distributed according to a Gaussian measure $\nu_0^n$, then $(\bf{r,p})^{\xi}(t)$ is distributed according to a Gaussian measure $\nu^{\xi}_t$. Finally, the density ${\nu}_t^n$ is given by the convex combination $${\nu}^n_t(\cdot)=\int {\nu}^{\xi}_t(\cdot) \ d{{{\mathbb P}}}(\xi).\label{law1}$$ Moreover, we are able to write the evolution of the mean vector ${\bf m}_t^\xi$ and the covariance matrix ${\bf C}_t^\xi$ of $\nu_t^\xi$. During the interval $[0,T_1)$, ${\bf m}_t$ follows the evolution given by system . At time $T_1$, the component $m_{i_1+n}=\pi_{i_1}$ (which corresponds to the mean of $p_{i_1}$) is flipped, and gives a new mean vector. Then, the deterministic evolution goes on up to the time of the next flip, and so on.
In the same way, during the interval $[0,T_1)$, ${\bf C}_t$ follows the evolution given by the (matrix) system: $$\frac{dM}{dt}=AM(t)-M(t)A. \label{eq:diff2}$$ At time $T_1$, all the components $C_{i_1+n,j}$ and $C_{i,i_1+n}$ when $i,j \neq i_1+n$ are flipped and the matrix ${\bf C}_{T_1}$ becomes $\Sigma_{i_1} \cdot {\bf C}_{T_1} \cdot\; ^{\bf t}\Sigma_{i_1}$, where $\Sigma_i$ is defined as $$\Sigma_i:=\begin{pmatrix} I_n & 0_n \\ 0_n & I_n-2E_{i,i} \end{pmatrix},$$ and so on up to the next flip. Above, $I_n$ is the $(n,n)$-identity matrix, and $E_{i,i}$ is the $(n,n)$-matrix composed by the elements $(\delta_{i,k} \delta_{i,\ell})_{1\leqslant k,\ell\leqslant n}$ where $\delta_{i,k}$ is the Kronecker delta function. More precisely, $${\bf C}^{\xi}_t=e^{(t-T_q)A} \cdot \Sigma_{i_q} \cdots \Sigma_{i_1} \cdot e^{T_1A} \cdot {\bf C}_0 \cdot e^{-T_1A} \cdot\; ^{\bf t}\Sigma_{i_1} \cdots \; ^{\bf t}\Sigma_{i_q} e^{-(t-T_q)A}. \label{eq:Cxi}$$ Finally, the density ${\nu}_t^n$ is equal to $${\nu}^n_t(\cdot)=\int {\nu}^{\xi}_t(\cdot) \ d{{{\mathbb P}}}(\xi)=\int G_{\bf m,C}(\cdot) \ d\theta_{{\bf m}_0,{\bf C}_0}^t({\bf m},{\bf C}),\label{law}$$ where $G_{\bf m,C}(\cdot)$ denotes the Gaussian measure on $({{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb R}})^n$ with mean ${\bf m}$ and covariance matrix ${\bf C}$, and $\theta_{{\bf m}_0,{\bf C}_0}^t(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the law of the random variable $({\bf m}_t,{\bf C}_t)$, knowing that the Markov process $({\bf m}_t,{\bf C}_t)_{t\geqslant 0}$ described by the graphical representation above starts from $({\bf m}_0,{\bf C}_0)$. We denote by ${{{\mathbb P}}}_{{\bf m}_0,{\bf C}_0}$ the law of the Markov process $({\bf m}_t,{\bf C}_t)_{t\geqslant 0}$, and by ${{{\mathbb E}}}_{{\bf m}_0,{\bf C}_0}$ the corresponding expectation. Observe that we have, from , $${\nu}_t^n[p_i] = \int G_{\bf m,C}(p_i) \ d\theta_{{\bf m}_0,{\bf C}_0}^t({\bf m,C})=\int \pi_i \; d\theta_{{\bf m}_0,{\bf C}_0}^t({\bf m,C}),$$ $${\nu}_t^n[r_i] = \int G_{\bf m,C}(r_i) \ d\theta_{{\bf m}_0,{\bf C}_0}^t({\bf m,C})=\int \rho_i \; d\theta_{{\bf m}_0,{\bf C}_0}^t({\bf m,C}).$$ Notice that we conveniently denote by $G_{\bf m,C}(f)$ the mean of the function $f$ with respect to the Gaussian measure $G_{\bf m,C}$. Therefore, we rewrite as $$\nu_t^n \bigg[\sum_{i=1}^n p_i^{2k} \bigg] = \int \sum_{i=1}^n G_{\bf m,C}\big(p_i^{2k}+r_i^{2k}\big) \; d\theta_{{\bf m}_0,{\bf C}_0}^t({\bf m},{\bf C}).$$
*(ii) Control in the covariance matrix –* First, let us focus on $G_{\bf m,C}\big(p_i^{2k}+r_i^{2k}\big)$. Notice that $$G_{\bf m,C}\big(p_i^{2k}\big) = G_{\bf m,C}\big( [p_i-\pi_i+\pi_i]^{2k}\big) \leqslant 2^{2k-1} \left\{ G_{\bf m,C}\big( [p_i-\pi_i]^{2k}\big)+ \pi_i^{2k}\right\}.$$ Remarkably, we can express all the centered moments of a Gaussian random variable as functions of the variance only. In other words, there exists a constant $K_k$ that depends on $k$ but not on $n$ such that $$G_{\bf m,C}\big( [p_i-\pi_i]^{2k}\big) \leqslant K_k \; G_{\bf m,C}\big( [p_i-\pi_i]^{2}\big)^k = K_k \; \big(C_{i+n,i+n}\big)^k(t).$$ Therefore, after repeating the same argument for $G_{\bf m,C}\big(r_i^{2k}\big)$ we are reduced to control, for any $\xi$, $$\label{eq:bounds_part1}\sum_{i=1}^{2n}(C_{i,i}^\xi)^k(t)$$ and besides $$\label{eq:bounds_part2}
\sum_{i=1}^n \pi_i^{2k}(t),\qquad \sum_{i=1}^n \rho_i^{2k}(t).$$ In the following we treat separately and .
*(iii) Control of using the trace –* Let us fix once for all a sequence $\xi$ a sequence of sites and ordered times for which we have a flip. The matrix $C^\xi_t$ is symmetric, hence diagonalizable, and after denoting its eigenvalues by $\lambda_1, ..., \lambda_{2n}$, we can write $$\text{Tr}([C^\xi_t]^k)=\sum_{i=1}^{2n} \lambda_i^k.$$ We have now to compare $ \sum_{i} \lambda_i^k$ with $\sum_{i} [C_{i,i}^\xi]^k(t)$. If we denote by $P_t^\xi$ the orthogonal matrix of the eigenvectors of $C^\xi_t$, then we get $C^\xi_t=(P_t^\xi)^{\ast} \cdot D \cdot P_t^\xi$, where $D$ is the diagonal matrix with entries $\lambda_1,..., \lambda_{2n}$. For the sake of simplicity, we denote by $(P_{i,j})$ the components of $P_t^\xi$. Then, $$[C^\xi_{i,i}]^k(t) =\bigg( \sum_{j,\ell} P^{\ast}_{i,j} D_{j,\ell} P_{\ell,i}\bigg)^k = \bigg( \sum_j P_{i,j}^{\ast} \lambda_j P_{j,i} \bigg)^k = \bigg(\sum_{j} P_{i,j}^{\ast} P_{j,i} \cdot \lambda_j\bigg)^k.$$ Since $P$ is an orthogonal matrix, $ \sum_{j} P_{i,j}^{\ast} P_{j,i}=1$. Consequently, we can use the convexity inequality, and we obtain $$\sum_{i} [C^\xi_{i,i}]^k (t) \leqslant \sum_i \sum_j P_{i,j}^{\ast} P_{j,i} \lambda_j^k \leqslant \sum_j \lambda_j^k = \text{Tr}([C^\xi_t]^k).$$ Since $C_0$ and $C^{\xi}_t$ are similar, we have: $$\text{Tr}([C^{\xi}_t]^k)=\text{Tr}(C^k_0)= \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{\beta_0^{k}(i/n)} + \left(\frac{1}{\beta_0(i/n)}+\tau_0^2(i/n)\right)^{k} \leqslant K'_1n,$$ for some constant $K'_1>0$. Therefore, the same inequality holds for $ \sum_i [C_{i,i}^\xi]^k(t)$.
*(iv) Control of –* For this last paragraph we go back to the diffusive time scale, namely we are going to bound the two quantities $$\sum_{i=1}^n \pi_i^{2k}(tn^2) \quad \text{ and } \quad \sum_{i=1}^n \rho_i^{2k}(tn^2).$$ Notice that the sequences $\{\pi_i(t)\}_{i}$ and $\{\rho_i(t)\}_i$ satisfy the following system of differential equations: for $i=1,\dots, n$ and $t\geqslant 0$, $$\left\{\begin{aligned} \pi_i' & = \rho_{i+1}-\rho_{i}-2\gamma \; \pi_i, \\ \rho_i'&=\pi_{i}-\pi_{i-1}, \end{aligned}\right. \quad \text{with } \quad \left\{\begin{aligned} \rho_{n+1}(t)&=\bar \tau(t/n^2), \\ \pi_0(t)&=0. \end{aligned}\right.$$ Let us recenter $\tilde \rho_i(t) = \rho_i(t) - \bar\tau(t/n^2)$, then the equations become $$\left\{\begin{aligned}
\pi_i' & = \tilde\rho_{i+1}- \tilde\rho_{i} - 2\gamma \;
\pi_i, \\ \tilde\rho_i'&=\pi_{i} - \pi_{i-1} -
\bar\tau'(t/n^2)n^{-2},
\end{aligned}\right. \quad
\text{with } \quad \left\{\begin{aligned} \tilde\rho_{n+1}(t)&= 0,
\\
\pi_0(t)&=0. \end{aligned}\right.$$ Denote by $\Pi$ the column vector $^{\bf t}(\pi_1,\dots,\pi_n,\pi_1',\dots, \pi_n').$ It is not difficult to see that $\Pi(t)$ follows a first order ordinary differential equation written as $$\frac{dy}{dt}=M^\pi\cdot y(t)+T^\pi(t),\label{eq:system1}$$ where $M^\pi$ is the following constant block matrix: $$M^\pi:=\begin{pmatrix}
0_n & I_n \\
\\
D^{\pi} & -2\gamma I_n
\end{pmatrix} \text{ where } D^\pi:=\begin{pmatrix}
-2 & 1 && & (0) \\
1 & -2 & 1 & & \\
& \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \\
& & 1 & -2 & 1 \\
(0) & & & 1 & -1
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Above $I_n$ is the $(n,n)$-identity matrix, and the vector $T^\pi(t)$ is the $(2n)$-vector $$T^\pi(t) := \; ^{\bf t} \Big(\underbrace{0, \dots, 0}_{2n-1}, \;\bar\tau'(t/n^2)n^{-2}\;\Big).$$ In the same way, denote by $R$ the column vector $^{\bf t}(\tilde\rho_1,\dots,\tilde\rho_n,\tilde\rho_1',\dots, \tilde\rho_n').$ It is not difficult to see that $R(t)$ follows a first order ordinary differential equation written as $$\label{eq:system2}\frac{dy}{dt}=M^\rho\cdot y(t)+T^\rho(t),$$ where $M^\rho$ is the following constant block matrix: $$M^\rho:=\begin{pmatrix}
0_n & I_n \\
\\
D^{\rho} & -2\gamma I_n
\end{pmatrix} \text{ where } D^\rho:=\begin{pmatrix}
-1 & 1 & & & (0) \\
1 & -2 & 1 & & \\
& \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \\
& & 1 & -2 & 1 \\
(0) & & & 1 & -2
\end{pmatrix}$$ and $T^\rho(t)$ is the $(2n)$-vector $$\begin{gathered}
T^\rho(t) := \; ^{\bf t}\Big(\underbrace{0,\dots, 0}_{2n-1}, \;\bar\tau(t/n^2)\;\Big) \\ -\big[\bar\tau''(t/n^2)n^{-4}+2\gamma \bar\tau'(t/n^2)n^{-2}\big] \times \; ^{\bf t}\Big(\underbrace{0,\dots,0}_n,\underbrace{1,\dots,1}_n\Big). \end{gathered}$$ Both matrices $D^\pi$ and $D^\rho$ represents the discrete Laplacian operator with mixed Dirichlet-Neumann boundary conditions. Let us focus on $\Pi(t)$. We are going to compute the characteristic polynomial of $M^\pi$, that is $\chi^\pi(X):=\det(XI_{2n}-M^\pi)$. One can easily check that $$\chi^\pi(X)=\det(D^\pi-X(X+2\gamma)I_n).$$ In other words, the eigenvalues of $M^\pi$ are exactly equal to the solutions of $$x(x+2\gamma)=-\lambda,$$ where $-\lambda$ takes any eigenvalue of $D^\pi$. It is well-known that the eigenvalues of $D^\pi$ are all negatives. Therefore, we need to solve $x(x+2\gamma)+\lambda=0$, where $\lambda$ is positive. Precisely,
(i) if $\gamma^2 > \lambda$, then the two solutions are real negative numbers written as $$x_{\pm}=-\gamma \pm \sqrt{\gamma^2-\lambda}<0,$$
(ii) if $\gamma^2 < \lambda$, then the two solutions are complex numbers written as $$x_{\pm}=-\gamma \pm i\sqrt{-\gamma^2+\lambda},$$
(iii) if $\gamma^2 = \lambda$, then $-\gamma$ is the unique solution.
As a consequence, every eigenvalue of $M^\pi$ has a negative real part, and the system is hyperbolic (and the same holds for $M^\rho$). Let us write the solution of system at time $tn^2$: $$\Pi(tn^2)=\exp(tn^2\;M^\pi)\; \Pi(0) + \int_0^{tn^2} \exp((tn^2-s)\;M^\pi)T^\pi(s)\; ds.$$ We are interested in the quantity $\sum_i |\pi_i(tn^2)|^m$, which is less or equal than the following norm $$\Big(\big\Vert\Pi(tn^2)\big\Vert_m\Big)^m:= \sum_{i=1}^n \Big\{|\pi_i(tn^2)|^m + |\pi_i'(tn^2)|^m \Big\}.$$ Since the system is hyperbolic, there exists a constant $C>0$ such that, for every $s \in [0,t]$, $$\big\Vert\exp((tn^2-s)\; M^\pi)\; \Pi(0)\big\Vert_m \leqslant C \big\Vert \Pi(0) \big\Vert_m.$$ Observe that the initial condition writes $$\big\Vert \Pi(0) \big\Vert_m^m =\sum_{j=1}^{n-1} \Big| \tau_0\Big(\frac{j+1}{n}\Big) - \tau_0\Big(\frac{j}{n}\Big)\Big|^m + \big|\bar\tau(0)-\tau_0(1)\big|^m.$$ The last term above vanishes due to the assumptions on the boundary . Since the profile $\tau_0$ is smooth, it is clear that $\Vert \Pi(0) \Vert_m^m$ is of order $n^{1-m}$. On the other hand, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert \int_0^{tn^2} \exp((tn^2-s)\; M^\pi)T^\pi(s)\; ds \right\Vert_m^m &\leqslant C^m\left( \int_0^{tn^2} \big\Vert T^\pi(s) \big\Vert_m \; ds \right)^m \\
&=\left(\int_0^{tn^2} n^{-2}\Big|\bar\tau'\Big(\frac{s}{n^2}\Big)\Big| \; ds\right)^m \\
& = \left(\int_0^t |\bar\tau'(u)|\; du\right)^m \end{aligned}$$ so that the bound does not depend on $n$. Therefore, we proved that there exists a constant $K'_2$ that does not depend on $n$ nor on $t$ such that $$\sum_{i=1}^n |\pi_i(tn^2)|^m \leqslant \big\Vert \Pi(tn^2) \big\Vert_m^m \leqslant K'_2 \; n.$$ The same argument is valid for $R(t)$, except two different estimates: the first one appears in the initial condition, which now reads $$\big\Vert R(0) \big\Vert_m^m =\sum_{j=1}^{n} \Big| \tau_0\Big(\frac{j}{n}\Big)-\bar\tau(0)\Big|^m + \sum_{j=1}^{n} \big|\bar\tau'(0)n^{-2}\big|^m .$$ Hence, $\Vert R(0) \big\Vert_m^m$ is of order $n$ (instead of $n^{1-m}$), but this is enough. The second difference comes from the vector $T^\rho(t)$. Now we have to control $$\left(\int_0^{tn^2} \bigg[\Big|\bar\tau\Big(\frac{s}{n^2}\Big)\Big|^m + n^m\Big|\bar\tau''\Big(\frac{s}{n^2}\Big)n^{-4}+\bar\tau'\Big(\frac{s}{n^2}\Big)n^{-2}\Big|^m\bigg]^{1/m} \; ds\right)^m,$$ which is also bounded uniformly in $n$. Therefore, we conclude that there exists a constant $K'_3$ that does not depend on $n$ such that $$\sum_{i=1}^n \big|\rho_i(tn^2)-\bar\tau(t)\big|^m \leqslant \big\Vert R(tn^2) \big\Vert_m^m \leqslant K'_3 \; n,$$ which implies $$\sum_{i=1}^n \big|\rho_i(tn^2)\big|^m \lesssim K'_3 \; n + \sum_{i=1}^n \big|\bar\tau(t)\big|^m \leqslant K'_4 \; n.$$
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors warmly thank Cedric Bernardin for his useful suggestions on this work.
[A]{}
L Bertini, D Gabrielli, G Jona-Lasinio, C Landim, Clausius inequality and optimality of quasistatic transformations for nonequilibrium stationary states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 020601, (2013).
L Bertini, D Gabrielli, G Jona-Lasinio, C Landim, Thermodynamic transformations of nonequilibrium states, J. Stat. Phys. 149, 773–802 (2012).
Bernardin, C., Olla, S., Non-equilibrium macroscopic dynamics of chains of anharmonic oscillators, manuscript in preparation, available at `http://www.ceremade.dauphine.fr/olla/`.
Bernardin, C., Olla, S., Transport Properties of a Chain of Anharmonic Oscillators with Random Flip of Velocities, [*[J. Stat. Phys.]{}*]{}, 145: 1224..1255, 2011.
Fritz, J., Funaki, T., Lebowitz, J. L., Stationary states of random Hamiltonian systems. [*[Probab. Theory Related Fields]{}*]{}, 99(2):211–236, 1994.
M. Jara, T. Komorowski, S. Olla, *Superdiffusion of Energy in a system of harmonic oscillators with noise*, (2014) arxiv.org/abs/1402.2988
Kipnis, C. and Landim, C., [*Scaling Limits of Interacting Particle Systems*]{}, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1999.
N. Even, S. Olla, Hydrodynamic Limit for an Hamiltonian System with Boundary Conditions and Conservative Noise, Arch.Rat.Mech.Appl. 213 (2014) 561–585, DOI 10.1007/s00205-014-0741-1
S. Olla, S. Varadhan, H. Yau, Hydrodynamical limit for a Hamiltonian system with weak noise, Commun. Math. Phys. [**155**]{} (1993), 523-560.
S. Olla, Microscopic Derivation of an Isothermal Thermodynamic Transformation, Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics **75**, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2014. DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-54271-8,
S. Olla, M. Sasada, Macroscopic energy diffusion for a chain of anharmonic oscillators, Probab. Theory Relat. Fields, **157**, 721–775 (2013), DOI 10.1007/s00440-012-0469-5.
M. Simon, Hydrodynamic limit for the velocity-flip model, Stochastic Processes and their Applications [**123**]{} (2013) 3623 – 3662.
Yau, H. T., Relative entropy and hydrodynamics of Ginzburg-Landau models, Lett. Math. Phys. [**22(1)**]{} (1991), 63–80.
[^1]: This work has been partially supported by the European Advanced Grant [*Macroscopic Laws and Dynamical Systems*]{} (MALADY) (ERC AdG 246953), by the fellowship L’Oreal France-UNESCO *Pour les femmes et la science*, and by the CAPES and CNPq program *Science Without Borders*.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We here introduce an extension and natural generalization of both the $\kappa$-$\mu$ shadowed and the classical Beckmann fading models: the Fluctuating Beckmann (FB) fading model. This new model considers the clustering of multipath waves on which the line-of-sight ([[LoS]{}]{}) components randomly fluctuate, together with the effect of in-phase/quadrature power imbalance in the [[LoS]{}]{} and non-[[LoS]{}]{} components. Thus, it unifies a variety of important fading distributions as the one-sided Gaussian, Rayleigh, Nakagami-$m$, Rician, $\kappa$-$\mu$, $\eta$-$\mu$, $\eta$-$\kappa$, Beckmann, Rician shadowed and the $\kappa$-$\mu$ shadowed distribution. The chief probability functions of the FB fading model, namely probability density function, cumulative distribution function and moment generating function are [derived]{}. The second-order statistics such as the level crossing rate and the average fade duration are also analyzed. [[These results can be used to]{}]{} derive some performance metrics of interest of wireless communication systems operating over FB fading channels.'
author:
- 'Pablo Ramirez-Espinosa, F. Javier Lopez-Martinez, Jose F. Paris, Michel D. Yacoub, Eduardo Martos-Naya'
bibliography:
- 'bibjavi.bib'
---
Fading channels, Beckmann, Rayleigh, Nakagami-$m$, Rician, $\kappa$-$\mu$, Rician shadowed, $\kappa$-$\mu$ shadowed.
Introduction
============
[In wireless environments, the radio signal is affected by a number of random phenomena including reflection (both specular and diffuse), diffraction, and scattering as they travel from transmitter to receiver, giving rise to the so-called multipath propagation. At the receiver, the resulting signal appears as a linear combination of the multipath waves, each of which with their own amplitudes and phases.]{} When the number of paths is sufficiently large, the complex baseband signal can be regarded as Gaussian because of the Central Limit Theorem (CLT). Depending on the choice of [[the]{}]{} parameters characterizing this complex Gaussian random variable, namely the mean and variance of the in-phase and quadrature components, different fading models emerge: Rayleigh (zero-mean and equal variances), Hoyt (zero-mean and unequal variances) and Rice (non-zero mean, equal variances), which are perhaps the most popular fading models arising from the CLT assumption [@Rice1944; @Hoyt1947].
The most general case (i.e. unequal means and variances for the in-phase and quadrature components) was considered by Beckmann [@Beckmann1962; @Beckmann1964] when characterizing the scattering from rough surfaces. However, its [[greater flexibility]{}]{} comes at the price of an increased mathematical complexity; [in fact, its chief probability functions (PDF and CDF) are known to be given in infinite-series form expression [@AlouiniBook]]{}, as opposed to Rayleigh, Hoyt and Rician models. [Other models characterizing the joint effects of imbalances in the mean and variance between in-phase and quadrature components whose PDF and CDF are given in infinite-series form are the so called $\eta$-$\kappa$ [@Yacoub05; @Yacoub05a] and the very recently proposed $\alpha$-$\eta$-$\kappa$-$\mu$ [@Yacoub2016]]{}
In order to provide a better statistical characterization of the received radio signal in multipath environments, some alternative models have been proposed as generalizations of classical Rayleigh, Hoyt and Rician. By means of considering the effect of clustering of multipath waves, two new fading models arise [@Yacoub07]: the $\eta$-$\mu$ fading model as a generalization of Hoyt model, well-suited for non line-of-sight ([[NLoS]{}]{}) propagation environments, and the $\kappa$-$\mu$ fading model as a generalization of Rice model in line-of-sight[^1] ([[LoS]{}]{}) scenarios. These models have become of widespread use in the recent years because of their flexibility and relatively simple mathematical tractability, as their chief probability functions (PDF, CDF and MGF) are given in closed-form [@Yacoub07; @Morales2010; @Ermolova2008]. Besides, both models also include the versatile and popular Nakagami-$m$ model as particular case [@Nakagami1960].
A further generalization of these models was introduced in [@Paris2014] and [@Cotton2015] under the name of $\kappa$-$\mu$ shadowed fading distribution. This new distribution provides an additional degree of freedom compared to the $\kappa$-$\mu$ distribution by allowing the [[LoS]{}]{} component to randomly fluctuate. Notably, the $\kappa$-$\mu$ shadowed fading model includes both the $\kappa$-$\mu$ and $\eta$-$\mu$ models [@Laureano2016] as special cases, as well as the Rician shadowed fading model [@Abdi2003]. Thus, most popular fading models in the literature for [[LoS]{}]{} and [[NLoS]{}]{} conditions are unified under the umbrella of the $\kappa$-$\mu$ shadowed fading channel model. This [[greater flexibility]{}]{} does not come at the price of an increased mathematical complexity; in fact, in some cases its PDF and CDF admit a representation in terms of a finite number of powers and exponentials, thus becoming even as tractable as the Nakagami-$m$ distribution [@Lopez2017].
Even though the $\kappa$-$\mu$ shadowed fading model succeeds on capturing different propagation phenomena such as clustering and [[LoS]{}]{} fluctuation, it fails when it comes to accounting for the effect of power imbalance in the [[LoS]{}]{} and [[NLoS]{}]{} components as originally considered by Beckmann [@Beckmann1962; @Beckmann1964]. Motivated by this issue, in this paper we introduce an extended $\kappa$-$\mu$ shadowed fading model which effectively captures such propagation conditions. This new model can be regarded as a generalization of the original fading model in [@Paris2014], but also as a generalization of Beckmann fading model by also including the effects of clustering and [[LoS]{}]{} fluctuation. For this reason, and for the sake of notational brevity, we deem appropriate to name it as the Fluctuating Beckmann (FB) fading model (or equivalently, fading distribution).
The FB model includes as special cases an important set of fading distributions as the one-sided Gaussian, Rayleigh, Nakagami-$m$, Rician, $\kappa$-$\mu$, $\eta$-$\mu$, $\eta$-$\kappa$, Beckmann, Rician shadowed and the $\kappa$-$\mu$ shadowed distributions.
[Interestingly, the CDF and PDF of the FB fading model are given in terms of a well-known function in the context of communication theory, having a functional form similar to the original $\kappa$-$\mu$ shadowed fading model.]{} The randomization of the [[LoS]{}]{} component allows for including an additional degree of freedom when compared to the Beckmann model. We provide a full statistical characterization of the FB fading model in terms of its first-order statistics (PDF, CDF and MGF) and second-order statistics (level crossing rate and average fade duration), and then exemplify its applicability to wireless performance analysis.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: the physical model of the FB fading distribution is described in Section \[ModelSection\]. In Section \[StatSection\] the PDF, CDF and MGF of this distribution are derived. Then, in Section \[SecondOrder\] the level crossing rate (LCR) and average fade duration (AFD) are computed. These statistical results are then used to derive some performance metrics of interest in Section \[ApplicationsSection\]. Finally, the main conclusions are outlined in Section \[ConclusionSection\].
Physical model {#ModelSection}
==============
The physical model of the FB distribution arises as a generalization of the physical model of the $\kappa$-$\mu$ shadowed distribution [@Paris2014; @Laureano2017]. The received radio [[signal is built out of a superposition]{}]{} of radio waves grouped into a number of clusters of waves, and the received signal power $W$ can be expressed in terms of the in-phase and quadrature components of the received signal affected by fading as follows $$\label{Model}
W = \sum_{i=1}^{\mu}\left(X_i + p_i\xi\right)^2 + \left(Y_i + q_i\xi\right)^2$$ where $\mu$ is a natural number indicating the number of clusters, $X_i$ and $Y_i$ are mutually independent Gaussian random processes with $E[X_i] = E[Y_i] = 0$, $E[X_i^2] = \sigma_x^2$, $E[Y_i^2] = \sigma_y^2$, $p_i$ and $q_i$ are real numbers and $\xi$ is[^2] a Nakagami-$m$ distributed random variable with shape parameter $m$ and $E[\xi^2] = 1$ which accounts for the fluctuation of the [[LoS]{}]{} component.
As opposed to the $\kappa$-$\mu$ shadowed fading model, we here consider that $X_i$ and $Y_i$ can have different variances. Thus, the effect of power imbalance in the diffuse components associated to non-[[LoS]{}]{} propagation is considered. Similarly, we also assume that the power of the [[LoS]{}]{} components can be imbalanced, i.e. $p^2\triangleq\sum_{i=1}^{\mu}p^2_i \neq q^2 \triangleq \sum_{i=1}^{\mu} q^2_i$. Hence, the physical model in (\[Model\]) can be regarded as a generalization of the Beckmann fading model through the consideration of clustering and [[LoS]{}]{} fluctuation.
First Order Statistics {#StatSection}
======================
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{MGF_fin}
M_{\gamma}(s)=&\frac{1}{\left(1-\frac{2\eta}{\mu(1+\eta)(1+\kappa)}\bar{\gamma s} \right)^{\mu/2} \left(1-\frac{2}{\mu(1+\eta)(1+\kappa)}\bar{\gamma s} \right)^{\mu/2}} \notag \\
&\times\left[1-\frac{1}{m}\left(\frac{\mu\kappa\left( \frac{\varrho^2}{1+\varrho^2}\right)(1+\eta)\bar{\gamma}s}{(1+\eta)(1+\kappa)\mu - 2\eta\bar{\gamma} s} \right.\right.\left.\left.+ \frac{\mu\kappa\left( \frac{1}{1+\varrho^2}\right)(1+\eta)\bar{\gamma}s}{(1+\eta)(1+\kappa)\mu - 2\bar{\gamma} s}\right) \right]^{-m}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqPDF}
f_{\gamma}(\gamma) =\frac{\alpha_2^{m-\mu/2} \gamma^{\mu-1}}{\bar{\gamma}^{\mu}\Gamma(\mu)\alpha_1^m}
\Phi_2^{(6)} \left(\frac{\mu}{2}, \frac{\mu}{2},-m, -m, m, m; \mu;\right.\left.\frac{-\gamma}{\bar{\gamma}\sqrt{\eta\alpha_2}},
\frac{-\gamma\sqrt{\eta}}{\bar{\gamma}\sqrt{\alpha_2}},
\frac{-\gamma\delta_1}{\bar{\gamma}}, \frac{-\gamma\delta_2}{\bar{\gamma}},\frac{-\gamma c_1}{\bar{\gamma}}, \frac{-\gamma c_2}{\bar{\gamma}}\right),\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqCDF}
F_{\gamma}(\gamma) = \frac{\alpha_2^{m-\mu/2} \gamma^{\mu}}{\bar{\gamma}^{\mu}\Gamma(\mu+1)\alpha_1^m}
\Phi_2^{(6)} \left(\frac{\mu}{2}, \frac{\mu}{2},-m, -m, m, m; \mu+1;\right. \left.\frac{-\gamma}{\bar{\gamma}\sqrt{\eta\alpha_2}},
\frac{-\gamma\sqrt{\eta}}{\bar{\gamma}\sqrt{\alpha_2}},
\frac{-\gamma\delta_1}{\bar{\gamma}}, \frac{-\gamma\delta_2}{\bar{\gamma}},\frac{-\gamma c_1}{\bar{\gamma}}, \frac{-\gamma c_2}{\bar{\gamma}}\right).\end{aligned}$$
We will now provide a first-order characterization of the FB distribution in terms of its chief probability functions; [as we will later see, tractable analytical expressions are attainable for its MGF, PDF and CDF]{}. Hereinafter, we will consider the random variable $\gamma\overset{\Delta}{=}\nolinebreak\bar{\gamma}W/\bar{W}$, representing the instantaneous SNR at the receiver side.
[Let $\gamma$ be a random variable characterizing the instantaneous SNR for the physical model in (\[Model\]). Then, $\gamma$ is said to follow a Fluctuating Beckmann (FB) distribution with mean ${\bar{\gamma}=\mathbb{E}[\gamma]}$ and non-negative real shape parameters $\kappa$, $\mu$, $m$, $\eta$ and $\varrho$, i.e. ${\gamma\sim\mathcal{FB}(\bar{\gamma}; \kappa, \mu, m,\eta,\varrho)}$, with]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqDef}
\kappa &= \frac{p^2+q^2}{\mu\left(\sigma_x^2+\sigma_y^2\right)}, & \varrho^2 &= \frac{p^2}{q^2}, & \eta &= \frac{\sigma_x^2}{\sigma_y^2},\end{aligned}$$ $\mu$ represents the number of clusters and $m$ accounts for the fluctuation of the [[LoS]{}]{} component.
With the above definition, we now calculate the MGF of $\gamma$ in the following lemma.
\[lemma1\] Let ${\gamma\sim\mathcal{FB}(\bar{\gamma}; \kappa, \mu, m,\eta,\varrho)}$. Then, the MGF of $\gamma$ is given at the top of next page in .
See Appendix \[app1\].
Lemma \[lemma1\] provides a simple closed-form expression for the MGF of the FB fading distribution. From (\[MGF\_fin\]), we will now show that the PDF and CDF of the FB fading distribution [ have a similar functional form as the $\kappa$-$\mu$ shadowed fading distribution [@Paris2014]]{}.
\[lemma2\] Let ${\gamma\sim\mathcal{FB}(\bar{\gamma}; \kappa, \mu, m,\eta,\varrho)}$. Then, the PDF of $\gamma$ is given by at the top of next page, where [$\delta_{x}$, $c_{x}$ and $\alpha_{x}$, with $x=\{1,2\}$]{} depend on the parameters of the FB distribution as described in the sequel, and $\Phi_2^{(n)}$ is the confluent form of the generalized Lauricella series defined in [@erdelyi1937 eq. 7.2, pp. 446].
Manipulating it is possible to write the MGF expression as follows $$\begin{aligned}
&M_{\gamma}(s) =
\left( 1- \tfrac{\tfrac{\mu(1+\eta)(1+\kappa)}{2\eta\bar{\gamma}}}{s} \right)^{-\tfrac{\mu}{2}}\left( 1- \tfrac{\tfrac{\mu(1+\eta)(1+\kappa)}{2\bar{\gamma}}}{s} \right)^{-{\tfrac{\mu}{2}}}\times\notag \\
& \tfrac{-1^{\mu}}{s^{\mu}}\tfrac{\alpha_2^{m-\mu/2}}{\bar{\gamma}^{\mu}\alpha_1^m}
\left(1 - \tfrac{\delta_1}{\bar{\gamma}s} \right)^m\left(1 - \tfrac{\delta_2}{\bar{\gamma}s}\right)^m
\left(1 - \tfrac{c_1}{\bar{\gamma}s}\right)^{-m}\left(1 - \tfrac{c_2}{\bar{\gamma}s}\right)^{-m}, \label{MGF_fac}\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta_{1,2}$ are the roots of $\alpha_1s^2+\beta_1s + 1$ and $c_{1,2}$ the roots of $\alpha_2s^2+\beta_2s + 1$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1 &= \frac{4\eta}{\mu^2(1+\eta)^2(1+\kappa)^2} +
\frac{2\kappa(\varrho^2+\eta)}{m (1+\varrho^2)\mu(1+\eta)(1+\kappa)^2}, \\
\beta_1 &= \frac{-1}{1+\kappa}\left[ \frac{2}{\mu} + \frac{\kappa}{m} \right], \\
\alpha_2 &= \frac{4\eta}{\mu^2(1+\eta)^2(1+\kappa)^2}, \\
\beta_2 &= \frac{-2}{\mu(1+\kappa)}.
$$
The expression for the PDF can be derived from as $f_{\gamma}(\gamma) = \nolinebreak \mathcal{L}^{-1} \{ M_{\gamma}(-s) \}$ using [@Srivastava1985 eq. 9.55], yielding (\[eqPDF\]).
\[lemma3\] Let ${\gamma\sim\mathcal{FB}(\bar{\gamma}; \kappa, \mu, m,\eta,\varrho)}$. Then, the CDF of $\gamma$ is given by at the top of this page,
Following the same steps as in the previous proof, the CDF expression is given by $F_{\gamma}(\gamma) = \nolinebreak \mathcal{L}^{-1} \{ \frac{M_{\gamma}(-s)}{s} \}$, yielding (\[eqPDF\]) directly from [@Srivastava1985 eq. 9.55].
The PDF and CDF of the FB distribution are given in terms of the multivariate $\Phi_2$ function, which also [appears]{} in other fading distributions in the literature [@Morales2010; @Paris2014; @Romero2016]. Apparently, and because it is defined as an $n$-fold infinite summation, its numerical evaluation may pose some challenges from a computational point of view. However, the Laplace transform of the $\Phi_2$ function has a comparatively simpler form in terms of a finite [product]{} of elementary functions, which becomes evident by inspecting the expression of the MGF in (\[MGF\_fin\]). Therefore, the $\Phi_2$ function can be evaluated by means of an inverse Laplace transform [@Martos2016; @Abate1995].
Note that the CDF and PDF of the received signal envelope can be directly derived from (\[eqPDF\]) and (\[eqCDF\]) straightforwardly through a change of variables. Thus, we get $f_R(R)=2R f_{\gamma}(R^2)$ and $F_R(R)=F_{\gamma}(R^2)$, with $\bar\gamma$ being replaced by $\Omega=E\{R^2\}$.
As argued before, the FB distribution provides the unification of a large number of important fading distributions. These connections are summarized in Table \[Table1\], on which the parameters corresponding to the FB distribution are underlined in order to avoid confusion with the parameters of any of the distributions included as special cases. Notably, [the Beckmann distribution arises as a special case]{} of the more general FB distribution for $\mu=1$ and sufficiently large $m$. Thus, the additional degrees of freedom of the FB distribution also facilitates the anaytical characterization of the Beckmann distribution. Interestingly, when $\eta=1$ the effect of the parameter $\varrho$ vanishes; conversely, when setting $\varrho=1$ the effect of $\eta$ is still relevant. This is in coherence with the behavior of the Beckmann distribution as observed in [@Pena2017].
[c|c]{} Channels & Fluctuating Beckmann Fading Parameters\
& $\underline{\kappa}=0$,$\underline{\mu}=1$,$\underline{\eta}=0$\
& $\underline{\kappa}=0$,$\underline{\mu}=1$,$\underline{\eta}=1$\
& $\underline{\kappa}=0$,$\underline{\mu}=m$,$\underline{\eta}=1$\
& $\underline{\kappa}=0$,$\underline{\mu}=1$,$\underline{\eta}=q$\
& $\underline{\kappa}=0$,$\underline{\mu}=\mu$,$\underline{\eta}=\eta$\
Rice & $\underline{\kappa}=K$,$\underline{\mu}=1$,$\underline{m}\rightarrow\infty$,$\underline{\eta}=1$$,\forall{\varrho}$\
Symmetrical $\eta$-$\kappa$ & $\underline{\kappa}=\kappa$,$\underline{\mu}=1$,$\underline{m}\rightarrow\infty$,$\underline{\eta}=\eta$,$\underline{\varrho}=\eta$\
Asymmetrical $\eta$-$\kappa$ & $\underline{\kappa}=\kappa$,$\underline{\mu}=1$,$\underline{m}\rightarrow\infty$,$\underline{\eta}=\eta$,$\underline{\varrho}=0$\
Beckmann & $\underline{\kappa}=K$,$\underline{\mu}=1$,$\underline{m}\rightarrow\infty$,$\underline{\eta}=q$,$\underline{\varrho}=r$\
$\kappa$-$\mu$ & $\underline{\kappa}=\kappa$,$\underline{\mu}=\mu$,$\underline{m}\rightarrow\infty$,$\underline{\eta}=1$,$\forall{\varrho}$\
Rician Shadowed & $\underline{\kappa}=\kappa$,$\underline{\mu}=1$,$\underline{m}=m$,$\underline{\eta}=1$,$\forall{\varrho}$\
$\kappa$-$\mu$ shadowed & $\underline{\kappa}=\kappa$,$\underline{\mu}=\mu$,$\underline{m}=m$,$\underline{\eta}=1$,$\forall{\varrho}$\
Second Order Statistics {#SecondOrder}
=======================
First-order statistics such as the PDF, CDF or MGF provide valuable information about the statistical behavior of the amplitude (or equivalently power) of the received signal affected by fading. However, they do not incorporate information related to the dynamic behavior of the fading process, which is of paramount relevance in the context of wireless communications because of the relative motion of transmitter, receivers and scatterers due to mobility. In the literature, two metrics are used to capture the dynamics of a general random process: the level crossing rate (LCR), which measures how often the amplitude of the received signal crosses a given threshold value, and the average fade duration (AFD), which measures how long the amplitude of the received signal remains below this threshold [@Rice1944].
The LCR of the received signal amplitude $R$ can be computed using Rice’s formula [@Rice1944] as
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqRice}
N_R(u)=\int_0^{\infty}\dot{r}f_{R,\dot{R}}\left(u,\dot{r}\right)d\dot{r},\end{aligned}$$
where $\dot{R}$ denotes the time derivative of the signal envelope and $f_{R,\dot{R}}(r,\dot{r})$ is the joint PDF of the received signal amplitude and its time derivative. Thus, in order to characterize the LCR of $R$, we must calculate the joint distribution of $R$ and $\dot{R}$. In our derivations, we will assume that the fluctuations in the diffuse part (i.e., [[NLoS]{}]{}) occur at a smaller scale compared to those of the [[LoS]{}]{} component in the fluctuating Beckmann fading model. This is the case, for instance, on which such [[LoS]{}]{} fluctuation can be associated to shadowing.
Let us express the squared signal envelope as $$R^2=R_1^2+R_2^2.$$ where $R_1$ and $R_2$ are defined as $$R_1^2=\sum_{k=1}^\mu(X_k+\xi p_k)^2,\;\; R_2^2=\sum_{k=1}^\mu (Y_k+\xi q_k)^2,$$ Note that both variables, when conditioned to $\xi$, are independent. After normalizing by , we have that $R_1$ and $R_2$ are distributed as a $\kappa$-$\mu$ random variables, with probability density function given by $$f_{R_k}(r_k)=\tfrac{\Omega^{\mu/4+1/2}}{\sigma^2_k(\xi d_k)^{\mu/2-1}}r_k^{\mu/2}e^{-\tfrac{\Omega r_k^2}{2\sigma^2_k}-\tfrac{\xi^2d_k^2}{2\sigma^2_k}}\text{I}_{\mu/2-1}\left(\tfrac{\Omega^{1/2}r_k\xi d_k}{\sigma_k^2}\right) \label{PDFR1},$$ where $d_1^2=p^2=\sum_{k=1}^{\mu}p_k^2$, $d_2^2=q^2=\sum_{k=1}^{\mu}q_k^2$, and $\xi$ is a Nakagami-m distributed random variable with PDF given by $$f_{\Xi}(\xi)=\frac{2m^m}{\Gamma(m)}\xi^{2m-1}\exp(-m\xi^2)$$
The derivative of $R$ with respect to time, $\dot{R}$, can be expressed as $$\dot{R}=\frac{\dot{R_1}R_1+\dot{R_2}R_2}{R}.$$ Conditioned to $R_1$, $R_2$ and $R$, the derivative of $R$ is a zero-mean Gaussian variable with variance $$\label{eq0000}\sigma^2_{\dot{R}}=\frac{\sigma^2_{\dot{R_1}}R^2_1+\sigma^2_{\dot{R_2}}R^2_2}{R^2}=\frac{\sigma^2_{\dot{R_1}}R^2_1+\sigma^2_{\dot{R_2}}R^2_2}{R^2_1+R^2_2}.$$ Hence, the distribution of $\dot{R}$ conditioned to $R_1$ and $R_2$ is $$f_{\dot{R}|R_1,R_2}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\left(\frac{\sigma^2_{\dot{r_1}}r^2_1+\sigma^2_{\dot{r_2}}r^2_2}{r^2_1+r^2_2}\right)}}\cdot e^{-\frac{(r_1^2+r_2^2)\dot{r}^2}{2(\sigma^2_{\dot{r_1}}r^2_1+\sigma^2_{\dot{r_2}}r^2_2)}}, \label{PDFGauss}$$
The LCR can be obtained as $$\begin{split}
N_R(u)=&\int_0^\infty \dot{r} f_{R,\dot{R}}(u,\dot{r})d\dot{r}\notag\\=&\int_0^\infty \dot{r} \left( \int_0^u f_{\dot{R}| R,R1}(\dot{r},u,r_1)f_{R,R1}(u,r_1)dr_1\right)d\dot{r}\\
=& \int_0^u f_{R,R_1}(u,r_1) \left(\int_0^\infty \dot{r} f_{\dot{R}|R,R_1}(\dot{r},u,r_1)d\dot{r}\right)dr_1.
\end{split}$$
Using the PDF of $\dot{R}$ conditioned to $R$ and $R_1$ in equation (\[PDFGauss\]), $$\int_0^\infty \dot{r} f_{\dot{R}|R,R_1}(\dot{r},u,r_1)d\dot{r}=\sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{\dot{R}}^2}{2\pi}}.$$ The joint distribution of $R_1$ and $R_2$ can be obtained as $$\begin{split}
&f_{R_1,R_2}(r_1,r_2)=\int_0^\infty f_{R_1|\xi}(r_1,\xi)f_{R_2|\xi}(r_2,\xi)f_\Xi(\xi)d\xi\\
=& \frac{2m^m\Omega^{\mu/2+1}}{\Gamma(m)\sigma^2_1\sigma_2^2 (p q)^{\mu/2-1}}r_1^{\mu/2}r_2^{\mu/2}\exp\left(-r_1^2\frac{\Omega}{2\sigma_1^2} - r_2^2\frac{\Omega}{2\sigma_2^2}\right) \times \\
&\int_0^\infty \left\{\xi^{2m-\mu+1}\exp\left(-\xi^2\left(\frac{p^2}{2\sigma_1^2}+\frac{q^2}{2\sigma_2^2}+m\right)\right)\right.\times\\ &\left.\text{I}_{\mu/2-1}\left(\frac{\Omega^{1/2}r_1\xi p}{\sigma_1^2}\right)\text{I}_{\mu/2-1}\left(\frac{\Omega^{1/2}r_2\xi q}{\sigma_2^2}\right) d\xi\right\}
\end{split}$$ In the general case, the last integral cannot be solved analytically in closed-form, [to the best of the authors’ knowledge]{}. However, considering the special case of $q_k=0$ (the case of $p_k=0$ can be solved similarly) in which $R_1$ and $R_2$ are independent, the distribution of $f_{R,R_1}(r,r_1)$ can be obtained as $$\begin{split}
f_{R,R_1}(u,r_1)= &|J_{r_1,r_2}(u,r_1)|f_{R_1,R_2}(r_1,\sqrt{u^2-r_1^2})\\=&|J_{r_1,r_2}(u,r_1)|f_{R_1}(r_1)f_{R_2}(\sqrt{u^2-r_1^2})\\
=&\frac{m^m\Omega^{\mu}u\cdot r^{\mu-1}_1\cdot (u^2-r^2_1)^{\mu/2-1}}{2^{\mu-2}\Gamma^2(\mu/2)\sigma_1^\mu\sigma_2^\mu(\frac{p^2}{2\sigma^2_1}+m)^m} \times \\
&e^{-\frac{\Omega(u^2-r^2_1)}{2\sigma^2_2}-\frac{\Omega r^2_1}{2\sigma^2_1}} \cdot {}_1F_1\left(m,\mu/2;\frac{\Omega\frac{p^2}{4\sigma^4_1}}{\frac{p^2}{2\sigma^2_1}+m}r_1^2\right), \\
\end{split}$$ for $0 \leq r_1 \leq r$, where $|J_{r_1,r_2}(\cdot,\cdot)|$ denotes the Jacobian of the transformation of random variables. In this particular case, the LCR of the normalized envelope $R$ can be expressed as $$\begin{split}
\label{LCRvar}
&N_R(u)= \frac{m^m\Omega^{\mu}u}{2^{\mu-2}\Gamma^2(\mu/2)\sigma_1^\mu\sigma_2^\mu(\frac{p^2}{2\sigma^2_1}+m)^m \sqrt{2\pi}} \times \\
&\int_0^u \left(\sigma^2_{\dot{R_1}}r^2_1/u^2+\sigma^2_{\dot{R_2}}(1-r^2_1/u^2)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} (u^2-r^2_1)^{\mu/2-1} \times\\&r^{\mu-1}_1 e^{-\frac{\Omega(u^2-r^2_1)}{2\sigma^2_2}-\frac{\Omega r^2_1}{2\sigma^2_1}} {}_1F_1\left(m,\tfrac{\mu}{2};\frac{\Omega\frac{p^2}{4\sigma^4_1}}{\tfrac{p^2}{2\sigma^2_1}+m}r_1^2\right) dr_1
\end{split}$$ and after a change of variables we have $$\begin{split}
&N_R(u)=\frac{m^m\Omega^{\mu}u^{(2\mu-1)}}{2^{\mu-1}\Gamma^2(\mu/2)\sigma_1^\mu\sigma_2^\mu(\frac{p^2}{2\sigma^2_1}+m)^m \sqrt{2\pi}} \cdot e^{-\frac{\Omega u^2}{2\sigma^2_2}} \times \\
&\int_0^1 [\sigma^2_{\dot{R_2}}+(\sigma^2_{\dot{R_1}}-\sigma^2_{\dot{R_2}})x]^{\frac{1}{2}} (1-x)^{(\mu/2-1)} x^{(\mu/2-1)}\times\\&e^{-\frac{\Omega(\sigma^2_2-\sigma^2_1)u^2 x}{2\sigma^2_1\sigma^2_2}}{}_1F_1\left(m,\tfrac{\mu}{2};\tfrac{\Omega\frac{p^2}{4\sigma^4_1}}{\frac{p^2}{2\sigma^2_1}+m}u^2 x\right)dx
\end{split}$$ where $\sigma^2_{\dot{R_1}}=\frac{-\ddot{\rho}(0)\sigma_1^2}{\Omega}$ and $\sigma^2_{\dot{R_2}}=\frac{-\ddot{\rho}(0)\sigma_2^2}{\Omega}$ from , and $\ddot{\rho}(0)$ is the second derivative of the autocorrelation function evaluated at $0$.
Finally, can be expressed in terms of the parameters of the FB distribution[^3], yielding $$\label{eqLCRfinal}
\begin{split} & N_R(u)= \tfrac{m^m[\mu(1+\eta)(1+\kappa)]^{\mu-1/2}\sqrt{-\ddot{\rho}(0)}}{2^{\mu-1}\Gamma^2(\mu/2)\eta^{\mu/2}(\frac{\mu \kappa (1+\eta)}{2\eta}+m)^m \sqrt{2\pi}} \cdot u^{(2\mu-1)} \times \\
&e^{-\mu/2 (1+\eta)(1+\kappa)u^2}\int_0^1 [1+(\eta-1)x]^{\frac{1}{2}} (1-x)^{(\mu/2-1)} x^{(\mu/2-1)}\times\\&e^{-\frac{\mu(1-\eta^2)(1+\kappa)}{2\eta}u^2 x}{}_1F_1\left(m,\mu/2;\frac{\frac{\kappa\mu^2(1+\eta)^2(1+\kappa)}{4\eta^2}}{\frac{\mu\kappa(1+\eta)}{2\eta}+m}u^2 x\right)dx
\end{split}$$
[With the knowledge of the LCR and the CDF of the FB distribution]{}, the AFD can be directly obtained as
$$\label{eqAFDfinal}
T_R(u)=\frac{F_R(u)}{N_R(u)},$$
where $F_R(u)$ is the CDF of the fading amplitude envelope derived in (\[eqCDF\]), after a proper change of variables.
Numerical Results and Applications {#ApplicationsSection}
==================================
First Order Statistics {#first-order-statistics}
----------------------
After attaining a full statistical characterization of the newly proposed Fluctuating Beckmann fading distribution, we aim to exemplify the influence of the parameters of this fading model over the distribution of the received amplitude. We will first focus on understanding the effect of the power imbalance in the [[LoS]{}]{} and [[NLoS]{}]{} components (i.e. the effect of $\varrho$ and $\eta$), since these are the two parameters that effectively extend the original $\kappa$-$\mu$ shadowed fading model to a more general case. Monte Carlo simulations are provided in order to double-check the validity of the derived expressions.
In Figs. \[PDF1\] and \[PDF2\], the PDF of the received signal amplitude is represented for different values of [[NLoS]{}]{} power imbalance $\eta$ and [[LoS]{}]{} fluctuation severity $m$. The values $m=1$ and $m=10$ correspond to the cases of heavy and mild fluctuation of the [[LoS]{}]{} component, respectively. The parameter $\varrho$ is set to $\varrho^2=0.1$, indicating a moderately large [[LoS]{}]{} power imbalance, and $\mu=1$. Let us first focus on Fig. \[PDF1\], where we set $\kappa=1$ to indicate a weak [[LoS]{}]{} scenario on which the [[LoS]{}]{} and [[NLoS]{}]{} power is the same. We observe that the effect of increasing $\eta$ causes the amplitude values [to be]{} more concentrated around its mean value. Besides, compared to the case of $\eta=1$ (i.e. the $\kappa$-$\mu$ shadowed fading distribution), the effect of having a power imbalance in the [[NLoS]{}]{} component clearly has an impact on the distribution of the signal envelope. Differently from the $\eta$-$\mu$ fading model, the behavior of the distribution with respect to $\eta$ is no longer symmetrical between $\eta\in[0,1]$ and $\eta\in[1,\infty)$ for a fixed $\varrho\neq1$. One interesting effect comes from the observation of the effect of increasing $\eta$: both setting $\eta=0.1$ or $\eta=10$ implies that the [[NLoS]{}]{} power is imbalanced by a factor of 10. However, it is evident that if this [[NLoS]{}]{} imbalance goes to the component associated with a larger [[LoS]{}]{} imbalance ($\eta=0.1$ since we have $\varrho^2=0.1$), this is way more detrimental for the received signal envelope than having the [[NLoS]{}]{} imbalance in the other component.
Fig. \[PDF2\] now considers a strong [[LoS]{}]{} scenario on which $\kappa=10$. The rest of the parameters are the same ones as in the previous figure. Because the [[LoS]{}]{} component is now much more relevant, the effect of changing $m$ is more noticeable. We observe that for $m=10$, which corresponds to a mild fluctuation on the [[LoS]{}]{} component, the shape of the PDF is only slightly altered when changing $\eta$. Conversely, the shape of the PDF is more affected by $\eta$ for low values of amplitude when $m=1$. This is further exemplified in Fig. \[PDFbimodal\], on which a bimodal behavior is observed as the imbalance is reduced through $\varrho$ or $\eta$. When both $\{\varrho,\eta\}$ [ decrease]{}, the in-phase components have considerably [less]{} power than the quadrature components. Because $\kappa$ is sufficiently large, the distribution will mostly fluctuate close to the [[LoS]{}]{} part of the quadrature component due to $m$, and the first maximum on the PDF in the low-amplitude region appears as the highly imbalanced in-phase component only is able to contribute in this region. We must note that this bimodal behavior does not appear in the original $\kappa$-$\mu$ shadowed or Beckmann distributions from which the FB distribution originates. Nevertheless, such bimodality indeed [shows]{} in other fading models such as the $\alpha$-$\eta$-$\kappa$-$\mu$ [@Yacoub2016], the two-wave with diffuse power [@Durgin2002], the fluctuating two-ray [@Romero2016] and some others [@Laureano2017; @Beaulieu2014].
![FB signal envelope distribution for different values of $\eta$ and $m$ in weak [[LoS]{}]{} scenario ($\kappa=1$) with $\varrho^2=0.1$, $\mu=1$ and $\Omega=E\{R^2\}=1$. Solid lines correspond to the exact PDF, markers correspond Monte Carlo simulations.[]{data-label="PDF1"}](PDF_eta_k_bajo.pdf){width=".99\columnwidth"}
![FB signal envelope distribution for different values of $\eta$ and $m$ in strong [[LoS]{}]{} scenario ($\kappa=10$) with $\varrho^2=0.1$, $\mu=1$ and $\Omega=E\{R^2\}=1$. Solid lines correspond to the exact PDF, markers correspond Monte Carlo simulations.[]{data-label="PDF2"}](PDF_eta_k_alto.pdf){width=".99\columnwidth"}
![FB signal envelope distribution for different values of $\eta$ and $\varrho$ in strong [[LoS]{}]{} scenario ($\kappa=10$) with $m=1$, $\mu=1$ and $\Omega=E\{R^2\}=1$. Solid lines correspond to the exact PDF, markers correspond Monte Carlo simulations.[]{data-label="PDFbimodal"}](PDF_Bimodal.pdf){width=".99\columnwidth"}
We represent in Figs. \[PDF3\] and \[PDF4\] the PDF of the received signal amplitude for different values of [[LoS]{}]{} power imbalance $\varrho$ and [[LoS]{}]{} fluctuation severity $m$. We first consider the weak [[LoS]{}]{} scenario with $\kappa=1$, and setting $\mu=2$ and $\eta=0.1$. We observe that low values of $\varrho$ and $m$ cause the amplitude values being more sparse. When the [[LoS]{}]{} component is stronger, i.e. $\kappa=10$ in Fig. \[PDF4\] the effect of increasing $m$ (i.e. eliminating the [[LoS]{}]{} fluctuation) or $\varrho$ is more relevant.
![FB signal envelope distribution for different values of $\varrho$ and $m$ in weak [[LoS]{}]{} scenario ($\kappa=1$) with $\eta=0.1$, $\mu=2$ and $\Omega=E\{R^2\}=1$. Solid lines correspond to the exact PDF derived, markers correspond Monte Carlo simulations.[]{data-label="PDF3"}](PDF_re2_k_bajo.pdf){width=".99\columnwidth"}
![FB signal envelope distribution for different values of $\varrho$ and $m$ in strong [[LoS]{}]{} scenario ($\kappa=1$) with $\eta=0.1$, $\mu=2$ and $\Omega=E\{R^2\}=1$. Solid lines correspond to the exact PDF, markers correspond Monte Carlo simulations.[]{data-label="PDF4"}](PDF_re2_k_alto.pdf){width=".99\columnwidth"}
Figs. \[CDF1\] and \[CDF2\] are useful to understanding the effect of the parameters $\varrho$ and $\eta$ over the CDF. Spefically, in Fig. \[CDF1\] we compare the shape of the CDF in weak and strong [[LoS]{}]{} scenarios as $\eta$ varies. The [[LoS]{}]{} fluctuation parameter is set to $m=10$ in order to eliminate its influence, whereas $\varrho^2=0.1$ and $\mu=1$. We observe that increasing either $\eta$ or $\kappa$ makes the slope of the CDF rise close to $x=1$. A similar observation can be made when inspecting Fig. \[CDF2\]. We see that having the [[LoS]{}]{} and [[NLoS]{}]{} imbalances in the same component ($\varrho^2=\eta=0.1$) is more detrimental for the signal envelope, and the probability of having very low values of signal level is higher.
![FB signal envelope CDF for different values of $\kappa$ and $\eta$ with $\varrho^2=0.1$, $\mu=1$, $m=10$ and $\Omega=E\{R^2\}=1$. Solid lines correspond to the exact CDF, markers correspond Monte Carlo simulations.[]{data-label="CDF1"}](CDF_eta.pdf){width=".99\columnwidth"}
![FB signal envelope CDF for different values of $\kappa$ and $\varrho$ with $\eta=0.1$, $\mu=2$, $m=10$ and $\Omega=E\{R^2\}=1$. Solid lines correspond to the exact CDF, markers correspond Monte Carlo simulations.[]{data-label="CDF2"}](CDF_re2.pdf){width=".99\columnwidth"}
Second Order Statistics {#second-order-statistics}
-----------------------
We will now investigate the effect of the FB fading parameters on the second-order statistics of the distribution. We assume that a time variation of the diffuse component according to Clarke’s correlation model [@Stuber2011] with maximum Doppler shift $f_d$; this implies that $\sqrt{-\ddot{\rho}}=\sqrt{2}f_d\pi$ [@Ramos2009]. As argued in Section \[SecondOrder\], we consider that $\varrho\rightarrow\infty$ and hence the LCR and AFD are given by (\[eqLCRfinal\]) and (\[eqAFDfinal\]). Monte Carlo simulations are also included, by generating a sampled fluctuating Beckmann random process with sampling period $T_s>>f_d$ in order to avoid missing level crossings at very low threshold values [@Lopez2012].
Fig. \[LCRfig\] represents the LCR vs the normalized threshold for different sets of fading parameter values. When increasing $\mu$, i.e. the number of multipath clusters, the number of crossings at very low threshold values is drastically reduced. Similarly, the number of crossings in this region grows when reducing $\kappa$ or increasing $\eta$. This latter effect is coherent with the fact that $\varrho\rightarrow\infty$ in this case, so that having a value of $\eta<1$ is beneficial in terms of fading severity. Thus, the maximum number of crossings for low threshold values in the investigated scenarios is attained for low $\mu$ and $\kappa$, and large $\eta$.
![Normalized LCR vs threshold value $x$ (dB) normalized to $\Omega$ for different values of $\kappa$, $\eta$ and $\mu$, with $m=1$ and $\varrho\rightarrow\infty$. Solid lines correspond to the exact LCR, markers correspond Monte Carlo simulations.[]{data-label="LCRfig"}](LCR.pdf){width=".99\columnwidth"}
Fig. \[AFDfig\] represents the AFD vs the normalized threshold for the same set of fading parameter values as in Fig. \[LCRfig\]. Interestingly, we see that the duration of deep fades is not affected by $\eta$. We also observe that a larger AFD is associated with a lower value of $\mu$ and a larger value of $\kappa$; this is in coherence with the observations in [@Cotton2007] for the particular case of the $\kappa$-$\mu$ fading model.
![Normalized AFD vs threshold value $x$ (dB) normalized to $\Omega$ for different values of $\kappa$, $\eta$ and $\mu$, with $m=1$ and $\varrho\rightarrow\infty$. Solid lines correspond to the exact AFD, markers correspond Monte Carlo simulations.[]{data-label="AFDfig"}](AFD.pdf){width=".99\columnwidth"}
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{BER1}
P_s(\bar{\gamma})=&\frac{1}{2\left(1+\frac{2\eta}{\mu(1+\eta)(1+\kappa)}\bar{\gamma} \right)^{\mu/2} \left(1+\frac{2}{\mu(1+\eta)(1+\kappa)}\bar{\gamma} \right)^{\mu/2}}\times\nonumber\\&\left[1+\frac{1}{m}\left(\frac{\mu\kappa\left( \frac{\varrho^2}{1+\varrho^2}\right)(1+\eta)\bar{\gamma}}{(1+\eta)(1+\kappa)\mu + 2\eta\bar{\gamma}}\right.\right.\left.\left.+ \frac{\mu\kappa\left( \frac{1}{1+\varrho^2}\right)(1+\eta)\bar{\gamma}}{(1+\eta)(1+\kappa)\mu + 2\bar{\gamma}}\right) \right]^{-m}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{BER2}
P_s(\bar{\gamma})=&\sum_{n=1}^{N-1}(-1)^{n+1}\binom{N-1}{n}\frac{1}{n+1} \times\frac{1}{\left(1+\frac{2n\eta}{(n+1)\mu(1+\eta)(1+\kappa)}\bar{\gamma} \right)^{\mu/2}}\times
\frac{1}{\left(1+\frac{2n}{(n+1)\mu(1+\eta)(1+\kappa)}\bar{\gamma} \right)^{\mu/2}} \notag \\
&\times\left[1+\frac{1}{m}\left(\frac{\mu\kappa\left( \frac{\varrho^2}{1+\varrho^2}\right)(1+\eta)\bar{\gamma}\left(\frac{n}{n+1}\right)}{(1+\eta)(1+\kappa)\mu + 2\eta\bar{\gamma}\left(\frac{n}{n+1}\right)}\right.\right. \left.\left.+ \frac{\mu\kappa\left( \frac{1}{1+\varrho^2}\right)(1+\eta)\bar{\gamma}\left(\frac{n}{n+1}\right)}{(1+\eta)(1+\kappa)\mu + 2\bar{\gamma}\left(\frac{n}{n+1}\right)}\right) \right]^{-m}\end{aligned}$$
Error Probability Analysis
--------------------------
We now exemplify how the performance analysis of wireless communication systems operating under FB fading can be carried out. For the sake of simplicity, we here focus on the symbol error probability (SEP) analysis for a number of well-known modulation schemes.
The SEP in the presence of fading is known to be given by $$P_s(\bar{\gamma}) = \int_0^{\infty} P_{AWGN}(\gamma)f_{\gamma}(\gamma)d\gamma$$ where $P_{AWGN}(\gamma)$ is the symbol error probability in the AWGN case [@AlouiniBook eq. 8.85]. When using coherent DBPSK (Differential Binary Phase-.Shift Keying) modulation, the SEP can be expressed in terms of the MGF as $$P_s(\bar{\gamma}) =\nolinebreak \frac{1}{2}M_{\gamma}(s)\rvert_{s=-1}.$$ Thus, the SEP of DPBSK when assuming the FB fading model is given in at the top of this page.
In the case of assuming orthogonal $M$-ary FSK (Frequency-Shift Keying) signals and non-coherent demodulation, the symbol error probability over AWGN channels is given in [@AlouiniBook eq. 8.67] as $$P_s(\bar{\gamma}) = \sum_{n=1}^{M-1}(-1)^{n+1}\binom{M-1}{n}\left.\frac{1}{n+1}M_{\gamma}(s)\right|_{s=\frac{-n}{n+1}},$$ yielding the following expression when assuming the FB fading model in . The SEP is evaluated in Fig. \[SEP\_fig\], assuming coherent DBPSK, and non-coherent $2$-FSK and $4$-FSK. We observe that the SEP performance of DBPSK is much better than the non-coherent schemes, especially when the fading severity is reduced (i.e. large $\kappa$ and $\eta$, for $\varrho<1$)
{width=".99\columnwidth"}
. \[SEP\_fig\]
Conclusion {#ConclusionSection}
==========
We presented an extension of the $\kappa$-$\mu$ shadowed fading distribution, by including the effects of power imbalance between the [[LoS]{}]{} and [[NLoS]{}]{} components through two additional parameters, $\varrho$ and $\eta$, respectively. This generalization also includes the classical and notoriously unwieldy Beckmann fading distribution as special case, with the advantage of admitting a relatively simple analytical characterization when compared to state-of-the-art fading models. Thus, we are able to unify a wide set of fading models in the literature under the umbrella of a more general model, for which we suggest the name of Fluctuating Beckmann fading model.
We observed that when the [[LoS]{}]{} and [[NLoS]{}]{} imbalances are both large for the same component (i.e. $\varrho<1$ and $\eta<1$ for the in-phase component, or $\varrho>1$ and $\eta>1$ for the quadrature component), the fading severity is increased. Conversely, when the [[LoS]{}]{} imbalance is larger in one component (e.g. $\varrho<1$) it is beneficial that its [[NLoS]{}]{} part has [less]{} power (i.e. $\eta>1$ in this case) in order to reduce fading severity. Strikingly and somehow counterintuitively, the FB distribution exhibits a bimodal behavior in some specific scenarios, unlike the distributions from which it originates.
Proof of Lemma I {#app1}
================
Let us consider the physical model in . Specializing for $\mu = \nolinebreak 1$, the conditional MGF of the signal power W given $\xi$ follows a Beckmann distribution with MGF given by [@AlouiniBook eq. 2.38] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{MGF_Beckmann}
M_{W}(s | \xi)=&\frac{1}{(1-2\sigma^2_xs)^{1/2}(1-2\sigma^2_ys)^{1/2}} \times\notag\\ &\exp{\left( \frac{p_1^2\xi s}{1 - 2\sigma_x^2 s} +
\frac{q_1^2\xi s}{1 - 2\sigma_y^2 s}\right)}\end{aligned}$$
Since the Gaussian processes within are mutually independent, then the conditional moment-generating function of the FB distribution can be obtained by multiplying the $\mu$ terms of the sum. Thus, the conditional MGF of the signal power W is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{MGF_Ext_Cond}
M_{W}(s | \xi)=&\frac{1}{(1-2\sigma^2_xs)^{\mu/2}(1-2\sigma^2_ys)^{\mu/2}} \times\notag\\&\exp{\left( \frac{p^2\xi s}{1 - 2\sigma_x^2 s} +
\frac{q^2\xi s}{1 - 2\sigma_y^2 s}\right)}\end{aligned}$$ where $p^2=\sum_{i=1}^{\mu}p_i^2$ and $q^2=\sum_{i=1}^{\mu}q_i^2$.
With the definitions in (\[eqDef\]), the conditional MGF in can be rewritten as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{MGF_new_param}
&M_{\gamma}(s | \xi)=\frac{1}{\left(1-\frac{2\eta}{\mu(1+\eta)(1+\kappa)}\bar{\gamma s} \right)^{\mu/2} \left(1-\frac{2}{\mu(1+\eta)(1+\kappa)}\bar{\gamma s} \right)^{\mu/2}} \notag \\
&\times exp\left(\frac{\mu\kappa\left( \frac{\varrho^2}{1+\varrho^2}\right)(1+\eta)\xi\bar{\gamma}s}{(1+\eta)(1+\kappa)\mu - 2\eta\bar{\gamma} s} + \frac{\mu\kappa\left( \frac{1}{1+\varrho^2}\right)(1+\eta)\xi\bar{\gamma}s}{(1+\eta)(1+\kappa)\mu - 2\bar{\gamma} s}\right)\end{aligned}$$ Finally, the unconditional MGF for the FB fading model can be obtained by averaging as $$M_{\gamma}(s)=\int_0^{\infty} M_{\gamma}(s | \xi) \, f_{\xi}(\xi) \, d\xi$$ where $f_{\xi}(\xi)$ is the Nakagami-$m$ PDF, yielding (\[MGF\_fin\])
[^1]: [Line-of-sight is used here to mean the more precise phenomenon concerning the presence of dominant components.]{}
[^2]: or equivalently, $\xi^2$ is a Gamma random variable with $E[\xi^2] = 1$, shape parameter $m$ and scale parameter $1/m$.
[^3]: Note that, because of the assumption of $q_k=0$, this implies that the parameter $\varrho\rightarrow\infty$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We show theoretically and demonstrate experimentally that collapsing elliptically-polarized laser beams experience a nonlinear ellipse rotation that is highly sensitive to small fluctuations in the input power. For arbitrarily small fluctuations in the input power and after a sufficiently large propagation distance, the polarization angle becomes uniformly distributed in \[0, 2$\pi$\] from shot-to-shot. We term this novel phenomenon “loss of polarization.” We perform experiments in fused-silica glass, nitrogen gas and water, and observe a significant increase in the fluctuations of the output polarization angle for elliptically-polarized femtosecond pulses as the power is increased beyond the critical power for self-focusing. We also show numerically and confirm experimentally that this effect is more prominent in the anomalous group-velocity dispersion (GVD) regime compared to the normal-GVD regime due to the extended lengths of the filaments for the former. Such effects could play an important role in intense-field light-matter interactions in which elliptically-polarized pulses are utilized.'
author:
- Gauri Patwardhan
- Xiaohui Gao
- Amir Sagiv
- Avik Dutt
- Jared Ginsberg
- Adi Ditkowski
- Gadi Fibich
- 'Alexander L. Gaeta'
title: Loss of Polarization in Collapsing Beams
---
Optical beam collapse occurs when a laser beam with a power greater than a certain critical power $P_{cr}$ propagates through a transparent medium and undergoes self-focusing [@fibichSelfFocusingPerturbedUnperturbed1999; @fibichCriticalPowerSelffocusing2000; @gaetaCatastrophicCollapseUltrashort2000; @boydSelffocusingPresentFundamentals2008; @fibichNonlinearSchodingerEquation2015]. At higher powers, competing effects such as plasma defocusing arrest the collapse, leading to the formation of laser filaments [@couaironFemtosecondFilamentationTransparent2007; @kandidovFilamentationHighpowerFemtosecond2009; @shimFilamentationAirUltrashort2011] that can confine light over distances much longer than the diffraction length [@rodriguezKilometerrangeNonlinearPropagation2004]. Self-focusing and laser filamentation are important for applications in atmospheric remote sensing [@kasparianWhiteLightFilamentsAtmospheric2003; @kasparianPhysicsApplicationsAtmospheric2008], light detection and ranging (LIDAR) [@rodriguezKilometerrangeNonlinearPropagation2004; @hauriGenerationIntenseCarrierenvelope2004], high-harmonic generation (HHG) [@negroFilamentationbasedPolarizationPulse2011; @negroPolarizationPulseShaping2010; @popmintchevBrightCoherentUltrahigh2012], pulse compression [@hauriGenerationIntenseCarrierenvelope2004], and terahertz generation [@ohIntenseTerahertzGeneration2013]. Additionally, collapsing waves are of universal interest because of their relevance not only in optics but also in a wide variety of fields, e.g., in Bose-Einstein condensation, surface waves dynamics, plasma physics, and Ginzburg-Landau equations [@robinsonNonlinearWaveCollapse1997; @kivsharSelffocusingTransverseInstabilities2000; @pitaevskiiDynamicsCollapseConfined1996; @turitsynNonstableSolitonsSharp1993].
Through the process of self-phase modulation, the acquired nonlinear phase shift of collapsing beams becomes large and highly sensitive to small fluctuations in the input power, as predicted theoretically [@merleUniquenessContinuationProperties1992; @fibichContinuationsNonlinearSchrodinger2011] and demonstrated experimentally [@shimLossPhaseCollapsing2012]. Furthermore, as the collapsing beam evolves into a filament, the sensitivity of the nonlinear phase shift to small fluctuations increases with propagation disce, so that ultimately, the nonlinear phase shift becomes uniformly distributed in \[0,2$\pi$\] [@sagivLossPhaseUniversality2017]. As a result of this “loss of phase”, the interference between post-collapse beams becomes chaotic [@fibichContinuationsNonlinearSchrodinger2011; @shimLossPhaseCollapsing2012; @sagivLossPhaseUniversality2017; @mlejnekOpticallyTurbulentFemtosecond1999; @bergeMultipleFilamentationTerawatt2004].
While the effects of beam collapse on the electric-field amplitude and phase have been extensively investigated [@fibichContinuationsNonlinearSchrodinger2011; @shimLossPhaseCollapsing2012; @varmaTrappingDestructionLongRange2008a; @fibichControlMultipleFilamentation2004; @haoOptimizationMultipleFilamentation2007; @pointSuperfilamentationAir2014], limited work exists on the study of the polarization of beams undergoing wave collapse. Most of the work studies the effects of polarization on beam collapse [@shiInfluenceLaserPolarization2016; @panovFilamentationArbitraryPolarized2013; @fibichDeterministicVectorialEffects2001; @fibichVectorialRandomEffects2001; @fibichMultipleFilamentationCircularly2002; @fibichSelffocusingCircularlyPolarized2003]. However, the change in the beam’s polarization itself as a result of its collapse remains largely unexplored. Since several applications of laser filamentation including HHG, THz generation and supercontinuum generation are polarization sensitive [@youMechanismEllipticallyPolarized2013; @dharmadhikariGenerationPolarizationdependentSupercontinuum2015; @rostamiDramaticEnhancementSupercontinuum2016], investigating the polarization state of collapsing beams is crucial [@kolesikPolarizationDynamicsFemtosecond2001; @phuxuanPolarizationPicosecondLight1983; @petitPolarizationDependencePropagation2000]. In some of the studies, molecular alignment and delayed birefringence acting on the probe were investigated [@yuanPulsePolarizationEvolution2015; @yuanMeasurementBirefringenceFilament2011; @kosarevaPolarizationRotationDue2010]. In case of self-induced polarization rotation of the pump, direct measurements [@rostamiPolarizationEvolutionUltrashort2015a] using a rotating polarizing cube and indirect measurements [@sheinfuxMeasuringStabilityPolarization2012] using femtosecond laser-induced periodic surface structures (FLIPSS) have observed moderate rotations of the polarization angle pre- and post- collapse. The fluctuations in polarization rotation in these studies, however, were obscured by averaging over multiple shots or pulse periods, and the increase of the fluctuations with propagation distance at powers significantly above $P_{cr}$ was not revealed. Additionally, theoretical investigations based on these observations have not been performed.
In this Letter, we theoretically predict and experimentally demonstrate an effect which we term “loss of polarization.” We show that, when an elliptically-polarized input beam undergoes filamentation, its nonlinear ellipse rotation can become highly sensitive to fluctuations in the input power. Hence, its output polarization becomes random. We show the universality of the loss of polarization effect by performing experiments with femtosecond pulses in various media (glass, water, and nitrogen gas). For glass we perform experiments under conditions of normal and anomalous group-velocity-dispersion (GVD) and show that the loss-of-polarization effect is more pronounced in the anomalous-GVD regime where filaments tend to be significantly longer.
To theoretically explain the loss of polarization in elliptically-polarized, collapsing beams, we consider the nonlinear Schrödinger equations (NLSE) for propagation in a bulk saturable Kerr medium @size[9]{}@mathfonts $$i\frac{\partial A_\pm}{\partial z} = \frac{\partial^2A_\pm}{\partial x^2}+\frac{\partial^2A_\pm}{\partial y^2}+\frac{2}{3}\frac{\left(|A_\pm|^2+2|A_\mp|^2\right)A_\pm}{\left[1+\epsilon\left(|A_\pm|^2+|A_\mp|^2\right)\right]}, \label{eq:nlse}$$ where $A_+(z,x,y)$ and $A_-(z,x,y)$ are the slowly-varying envelopes of the clockwise and counter-clockwise circular polarization components of the electric field, $x$ and $y$ are the transverse coordinates normalized by the input beam radius, $z$ is the coordinate along the propagation direction normalized by the diffraction length, and $\epsilon$ is the saturation parameter. The angle $\theta$ between the major axis of the polarization ellipse and the $x$-axis is [@sheinfuxMeasuringStabilityPolarization2012] @size[10]{}@mathfonts $$\theta (z)=-\frac{1}{2}\tan^{-1}\frac{U}{Q},
\label{eq:eq2}$$ where @size[9]{}@mathfonts $U=-2$ Im$[\int A_+^*A_-rdr]$ and $Q=2$ Re$[\int A_+^*A_-rdr].$
An elliptically-polarized Gaussian input beam, whose power $P_{in}$ is moderately above $P_{cr}$, evolves into the coupled spatial solitary waves @size[10]{}@mathfonts $$A_\pm(z,x,y)=e^{i\kappa_\pm Z}R_\pm(x,y), \label{eq:solitary}$$ where $R_\pm$ are solutions of @size[9]{}@mathfonts $$-\kappa_\pm R_\pm + \frac{\partial^2R_\pm}{\partial x^2}+\frac{\partial^2R_\pm}{\partial y^2}+\frac{2}{3}\frac{\left(|R_\pm|^2+2|R_\mp|^2\right)R_\pm}{\left[1+\epsilon(|R_\pm|^2+|R_\mp|^2)\right]}=0.$$ When the Gaussian input beam is elliptically-polarized, the power of $A_+(0,x,y)$ is different from that of $A_-(0,x,y)$. Hence, $A_+$ and $A_-$ converge to different solitary waves with $\Delta \kappa = \kappa_+-\kappa_-\neq0,$ and the beam accumulates a polarization angle $\theta_0$ during the initial collapse stage. The polarization rotation angle then satisfies
In the presence of input noise, $\theta_0$ and $\Delta\kappa$ become random variables, therefore, by the loss of phase lemma [@sagivLossPhaseUniversality2017], the probability distribution of $\theta$ mod $(2\pi)$ converges to a uniform distribution on $[0,2\pi]$ as $z\rightarrow\infty$. This effect represents a complete *“loss of polarization”*. For $z$ sufficiently large so that $z\Delta P\,(d\Delta\kappa/dz)\gg1$, even for small changes in the input power $\Delta P$, large changes in $\theta$ are induced, making it impossible to deterministically predict the output polarization angle. Note that for a linearly-polarized input beam, since $|A_+|=|A_-|$, both components collapse into identical solitary waves with $\Delta\kappa=0$, and so the polarization angle does not rotate at all.
To demonstrate the loss of polarization phenomenon numerically, we solve the coupled NLSE (Eq. (\[eq:nlse\])) using the split-step Fourier transform method [@agrawalNonlinearFiberOptics2013] with $\epsilon = 5\times10^{-5}$ and $|A_+$/$A_-|_{z=0}=2.747$. Both components collapse and evolve into solitary waves, see Fig. \[fig:fig1\](a). The bottom plots of Fig. \[fig:fig1\](a) show the spatial intensity profile of the beam at various propagation lengths. The difference in amplitude between the two components in Fig. \[fig:fig1\](a) corresponds to a difference in their propagation constants, see Eq. (\[eq:solitary\]). This is shown by the different slopes of the on-axis accumulated phases in Fig. \[fig:fig1\](b) $(\kappa_-\approx 75.82$ and $\kappa_+\approx 26.49)$. Since $\Delta\kappa\approx 49.33$, theoretical prediction of the polarization angle $\theta(z)\approx z\Delta\kappa(P)$/$2\approx 24.66 z$ by Eq. (\[eq:thetaz\]) agrees well with the direct fit of $\theta(z)\approx 24.47 z$ (Eq. (\[eq:eq2\])), whose slope is within 0.8% of the theoretical prediction. To the best of our knowledge, Fig. \[fig:fig1\] presents the first example of a multi-component solitary wave of the NLSE with different propagation constants for each component.
![Solution of Eq. (\[eq:nlse\]) assuming a Gaussian initial beam profile with $P_{in}$/$P_{cr} = 1.73$. (a) On-axis amplitude $|A(z,0)|$ and beam profile vs. propagation distance $z$, (b) Unwrapped on-axis phase $\phi$ for right (left) circularly-polarized component indicated by the red-dotted (blue-solid) curve, (c) The polarization angle $\theta(z)$ vs. $z$.[]{data-label="fig:fig1"}](Fig1){width="50.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:fig2\] shows the polarization angle $\theta$ as a function of the input power, for various propagation distances $z$. The elliptically-polarized beam undergoes negligible change in the accumulated polarization angle for short propagation lengths ($z=0.1$) \[Fig. \[fig:fig2\](a)\]. So the probability distribution function (PDF) is highly localized \[Fig. \[fig:fig2\](d)\]. As the propagation distance increases ($z=0.5$), these changes increase \[Fig. \[fig:fig2\](b)\], and the PDF becomes more “spread-out”, i.e., the uncertainty in $\theta$ increases \[Fig. \[fig:fig2\](e)\]. Ultimately, at long propagation lengths ($z=1.5$), $\theta$ varies rapidly with the power \[Fig. \[fig:fig2\](c)\], and the PDF approaches a uniform distribution \[Fig. \[fig:fig2\](f)\]. The PDFs in Figs. \[fig:fig2\](d)-(f) were computed using a novel numerical method, which is more efficient and informative for a fixed number of NLSE simulations than the Monte-Carlo method [@ditkowskiSplineBasedApproachUncertainty2018]. We illustrate the loss of polarization at $z=1.5$ by plotting a histogram of 1000 simulations with an elliptically-polarized input beam with $P_{in}$ distributed uniformly in the 10% interval around 1.65$P_{cr}$ and observe that $\theta$ fluctuates across the entire range of \[0,2$\pi$\] \[Fig. \[fig:fig2\](g)\].
![\[fig:fig2\] Elliptically-polarized input beam, (a)-(c): Polarization angle vs. input power at $z$ = 0.1, 0.5 & 1.5, respectively; (d)-(f): The probability distribution function (PDF) of $\tilde{\theta} = \theta$/$\pi$(mod 2); at $z$ = 0.1, 0.5 & 1.5; (g): Histogram of $\tilde{\theta}$ at $z$ = 1.5 for 1000 simulations with $P_{in}$/$P_{cr}$ distributed uniformly in \[1.53, 1.75\].](Fig2){width="48.00000%"}
As predicted by theory, linearly-polarized beams do not undergo loss of polarization. Indeed, our simulations show that the polarization angle of a linearly-polarized beam remains unchanged irrespective of $P_{in}$ (plot presented in [@supplementaryLOP2018]).
We experimentally investigate the stability of the output polarization after the beam has undergone collapse for different input polarizations (linear and elliptical) in fused silica samples using 1500 nm pulses (75-fs pulse duration, 10-Hz repetition rate) (further details in [@supplementaryLOP2018]). We perform single-shot measurements and record the magnitudes of the $s$- and $p$-polarizations, which can be used to calculate the polarization angle $\theta$ [@hechtEllipticalPolarization1998] (see [@supplementaryLOP2018] for more details). The experimental setup is shown in Fig. \[fig:fig3\](a). The energy of the input pulses was varied from 15 to 220 $\mu$J.
Beam collapse is indicated by the presence of white light at the output due to the generated supercontinuum as a result of filamentation and glass-ionization [@gaetaCatastrophicCollapseUltrashort2000; @brodeurBandGapDependenceUltrafast1998; @brodeurUltrafastWhitelightContinuum1999; @yangFilamentationSupercontinuumGeneration2017]. It is also indicated in the plotted curve of output energy in $p$-polarization ($p$-pol) versus input energy \[Fig. \[fig:fig3\](b)\]. When the input energy is low, the output energy varies linearly with input as expected. When collapse occurs, the transmitted energy saturates due to nonlinear absorption inside the glass sample and the slope of the output energy vs. input energy decreases as shown in Fig. \[fig:fig3\](b). Input energies are normalized to the maximum energy used in our experiments (220 $\mu$J). From both these indicators, we determine that the beam collapse begins at around 0.25 of the normalized energy.
{width="100.00000%"}
We plot normalized energies in the $s$- vs. $p$-polarization in Fig. \[fig:fig3\](c) to show trends in $\theta$. For linearly-polarized input, irrespective of whether collapse and filamentation occurs, the curve of $s$- vs. $p$-polarized energy is linear indicating a constant polarization angle. For elliptically-polarized input, in the absence of beam collapse at low powers, the $s$ vs. $p$ plot shows a $\tan^2$ dependence that arises due to steady increase of $\theta$ with power, in agreement with the theory [@supplementaryLOP2018]. At high energies, however, $s$ vs. $p$ exhibits random behavior due to loss of polarization. To further investigate this effect, the $s$/$p$ fluence ratio is calculated from each single-shot measurement by taking the ratio of the corresponding detector outputs and is plotted as a function of input energy for elliptically- and linearly-polarized light \[Fig. \[fig:fig3\](d)\]. The fluctuations in the $s$/$p$ fluence ratio are correlated to the fluctuations in $\theta$. The resulting plot shows two important features. First, for elliptically-polarized input, the $s$/$p$ ratio steadily increases with input energy, showing a rotation of the polarization ellipse, whereas for linear input the $s$/$p$ ratio stays constant, indicating a constant polarization angle. Second, the fluctuations in $s$/$p$ ratio increase for elliptically-polarized input indicating increased sensitivity of the output polarization angle on input power. For the case of linearly-polarized input, fluctuations in $s$/$p$ ratio remain small and constant throughout. These observations are in accordance with our theoretical prediction based on the nonlinear ellipse rotation phenomenon [@boydPropagationIsotropicNonlinear2008]. Below collapse threshold ($< 55\ \mu$J or 0.25 of normalized input energy), the fluctuations for the elliptically-polarized beam are comparable to the small fluctuations ($\sim 1^\circ$) for the linearly-polarized beam. However, for sufficiently high input energy ($> 55\ \mu$J) i.e. when the beam undergoes collapse, the fluctuations become 6 times higher for elliptically-polarized input than for linearly-polarized input, which agrees qualitatively with our numerical predictions. We observe a $27^\circ$ rotation of polarization angle over the entire energy interval in our experiment for elliptically-polarized input. The observed fluctuations in the polarization angle are more than $6^\circ$ for the highest energy in our experiment. This is significantly larger than the measurement uncertainty ($1^\circ$), which we calculate based on the fluctuations in $\theta$ in the linear-polarization case.
From our analysis, see Eq. (\[eq:thetaz\]), and the NLSE simulations \[Fig. \[fig:fig1\]\], we predict as the propagation distance increases, the sensitivity of the output polarization angle to the input power fluctuations increases. Researchers have previously shown that filaments in the anomalous group-velocity dispersion (GVD) regime are longer, more stable and yield more collapsing events as compared to those in the normal-GVD regime [@mollRoleDispersionMultiplecollapse2004; @durandSelfGuidedPropagationUltrashort2013]. Thus, we expect that the loss of polarization effect would be more prominent in the anomalous-GVD regime. To test this hypothesis, we performed simulations including effects of dispersion, diffraction and nonlinearity for a material with GVD ($\beta_2= \pm26$ ps$^2$/km) similar to glass, 75-fs pulse duration and input power uniformly distributed between $17.4P_{cr}$ and $19.2P_{cr}$. The $s$/$p$ ratio was calculated using the output polarization angle at $z$ = 0.05. Our simulation results are shown in Figure \[fig:fig4\](a) and (b). For consistency with simulations in the anomalous-GVD regime ($\beta_2= -26$ ps$^2$/km), we use ($\beta_2= +26$ ps$^2$/km) in the normal-GVD-regime simulations. However, our normal-GVD regime experiments were performed with a laser at 800 nm, where $\beta_2$ for glass is slightly different (+35 ps$^2$/km). In the normal-GVD regime, calculated shot-to-shot fluctuations (indicated by light blue shaded region in the plots) in the output polarization angle were $4.9^\circ$; whereas those in the anomalous-GVD regime were about $7.8^\circ$ (1.6 times larger). We also performed corresponding experiments in glass with pulses at 800 nm (normal-GVD regime, $\beta_2= +35$ ps$^2$/km) and at 1500 nm (anomalous-GVD regime, $\beta_2= -26$ ps$^2$/km). Figures \[fig:fig4\](c) and (d) show our experimental results for the normal and anomalous-GVD regime, respectively. Measured shot-to-shot fluctuations in the output polarization angle for the normal-GVD regime were $4.3^\circ$, whereas those in the anomalous-GVD regime were $6^\circ$ (1.4 times larger). Experimental results follow the trend predicted in simulations and confirm our hypothesis that the output polarization angle is more sensitive to the input power in the anomalous-GVD regime than in the normal-GVD regime. In all the plots in Fig. \[fig:fig4\], the input power (energy) is varied by 10% \[$\pm$5%\].
![\[fig:fig4\] $s$/$p$ fluence ratios at the output for elliptically-polarized input. Variance ($\sigma$) shown by dark blue shaded region, shot-to-shot fluctuations shown by light blue shaded region. (a),(b): Simulation results with input power varied uniformly between $17.4P_{cr}$ and $19.2P_{cr}$, (c),(d): experimental results in glass at 800 nm and 1500 nm respectively, input energy varied 10% around (c) 88 $\mu$J and (d) 176 $\mu$J. Experimental results follow the simulation trend that fluctuations are more pronounced in the anomalous-GVD \[$\sigma$ = 0.084 (simulation), 0.063 (experiment)\] than those in the normal-GVD regime \[$\sigma$ = 0.041(simulation), 0.045(experiment)\].](Fig4){width="48.00000%"}
This increase in fluctuations occurs in all media whenever there is filamentation of elliptically-polarized beams. To demonstrate this, we performed experiments in glass, liquid water, and in nitrogen gas at 23 bar pressure, using 800 nm, 50-fs pulses at a 10-Hz repetition rate (normal-GVD regime). In all these cases, we compare output $s$/$p$ ratio fluctuations for elliptically-polarized input and linearly-polarized input for fixed fluctuations in input energy. We observed that at low pulse energies (below the collapse threshold), the fluctuations in $s$/$p$ ratio for both input polarizations are identical. On the other hand, above the collapse threshold, fluctuations in $s$/$p$ ratio in case of elliptically-polarized input are 2-4 times higher than the fluctuations in case of linearly-polarized input. (See plots in [@supplementaryLOP2018]).
In conclusion, we theoretically show that the loss of polarization angle increases with propagation distance and ultimately leads to a complete loss of polarization angle for collapsing beams of elliptical-polarization. We provide experimental evidence for this effect by measuring a significant increase in the fluctuations of the polarization angle in a glass sample. We demonstrate that the loss of polarization effect is more prominent in the anomalous-GVD regime. Such behavior is universal and should occur in all systems that exhibit multiple collapse of elliptically-polarized beams. Furthermore, this work can be extended to study beam polarization for multi-filamentation. In this case, the loss of polarization effect could lead to spatial de-polarization of the beam due to unequal polarization rotation in each filament. Recent work shows that light with different spatial profiles such as vortex Airy beams and axially asymmetric beams have controllable and designable collapse dynamics that are robust against random noise [@chenDynamicControlCollapse2013; @chenCollapseDynamicsVector2015; @liTamingCollapseOptical2012; @liUnveilingStabilityMultiple2016], and it is expected that the loss-of-polarization effect could also occur in such beams. Our work has implications for applications that depend upon the beam polarization being deterministic for collapsing beams traveling over long distances, such as in filamentation for remote sensing and HHG.
The research of GP, XG, JG and AG was supported by the AFOSR Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative under Award Number FA9550-16-1-0121. The research of AS and GF was partially supported by grant 177/13 from the Israel Science Foundation (ISF).
[61]{} ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{} ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{} ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{} ““\#1”” @noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{} sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{} @startlink\[1\] @endlink\[0\] @bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase 10.1137/S0036139997322407) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/OL.25.000335) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [[**]{}]{} (, ) @noop [[**]{}]{} (, , ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.physrep.2006.12.005) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1070/QE2009v039n03ABEH013916) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/OE.19.009118) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.69.036607) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.1085020) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/OE.16.000466) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1007/s00340-004-1650-z) in @noop [[**]{}]{} (, ) p. [****, ()](\doibase
10.1364/OL.35.001350) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/1367-2630/15/7/075002) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.69.507) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/S0370-1573(99)00106-4) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0375-9601(96)00538-5) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.47.R13) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/cpa.3160450204) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0951-7715/24/7/006) [**** (), 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.043902](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.043902) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/OE.25.024387) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.2938) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.225002) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.205001) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1364/OL.29.001772) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/OE.15.016102) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.223902) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1016/j.optcom.2016.01.051) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/OL.38.000537) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/OL.26.000840) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/S0167-2789(01)00293-7) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.013901) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.67.036622) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/OL.38.001034) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0953-4075/48/9/094012) [**** (), 10.1038/srep20363](\doibase 10.1038/srep20363) [**** (), 10.1103/PhysRevE.64.046607](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.64.046607) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0030-4018(83)90014-7) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/OE.23.005582) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.84.013838) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1364/OL.35.002904) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/OE.23.003299) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.4767526) @noop [ ]{} @noop [**]{}, ed. (, ) @noop [ ()]{}, in @noop [**]{} (, ) ed., p. [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.4406) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/JOSAB.16.000637) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4974005) in @noop [**]{} (, ) ed., pp. [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/OL.29.000995) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.115003) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/srep01406) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/1054-660X/25/7/075401) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/srep01007) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/PRJ.4.000B29)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Recursive blocked algorithms have proven to be highly efficient at the numerical solution of the Sylvester matrix equation and its generalizations. In this work, we show that these algorithms extend in a seamless fashion to higher-dimensional variants of generalized Sylvester matrix equations, as they arise from the discretization of PDEs with separable coefficients or the approximation of certain models in macroeconomics. By combining recursions with a mechanism for merging dimensions, an efficient algorithm is derived that outperforms existing approaches based on Sylvester solvers.'
author:
- 'Minhong Chen[^1]'
- 'Daniel Kressner[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'anchp.bib'
title: |
Recursive blocked algorithms for linear systems\
with Kronecker product structure
---
Conclusions, extensions and future work
=======================================
We have extended the concept of blocked recursive algorithms to higher-order tensor equations. Both, the complexity estimates and the numerical results, clearly show the importance of combining recursion with merging dimensions in order to arrive at efficient algorithms. For third-order tensor equations, these algorithms seem to constitute the methods of choice. For fourth-order tensor equations with coefficients of nearly equal sizes, reshaping the tensor equation into a Sylvester equation and applying an existing solver is a viable alternative, provided that sufficient memory is available.
The blocked recursive algorithms developed in this work certainly admit extensions to general linear tensor equations taking the form $$\sum_{k = 1}^K {{\textbf{X}}}\times_1 A_1^{(k)} \times_2 A_2^{(k)}\times_3 \cdots \times_d A_d^{(k)} = {{\textbf{B}}},$$ assuming that all coefficients $A_\mu^{(k)} \in {{\mathbb R}}_{n_\mu\times n_\mu}$ are (quasi-)triangular. To transform general coefficients $A_\mu^{(k)}$ into this form requires the existence of invertible matrices $Q_\mu,Z_\mu$ such that $Q_\mu^T A_\mu^{(k)}Z_\mu$ is (quasi-)triangular for every $k = 1,\ldots,K$. For $K \ge 3$, this simultaneous triangularization is only possible under strong additional assumptions on the coefficients. A sufficient condition is that each matrix family $\{ A_\mu^{(1)},\ldots,A_\mu^{(K)} \}$ contains at most two different matrices for $\mu = 1,\ldots,d$. The two classes and appear to constitute the practically most important examples satisfying this condition.
This work also raises an interesting open question: Is it possible to combine block recursion with low-rank compression, for example in the tensor train format [@Oseledets2011a], such that the complexity does not grow exponentially with $d$, assuming that the involved ranks stay constant? It would also be interesting to explore which other numerical linear algebra problems allow for the combination of Kronecker product structure with block recursion. The computation of certain matrix functions, such as the matrix square root [@Deadman2013], appears to be a likely candidate.
[Acknowledgements.]{} Daniel Kressner sincerely thanks Michael Steinlechner and Christine Tobler for insightful discussions on the algorithms presented in this work and their implementation.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou, 310029, Zhejiang, P.R.China, [[email protected]]{}. The work of this author was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11801513).
[^2]: Institute of Mathematics, EPF Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland, [[email protected]]{}.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We show that enhanced extra mixing in low-mass red giants can result in a fluorine abundance that is correlated with abundance variations of other elements participating in H burning, such as C, N, O and Na. This finding is used to explain the fluorine abundance variations recently found in bright red giants of the globular cluster M4.'
author:
- 'Pavel A. Denissenkov, Marc Pinsonneault, & Donald M. Terndrup'
title: FLUORINE ABUNDANCE VARIATIONS AS A SIGNATURE OF ENHANCED EXTRA MIXING IN RED GIANTS OF THE GLOBULAR CLUSTER M4
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
In many galactic globular clusters, there are star-to-star abundance variations of C, N, O, Na, Mg and Al, while the heavier elements show almost no dispersion (see reviews by @d04b [@gea04], and references therein). The signs of these variations, their pairwise correlations, and the constancy of the sum of C+N+O in some clusters (@p88 [@sea96; @iea99]) indicate that we are most likely seeing the by-products of H burning in the CNO–, NeNa–, and MgAl–cycles. Regarding their production place and process, the most plausible alternatives proposed so far include the so-called hot-bottom burning of hydrogen at the bottom of convective envelope in intermediate-mass ($4\la{{M}}/{{M_{\odot}}}\la 6$) asymptotic giant branch (IM-AGB) stars (@daea83 [@vea01]), and the hydrogen shell burning in low-mass (${{M}}\la 2\,{{M_{\odot}}}$) red giant branch (RGB) stars (@sm79 [@dd90; @lh95]). The former case would imply primordial abundance variations in the RGB stars where the abundance anomalies are observed, while the latter explanation would require [*in situ*]{} mixing. The physical interpretation of these results is therefore significant for understanding the origin of these anomalies.
Recently, [@sea05] have added $^{19}$F to the list of nuclides whose abundances vary from star to star in globular clusters. They have found a deficit of the fluorine abundance (\[F/Fe\][^1]$<0$) anti-correlated with the abundance of Na in 7 bright red giants of the globular cluster M4. The range of the fluorine abundance variation is $\sim$0.8dex. Since $^{19}$F is effectively destroyed in the hot-bottom H burning in the reaction $^{19}$F(p,$\alpha)^{16}$O, while low-mass stars have so far been considered as its net producers (@fea92 [@jea92]), [@sea05] have interpreted their measurements as an indication that the star-to-star abundance variations in globular clusters originated in the IM-AGB stars.
In this paper, we give an alternative interpretation of the new observational data by demonstrating that low-mass RGB stars could produce the F–Na anti-correlation in exactly the same way as they contribute to the global O–Na anti-correlation (@dv03 [@dea06]).
IM-AGB and RGB Pollution Scenarios {#sec:pollution}
==================================
In some globular clusters, the O–Na and Mg–Al anti-correlation and the N–Na correlation have been found not only in evolved RGB stars but also in main-sequence (MS) turn-off and early subgiant stars. Because these stars have interior temperatures that are too low for the NeNa- and MgAl-cycles to work, they must have abundance variations that predate the RGB phase; these are either present [*ab initio*]{} or reflect accretion of material from IM-AGB stars (@bea96 [@grea01; @rc02; @cea02; @bea02; @gea02; @hea03]).
In IM-AGB stars, the envelope material processed in hot-bottom H burning is immediately delivered to the interstellar medium via a strong stellar wind. On the other hand, in RGB stars the H-burning shell is separated from the bottom of the convective envelope by a radiative zone. However, extensive spectroscopic data on the surface chemical composition of low-mass RGB stars as a function of luminosity, supported by appropriate stellar models, show that most of these stars experience some extra mixing that connects the H burning shell with the convective envelope (@sm79 [@ch94; @ch95; @grea00; @dv03]). Near the RGB tip, before undergoing the core He-flash and becoming a horizontal branch star, a low-mass red giant loses a considerable amount of its envelope mass with a stellar wind (@dcea96), thus depositing products of the H-shell burning to the interstellar medium. In globular clusters, both the IM-AGB stars and the low-mass stars more massive than the present-day MS turn-off stars (i.e. $0.9\,{{M_{\odot}}}\la{{M}}\la 2\,{{M_{\odot}}}$) have already completed their lives. So, either of them could pollute the globular-cluster interstellar medium with the ashes of H-burning.
Unfortunately, neither the AGB nor the RGB pollution scenario can quantitatively reproduce all of the observed star-to-star abundance variations in globular clusters simultaneously. For example, when destroying $^{16}$O in the IM-AGB stars the hot-bottom burning depletes $^{24}$Mg even more (@dh03). It also keeps \[C/Fe\] $\ga -0.5$ (@dw04). Besides, the third dredge-up in AGB stars should increase the sum of C+N+O (@fea04). None of these theoretical predictions is supported by observations. At present, IM-AGB star models are being modified towards complying with constraints imposed by the element abundance anomalies in globular clusters (e.g., @vda05).
In low-mass RGB stars, extra mixing starts to manifest itself when the H-burning shell, advancing in mass, erases the chemical composition discontinuity left behind by the bottom of convective envelope at the end of the first dredge-up (@grea00 [@sh03]). At this moment, the evolution of red giants slows down for a while, which produces a prominent feature (the RGB bump) in the differential luminosity functions of globular clusters (@zea99 [@rea03]). Therefore, extra mixing in low-mass stars is said to work on the upper RGB, above this bump luminosity. Below the bump luminosity, on the lower RGB, extra mixing is thought to be shielded from the H-burning shell by a gradient in the mean molecular weight associated with the composition discontinuity (@sm79 [@chea98; @dv03]) or to operate very slowly (@chea05 [@pea06]).
The main problem of the RGB pollution scenario is that for the majority of upper RGB stars, the observed pattern of surface abundance anomalies can only be produced by [*in situ*]{} mixing that only penetrates to the outer part of the H-shell, where the CN branch of the CNO–cycle is operating. This is what [@dv03] have called “canonical extra mixing”. They demonstrated that its depth and rate (diffusion coefficient) can be parameterized by any pair of correlated values within the close limits specified by ${\Delta\log\,T}\approx 0.19$ and ${D_{\rm mix}}\approx 4\times 10^8$[cm$^2$s$^{-1}$]{}, to ${\Delta\log\,T}\approx 0.22$ and ${D_{\rm mix}}\approx 8\times 10^8$[cm$^2$s$^{-1}$]{}. Here, ${\Delta\log\,T}$ is the difference between the logarithms of temperature at the base of the H-burning shell and at the maximum depth of extra mixing. Thus, canonical extra mixing can be responsible for the evolutionary decline of \[C/Fe\] in upper RGB stars, both in the field and in star clusters. It can also explain the decrease in surface Li and $^3$He abundances with increased $L$, the strong reduction of the $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C isotopic ratio and the slight increase in the N abundance, but it does not affect O, Na, Mg and Al.
However, if extra mixing in upper RGB stars penetrates the H-burning shell deeper than in the canonical case, it could dredge up material deficient in O and enriched in Na (@dd90) and even in Al, under certain assumptions (@lh95 [@cea96; @dt00; @dw00]). [@dv03] have proposed that in some upper RGB stars canonical extra mixing may be switched to its enhanced mode with much faster and somewhat deeper mixing. If the extra mixing in these stars is driven by differential rotation of their radiative zones then such enhanced extra mixing could be caused by their spinning up as a result of tidal synchronization in close binaries (@dea06).
There is also an unexplored possibility that the depth and rate of canonical extra mixing do not remain constant along the whole upper RGB but increase toward its tip. This hypothesis is supported by the following arguments. Firstly, observations show that in some globular clusters the anti-correlated abundance variations of C and N in red giants become larger when stars approach the RGB tip. Moreover, the values of \[N/Fe\]$\ga 1$ in some of these stars indicate the dredge-up of material in which not only C but also a fraction of O has been converted into N (@sbh05). Secondly, at least in the globular cluster M13, the relative number of upper RGB stars with the O–Na anti-correlation increases with luminosity (@jea05). Note that all of the metal-poor field stars used by [@dv03] to calibrate the parameters of canonical extra mixing have $\log\,L/L_\odot\la 2.8$, i.e. they are located a magnitude below the RGB tip. Hence, if canonical extra mixing got enhanced within the last magnitude of the upper RGB then [@dv03] would not have seen it.
$^{19}$F and Extra Mixing in Upper RGB Stars
============================================
Model Parameters for the M4 Red Giants
--------------------------------------
The stellar evolution code, input physics and simple diffusion model of extra mixing in upper RGB stars used here have been described by [@dea06]. The code has since been developed to allow studies of the pre-MS and horizontal branch (HB) evolution. As in many other similar codes, our zero-age HB models are constructed using information about the internal structure of the RGB tip models in which the core He-flash just sets in.
We have found that for a model star with the initial mass ${{M}}= 0.83\,{{M_{\odot}}}$, helium and heavy-element mass fractions $Y=0.24$ and $Z=0.002$ our RGB evolutionary track, zero-age HB and HB evolutionary tracks fit the color-magnitude diagram (CMD) of evolved stars in M4 reasonably well (Fig. \[fig:f1\]). Our adjusted stellar parameters give a theoretical metallicity \[Fe/H\]$\approx -1.0$ and an age of evolved stars $\sim$14 Gyr. In Fig. \[fig:f1\], we have applied the cluster reddening $E(B-V)=0.40$ and the distance modulus $(m-M)_{V,0}=12.83$. Our adopted parameters are in good agreement with those used by [@aea97] who fitted the M4 main-sequence CMD with a 14 Gyr isochrone of [@bv92] for $Y=0.2388$, \[Fe/H\]$=-1.03$, $E(B-V)=0.42$ and $(m-M)_{V,0}=12.80$. The spectroscopic metallicity of M4 is \[Fe/H\]$= -1.18$ (@iea99).
$^{19}$F and Canonical Extra Mixing
-----------------------------------
Abundance profiles of some nuclides participating in the H-shell burning, including $^{19}$F, in a bump luminosity model star are plotted in Fig. \[fig:f2\]. The vertical line marked ${\Delta\log\,T}= 0.19$ is shown at a depth characteristic of canonical extra mixing. The nearly vertical line at the left of the plot shows the profile for H; this coincides with the lower edge of the H-burning shell. Canonical extra mixing occurs when the H-burning shell erases the composition discontinuity at the mass coordinate ${{M}_r}\approx 0.266\,{{M_{\odot}}}$. Most or all stars more luminous than this would show a reduced abundance of $^{12}$C (@dv03). However, we see that canonical extra mixing will not change the surface abundance of $^{19}$F.
$^{19}$F and Enhanced Extra Mixing
----------------------------------
Note that all of the 7 red giants studied by [@sea05] are located within one magnitude of the RGB tip ([*asterisks*]{} in Fig. \[fig:f1\]). As we have already mentioned in [§\[sec:pollution\]]{}, there are some arguments supporting the idea that at least the depth of canonical extra mixing increases in the vicinity of the RGB tip. In particular, the decline of \[C/Fe\] becomes stronger within the last magnitude of the RGB, which is accompanied by extremely high N abundances (\[N/Fe\]$\ga 1$) supposedly signifying the dredge-up of material with O partially processed into N (@sbh05). [@sea05] claim that they have found a similar decline of the C abundance $A(^{12}\mbox{\rm C})\equiv\log\,N(\mbox{\rm C})/N(\mbox{H}) + 12$ with the absolute bolometric magnitude in their M4 stars ([*circles with errorbars*]{} in the left panel in Fig. \[fig:f3\]).
In order to test the hypothesis that canonical extra mixing gets enhanced near the RGB tip, we have proceeded as follows. First, starting with a model at $\log L/L_\odot = 1.75$ (this value is slightly less than the bump luminosity; it corresponds to $M_{\rm bol}=0.37$, $M_V=0.72$, and $V=13.55$), we have computed its evolution up to $\log L/L_\odot = 2.74$ ($M_{\rm bol}=-2.10$, $M_V=-1.37$, and $V=11.46$). In this computation, the depth and rate of extra mixing had their canonical values ${\Delta\log\,T}= 0.19$ (Fig. \[fig:f2\]) and ${D_{\rm mix}}= 4\times 10^8$[cm$^2$s$^{-1}$]{}, or $\log{D_{\rm mix}}= 8.6$. Abundance profiles in the radiative zone in the final model are shown in Fig. \[fig:f4\]. After that, we have continued our stellar evolution computations toward the RGB tip with increased depth and rate of extra mixing. The parameter ${\Delta\log\,T}$ has been reduced to 0.05, while for $\log{D_{\rm mix}}$ we have considered the following higher values: 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, and 9.6. Already looking at Fig. \[fig:f4\], one can conclude that such enhanced extra mixing will dredge up material in which deficits of $^{16}$O and $^{19}$F should correlate with overabundances of N and Na. Curves in left panel in Fig. \[fig:f3\] demonstrate how the surface C abundance declines with $M_{\rm bol}$ in our models with enhanced extra mixing. In Fig. \[fig:f5\], a combined evolution of \[C/Fe\] is shown as a function of $M_V$ for the post-first-dredge-up ([*dotted line*]{}), canonical extra mixing ([*dashed curve*]{}), and enhanced extra mixing ([*solid curve*]{}) phases. Here, points with errorbars are data for bright red giants of the globular cluster NGC7006 from the work of [@sea05], the 4 brightest of them having \[N/Fe\]$> 1.3$ (given the large uncertainties of the \[C/Fe\] data in NGC7006, the difference in metallicities \[Fe/H\]$_{\mbox{\small NGC\,7006}}-$\[Fe/H\]$_{\mbox{\small M4}}\approx -0.5$ is unimportant for the comparison).
Interestingly, if we take the fluorine abundances measured by [@sea05] in the M4 red giants at their face values and plot them as a function of $M_{\rm bol}$, we find a correlation of $A(^{19}\mbox{\rm F})$ with $M_{\rm bol}$ ([*circles with errorbars*]{} in right panel in Fig. \[fig:f3\]) that looks none the worse than the correlation between $A(^{12}\mbox{\rm C})$ and $M_{\rm bol}$ (left panel). Even more interestingly is that the curves in the right panel representing results of our evolutionary computations with enhanced extra mixing could nicely reproduce that correlation if it were real. We also find a theoretical anti-correlation between \[Na/Fe\] and \[F/Fe\] that is qualitatively similar to the observational one revealed by [@sea05] (Fig. \[fig:f6\]).
Therefore, alternatively to the IM-AGB pollution scenario, we propose that the fluorine abundance variations in the red giants of the globular cluster M4 may actually be a signature of enhanced extra mixing in low-mass RGB stars. Moreover, we strongly encourage spectroscopists to increase the size of the sample of bright red giants with known fluorine abundances in globular clusters because if $A(^{19}\mbox{\rm F})$ indeed correlates with $M_{\rm bol}$ this will be a direct evidence of enhanced extra mixing in these stars. On the other hand, if the fluorine abundance is not found to decline with increasing luminosity near the RGB tip this will not necessarily reject our hypothesis that its deficit is due to enhanced extra mixing in upper RGB stars. There will still remain a possibility that the star-to-star abundance variations of $^{19}$F, like those making up the O–Na anti-correlation, were produced by enhanced extra mixing in the low-mass red giants that had been slightly more massive than the present-day MS turn-off stars in globular clusters and that had completed their lives in the past (the RGB pollution scenario).
We have also examined the possibility that the F/Na anticorrelation could have been produced by larger-than-expected temperature errors. The F abundances were computed using the temperatures determined by [@iea99], who obtained them by measuring the line depth ratios of temperature-sensitive species following [@gj91]. The stated random errors in the temperature were about 50 K. Using the sensitivity of the abundances to temperature, we find that the dispersion in the F or Na abundances could have been produced if the random errors in temperature were as large as 125 K. Since both lines have the same sense of temperature dependence, however, such large random errors would produce an erroneous correlation between the F and Na abundances, instead of the observed anticorrelation.
Note that for a Salpeter initial mass function the total mass lost by those red giants before they arrived at the zero-age HB is comparable to the mass delivered to the interstellar medium by the IM-AGB stars (@d04a). This estimate assumes that every upper RGB star loses $0.2\,{{M_{\odot}}}$ before it undergoes the core He-flash. For comparison, our HB model stars with $(B-V)<0.7$ on the CMD of the globular cluster M4 in Fig. \[fig:f1\] all have ${{M}}< 0.61{{M_{\odot}}}$, i.e. each of them has lost more than $0.22\,{{M_{\odot}}}$. It is far from clear, however, that the problem of depositing the lost mass from either AGB or RGB stars onto the other stars in the system after they reached the MS has been satisfactorily addressed. For this reason, determining the contribution of direct mixing on the observed abundances is important.
Conclusion
==========
In this work, we have shown that the reduced abundances of $^{19}$F (i.e. \[F/Fe\]$<0$) anti-correlated with \[Na/Fe\] found by [@sea05] in the red giants of M4 do not rule out the RGB pollution scenario in which canonical extra mixing switches to its enhanced mode. The enhanced extra mixing could result from tidal spin-up of upper RGB stars in close binaries (@dea06). Another possibility is that canonical extra mixing gets enhanced toward the RGB tip due to some internal physical processes in single stars. We emphasize that there is observational evidence of this, one of which could be a correlation of $A(^{19}\mbox{\rm F})$ with $M_{\rm bol}$ like that plotted in the right panel in Fig. \[fig:f3\], provided it is confirmed in future spectroscopic observations. At present the reduced fluorine abundance cannot be considered as a strong argument in favor of the IM-AGB pollution scenario as the only plausible interpretation of star-to-star abundance variations in globular clusters. On the contrary, if $A(^{19}\mbox{\rm F})$ is correlated with $M_{\rm bol}$ in low-mass stars near the RGB tip, this will support the original hypothesis of [@dd90] that extra mixing in upper RGB stars can penetrate the H burning shell deep enough to dredge-up material enriched not only in N but also in Na, and deficient not only in C but also in O and F. A small number of stars in the fast evolutionary phase, at the RGB tip, could explain the absence of field upper RGB stars in which the anti-correlated O and Na surface abundances are produced and dredged up [*in situ*]{} (@grea00).
We acknowledge support from NASA grant \#NNG05 GG20G.
Alcaino, G., Liller, W., Alvarado, F., Kravtsov, V., Ipatov, A., Samus, N., & Smirnov, O. 1997, AJ, 114, 189
Bergbusch, P. A., & VandenBerg, D. A. 1992, ApJS, 81, 163
Briley, M., Cohen, J. G., & Stetson, P. B. 2002, ApJ, 579, L17
Briley, M. M., Smith, V. V., Suntzeff, N. B., Lambert, D. L., Bell, R. A., & Hesser, J. E. 1996, Nature, 383, 604
Cavallo, R. M., Sweigart, A. V., & Bell, R. A. 1996, ApJ, 464, L79
Chanamé, J., Pinsonneault, M., & Terndrup, D. M. 2005, ApJ, 631, 540
Charbonnel, C. 1994, A&A, 282, 811
Charbonnel, C. 1995, ApJ, 453, L41
Charbonnel, C., Brown, J. A., & Wallerstein, G. 1998, A&A, 332, 204
Cohen, J. G., Briley, M. M., & Stetson, P. B. 2002, AJ, 123, 2525
Cudworth, K. M., & Rees, R. 1990, AJ, 99, 1491
D’Antona, F., Gratton, R., & Chieffi, A. 1983, Mem. Soc. Astr. Ital., 54, 173
D’Cruz, N. L., Dorman, B., Rood, R. T., & O’Connell, R. W. 1996, ApJ, 466, 359
Denissenkov, P. A. 2004a, Mem. Soc. Astr. Ital., 75, 328
Denissenkov, P. A. 2004b, Astrophys. Space Phys. Rev., 12, 1
Denissenkov, P. A., Chaboyer, B., & Li, K. 2006, ApJ, 641, 1087
Denisenkov, P. A., & Denisenkova, S. N. 1990, Soviet Astr. Lett., 16, 275
Denissenkov, P. A., & Herwig, F. 2003, ApJ, 590, L99
Denissenkov, P. A., & Tout, C. A. 2000, MNRAS, 316, 395
Denissenkov, P. A., & Weiss, A. 2000, A&A, 358, L49
Denissenkov, P. A., & Weiss, A. 2004, ApJ, 603, 119
Denissenkov, P. A., & VandenBerg, D. A. 2003, ApJ, 593, 509
Fenner, Y., Campbell, S., Karakas, A. I., Lattanzio, J. C., & Gibson, B. K. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 789
Forestini, M., Goriely, S., Jorissen, A., & Arnould, M. 1992, A&A, 261, 157
Gratton, R. G., Bonifacio, P., Bragaglia, A., et al. 2001, A&A, 369, 87
Gratton, R., Sneden, C., & Carretta, E. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 385
Gratton, R. G., Sneden, C., Carretta, E., & Bragaglia, A. 2000, A&A, 354, 169
Gray, D. F., & Johanson, H. L. 1991, PASP, 102, 439
Grundahl, F., Briley, M., Nissen, P. E., & Feltzing, S. 2002, A&A, 385, L14
Harbeck, D., Smith, G. H., & Grebel, E. K. 2003, AJ, 125, 197
Johnson, C. I., Kraft, R. P., Pilachowski, C. A., Sneden, C., Ivans, I. I., & Benman, G. 2005, PASP, 117, 1308
Jorissen, A., Smith, V. V., & Lambert, D. L. 1992, A&A, 261, 164
Ivans, I. I., Sneden, C., Kraft, R. P., Suntzeff, N. B., Smith, V. V., Langer, G. E., & Fulbright, J. P. 1999, AJ, 118, 1273
Langer, G. E., & Hoffman, R. D. 1995, PASP, 107, 1177
Palacios, A., Charbonnel, C., Talon, S., & Siess, L. 2006, astro-ph/0602389
Pilachowski, C. A. 1988, ApJ, 326, L57
Ramírez, S. V., & Cohen, J. G. 2002, AJ, 123, 3277
Riello, M., Cassisi, S., Piotto, G., Recio-Blanco, A., De Angeli, F., Salaris, M., Pietrinferni, A., Bono, G., & Zoccali, M. 2003, A&A, 410, 553
Shetrone, M. D. 2003, ApJ, 585, L45
Smith, G. H., & Briley, M. M. 2005, PASP, 117, 895
Smith, G. H., Briley, M. M., & Harbeck, D. 2005, AJ, 129, 1589
Smith, G. H., Shetrone, M. D., Bell, R. A., Churchill, C. W., & Briley, M. M. 1996, AJ, 112, 1511
Smith, V. V., Cunha, K., Ivans, I. I., Lattanzio, J. C., Campbell, S., & Hinkle, K. H. 2005, ApJ, 633, 392
Sweigart, A. V., & Mengel, J. G. 1979, ApJ, 229, 624
Ventura, P., & D’Antona, F. 2005, ApJ, 635, L149
Ventura, P., D’Antona, F., Mazzitelli, I., & Gratton, R. 2001, ApJ, 550, L65
Zoccali, M., Cassisi, S., Piotto, G., Bono, G., & Salaris, M. 1999, ApJ, 518, L49
[^1]: We use the standard spectroscopic notation: \[A/B\]=$\log\,(N({\rm
A})/N({\rm B}))-\log\,(N({\rm A})/N({\rm B}))_\odot$, where $N({\rm A})$ and $N({\rm B})$ are number densities of the nuclides A and B.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Modulation of a spin-torque oscillator (STO) signal based on a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) with perpendicularly magnetized free layer is investigated. Magnetic field inductive loop was created during MTJ fabrication process, which enables microwave field application during STO operation. The frequency modulation by the microwave magnetic field of up to 3 GHz is explored, showing a potential for application in high-data-rate communication technologies. Moreover, an inductive loop is used for self-synchronization of the STO signal, which after field-locking exhibits significant improvement of the linewidth and oscillation power.'
author:
- Witold Skowroński
- Jakub Chciński
- Sławomir Zitek
- Kay Yakushiji
- Shinji Yuasa
bibliography:
- 'Skowronski\_library.bib'
title: Microwave magnetic field modulation of spin torque oscillator based on perpendicular magnetic tunnel junctions
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Spin transfer torque nano oscillators based on both fully-metallic multilayers [@tsoi_generation_2000] and magnetic tunnel junctions (MTJ) [@deac_bias-driven_2008] are widely studied due to their potential applications in future wireless communication [@chen_sto_review_2015] and magnetic recording [@Braganca_nanoscale_2010]. Up to now, the most promising parameters in terms of oscillation power and linewidth have been measured for MTJs with an in-plane magnetized reference layer and perpendicularly magnetized free layer [@Taniguchi_critical_2013; @maehara_large_2013], which also enable magnetic-field-free operation [@skowronski_zero-field_2012; @Zeng2013]. To further enhance spin torque oscillator (STO) characteristics, phase-locking to another STO [@kaka_mutual_2005] or external microwave signals [@singh_self_2018] were suggested. Recently, electronic phase-lock loop (PLL) using uniform precession mode oscillations [@tamaru_extremely_2015] and magnetic vortex [@kreissig_vortex_2017] have been presented. In addition, self-synchronization via a field loop was shown in the in-plane magnetized MTJs [@Kumar2016].
Another important feature of STO is the ability to tune the oscillation frequency over wide range, which is essential for wireless communication devices. Precession frequency of operating STO depends on the bias current due to its inherent nonlinear nature [@slavin_nonlinear_2009], which is used in the aforementioned PLL circuits. Various modulation techniques presented in uniformly precessing MTJs [@ruiz-calaforra_frequency_2017; @muduli_nonlinear_2010] and vortex-based oscillators [@manfrini_frequency_2011] were shown; however, an even stronger dependence of the STO frequency on an external magnetic field is expected, which would allow for higher modulations rates, as numerically predicted in Ref. [@purbawati_enhanced_2016]. MTJs with an additional magnetic field line were already tested for STO-based read head sensors with a transition time down to 2-ns [@nagasawa_frequency_2011].
In this work, we present an experimental study of STO based on an MTJ with a perpendicularly magnetized free layer. In contrast to the vortex based STO [@tsunegi_self_2016], we use a uniform oscillation mode of the free layer, which is characterized by higher oscillation frequencies. An additional, isolated microwave line was fabricated on the top of the MTJ, which enables microwave magnetic field application during STO operation. At optimal configuration (static magnetic field, current bias), the STO operation frequency of $f$ = 5 GHz and linewidth $\delta f$ = 10 MHz were measured, which enables field-modulation at the rate of up to 3 GHz. Moreover, after injecting the amplified STO signal to the field line, and creating so-called inductive feedback loop, we observed the quality factor improvement to $Q$ > 18000; however, at the cost of bringing the system to the edge of stability.
Experiment {#sec:experiment}
==========
Multilayer of the following structure: Ru(4)/ IrMn(6)/ CoFe(2.5)/ Ru(0.8)/ CoFeB(2.5)/ MgO (1)/ CoFeB(1.8)/ MgO(1)/ Ru(3)/ Ta(5)/ Ru(2)/ Pt(3) (thickness in nm) was deposited on chemically-mechanically polished Si wafer using magnetron sputtering method. The bottom CoFeB is pinned to the synthetic antiferromagnetic structure and acts as an in-plane magnetized reference layer. The magnetic properties of the films were determined using vibrating sample magnetometry (VSM). MTJ device was fabricated using electron beam lithography, ion-beam milling and lift-off processes into circular and elliptical nanopillars of diameters ranging from 120 to 450 nm, with the additional field line, separated from the top and bottom contact by a 100-nm thick Al$_2$O$_3$ layer. Electrical contacts and the field line was made of Al(20)/Au(30) conducting layer. The micrograph of the MTJ design is presented in Fig. \[fig:fig1\](c). Electrical transport properties were determined in the rotating probe station enabling magnetic field application at an arbitrary angle with respect to the MTJ axis. Custom design microwave, five-tip probe (T-Plus) was used to connect a bias source (Keithley 2401) and signal analyser (Agilent PXA N9030A) via broadband bias-T (Mini Circuits ZX86-12G) to the MTJ. An external radio-frequency (rf) signal (Agilent E8257D) was fed to the field line using the same microwave probe. Alternatively, the amplified (Mini circuits ZVA-213, 26 dB Gain) STO signal was connected to field line via broadband power divider (Mini Circuits ZN2PD2-63). Transport and rf properties were determined in ten different devices exhibiting qualitatively similar results.
In addition, static transport measurements were performed in a perpendicular magnetic field using the four-point method on different MTJs fabricated on the same wafer, in order to extract the resistance area (RA) product and the tunnelling magnetoresistance (TMR) ratio.
![(a) magnetization loops measured in the magnetic field applied in the sample plane $H_{ip}$ and perpendicular to the sample plane $H_{pp}$, (b) resistance vs. in-plane magnetic field loop of a fabricated MTJ, (c) micrograph of the device (the top two images were recorded during the fabrication process) with a schematic representation of the measurement setup.[]{data-label="fig:fig1"}](fig1a){width="\columnwidth"}
Results and discussion {#sec:results}
======================
VSM measurements are presented in Fig. \[fig:fig1\](a). Due to a significant contribution of a double CoFeB/MgO interface to the magnetic anisotropy of the top free layer, the saturation field value in perpendicular orientation is $H_\mathrm{K}$ = 1.2 kOe, indicating effectively weak in-plane magnetic anisotropy. After the nanofabrication process, the demagnetizing field in the perpendicular direction decreases, which leads to an effective perpendicular anisotropy of the free layer of the patterned device - Fig. \[fig:fig1\](b). The TMR ratio reaches 76% with the RA product of 2 Ohm$\times \mu$m$^2$.
After application of a negative bias voltage, indicating electron flow from the top free layer to the bottom reference layer, i.e., destabilization of the parallel magnetization alignment, the STO signal is measured in the presence of an external magnetic field. An example of the auto-oscillation signal measured in a magnetic field applied at $\theta$ = 65$^\circ$ with respect to the sample plane is presented in Fig. \[fig:fig2\](a). For selected amplitudes of magnetic fields, the linewidth at half maximum drops to around 10 MHz, resulting in a quality factor of several hundreds. We note that the STO signal is present for a range of $\theta$ between 50 and 90$^\circ$, which varies slightly between devices. An example STO signal vs. bias current dependence is presented in Fig. \[fig:fig2\](b), together with the STO frequency and power (expressed in dB over noise floor) - Fig. \[fig:fig2\](c). Reversing the bias polarity results in a much weaker STO signal and broader linewidth (not shown), similarly to other reports [@Kowalska_tunnel_2019].
Next, we explore the magnetic field modulation possibilities of the STO signal. The magnetic field was kept constant $H$ = 2 kOe at $\theta$ = 65$^\circ$, resulting in auto-oscillations at around 5.7 GHz. After applying an rf signal of frequency $f_\mathrm{MOD}$ to the magnetic field line, modulation sidebands are clearly visible; however, only the frequencies below the main peak - Fig. \[fig:fig3\](a). The modulation power was set to$P_\mathrm{MOD}$ = 0 dBm. Single sideband modulation has been recently observed in a current-driven STO and such behaviour was explained by the non-linear dependence of the frequency and power on bias voltage [@Sharma_high-speed_2017]. Strikingly, in our case a clear modulation signal was observed up to $f_\mathrm{MOD}$ = 3 GHz, which exceeds frequency modulation range reported to date in the in-plane magnetized MTJs.
![(a) STO power (expressed in dB over the noise floor) measured in different magnetic fields applied at 65$^\circ$ with respect to the sample plane, (b) bias current dependence on the STO signal. The STO frequency and power extracted from (b) are presented as a function of the bias current (c). []{data-label="fig:fig2"}](fig2){width="\columnwidth"}
To further elucidate on the microwave field-modulated STO behaviour, we repeated the frequency spectrum measurements for increased $P_\mathrm{MOD}$. Figs. \[fig:fig3\](b) present the $f_\mathrm{MOD}$ vs. frequency map for increased $P_\mathrm{MOD}$ = 10 dBm. In contrast to the measurement performed at $P_\mathrm{MOD}$ = 0, where a linear dependence of the sideband and modulation frequency is measured, an increased modulation power results in the main peak frequency deviation from its original position, determined by the bias current and magnetic field. We ascribe this effect to the injection-locking of the STO to higher harmonics of the modulating signal [@urazdin_fractional_2010; @singh_integer_2017].
In order to exclude possible modulation mechanism via bias current that is induced in a neighbouring supply line from the magnetic field line, the modulation signal was also connected directly to the bias-tee via radio-frequency combiner in a separate experiment. In this case, the modulation signal was also measured, but only up to $f_\mathrm{MOD}$ = 1.2 GHz, which is well below the field-modulated range that exceeds 3 GHz - Figs. \[fig:fig4\](a-b).
![STO signal with field-modulation of $f_\mathrm{MOD}$ up to 3 GHz and $P_\mathrm{MOD}$ = 0 dBm (a) and $P_\mathrm{MOD}$ = 10 dBm (b). Deviation from the main STO peak is present for higher modulation power.[]{data-label="fig:fig3"}](fig3){width="\columnwidth"}
![Comparison between magnetic field modulation (a) and current bias modulation (b) indicating higher modulation rate for Oersted field method, as predicted in [@ruiz-calaforra_frequency_2017]. Corresponding macrospin simulation results are presented in (c) and (d).[]{data-label="fig:fig4"}](fig4){width="\columnwidth"}
To reproduce the observed effect theoretically, macrospin simulation were performed. The parameters of the system were chosen to follow the experimental values whenever possible and were as following: $\mu_0 M_S$ = 1.6 T, maximum effective anisotropy field 300 Oe, damping constant $\alpha$ = 0.01, junction diameter 120 nm, free layer thickness 1.8 nm. The reference layer magnetization was assumed to be fixed in the sample plane and the small effective dipolar field originating from bottom parts of the stack was included in the free layer. The Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert-Slonczewski equation was integrated numerically, assuming an angular dependence of the spin torque term with the angular term $\lambda$ [@taniguchi2013critical; @kubota2013spin] equal to approximately 0.69. By applying a bias current of -2.05 mA and an external magnetic field of 2.2 kOe at $\theta$ = 85$^\circ$, we were able to obtain stable oscillations at a frequency similar to the one presented in figure \[fig:fig4\](a-b). Next, we performed a set of simulations for two different modulation approaches: one driven by the external magnetic field - \[fig:fig4\](c), and one driven by the bias current - \[fig:fig4\](d). Clearly, the modulation rate is significantly stronger in the case of the magnetic field modulation, further supporting the conclusion obtained from the experiment.
![STO performance with an inductive feedback-loop. Oscillation frequency vs. magnetic field applied in the $\theta$ = 65$^\circ$ recorded without (a) and with (b) the feedback loop connected. Horizontal lines in (b) represents the inverse of feedback loop delay of around 0.2 GHz. (c) example STO plots with the feedback loop turned off and on together with a background signal. Curves are offset by 20 dB for clarity.[]{data-label="fig:fig5"}](fig5){width="\columnwidth"}
Finally, auto-synchronization of the STO with a feedback loop was explored. The microwave STO signal was amplified and fed to the inductive magnetic field line. The dependences of the STO power on the magnetic field without and with the feedback loop are presented in Fig. \[fig:fig5\](a-b). Without a feedback connected, the STO power reaches 25 dB over noise and monotonically decreases with increasing magnetic field. In the case of the feedback-STO, apart from the main peak, several side-peaks are visible in each spectrum. The distance (in the frequency domain) between peaks is fixed to around 0.2 GHz, which is a result of delay caused by the total feedback line length of around 1.5 m. The measured amplitude of each peak increases when the free-running oscillation frequency at a given bias and magnetic field corresponds to the resonance frequency of the feedback loop. This results in an increased oscillations power of up to 30 dB with respect to the STO without a feedback. An example showing one of the strongest STO signals measured with the feedback loop is presented in \[fig:fig5\](c). We note that the positive feedback used in the circuit design may cause the system to be at the stability limit, i.e., further increase in gain of the amplifier may case self-excitation of the circuit even without STO presence. Nevertheless, the obtained STO Q factor of above 18000 and the oscillation power spectral density reaching 25 nV/$\sqrt{Hz}$ are promising for future applications.
Summary {#sec:summary}
=======
In conclusion, the STO properties of the magnetic tunnel junction with perpendicularly magnetized free layer were investigated in the presence of an additional microwave magnetic field. Application of the external field enabled STO frequency modulation up to 3 GHz, which exceeds the limit for the bias-current modulation methods. By connecting the inductive field line to the amplified STO signal and creating a feedback loop, greater power and a Q-factor of up to 18000 were obtained.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The research leading to these results has received funding from the Polish National Centre for Research and Development under grant No. LIDER/467/L-6/14/NCBR/2015. Nanofabrication was performed at Academic Centre for Materials and Nanotechnology of AGH University. Numerical calculations were supported in part by PL-GRID infrastructure.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We report on observations of GRB 080503, a short gamma-ray burst with very bright extended emission (about 30 times the gamma-ray fluence of the initial spike) in conjunction with a thorough comparison to other short events. In spite of the prompt-emission brightness, however, the optical counterpart is extraordinarily faint, never exceeding 25 mag in deep observations starting at $\sim$1 hr after the BAT trigger. The optical brightness peaks at $\sim 1\;$day and then falls sharply in a manner similar to the predictions of @LiPaczynski1998 for supernova-like emission following compact-binary mergers. However, a shallow spectral index and similar evolution in X-rays inferred from *Chandra* observations are more consistent with an afterglow interpretation. The extreme faintness of this probable afterglow relative to the bright gamma-ray emission argues for a very low-density medium surrounding the burst (a “naked” GRB), consistent with the lack of a coincident host galaxy down to 28.5 mag in deep [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} imaging. The late optical and X-ray peak could be explained by a slightly off-axis jet or by a refreshed shock. Our observations reinforce the notion that short gamma-ray bursts generally occur outside regions of active star formation, but demonstrate that in some cases the luminosity of the extended prompt emission can greatly exceed that of the short spike, which may constrain theoretical interpretation of this class of events. This extended emission is not the onset of an afterglow, and its relative brightness is probably either a viewing-angle effect or intrinsic to the central engine itself. Because most previous BAT short bursts without observed extended emission are too faint for this signature to have been detectable even if it were present at typical level, conclusions based solely on the observed presence or absence of extended emission in the existing sample are premature.'
author:
- 'D. A. Perley, B. D. Metzger, J. Granot, N. R. Butler, T. Sakamoto, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, A. J. Levan, J. S. Bloom, A. A. Miller, A. Bunker, H.-W. Chen, A. V. Filippenko, N. Gehrels, K. Glazebrook, P. B. Hall, K. C. Hurley, D. Kocevski, W. Li, S. Lopez, J. Norris, A. L. Piro, D. Poznanski, J. X. Prochaska, E. Quataert, N. Tanvir'
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: 'GRB 080503: Implications of a Naked Short Gamma-Ray Burst Dominated by Extended Emission'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Despite significant progress since the launch of the satellite [@Gehrels+2004], the origin of short-duration, hard-spectrum gamma-ray bursts (SGRBs) remains elusive. Evidence has been available since the early 1990s that SGRBs constitute a separate class from longer GRBs on the basis of a bimodal distribution in duration [@Mazets+1981; @Norris+1984] and spectral hardness [@Kouveliotou+1993]. The supposition that this phenomenological divide is symptomatic of a true physical difference in the origin of the events was supported by the first successful localizations of SGRB afterglows with the X-ray telescope [@Burrows+2005] coincident with or apparently very near low-redshift ($z < 0.5$) galaxies [@Gehrels+2005; @Fox+2005]. Several of these galaxies clearly lack significant recent star formation [[[e.g.,]{} @Prochaska+2006; @Gorosabel+2006; @Berger+2005]]{}, many events appeared at large offset from the candidate host [@Bloom+2006; @Bloom+2007; @Stratta+2007], and in some cases the appearance of a bright supernova was definitively ruled out [[[e.g.,]{} @Hjorth+2005a]]{}. All of these circumstantial clues seem to suggest [@LeeRR2007; @Nakar2007] a progenitor very different from the one responsible for long-duration GRBs (LGRBs), which are predominately due to the deaths of massive stars (see @WoosleyBloom2006 for a review).
The generally favored interpretation of SGRBs is the merger of two highly compact degenerate objects: two neutron stars (NS–NS, @Eichler+1989 [@Meszaros+1992; @Narayan+1992]) or a neutron star and a black hole (NS–BH, @Paczynski+1991 [@Narayan+1992; @Mochkovitch+1993; @Kluzniak+1998; @Janka+1999]). However, other progenitor models [[[e.g.,]{} @MacFadyen+2005; @Metzger+2008]]{} can also be associated with galaxies having low star-formation rates (SFRs), and many SGRBs have also been associated with relatively low-luminosity, high-SFR galaxies [@Fox+2005; @Hjorth+2005b; @Covino+2006; @Levan+2006] and at much higher redshifts [@Berger+2007; @Cenko+2008] than the better-known elliptical hosts of the first few well-localized SGRBs 050509B and 050724. (A review of SGRB progenitor models is given by @LeeRR2007.)
In addition, even the conventional distinction between SGRBs and LGRBs has been called into question by some recent events which poorly conform to the traditional classification scheme. A large number of events which initially appeared to be “short” (based only on the analysis of the first, most intense pulse) were then followed by an additional episode of long-lasting emission with a duration of up to 100 s or longer. GRB 050724, which unambiguously occurred in an elliptical host, is a member of this class, creating a breakdown in the use of duration (in particular $T_{90}$, @Kouveliotou+1993) as a classification criterion. To further complicate the picture, long GRB 060614 exploded in a very low-SFR dwarf galaxy at $z=0.125$ and despite an intensive follow-up campaign showed no evidence for a supernova, even if extremely underluminous ($M_V > -12.3$, @GalYam+2006). Similar confusion clouds the physical origin of GRB 060505, which is of long duration ($T_{90} = 4 \pm 1$ s) and occurred in a star-forming region of a spiral galaxy [@Thoene+2008], but also lacked supernova emission to very deep limits [@Fynbo+2006]. Two earlier bursts, XRF 040701 [@Soderberg+2005] and GRB 051109B [@GCN5387], may constitute additional examples of this subclass, though available limits in each case are much shallower and the alternate possibility of host-galaxy extinction is poorly constrained compared to the 2006 events. On the basis of these results and others, @Zhang+2007 have called for a new terminology for classification that does not refer to “short” and “long” but rather to Type I and Type II GRBs, in recognition of the fact that duration alone is likely to be an imperfect proxy for physical origin (see also @Gehrels+2006, @Bloom+2008, @Kann+2008).
The true “smoking gun” for the merger model, the detection of gravitational waves, is unlikely to occur before the completion of the next generation of gravity-wave detectors, as the sensitivity of current detectors (LIGO, @Abbott+2004; and Virgo, @Acernese+2004) is several orders of magnitude below what would be necessary to detect a merger at what appears to be a “typical” short GRB redshift of 0.2–1.0 [@Abbott+2008]. However, degenerate-merger models do offer additional observationally verifiable predictions.
First, merger progenitors are much older than massive stars and can travel far from their birthsites, especially if they are subject to kicks which in some cases could eject the binary system progenitor from the host galaxy entirely [@Fryer+1999; @Bloom+1999]. Observationally, this should manifest itself in the form of large angular offsets between the burst position and the host galaxy or even the lack of any observable host at all. Such an trend has indeed been noted for many events [[[e.g.,]{} @Prochaska+2006]]{}. The second prediction, however, has yet to be demonstrated: if some SGRBs explode in galactic halos, then the extremely low associated interstellar density will result in a much fainter afterglow associated with the external shock: a “naked” gamma-ray burst. And while the afterglows of SGRBs tend to be fainter in an absolute sense [@Kann+2008], relative to the gamma-ray emission (on average, SGRBs have much lower total fluences than long LGRBs) there appears to be no obvious difference between SGRB and LGRB afterglows [@Nysewander+2008]. Part of this may be a selection effect, but the brightest SGRBs to date have all been associated with bright afterglows and cannot be “naked”.
Second, during the merger process, a significant amount of neutron-rich ejecta (including $\sim 10^{-3} {\rm M}_{\odot}$ of radioactive Ni, @Metzger+2008) is believed to be ejected at nonrelativistic velocities into interstellar space. Nucleosynthesis in this matter and the resulting radioactive decay would be expected to produce a relatively long-lived optical counterpart, similar to ordinary supernovae [@LiPaczynski1998]. Unfortunately, the luminosity of the transient is generally much lower and the timescale of evolution is significantly faster than in a classical supernova. Detection of this signature remains one of the holy grails in the study of GRBs, though deep early limits for some SGRBs have allowed some limits to be set on the physical parameters of this phenomenon [@Bloom+2006; @Hjorth+2005a; @Kann+2008].
In this paper, we present results from our follow-up campaign of GRB080503, which we argue in §\[sec:bat\] is a prominent example of the emerging subclass of SGRBs with extended episodes of bright, long-lasting prompt emission following the initial short spike. In §\[sec:uvot\]–§\[sec:chandra\] we present additional space-based and ground-based observations of the event highlighting several extreme and unusual features of this burst, including extreme optical faintness, a late light-curve peak, and a very deep late-time limit on any coincident host galaxy. In §\[sec:model\] we attempt to interpret the observed behavior in the context of existing models of emission from GRB internal shocks, an unusual afterglow, and from mini-SN light, arguing that the latter is probably not a large contributor at any epoch. Finally, in §\[sec:conclusions\] we discuss the implications of this event for GRB classification, and on the difficulties faced by future searches for mini-SN light associated with SGRBs.
Observations {#sec:obs}
============
BAT Analysis and High-Energy Classification {#sec:bat}
-------------------------------------------
![The BAT light curve of GRB 080503 with 1 s binning in the 15–150 keV band, with a 16 ms binning curve superposed for the duration of the short spike near $t = 0$. The short spike is also shown alone in the left inset. An extended, highly-binned (10 s) light curve is shown in the right inset, demonstrating the faint emission continuing until about 200 s.[]{data-label="fig:bat_lc"}](f1.eps)
![Duration-hardness plot for bursts detected by the BAT. Long bursts are shown in gray. Short bursts ($T_{90} < 2$ sec) are colored based on the presence or absence of extended emission: bursts without extended emission are shown in red, faint bursts for which the presence of extended emission is poorly constrained are orange, and short bursts with observed extended-emission (including GRBs 050911, 060614, and 051227, whose classifications are controversial) are plotted with the short spike (green) shown separately from the extended emission (blue). The $T_{90}$s and hardness ratios measured for short-hard spikes in this population, including GRB 080503, are generally consistent with those measured for short bursts without extended emission. GRBs 060614 and 051227 may be consistent with both classes, but are unusually long compared to any short burst without extended emission. The extended-emission components of all three events display similar hardness and duration as the extended components of more traditional extended-emission events, which form a tight cluster (GRB 050911 is an outlier). In general, however, the hardness in the channels is not a strong criterion for classification [@Sakamoto+2006; @Ohno+2008].[]{data-label="fig:harddur"}](f2.eps)
The Burst Alert Telescope (BAT) detected GRB080503 at 12:26:13 on 2008 May 3 (UT dates and times are used throughout this paper). The GRB light curve (Figure \[fig:bat\_lc\]) is a classic example of a short GRB with extended emission: a short, intense initial spike with a duration of less than 1 s followed by a long episode of extended emission starting at $\sim$10 s and lasting for several minutes. The overall $T_{90}$ for the entire event is 232 s. Similar extended emission has been seen before in many short bursts detected by both and BATSE (Figure \[fig:multilc\]). All such events to date have remarkably similar general morphologies. However, the fact that the long component is so dominant in this case (factor of $\sim$30 in total fluence) raises the question of whether this is truly a “short” (or Type I) GRB and not an event more akin to the traditional LGRBs (Type II) in disguise. To this end we have reanalyzed the BAT data in detail and applied additional diagnostics to further investigate the nature of this event. We also downloaded and re-analyzed BAT data from all other SGRBs (and candidate SGRBs) with and without extended emission through the end of 2007. A summary of the results of our analysis is presented in Table \[tab:battable\].
The BAT data analysis was performed using the *Swift* HEAsoft 6.5 software package. The burst pipeline script, [batgrbproduct]{}, was used to process the BAT event data. In addition to the script, we made separate spectra for the initial peak and the extended emission interval by [batbinevt]{}, applying [batphasyserr]{} to the PHA files. Since the spectral interval of the extended emission includes the spacecraft slew period, we created the energy response files for every 5 s period during the time interval, and then weighted these energy response files by the 5 s count rates to create the averaged energy response. The averaged energy response file was used for the spectral analysis of the extended emission interval. Similar methods were employed for previous SGRBs.
For GRB 080503, the $T_{90}$ durations of the initial short spike and the total emission in the 15–150 keV band are 0.32 $\pm$ 0.07 s, and 232 s respectively. The peak flux of the initial spike measured in a 484 ms time window is $(1.2 \pm 0.2) \times 10^{-7}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. The hardness ratio between the 50–100 keV and the 25–50 keV bands for this initial spike is $1.2 \pm 0.3$, which is consistent with the hardness of other *Swift* SGRBs, though it is also consistent with the LGRB population. In Figure \[fig:harddur\] we plot the hardness and duration of GRB 080503 against other bursts, resolving this burst and other short events with extended emission separately into the spike and the extended tail. The properties of the initial spike of GRB 080503 match those of the initial spikes of other SGRBs with extended emission (and are consistent with the population of short bursts lacking extended emission), while the hardness and duration of the extended emission are similar to that of this component in other short bursts.
The fluence of the extended emission measured from 5 s to 140 s after the BAT trigger in the 15–150 keV bandpass is $(1.86 \pm 0.14) \times
10^{-6}$ erg cm$^{-2}$. The ratio of this value to the spike fluence is very large ($\sim$30 in the 15–150 keV band), higher than that of any previous short (or possibly short) event including GRB060614. It is not, however, outside the range measured for BATSE members of this class, which have measured count ratios up to $\sim$40 . In Figure \[fig:fluenceratio\], we plot the fluences in the prompt versus extended emission of all SGRBs to date. BATSE bursts are overplotted as solid gray triangles; HETE event GRB 050709 is shown as a star. The two properties appear essentially uncorrelated, and the ratio has a wide dispersion in both directions. Although only two events populate the high extended-to-spike ratio portion of the diagram (and the classification of GRB 060614 is controversial), the difference in this ratio between these and more typical events is only about a factor of 10, and the intermediate region is populated by events from BATSE and HETE[^1], suggesting a continuum in this ratio across what are otherwise similar events.
Lag analysis [@Norris+2000] has also been used as a short-long diagnostic. For GRB 080503, the spectral lag between the 50–100 keV and the 25–50 keV bands using the light curves in the 16 ms binning is $1 \pm 15$ ms (1$\sigma$ error), consistent with zero and characteristic of short-hard GRBs. Unfortunately, the signal is too weak to measure the spectral lag for the extended emission which dominates the fluence. While lag can vary between pulses in a GRB [@Hakkila+2008] and short pulses typically have short lags, even very short pulses in canonical long GRBs have been observed to have non-negligible lags [@Norris+2006].
Based on all of these arguments, we associate GRB 080503 with the “short” (Type I) class. Regardless of classification, however, the extremely faint afterglow of this burst appears to be a unique feature. In fact, as we will show, while the extremely low afterglow flux is more reminiscent of SGRBs than LGRBs, relative to the gamma-rays the afterglow is so faint that this event appears quite unlike any other well-studied member of either population to date.
![BAT 25–100 keV light curves of several different short bursts with high signal-to-noise (S/N) extended emission, including GRB 080503 (top left), showing the similar morphology of these events. The 1 s binned curve is plotted as a black line; a 5 s binning is plotted in solid gray to more clearly show the longer-duration extended emission which for most events is near the detection threshold. Possible short GRB 060614 is also shown; it appears very similar to GRB 080503 except that the initial pulse is significantly longer.[]{data-label="fig:multilc"}](f3.eps)
![Fluences of the short initial spike versus the long extended-emission episode for SGRBs and candidate SGRBs. For bursts this is measured in the 15–150 keV band. For BATSE bursts (diamonds) the values are calculated from the count rates in @Norris+2006 and fluences (20–100 keV) on the BATSE website. HETE GRB 050709 (circle) is taken from Table 2 of @Villasenor+2005 and is in the 2–25 keV band, which is significantly softer than the and BATSE bandpasses. In harder bandpasses the extended emission is likely to be much fainter; this point should therefore be treated as an upper limit. BATSE and HETE short bursts without extended emission are not shown. Several properties are worthy of note. First, the extended-to-prompt ratio shows large variance, quite unlike the observed T90 values and hardness ratios. Second, the large majority of events without extended emission are very faint bursts — the limits on the extended counterpart are not strongly constraining, although strongly extended emission-dominated events like GRB 080503 do appear to be rare. Third, events with bright extended emission have a wide range of short-spike fluence; the two values are not correlated. Events with known redshift are labeled; no clear trends with distance are evident.[]{data-label="fig:fluenceratio"}](f4.eps)
UVOT Observations {#sec:uvot}
-----------------
The UV-Optical Telescope (UVOT) began observations of the field of GRB 080503 at 83 s after the trigger, starting with a finding chart exposure in the White filter at $t = 85$–184 s. No source is detected within the XRT position to a limiting magnitude of $>$20.0 [@GCN7675]. A sequence of filtered observations followed, and then additional White-band exposures. The transient is not detected in any exposure. Because of the deep Gemini data shortly thereafter, these additional limits do not constrain the behavior of the optical counterpart and are not reported or reanalyzed here. A summary of the the subsequent UVOT observations is given by [@GCN7675].
Keck Observations {#sec:keck}
-----------------
Shortly after the GRB trigger we slewed with the 10 m Keck-I telescope (equipped with LRIS) to the GRB position. After a spectroscopic integration on a point source near the XRT position that turned out in later analysis to be a faint star, we acquired (between 13:38:37 and 13:57:02) imaging in the $B$ and $R$ filters simultaneously. Unfortunately, because the instrument had not been focused in imaging mode prior to the target of opportunity, these images are of poorer quality and less constraining than Gemini images (see below) taken at similar times. The optical transient (OT) is not detected in either filter. Magnitudes (calibrated using the Gemini-based calibration, §\[sec:gemini\]) are reported in Table \[tab:photometry\].
On May 8 we used long-slit ($1''$ wide) spectroscopy with LRIS [@Oke+1995] on Keck I to obtain spectra of two relatively bright galaxies 13 SE of the afterglow position. We calibrated the two-dimensional spectra with standard arc and internal flat exposures. We employed the 600 line mm$^{-1}$ grism (blue camera) and 600 line mm$^{-1}$ grating blazed at 10,000 Å(red camera). The data were processed with the LowRedux[^2] package within XIDL[^3]. Both objects show the same emission lines, at common observed wavelengths of $\lambda_{\rm obs} \approx$ 5821, 6778.8, 7592.2, 7745.6, and 7820 Å. The latter two are associated with the H$\beta$ and \[O III\] $\lambda$5007 lines, respectively, identifying this system to be at $z = 0.561$.
While the placement of the slit in the target-of-opportunity spectroscopic on May 3 did not cover the location of the transient, a third, serendipitous object along the slit shows a single emission line at $\lambda_{\rm obs} \approx 6802.9$ Å and a red continuum. We tentatively identify this feature as unresolved \[O II\] $\lambda$3727 emission and estimate its redshift to be 0.8245. This source is far (31$''$) from the OT position, at $\alpha$ = 190631.1, $\delta$ = +684804.3.
Gemini Observations {#sec:gemini}
-------------------
We also initiated a series of imaging exposures using GMOS on the Gemini-North telescope. The first image was a single 180 s $r$-band exposure, beginning at 13:24, 58 min after the trigger. We then cycled through the $g$, $r$, $i$, and $z$ filters with $5 \times 180$ s per filter. A second $g$ epoch was subsequently attempted, but the images are shallow due to rapidly rising twilight sky brightness.
The following night (May 4) we requested a second, longer series of images at the same position. Unexpectedly, the transient had actually brightened during the intervening 24 hr, so we continued to observe the source for several additional epochs. The next night (May 5), we acquired $r$-band images ($9 \times
180$ s), followed by a long nod-and-shuffle spectroscopic integration, and concluded with $4 \times 180$ s exposures in each of the $g$ and $i$ bands. On May 6 and 7, we acquired long $r$-band imaging only ($14 \times 180$ s on May 6 and $16 \times 180$ s on May 7). Finally, on May 8, we acquired a long $K$-band integration using NIRI, nearly simultaneous with the [*HST*]{} observations (§\[sec:hst\]) at the same epoch.
Optical imaging was reduced using standard techniques via the Gemini IRAF package[^4]. Magnitudes were calculated using seeing-matched aperture photometry and calibrated using secondary standards. The standard star field SA 110 was observed on the nights of May 3, May 4, May 5, and May 8; catalog magnitudes [@Landolt1992] were converted to $griz$ using the equations from [@Jester+2005] and used to calibrate 23 stars close to the GRB position (Table \[tab:calibstars\]).
In an attempt to measure or constrain the redshift of GRB 080503, we obtained a nod-and-shuffle long-slit spectroscopic integration of the positions of the optical transient and the nearby faint galaxy S1 (Figure \[fig:image3\]). Two exposures of 1320 s each were obtained starting at 12:20 on 2008 May 05. Unfortunately, even after sky subtraction and binning, no clear trace is observed at the position, and no line signatures are apparent. The redshift of the event is therefore unconstrained, except by the $g$-band photometric detection which imposes a limit of approximately $z < 4$.
We began near-infrared observations of GRB 080503 on 2008 May 08 at 12:46, roughly simultaneous with the [*HST*]{} measurement (§\[sec:hst\]). All images were taken in the $K_s$ band with NIRI. We employed the standard Gemini-N dither pattern for each of the 30 s exposures. In all, 92 images were taken yielding a total time on target of $\sim$1.5 hr. The data were reduced and the individual frames were combined in the usual way using the “gemini” package within IRAF. There is no detection of a source at the location of the optical transient. The nearby faint galaxies (S1 and S4) are also undetected. Calibrating relative to the 2MASS catalog (excluding stars near the edge of the image because NIRI is known to suffer from fringing), we derive an upper limit of $K_s >$ 22.47 mag ($3\sigma$).
All optical photometry, in conjunction with the space-based measurements from and Chandra, is plotted in Figure \[fig:lcurve\].
![X-ray and optical light curves of GRB 080503. The optical bands have been shifted to the $r$ band assuming an optical spectral index of $\beta = 1.2$; the X-ray light curve has been shifted by a factor of 125 to match the optical (corresponding to $\beta_{OX} =
0.75$). The BAT light curve is extrapolated into the X-ray band using the high-energy spectrum. 3$\sigma$ upper limits are shown with arrows.[]{data-label="fig:lcurve"}](f5.eps)
Hubble Space Telescope Observations {#sec:hst}
-----------------------------------
Given the unusual nature of the afterglow, and the indications of a Li-Paczyński-like light curve in the first two days, we proposed[^5] to observe the field of GRB 080503 with the Wide-Field Planetary Camera (WFPC2) on [*HST*]{}. Filter changes, depth, and cadences were chosen to confirm or refute the basic predictions of the @LiPaczynski1998 model (see Fig. \[fig:minisn\] and §\[sec:minisn\]). The localization region was observed in three epochs on 2008 May 8, May 12, and July 29. A set of F450W (1 orbit), F606W (2 orbits), and F814W (1 orbit) observations were obtained during the first visit, with F606W (2 orbits) and F814W (2 orbits) in the second visit, and finally a deep (4 orbit) observation in F606W in the third visit. Observations were dithered (a 3-point line dither for the first epoch of F450W and F814W, and a standard 4-point box for all other observations). The data were reduced in the standard fashion via [multidrizzle]{}, while the pixel scale was retained at the native $\sim 0.1$pixel$^{-1}$.
At the location of the afterglow in our first-epoch F606W image we found a faint point source, with a magnitude of F606W = 27.01 $\pm$ 0.20 after charge-transfer efficiency correction following [@Dolphin2000]. Our other observations show no hint of any emission from the afterglow or any host galaxy directly at its position. We derived limits on any object at the GRB position based on the scatter in a large number ($\sim 100$) of blank apertures placed randomly in the region of GRB 080503. The limits for each frame are shown in Table \[tab:photometry\]. In addition, a stacked frame of all our F814W observations yields F814W $> 27.3$ mag. A combination of all but our first-epoch F606W observations provides our deepest limit of F606W $> 28.5$ mag (3$\sigma$), in a stacked image with exposure time 13,200 s. Therefore any host galaxy underlying GRB 080503 must be fainter than that reported for any other short burst.
Although there is no galaxy directly at the GRB position, there are faint galaxies close to this position which are plausible hosts. In particular, our stacked image of all the F606W observations shows a faint galaxy $\sim 0.8$ from the afterglow position, with F606W(AB) = 27.3 $\pm$ 0.2 mag (designated “S4” in Figure \[fig:image3\]). Although faint, this galaxy is clearly extended, with its stellar field continuing to $\sim$0.3 from the GRB position. (It is plausible that deeper observations or images in redder wavebands may extend its disk further, but we have no evidence that this is the case.) Additionally, there is a brighter galaxy (“S1,” F606W $\approx 26.3$ mag) $\sim 2''$ to the north of the afterglow position, also visible in the Gemini images. Given the faintness of these galaxies and the moderate offset from the afterglow position, the probability of chance alignment is nontrivial (a few percent, following @Bloom+2002), and we cannot make firm statements about their association with GRB 080503.
![The absolute magnitudes and redshifts for a sample of both long (grey squares, from @Fruchter+2006) and short GRB hosts. Bursts with extended emission are marked in green and bursts without extended emission are red; orange denotes SGRBs too faint for a strong limit on extended emission fluence to be inferred. The two solid lines represent “host-less” SGRBs 061201 and 080503, and are extrapolated based on the observed limits. Due to the poor wavelength sampling of many faint GRB hosts the absolute magnitudes have been obtained assuming a flat spectrum K-correction $M_V = V - DM + 2.5 \log(1+z)$, where $DM$ is the distance modulus. We have assumed a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with $\Omega_M = 0.27$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.73$ and $H_0 = 72$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. The nondetection of a host for GRB 080503 implies either that it lies at higher redshift than the majority of the SGRB population, that it originates from a host which is much fainter than the median, or that it has been ejected to a sufficient distance from its host that it can no longer be firmly associated with it. Such deep limits to hosts underlying GRBs are rare, with only a single LGRB (020124, @Berger+2002) undetected in deep HST imaging (out of a sample of $\sim 50$), while two SGRBs (of roughly 15 with good optical positions) are undetected to similar limits.[]{data-label="fig:hostplot"}](f7.ps)
The extremely deep limit on a host galaxy puts GRB 080503 in very rare company. Among short bursts, no comparably deep limit exists for any previous event except GRB 061201, although a study with deep [*HST*]{} imaging of short-burst hosts has yet to be published. However, ground-based searches for hosts of other SGRBs with subarcsecond positions have identified coincident host galaxies in 9 of 11 cases. The two exceptions are GRB 061201 [@Stratta+2007] and GRB 070809 [@GCN7889]; both of these appear at relatively small physical offset from nearby spirals which have been claimed as host candidates. Short GRB 070707 has a coincident host with $R=27.3$ mag [@Piranomonte+2008], about the same as the magnitude of the nearest galaxy to the GRB 080503 OT position. In fact, even compared to long bursts, the lack of host galaxy is unusual; only five events have host-galaxy measurements or limits fainter than 28.5 mag.
There are two general possibilities to explain this extreme faintness. First, GRB 080503 could be at high redshift ($z > 3$), or at moderately high redshift in a very underluminous galaxy (at $z \approx
1$, comparable to the highest-$z$ SGRBs detected to date, $M_B < -15$ mag).[^6] A bright “short” GRB at very high redshift would impose a much larger upper end of the luminosity distribution of these events than is currently suspected. An extremely underluminous host would also be surprising under a model associating SGRBs with old stars, since the bulk of the stellar mass at moderate redshifts is still in relatively large galaxies [@Faber+2007].
Second, GRB 080503 could be at low redshift but ejected a long distance from its host. To further examine this possibility, we have estimated the probabilities [following @Bloom+2002] of a statistically significant association with other bright galaxies in the field. A rather faint spiral galaxy is located 13 SE of the afterglow position (J2000 coordinates $\alpha =
19\fh06\fm31\fs.7$, $\delta = 68\arcdeg47\arcmin27\arcsec.9$; visible in the bottom-left corner of Figure \[fig:image3\]) and has $r =
21.7$ mag and $z = 0.561$ (§\[sec:keck\]). The probability that this is a coincidence is of order unity. We also searched NED and DSS image plates for very bright nearby galaxies outside the field. The nearby ($D \approx 5$ Mpc) dwarf galaxy UGC 11411 is located at an offset of 1.5$^\circ$; again the chance of random association is of order unity. There are no other nearby galaxies of note. While a low probability of random association does not rule out an association with one of these objects (a progenitor that escapes its host-galaxy potential well and has a sufficiently long merger time will be almost impossible to associate with its true host), it prevents us from making an association with any confidence.
Swift XRT analysis {#sec:xrt}
------------------
The X-ray telescope began observing GRB 080503 starting $\sim$82 s after the burst, detecting a bright X-ray counterpart. Observations continued during the following hour and in several return visits.
The XRT data were reduced by procedures described by @Butler+2007a. The X-ray light curve, scaled to match the optical at late times, is shown in Figure \[fig:lcurve\]. Despite the bright early afterglow, the flux declined precipitously and no significant signal is detected during the second through fourth orbits. A marginally significant detection is, however, achieved during a longer integration a day later.
The X-ray hardness ratio decreases, as does the 0.3–10.0 keV count rate, during the course of the early observations (Figure \[fig:xrt\]a,b). Absorbed power-law fits to the evolving spectrum are statistically acceptable ($\chi^2/$dof $\approx$ 1) and yield a photon index $\Gamma$ which increases smoothly with time and an H-equivalent column density $N_H$ that apparently rises and then falls in time (Figure \[fig:xrt\]c,d). This unphysical $N_H$ variation is commonly observed in power-law fits to the XRT emission following BAT GRBs and XRT flares [see, e.g., @Butler+2007b]; it suggests that the intrinsic spectrum, plotted on a log-log scale, has time-dependent curvature. In fact, we find that the combined BAT and XRT data are well fit by a GRB model [@Band+1993] with constant high- and low-energy photon indices and a time-decreasing break energy that passes through the XRT band during the observation.
The amount of physical column density that contributes to the effective $N_H$ in Figure \[fig:xrt\]c can be estimated at early or late times, when the effective $N_H$ is near its minimum, or from the [@Band+1993] GRB model fits. We find $N_H = 5.5^{+1.5}_{-0.9} \times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$, comparable to the Galactic value of $N_H = 5.6 \times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$, indicating that the host-galaxy hydrogen column is minimal.
![(a) The 0.3–10.0 keV X-ray flux measured by the XRT declines rapidly following the bursts. (b) The ratio of counts in the 1.3–10.0 keV to 0.3–1.3 keV bands also declines. (c,d) The spectrum is well modelled by an absorbed power law, although the effective column density $N_H$ appears to unphysically rise and decline during the observations (see text).[]{data-label="fig:xrt"}](f8.ps)
Chandra X-Ray Observatory Observations {#sec:chandra}
--------------------------------------
Under Director’s Discretionary Proposals 09508297 and 09508298, we conducted imaging using the Chandra X-Ray Observatory ACIS-S on two occasions. During the first integration (2008-05-07 19:18:23 to 2008-05-08 04:09:59) an X-ray source is detected at $\alpha$ = 190628.76, $\delta$ = +684735.3 (J2000, 0.5 uncertainty), consistent with the position of the optical afterglow. This source was not detected during the second epoch (2008-05-25 18:11:36 to 2008-05-26 03:04:28), limiting the decay rate to steeper than approximately $t^{-1.6}$.
Minimizing the [@Cash1976] statistic, we find the Chandra spectrum to be acceptably fit by an absorbed power law with $\beta = 0.5 \pm
0.5$ and unabsorbed flux $F_X = (1.5 \pm 0.7) \times 10^{-14}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ (0.3–10 keV). We assume Galactic absorption only.
We attempted to use the photon arrival times to constrain the temporal index ($\alpha$) assuming power-law brightening or fading behavior [@Butler+2005]. The exposure time is short compared to the time elapsed since the GRB, precluding strong constraints. Although the data do marginally favor brightening behavior ($\alpha = -13 \pm 7$), in contrast to the well-established optical fading at this point, we do not consider this to be a strong conclusion.
Modeling and Interpretation {#sec:model}
===========================
The Origin of the Rapid Decay Phase {#sec:hilatitude}
-----------------------------------
Immediately after the prompt emission subsides, the X-ray light curve (Fig. \[fig:alphabeta\]) is observed to decline extremely rapidly ($\alpha = 2$–4, where $\alpha$ is defined by $F_{\nu} \propto
t^{-\alpha}$), plummeting from a relatively bright early X-ray flux to below the XRT detection threshold during the first orbit. Although a similar rapid early decline is seen in nearly all GRBs for which early-time X-ray data are available [@O'Brien+2006], GRB 080503 probably constitutes the most dramatic example of this on record: the decline of $\sim$6.5 orders of magnitude from the peak BAT flux is larger by a factor of $\sim$ 100 than observed for the reportedly “naked” GRB 050421 [@Godet+2006] and comparable to the decline of two other potentially naked events described by [@Vetere+2008]. The lack of contamination of this phase of the GRB by any other signature (X-ray flares or a standard afterglow) affords an excellent test for models of this decay component.
![Decay index $\alpha$ versus spectral index $\beta$ (+2) during the rapid-decay phase of the external power-law. For a purely power-law spectrum a closure relation $\alpha$ = 2 + $\beta$ is predicted by the high-latitude (curvature) model; this is approximately obeyed as shown by the solid line. For more complicated spectra this relation may not be obeyed exactly.[]{data-label="fig:alphabeta"}](f9.ps)
An afterglow interpretation can be ruled out almost immediately. In addition to the difficulties faced by such a model in explaining the very sharp decay index, continuous spectral softening, and smooth connection with the prompt emission (all of which are commonly observed in the rapid decay phase of other GRBs), the early UVOT White measurement ($\lesssim$220 $\mu$Jy at 85–184 s) imposes a limit on the X-ray to optical spectral slope of $\beta_{\rm OX} < -0.5$ (using the convention $F_\nu \propto \nu^{-\beta}$) that is very difficult to explain as afterglow emission, but is consistent with the low-energy tail of prompt-emission spectra.
While the origin of the rapid-decay phase observed in most X-ray light curves is still not settled, the most popular interpretation is high-latitude emission [@Kumar+2000], also referred to as the curvature effect. In this scenario, after the prompt emission ends some photons still reach us from increasingly larger angles relative to the line of sight (to the central source) due to a longer path length induced by the curvature of the (usually assumed to be quasi-spherical) emitting region (or shell). Such late photons correspond to a smaller Doppler factor, resulting in a relation between the temporal and spectral indexes, $\alpha = 2 + \beta$, that holds at late times ($t-t_0 \gg
\Delta t$) for each pulse in the prompt light curve (of typical width $\Delta t$ and onset time $t_0$) where $\beta = -d\log F_\nu/d\log\nu$ and $\alpha = -d\log F_\nu/d\log(t-t_0)$. The total tail of the prompt emission is the sum of the contributions from the different pulses. At the onset of the rapid-decay phase the flux is usually dominated by the tail of the last spike in the light curve, and therefore can potentially be reasonably fit using a simple single-pulse model with $t_0$ set to near the onset of this last spike. At later times the tails of earlier pulses can become dominant. At sufficiently late times both $t-t_0 \gg \Delta t$ and $t \gg t_0$ (i.e., $t - t_0 \approx
t$) for all pulses, and the relation $\alpha = 2+\beta$ is reached for $t_0 = 0$ (i.e., setting the reference time $t_0$ to the GRB trigger time). In GRB 080503 the large dynamic range enables us to probe this late regime; as shown in Figure \[fig:alphabeta\], which displays $\alpha$ versus $2+\beta$ for the rapid-decay phase using $t_0 = 0$, the relation $\alpha = 2+\beta$ roughly holds, as expected for high-latitude emission.
While the above discussion suggests that high-latitude emission is a viable mechanism for the rapid-decay phase in GRB 080503, a more careful analysis is called for, especially since assuming an intrinsic power-law spectrum during the rapid-decay phase requires an unphysical time-variable $N_H$; a better and more physical description is provided by using a fixed Galactic value for $N_{\rm H}$ and an intrinsic [@Band+1993] spectrum whose peak energy passes through the XRT range (see §\[sec:xrt\]). A more detailed analysis of this event (and others) in the context of the high-latitude model and possible alternatives using this model will be forthcoming in future work.
Constraining the External Density from Lack of Early Afterglow Emission {#sec:environs}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The faintness of the early afterglow is very striking. Any afterglow emission for this event was unlikely to be brighter than about $\sim 1$ $\mu$Jy at optical wavelengths and $10^{-2}$ $\mu$Jy in X-rays at any time after about 1 hr (and if the late afterglow peak were due to a non-afterglow signature, a possibility we consider in §\[sec:minisn\], these limits would be even more stringent.) Our early optical limits are the deepest for any GRB on record at this epoch [@Kann+2008]. If the observed emission at $t > 1$ d is due to a mini-SN or other process, the absence of an afterglow is even more notable. Figure \[fig:nyse\] shows the X-ray flux at $11\;$hr, $F_X(11\,{\rm hr})$, and the fluence of the prompt $\gamma$-ray emission, $S_\gamma$, for GRB 080503 together with a large sample of both LGRBs and SGRBs (data taken from Figure 4 of @Nysewander+2008, but modified slightly as described in the caption.) GRB080503 immediately stands out as a dramatic outlier, with an $F_X/S_{\gamma}$ several orders of magnitude below that of the general population, indicating a poor conversion of the energy left in the flow after the prompt gamma-ray emission into afterglow (emission from the external forward shock). A natural explanation for this difference is a very low external density.
Using the upper limit on the X-ray flux, $F_X(11\,{\rm hr}) <
8.4\times 10^{-15}\;{\rm erg\;cm^{-2}\;s^{-1}}$, and the measured fluence, $S_\gamma = (1.7 \pm 0.1)\times 10^{-6}\;{\rm erg\;cm^{-2}}$, we derive constraints on the external density, $n = n_0\;{\rm
cm^{-3}}$. Following @GKP06, it is convenient to use the X-ray afterglow efficiency, $\epsilon_X(t) \equiv t L_X(t)/E_{\rm
k,iso}(t)$. We can relate the isotropic equivalent kinetic energy in the afterglow shock, $E_{\rm k,iso}$, to the measured fluence by using the ratio $\eta_{\rm k\gamma} \equiv E_{\rm k,iso}/E_{\rm\gamma,iso}$, which is expected to be of order unity. This gives $$\label{eps_X_obs}
\epsilon_X = \frac{t F_X(t)}{\eta_{\rm k\gamma}S_\gamma},\quad\quad
\epsilon_X(t = 11\,{\rm hr}) < 8.0\times 10^{-5}\eta_{\rm k\gamma}^{-1}\ ,$$ where $L_X(t)$ in the definition of $\epsilon_X$ is interpreted here as evaluated at $t = 11$ hr and an energy range of 2–10 keV (converted from our reported 0.3–10 keV value assuming $\beta \approx
-1$) in the observer frame. This makes it easier to compare this value to the one derived from standard afterglow theory, as is done next.
The value of $\beta_{\rm OX} \approx 0.7$ suggests $p \approx 2.4$ if the cooling break frequency is above the X-rays, $\nu_c > \nu_X$, and a smaller value of $p$ if $\nu_c < \nu_X$. If $\nu_c < \nu_X$ then for $p \approx 2.2$ and $\epsilon_B \ll \epsilon_e$ [using eq. 7 of @GKP06], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eps_X_AG}
\epsilon_X(t = 11\,{\rm hr}; \nu_c < \nu_X) & \approx &
10^{-3}\epsilon_{e,-1}^{p-3/2}\epsilon_{B,-2}^{p/4}E_{\rm k,iso,52}^{(p-2)/4} \\
& \sim & 10^{-3}\epsilon_{e,-1}^{0.7}\epsilon_{B,-2}^{0.55}E_{\rm k,iso,52}^{0.05}\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon_e = 0.1\epsilon_{e,-1}$, $\epsilon_B =
0.01\epsilon_{B,-2}$, and $E_{\rm k,iso} = 10^{52}E_{\rm
k,iso,52}\;$erg. There is no dependence on the external density as long as $\nu_c < \nu_X$, and the dependence on $E_{\rm k,iso}$ is extremely weak. It does have some dependence on $\epsilon_e$ and $\epsilon_B$. However, reproducing the value derived in eq. (\[eps\_X\_obs\]) requires these shock microphysical parameters to assume very low values – not out of the question but on the low end of the values inferred from modeling of the best-monitored GRB afterglows. This is assuming a reasonable efficiency of the gamma-ray emission, $\epsilon_\gamma \lesssim 0.5$, leaving at least a comparable kinetic energy in the outflow that was transferred to the shocked external medium before $11\;$hr, $\eta_{\rm k\gamma} \approx (1-\epsilon_\gamma)/\epsilon_\gamma \gtrsim 1$. For typical values of the shock microphysical parameters ($\epsilon_e \approx 0.1$ and $\epsilon_B \approx 0.01$), eqs. (\[eps\_X\_obs\]) and (\[eps\_X\_AG\]) can be reconciled either if $\nu_c(11\,{\rm hr}) \gg
\nu_X$ (which as is shown below implies a very low external density), or if $1 - \epsilon_\gamma \approx \eta_{\rm k\gamma} \ll 1$ (i.e., an extremely high gamma-ray efficiency that leaves very little energy in the afterglow shock, compared to that emitted in gamma-rays).
For a reasonable gamma-ray efficiency ($\epsilon_\gamma \lesssim 0.5$) this suggests that $\nu_c > \nu_X$. In this case the value of $\epsilon_X$ is reduced by a factor of $(\nu_c/\nu_X)^{1/2}$ compared to its value for $\nu_c < \nu_X$ (that is given in eq. (\[eps\_X\_AG\]) for $p \approx 2.2$) and is smaller by a factor of $\sim$1.48 for $p \approx 2.4$ (that is inferred from the observed value of $\beta_{\rm OX}$ for $\nu_c > \nu_X$). For a $\nu_X \approx 10^{18}\;$Hz (corresponding to $\sim 4\;$keV) this suggests $\nu_c(11\,{\rm hr}) \gtrsim 10^{20}\;$Hz, which in turn [using the expression for $\nu_c$ from @GS02] implies $$n \lesssim 5 \times 10^{-6}E_{\rm
k,iso,52}^{-1/2}\epsilon_{e,-1}^{-1}\epsilon_{B,-2}^{-1/2}\;{\rm cm^{-3}}\ .$$ This dependence on the parameters is valid in the limit of $\epsilon_B \ll \epsilon_e$, where $Y \approx
(\epsilon_e/\epsilon_B)^{1/2} \gg 1$ and $\nu_c \propto n^{-1}E_{\rm
k,iso}^{-1/2}(1+Y)^{-2}\epsilon_B^{-3/2} \propto n^{-1}E_{\rm
k,iso}^{-1/2}\epsilon_e^{-1}\epsilon_B^{-1/2}$. Therefore, the upper limit on the external density cannot easily be increased by a large factor. This suggests a very low external density compared to typical disk values ($n \approx 1$ cm$^{-3}$) or even a Galactic halo ($n \approx 10^{-3}$ cm$^{-3}$, @Basu) but is of the same order as the intergalactic particle density ($n \approx 10^{-6}$ cm$^{-3}$, @Hinshaw+2008). This result therefore provides strong evidence that this explosion occurred far outside any galaxy. (An intriguing alternative to this, however, would be if the burst occurred in a low-density pulsar cavity inflated by one of the NSs in the precursor binary; @RosswogRR2003.)
Afterglow Models: Why the Delay? {#sec:lateag}
--------------------------------
The counterpart rebrightened during the second night of observations, rising again above detectability in both the optical and X-ray bands. The optical is far better constrained than the X-rays in this case: the rise is at least 1.5 mag (a factor of $\sim 3$) and peaks between 0.1 and 2 d after the event, though most likely the peak is toward the end of this period as the optical observations at 1–2 d are consistent with constant flux. Although the faint afterglow and sparse observations preclude a careful search for chromatic behavior, the X-ray emission shows a broadly similar temporal behavior as the optical and is consistent with being on the same segment of a power-law spectrum ($F_\nu \propto \nu^{-\beta}$), with a very reasonable value of the optical to X-ray spectral slope for GRB afterglows, $\beta_{\rm OX} \approx 0.7$. This suggests that they arise from the same physical region, and probably also from the same emission mechanism (most likely synchrotron emission from the forward external shock, i.e. the afterglow; we will consider other models in §\[sec:minisn\]).
A late peak ($t \approx 1$ d) is unusual for an afterglow but not unprecedented. Most such events are *rebrightenings* and not global maxima. The most prominent examples of this have been long bursts, though some modest X-ray flaring has been observed in a few short GRBs [@Fox+2005; @Campana+2006], and notably the classification-challenged GRB 060614 had an optical peak between 0.3–0.5 d. Without deep imaging before our first Gemini exposure, we cannot constrain the nature of an optical afterglow in the earliest phases of GRB 080503. However, it is clear that since this behavior is consistent with that observed for at least some previous GRB afterglows, the observed light curve, like the SED, is consistent with an afterglow model. The cause of this delayed peak, however, remains an open question, which we will now turn our attention to.
The similar temporal behavior of the X-ray and optical flux around the observed peak argues against a passage of a spectral break frequency (e.g., the typical synchrotron frequency $\nu_m$ passing through the optical) as the source of the late time peak in the light curve, and in favor of a hydrodynamic origin. One possibility for such a hydrodynamic origin is the deceleration time, $t_{\rm dec}$. However, such a late deceleration time implies either an extremely low initial Lorentz factor of the outflow, $\Gamma_0$, or an unreasonably low external density $$\begin{aligned}
n_0 &\approx& \left[\frac{t_{\rm dec}}{42(1+z)\,{\rm s}}\right]^{-3} E_{\rm k,iso,51}
\left(\frac{\Gamma_0}{100}\right)^{-8} \\ &\approx&
10^{-10}E_{\rm k,iso,51}
\left(\frac{\Gamma_0}{100}\right)^{-8} \\ &\approx& E_{\rm k,iso,51}
\left(\frac{\Gamma_0}{5.7}\right)^{-8}\ \end{aligned}$$ [see, e.g., @Granot05; @LR-RG05], where we have used $t_{\rm dec}/(1+z) \approx 1$ d.
An initial Lorentz factor of $\Gamma_0 \gtrsim 100$ is typically required in order to overcome the compactness problem for the prompt GRB emission. This would in turn imply in our case an external density of $n \lesssim 10^{-10}\;{\rm cm^{-3}}$ that is unrealistically low, even for the the intergalactic medium (IGM). An external density typical of the IGM, $n_{\rm IGM} \sim 10^{-6}\;{\rm cm^{-3}}$ would require $\Gamma_0 \sim 30$. This may or may not be a strong concern in this case: the constraints on the high-energy spectrum of the extended-emission component of short GRBs are not yet well-established[^7], and it is not yet certain that existing compactness constraints apply to this emission component, potentially allowing a lower minimum Lorentz factor than is required for SGRB initial spikes ([*Fermi*]{} has detected high energy emission up to $\sim 3\;$GeV from the short GRB 081024B, @GCN8407) or for classical LGRBs.
An alternative hydrodynamic explanation for the late peak is if the afterglow shock encounters a large and sharp increase in the external density into which it is propagating. However, it would be very hard to produce the required rise in the light curve up to the broad peak due to a sudden jump in the external density [@NG07] unless a change in the micro-physical parameters accompanies the sharp density discontinuity (as may occur inside a pulsar cavity inflated by one of the NSs in the precursor binary.) Below we discuss other possible causes for such a broad and largely achromatic peak in the afterglow light curve. The main features these models need to explain are the extremely low value of $F_X(11\,{\rm hr})/S_\gamma$ and the late-time peak (a few days) in the afterglow light curve.
[**Off-axis jet:**]{} The bulk of the kinetic energy in the afterglow shock might not be directed along our line of sight, and could instead point somewhat away from us. For such an off-axis viewing angle (relative to the region of bright afterglow emission, envisioned to be a jet of initial half-opening angle $\theta_0$) the afterglow emission is initially strongly beamed away from us [this can be thought of as an extreme version of the “patchy shell” model – @KP00b; @NPG03]. As the afterglow jet decelerates the beaming cone of its radiation widens, until it eventually reaches our line of sight, at which point the observed flux peaks and later decays [@Rees1999; @Dermer+2000; @Granot+2002; @Ramirez-Ruiz+2005]. This interpretation can naturally account for the dim early afterglow emission (without necessarily implying an extremely low external density), as well as the rapid decay after the peak (if our viewing angle from the jet axis is $\theta_{\rm obs}
\gtrsim 2\theta_0$). The possibility of a slightly off-axis jet is particularly intriguing given the fact that the initial spike is much fainter relative to the extended emission in this event (and in GRB060614, which also exhibits a late light curve peak) than for most SGRBs; one may envision a unified short-burst model in which the short-spike component of the prompt emission is beamed more narrowly than the component associated with the extended emission. However, since a low circumstellar density is no longer needed, there is no natural means of supressing the early afterglow that should be created by the extended-emission associated component, and producing the large ratio of the gamma-ray fluence and early-time X-ray afterglow flux would require that the gamma-ray emission along our line of sight is bright and the gamma-ray efficiency is very large [@EG06]. Regardless of whether the jet is seen off-axis, there is good evidence that this GRB is significantly collimated, with a decay index $\alpha
> 2$ at late times ($t > 3$ d) in both the optical and X-ray bands.
[**Refreshed shock:**]{} A “refreshed shock” [@KP00a; @R-RMR01; @GNP03] is a discrete shell of slow ejecta that was produced during the prompt activity of the source and catches up with the afterglow shock at a late time (after it decelerates to a somewhat smaller Lorentz factor than that of the shell), colliding with it from behind and thus increasing its energy. This interpretation also requires a very large gamma-ray efficiency, ($\epsilon_\gamma \gtrsim 95\%$) corresponding to $\epsilon_\gamma/(1-\epsilon_\gamma) \sim \eta_{\rm k\gamma}^{-1} \gtrsim 30$. In this picture, the sharp decay after the peak (at least as steep as $\sim t^{-2}$) requires that the collision occur after the jet-break time.
The rather sparse afterglow data make it hard to distinguish between these options. Nevertheless, the overall observed behavior can be reasonably explained as afterglow emission in the context of existing models for afterglow variability.
Constraints on a Mini-Supernova {#sec:minisn}
-------------------------------
Under any scenario, the absence of a bright afterglow associated with GRB 080503, together with the late-time optical rise, suggests that a substantial fraction of this event’s energy may be coupled to trans- and non-relativistic ejecta. Non-relativistic outflows from the central engine are sufficiently dense to synthesize heavy isotopes, which may power transient emission via reheating of the (adiabatically cooled) ejecta by radioactive decay [@LiPaczynski1998]. Since at most $\sim 0.1$ M$_{\odot}$ is expected to be ejected from any short GRB progenitor, the outflow becomes optically thin earlier and traps a smaller fraction of the decay energy than for a normal SN; these “mini-SNe” therefore peak earlier and at fainter magnitudes than normal SNe.
Current observational limits [@Bloom+2006; @Hjorth+2005a; @Castro-Tirado+2005; @Kann+2008] indicate that any supernova-like event accompanying an SGRB would have to be over 50 times fainter (at peak) than normal Type Ia SNe or Type Ic hypernovae, 5 times fainter than the faintest known SNe Ia or SNe Ic, and fainter than the faintest known SNe II. These limits strongly constrain progenitor models for SGRBs. Unless SGRBs are eventually found to be accompanied by telltale emission features like the SNe associated with LGRBs, the only definitive understanding of the progenitors will come from possible associations with gravitational wave or neutrino signals.
The most promising isotope to produce bright transient emission is $^{56}$Ni because its decay timescale of $\sim 6$ d is comparable to the timescale over which the outflow becomes optically thin. Compact object mergers, however, are neutron rich and are not expected to produce large quantities of Ni [@Rosswog+2003]. @Metzger+2008b estimate that in the best cases only $\leq 10^{-3}$ M$_{\odot}$ of Ni is produced by outflows from the accretion disk. On the other hand, neutron-rich material may be dynamically ejected from a NS–NS or a NS–BH merger. Its subsequent decompression may synthesize radioactive elements through the $r$ process, whose radioactive decay could power an optical transient [@LiPaczynski1998]. Material dynamically stripped from a star is violently ejected by tidal torques through the outer Lagrange point, removing energy and angular momentum and forming a large tail. These tails are typically a few thousand kilometers in size by the end of the disruption event. Some of the fluid (as much as a few hundredths of a solar mass) in these flows is often gravitationally unbound, and could, as originally envisaged by [@LattimerSchramm1976], undergo $r$-process nucleosynthesis [@rs99; @frei99]. The rest will eventually return to the vicinity of the compact object, with possible interesting consequences for SGRB late-time emission. A significant fraction ($\sim 10$–50%) of the accretion disk that initially forms from the merger will also be ejected in powerful winds [@Lee+2005] from the disk at late times; this material is also neutron rich and will produce radioactive isotopes [@Metzger+2008c].
In the case of GRB 080503, the amount (mass $M$) of radioactive material synthesized in the accompanying SGRB wind necessary to provide the observed luminosity is constrained to be $(M/{\rm
M}_\odot)f \approx (1.5 - 1.8) \times 10^{-7}\,(z/1)^2$. A larger uncertainty is the value of $f$, which is the fraction of the rest mass of the radioactive material that is converted to heat and radiated around the optical near the peak of the light curve ($\sim$ 1–2 d). Generally $f \lesssim 10^{-4}$ since $\sim 10^{-3}$ of the rest mass is converted to gamma-rays during the radioactive decay, only part of the gamma-ray energy is converted to heat (some gamma-rays escape before depositing most of their energy), and only part of mass in the synthesized radioactive elements decays near the peak of the light curve (so that $f$ can easily be much less than $10^{-4}$, but it is hard for it to be higher than this value). We note here that the most efficient conversion of nuclear energy to the observable luminosity is provided by the elements with a decay timescale comparable to the timescale it takes the ejected debris to become optically thin ($t_\tau$). In reality, there is likely to be a large number of nuclides with a very broad range of decay timescales. Current observational limits thus place interesting constraints on the abundances and the lifetimes of the radioactive nuclides that form in the rapid decompression of nuclear-density matter — they should be either very short or very long when compared to $t_\tau$ so that radioactivity is inefficient in generating a high luminosity.
In Figure \[fig:minisn\] we show two light-curve models for a Ni-powered mini-SN from GRB 080503 calculated according to the model of [@Kulkarni2005] and [@Metzger+2008b]. Shown with asterisks and triangles are the $r$-band and F606W band detections and upper limits from Gemini and [*HST*]{}. The solid and dashed lines correspond to a low-redshift ($z = 0.03$) and high-redshift ($z =
0.5$) model, respectively. Qualitatively, both models appear to be reasonably consistent with the flux light curve. To reproduce the peak of the optical emission at $t \approx 1$ d, a total ejected mass of $\sim 0.1$ M$_{\odot}$ is required in either model. In order to reproduce the peak flux, the Ni mass required in the high- and low-redshift models is $M_{\rm Ni} \approx 0.3$ M$_\odot$ and $2 \times
10^{-3}$ M$_{\odot}$, respectively. Since the former is unphysically large in any SGRB progenitor model, a high-redshift event appears inconsistent with a mini-SN origin for the optical rise.
If GRB 080503 originates at very low redshift ($z < 0.1$), a mini-SN model would still appear viable. However, most mini-SN models also predict that the spectrum should redden significantly with time and possess a negative spectral slope once the outflow becomes optically thin after the peak at $t \approx 1$ d; the [*HST*]{} detection in F606W and non-detections in F814W and F450W at 5.35 d, however, suggest that the spectrum is approximately flat at late times. While the detected optical emission may be attributed to a mini-SN type of event, the expected spectrum in such a case is quasi-thermal, resulting in no detectable emission in the X-rays. (@Rossi+2008 have proposed a fallback model in which X-rays can rebrighten days or weeks after the event, but the luminosity is extremely low, and to explain the Chandra count rate a very close distance of $\sim 8$ Mpc would be required; while not excluded by our data, this is orders of magnitude closer than any known non-magnetar short gamma-ray burst.) Therefore, the late X-ray detections a few days after the GRB are most likely afterglow emission.
![Two AB magnitude [@Oke1974] light-curve models for a Ni-powered “mini-SN” from GRB 080503, based on the model of [@LiPaczynski1998], [@Kulkarni2005], and [@Metzger+2008b]. The solid line indicates a model at $z = 0.03$ with a $^{56}$Ni mass $\approx 2\times 10^{-3}$ M$_{\odot}$, total ejecta mass $\approx
0.4$ M$_{\odot}$, and outflow velocity $\approx 0.1 c$. The dotted line is for a pure Ni explosion at $z = 0.5$ with mass $\approx
0.3$ M$_{\odot}$ and velocity $\approx 0.2 c$. Also shown are our $r$-band and F606W detections and upper limits from Gemini and [*HST*]{}.[]{data-label="fig:minisn"}](f11.eps)
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
The very same faintness which makes GRB 080503 so remarkable unfortunately also makes it difficult to strongly constrain various physical interpretations of this event. However, the combination of the extremely low limit on the afterglow-to-prompt fluence ratio shortly after the burst and the lack of a coincident host galaxy provides strong evidence that this burst exploded in a very low-density (possibly even intergalactic) medium.
This result has several important implications for the nature of “short” bursts and of GRB classification in general. For example, the interpretation of GRB 060614 (and whether it groups more naturally with canonical “short” events like GRB 050724, canonical “long” events like 080319B, or in a new class entirely on its own) is clarified somewhat. GRB 060614, despite having a prompt-extended light-curve morphology (as well as negligible lag and no supernova to deep limits) was (like GRB 080503) strongly dominated by extended emission but also had a very long spike $T_{90}$ (5.5 s), on the extreme end of the short class. The initial pulse of GRB 080503 was unambiguously short; furthermore, the faint afterglow and lack of host galaxy both provide evidence that this event occurred in an environment quite unlike those of canonical “long” GRBs. The existence of an apparent continuity between the appearance of the light curves of GRB 060614 and GRB 080503 and more traditional short bursts (in stark contrast to the bewildering diversity in the structure of longer GRBs) suggests that they originate from the same or similar progenitors, in spite of the apparent diversity in environments and redshifts. The presence of bright extended emission in GRB 080503, and the prompt-like behavior of its fading tail in the X-ray band, is a counterexample to the inference that extended emission is an environment- or progenitor-correlated phenomenon [@Troja+2008]. We note again that in the vast majority of cases observed by [*Swift*]{}, we cannot strongly constrain the presence of extended emission, and in only two events are limits sufficiently deep to constrain the extended-to-spike fluence ratio to less than the value observed for GRB 070714B.
This same result, however, may pose difficulties to the most popular model of short GRBs: NS–NS or NS–BH merger events. The possibility that the luminosity of the extended emission can exceed that of the initial spike by factors of 30 or more is problematic for a merger, in which the majority of the accretion disk is expected to accrete within a viscous timescale — not more than a few seconds [@Rosswog+2007; @Lee+2004]. This may strengthen the case for alternative models, such as accretion-induced collapse [@VietriStella1999; @KatzCanel1996; @MacFadyen+2005]. On the other hand, the extremely low circumburst density is much more consistent with a merger event with its possibility of a natal kick than models such as accretion-induced collapse. One possible means of avoiding this difficulty in a merger scenario (but which could also apply to other models) would be if, for GRB 080503 and GRB 060614, the prompt spike were focused in a narrow jet seen nearly off-axis while the extended emission were more widely beamed. Such a scenario could occur in the case of compact object mergers if the relativistic jet is collimated by a neutrino-heated baryon wind from the accretion disk at early times [@LevinsonEichler2000; @Rosswog+2003], but the collimating effect of the wind become less effective at later times as the neutrino flux and wind luminosity decreases.
The observed late peak in the optical light curve, which we suspected initially may have been the signature of a Li-Paczyński supernova, is explained reasonably by other models. The peak time of $\sim$1 d is too long to be explained by the deceleration timescale, even for a burst exploding into the extremely low-density intergalactic medium, unless the Lorentz factor associated with the extended episode is also very low. However, an off-axis jet, or alternatively a slower shell of ejecta that catches up with the initially very weak afterglow shock and energizes it (a “refreshed shock”), could produce a rebrightening and a late peak. A rather similar late peak has been observed before in several long bursts and in GRB 060614. Some contribution to the afterglow from a mini-SN is not ruled out but is not necessary to explain the available data.
Our failure to conclusively detect a mini-SN signature may also have significant observational implications. In spite of the “nakedness” of this event vastly suppressing the late-time afterglow flux, any possible mini-SN that may have been associated with this event was concealed by the late-time afterglow. Similar events in a higher-density environment (such as a galactic disk) will have even brighter afterglows. If mini-SN phenomena exist in nature, our observations suggest it will be extremely difficult to detect them over the glow of the relativistic shock created by the burst itself. Our best opportunity is likely to lie in observationally and intrinsically faint events like GRB 050509B, whose weak gamma-ray signal results from a low-energy flow insufficient to create a bright afterglow even in a relatively dense medium, but is bright enough for localization.
J.S.B.’s group is supported in part by the Hellman Faculty Fund, Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network, and NASA/*Swift* Guest Investigator grant NNG05GF55G. BM and EQ were supported in part by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, NASA grant NNG05GO22H, and the NSF-DOE Grant PHY-0812811. J.G. gratefully acknowledges a Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award. N.R.B. is partially supported by US Department of Energy SciDAC grant DE-FC02-06ER41453 and by a NASA GLAST/Fermi Fellowship. A.V.F. is partially supported by NSF grant AST–0607485 and the TABASGO Foundation. This work was supported in part by NASA (Swift NX07AE98G, ER-R) and DOE SciDAC (DE-FC02-01ER41176, ER-R).
This research is based in part on observations obtained at the Gemini Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under a cooperative agreement with the NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership. Some of the data presented herein were obtained at the W. M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of California, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support of the W. M. Keck Foundation.
We thank the [*HST*]{} and Chandra X-ray Observatory directors and scheduling teams for their extremely rapid turnaround time for observations of GRB 080503. We also thank the Gemini observing staff, in particular T. Geballe, for excellent support, and D. A. Kann for helpful commentary on the manuscript.
[llll]{} 050509B & N & 0.2249 &$ < 14.3 $\
050724 & N & 0.258 &$ 2.64 \pm 0.49 $\
050813 & N & 0.722? &$ < 3.64 $\
050906 & Y & - &$ < 14.87 $\
050911 & Y& 0.1646? &$ 1.31 \pm 0.43 $\
050925 & Y & - &$ < 1.83 $\
051105A & N & - &$ < 8.06 $\
051210 & Y & 0.114? &$ 2.72 \pm 1.33$\
051221A & Y & 0.5465 &$ < 0.16 $\
051227 & Y & - &$ 2.87 \pm 0.677 $\
060313 & N & - &$ < 0.29 $\
060502B & N & 0.287? &$ < 3.45 $\
060801 & N & 1.131? &$ < 1.84 $\
060614 & Y & 0.125 &$ 6.11 \pm 0.25 $\
061006 & Y & 0.4377 &$ 1.75 \pm 0.26 $\
061201 & N & 0.111? &$ < 0.71 $\
061210 & N & 0.41? &$ 2.81 \pm 0.63 $\
061217 & N & 0.827 &$ < 3.81 $\
070209 & N & - &$ < 8.08 $\
070429B & N & 0.904 &$ < 2.44 $\
070714B & N & 0.92 &$ 0.477 \pm 0.163 $\
070724A & N & 0.457 &$ < 4.24 $\
070729 & N & - &$ < 2.16 $\
070731 & Y & - &$ < 1.37 $\
070809 & Y & 0.219? &$ < 1.37 $\
070810B & N & - &$ < 9.40 $\
070923 & N & - &$ < 5.96 $\
071112B & N & - &$ < 4.14 $\
071227 & Y & 0.383 &$ 1.56 \pm 0.49 \tablenotemark{f} $\
080503 & Y & - &$ 32.41 \pm 5.7 $\
\[tab:battable\]
[llcllll]{} 0.00156 & 98 & white& $> 20 $ & 3850 & $ < 14.2 $ & Swift UVOT\
0.04083 &180 & r & $> 25.80 $ & 6290 & $ < 0.204 $ & Gemini-N GMOS\
0.04916 &800 & g & $ 26.76 \pm 0.24$ & 4858 & $ 0.0890 \pm 0.0176 $ & Gemini-N GMOS\
0.06250 &800 & r & $> 26.80 $ & 6290 & $ < 0.0811 $ & Gemini-N GMOS\
0.05125 &300 & B & $> 26.00 $ & 4458 & $ < 0.209 $ & Keck I LRIS\
0.05458 &630 & R & $> 25.60 $ & 6588 & $ < 0.208 $ & Keck I LRIS\
0.07583 &800 & i & $> 26.80 $ & 7706 & $ < 0.0779 $ & Gemini-N GMOS\
0.09000 &800 & z & $> 26.00 $ & 9222 & $ < 0.161 $ & Gemini-N GMOS\
0.10125 &360 & g & $> 24.60 $ & 4858 & $ < 0.650 $ & Gemini-N GMOS\
1.08333 &1800& r & $ 25.48 \pm 0.16$ & 6290 & $ 0.273 \pm 0.037 $ & Gemini-N GMOS\
1.97500 &1620& r & $ 25.65 \pm 0.19$ & 6290 & $ 0.234 \pm 0.038 $ & Gemini-N GMOS\
2.09167 & 720& g & $ 26.48 \pm 0.26$ & 4858 & $ 0.115 \pm 0.024 $ & Gemini-N GMOS\
3.08333 &2700& r & $ 25.90 \pm 0.31$ & 6290 & $ 0.186 \pm 0.046 $ & Gemini-N GMOS\
4.04583 &2880& r & $ 26.27 \pm 0.23$ & 6290 & $ 0.132 \pm 0.025 $ & Gemini-N GMOS\
5.20833 &2760& $K_s$& $> 22.47 $ & 21590 & $ < 0.700 $ & Gemini-N NIRI\
5.35833 &4600& F606W& $ 27.01 \pm 0.20$ & 6000 & $ 0.067 \pm 0.011 $ & HST WFPC2\
5.35833 &2100& F450W& $> 26.9 $ & 4500 & $ < 0.080 $ & HST WFPC2\
5.35833 &2100& F814W& $> 26.8 $ & 8140 & $ < 0.077 $ & HST WFPC2\
9.12917 &4000& F814W& $> 27.1 $ & 6000 & $ < 0.058 $ & HST WFPC2\
9.12917 &4000& F606W& $> 28.0 $ & 6000 & $ < 0.027 $ & HST WFPC2\
\[tab:photometry\]
[llllllllll]{} 19:06:16.785 & +68:46:41.39 & 19.890 & 18.677 & 18.116 & 17.611 & 20.496 & 19.185 & 18.363 & 17.562\
19:06:27.931 & +68:46:55.62 & 21.338 & 20.790 & 20.671 & 20.410 & 21.736 & 21.017 & 20.602 & 20.217\
19:06:40.791 & +68:47:14.20 & 20.894 & 20.412 & 20.324 & 20.103 & 21.272 & 20.612 & 20.235 & 19.881\
19:06:47.096 & +68:47:44.06 & 20.394 & 19.308 & 19.008 & 18.622 & 20.961 & 19.762 & 19.044 & 18.508\
19:06:25.306 & +68:48:47.91 & 18.552 & 17.882 & 17.776 & 17.457 & 18.988 & 18.161 & 17.685 & 17.313\
19:06:31.664 & +68:48:32.11 & 19.158 & 17.851 & 17.349 & 16.847 & 19.794 & 18.398 & 17.537 & 16.803\
19:06:25.808 & +68:47:18.09 & 21.583 & 20.428 & 20.040 & 19.625 & 22.171 & 20.911 & 20.145 & 19.524\
19:06:33.303 & +68:48:01.76 & 22.115 & 20.725 & 19.555 & 18.840 & 22.777 & 21.307 & 20.305 & 18.887\
19:06:42.332 & +68:48:05.17 & 18.885 & 18.453 & 18.412 & 18.187 & 19.247 & 18.632 & 18.287 & 17.974\
19:06:26.337 & +68:46:57.77 & 23.241 & 21.868 & 21.077 & 20.510 & 23.898 & 22.443 & 21.506 & 20.483\
19:06:42.896 & +68:48:08.70 & 21.778 & 21.238 & 21.066 & 20.696 & 22.174 & 21.462 & 21.043 & 20.585\
19:06:38.937 & +68:47:44.69 & 19.863 & 19.421 & 19.361 & 19.129 & 20.228 & 19.604 & 19.251 & 18.920\
19:06:29.508 & +68:47:49.97 & 23.138 & 21.832 & 20.560 & 19.793 & 23.774 & 22.379 & 21.405 & 19.870\
19:06:39.266 & +68:47:48.01 & 19.900 & 19.085 & 18.872 & 18.542 & 20.382 & 19.425 & 18.859 & 18.394\
19:06:34.192 & +68:46:35.61 & 19.806 & 19.179 & 19.040 & 18.756 & 20.229 & 19.440 & 18.981 & 18.579\
19:06:33.173 & +68:46:33.32 & 20.870 & 20.333 & 20.208 & 19.946 & 21.265 & 20.556 & 20.145 & 19.753\
19:06:29.230 & +68:46:10.00 & 22.166 & 20.792 & 19.444 & 18.661 & 22.823 & 21.368 & 20.348 & 18.741\
19:06:29.556 & +68:46:12.79 & 23.156 & 22.015 & 21.577 & 21.144 & 23.740 & 22.492 & 21.726 & 21.052\
19:06:18.146 & +68:47:56.94 & 23.169 & 21.896 & 21.373 & 20.906 & 23.794 & 22.429 & 21.582 & 20.831\
19:06:29.343 & +68:46:23.23 & 24.127 & 22.729 & 21.678 & 21.039 & 24.791 & 23.315 & 22.326 & 21.039\
19:06:37.946 & +68:48:28.37 & 24.313 & 23.088 & 21.740 & 20.917 & 24.923 & 23.601 & 22.657 & 21.030\
19:06:30.838 & +68:48:06.34 & 24.127 & 22.581 & 21.503 & 20.803 & 24.838 & 23.229 & 22.161 & 20.849\
19:06:21.135 & +68:48:18.82 & 24.853 & 23.538 & 22.316 & 21.578 & 25.491 & 24.089 & 23.118 & 21.637\
\[tab:calibstars\]
[^1]: However, the HETE fluence ratio is in a very different bandpass, and the actual ratio may be significantly lower than the plotted ratio
[^2]: http://www.ucolick.org/$\sim$xavier/LowRedux/index.html; developed by J. Hennawi, S. Burles, and J. X. Prochaska.
[^3]: http://www.ucolick.org/$\sim$xavier/IDL/index.html .
[^4]: IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
[^5]: Program GO-DD 11551; PI Bloom.
[^6]: GRB 080503 could also be at moderate redshift $z=1-3$ in a moderately large but extremely dusty galaxy. Even then, our $K$ nondetection imposes strong constraints on the size of the object, and the relatively blue $g-r$ afterglow color suggests that the environment of the GRB is not particularly dust-obscured.
[^7]: Note, however, that EGRET has detected high-energy emission including a $\sim 1\;$GeV photon [@Sommer+1994] in the extended prompt emission (lasting $\sim 50\;$s) of the short ($< 1\;$s) GRB 930131 [@Kouveliotou+1994].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Change in viewpoint is one of the major factors for variation in object appearance across different images. Thus, view-invariant object recognition is a challenging and important image understanding task. In this paper, we propose a method that can match objects in images taken under different viewpoints. Unlike most methods in the literature, no restriction on camera orientations or internal camera parameters are imposed and no prior knowledge of 3D structure of the object is required. We prove that when two cameras take pictures of the same object from two different viewing angels, the relationship between every quadruple of points reduces to the special case of homography with two equal eigenvalues. Based on this property, we formulate the problem as an error function that indicates how likely two sets of 2D points are projections of the same set of 3D points under two different cameras. Comprehensive set of experiments were conducted to prove the robustness of the method to noise, and evaluate its performance on real-world applications, such as face and object recognition.'
author:
- 'Sina Lotfian and Hassan Foroosh [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'strings.bib'
- 'refs.bib'
- 'foroosh.bib'
title: 'View-Invariant Template Matching Using Homography Constraints'
---
Object Recognition, View Invariance, Homography, Homology
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Object recognition from raw images given one or more examples as template(s) is a challenging problem that has important applications in diverse areas of computer vision such as image annotation [@Tariq_etal_2017_2; @Tariq_etal_2017; @tariq2013exploiting; @tariq2015feature; @tariq2014scene; @tariq2015t], self-localization [@Junejo_etal_2010; @Junejo_Foroosh_2010; @Junejo_Foroosh_solar2008; @Junejo_Foroosh_GPS2008; @junejo2006calibrating; @junejo2008gps], surveillance [@Junejo_etal_2007; @Junejo_Foroosh_2008; @Sun_etal_2012; @junejo2007trajectory; @sun2011motion; @Ashraf_etal2012; @sun2014feature; @Junejo_Foroosh2007-1; @Junejo_Foroosh2007-2; @Junejo_Foroosh2007-3; @Junejo_Foroosh2006-1; @Junejo_Foroosh2006-2; @ashraf2012motion; @ashraf2015motion; @sun2014should], human action and interaction recognition [@Shen_Foroosh_2009; @Ashraf_etal_2014; @Ashraf_etal_2013; @Sun_etal_2015; @shen2008view; @sun2011action; @ashraf2014view; @shen2008action; @shen2008view-2; @ashraf2013view; @ashraf2010view; @boyraz122014action; @Shen_Foroosh_FR2008; @Shen_Foroosh_pose2008; @ashraf2012human], target localization and tracking [@Shu_etal_2016; @Milikan_etal_2017; @Millikan_etal2015; @shekarforoush2000multi; @millikan2015initialized], shape modeling and pattern recognition [@Cakmakci_etal_2008; @Cakmakci_etal_2008_2; @Zhang_etal_2015; @Lotfian_Foroosh_2017; @Morley_Foroosh2017; @Ali-Foroosh2016; @Ali-Foroosh2015; @Einsele_Foroosh_2015; @ali2016character; @Cakmakci_etal2008; @damkjer2014mesh], and image-based rendering [@Cao_etal_2005; @Cao_etal_2009; @shen2006video; @balci2006real; @xiao20063d; @moore2008learning; @alnasser2006image; @Alnasser_Foroosh_rend2006; @fu2004expression; @balci2006image; @xiao2006new; @cao2006synthesizing]. The problem is often exacerbated by issues such as image quality, noise, and drastic appearance changes caused by viewpoint variations. Although, preprocessing steps such as image enhancement [@Foroosh_2000; @Foroosh_Chellappa_1999; @Foroosh_etal_1996; @Cao_etal_2015; @berthod1994reconstruction; @shekarforoush19953d; @lorette1997super; @shekarforoush1998multi; @shekarforoush1996super; @shekarforoush1995sub; @shekarforoush1999conditioning; @shekarforoush1998adaptive; @berthod1994refining; @shekarforoush1998denoising; @bhutta2006blind; @jain2008super; @shekarforoush2000noise; @shekarforoush1999super; @shekarforoush1998blind], and registration [@Foroosh_etal_2002; @Foroosh_2005; @Balci_Foroosh_2006; @Balci_Foroosh_2006_2; @Alnasser_Foroosh_2008; @Atalay_Foroosh_2017; @Atalay_Foroosh_2017-2; @shekarforoush1996subpixel; @foroosh2004sub; @shekarforoush1995subpixel; @balci2005inferring; @balci2005estimating; @foroosh2003motion; @Balci_Foroosh_phase2005; @Foroosh_Balci_2004; @foroosh2001closed; @shekarforoush2000multifractal; @balci2006subpixel; @balci2006alignment; @foroosh2004adaptive; @foroosh2003adaptive] may help in tackling some of the challenges, viewpoint variations remain by and large challenging.
The variation in pose and viewpoint can cause distortion in the feature space to the extent that many recognition algorithms may fail to recognize objects. The relationship between the rotation and translation of an object in the 3D world and the changes in the coordinates of pixels in the 2D image plane is also not trivial. Algorithms dealing with variation in viewpoint usually make assumptions either about change in feature space caused by relative 3D transformations, or about the position and orientation of the camera or requiring autocalibration to estimate the camera parameters [@Cao_Foroosh_2007; @Cao_Foroosh_2006; @Cao_etal_2006; @Junejo_etal_2011; @cao2004camera; @cao2004simple; @caometrology; @junejo2006dissecting; @junejo2007robust; @cao2006self; @foroosh2005self; @junejo2006robust; @Junejo_Foroosh_calib2008; @Junejo_Foroosh_PTZ2008; @Junejo_Foroosh_SolCalib2008; @Ashraf_Foroosh_2008; @Junejo_Foroosh_Givens2008; @Lu_Foroosh2006; @Balci_Foroosh_metro2005; @Cao_Foroosh_calib2004; @Cao_Foroosh_calib2004; @cao2006camera] from the images in order to account for viewpoint and camera parameter changes. Learning viewpoint manifolds [@elgammal2004inferring] [@bakry2014untangling] and the latent spaces for viewpoints [@CCA] [@sharma2012generalized] are two popular approaches taken by researchers for this problem, but they require simplifying assumptions in order to solve the problem. In this paper, a geometric approach is taken to address this problem and a solution in the most general case is provided.
We propose a template matching method based on image-domain relations in the projective space that can match objects across any pair of poses as long as the template image and the probe image have enough overlap for keypoint extraction. We prove that for one object seen by two cameras, with arbitrary intrinsic and extrinsic camera parameters, a restriction applies on the eigenvalues of the homography matrices associated with any quadruple of keypoint correspondences. By exploiting this constraint, an error function is introduced that is able to estimate how likely the provided reference and test images belong to the same object under different viewpoints.
The novelty of the paper can be summarized as follow:
- We propose a template matching method that can match the given template with any inquiry image even under a wide baseline and viewpoint changes, as long as they have overlaps.
- Unlike learning-based methods, the proposed approach does not need separate training data for each viewpoint. We also do not make any assumptions on the orientation of the cameras or their intrinsic matrices.
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
One common approach to tackle the varience in pose is to find latent spaces where the correlation between two views are maximized. Canonical correlation analysis(CCA) [@CCA] projects the data from two views into two low dimensional subspace which are highly correlated. Sharma et al. [@sharma2012generalized] have extended CCA method so that it exploits the labels of training data to find a more discriminative projection direction. Both of the mentioned methods can exploit kernels to model non-linearity. Although methods based on latent spaces have proven to be powerful tools for both multi-view image classification and multi-modal data classification, they require learning a projection direction for every viewpoint and their ability to generalize to unseen viewpoints is limited.
Another set of solutions try to fit the given 2D images to predefined 3D shapes of objects (e.g. a face) from a single view image [@yi2013towards][@li2009maximizing]. In [@asthana2011fully] authors propose a 3D pose normalization for face recognition in order to make it robust to variation in pose. [@schels2012learning] exploits 3D CAD models to detect and find the pose of objects such as bikes and cars. The use of these methods are restricted to objects with available predetermined 3D models. A rather interesting solution was proposed by [@castillo2009using] that does not require 3D reconstruction of the face, instead they use the cost of stereo matching as their error function. However, they make the assumption that epipolar lines are horizontal which does not hold true for the object recognition in the general case.
Ideally, we are in search of view-invariant recognition algorithms that require few training data (hopefully one shot learning) **(OSL)**, generalizable to unseen view-points **(GUV)**, work on objects without known 3D structure, **(3DFree)** and invariant to the internal camera parameters **(IICP)**. Table \[table:t1\] compares the various classes of algorithms described above, in terms of these desired properties.
In this paper, we take a geometric approach to the problem of viewpoint variation. Our work is inspired by Shen et al.[@shen2008view], who used homographgy constraints to recognize body pose transitions between two successive frames of two video cameras, observing human actions. Although, we are not dealing with video frames in this work, we show that the concept can be extended also to a pair of still images of a rigid object (i.e. instead of dealing with moving points in space viewed by two pairs of frames (4 images), we can extend the idea to recognizing a rigid object from two images. The key to achieve this extension is to consider quadruple of points in each camera image, instead of triplets of points in two frames of each camera The result is a rigid object recognition method that can handle unknown viewpoints and internal camera parameters.
------------------------------------- -- -- -- --
CCA [@CCA]
GMA [@sharma2012generalized]
DPFD [@sanyal2015discriminative]
Castillo et al [@castillo2009using]
Schels et al [@schels2012learning]
Ours
------------------------------------- -- -- -- --
: Desirable properties of some view-invariant recognition algorithms. If an algrothims satisfy the condition it is indicated by a check-mark. []{data-label="table:t1"}
Proposed Method {#sec:proposed}
===============
Given a reference image ($I_{r}$) and a query image ($I_{q}$), our goal is to determine if they belong to the same 3D object under two different viewpoints or not. First, point correspondences are extracted between $I_{r}$ and $I_{q}$, and represented as $S= \{ ({\bf p}_{r1},{\bf p}_{q1}), ({\bf p}_{r2},{\bf p}_{q2}), ... ({\bf p}_{rn}, {\bf p}_{rn})\}$. Such correspondences can be obtained from any keypoint extraction and matching algorithm such as SIFT[@lowe2004distinctive], SURF[@bay2006surf] or Harris[@harris1988combined]. For more clarity, we use upper case letters for 3D coordinates and lower case for 2D coordinates on the image plane. We introduce an error function that in the ideal case vanishes, when there exist a unique 3D configuration of points which map to the extracted 2D keypoint correspondences. Conversely, the value of the error function increases, if such 3D configuration is not possible. Furthermore, the proposed error function is fully projective (i.e. fully defined in the image domain) and hence is invariant to camera positions and its internal parameters.
Consider the object shown in Figure \[fig:Planes\], which consist of four 3D points $\{{\bf P}_1,{\bf P}_2,{\bf P}_3,{\bf P}_4\}$ in general positions. Two cameras (C1 and C2) that are located in two different coordinates are imaging this object as $I_r$ and $I_q$. In the most general case, the two cameras would be projective with 11 degrees of freedom (i.e. different intrinsic parameters and arbitrary orientations in the 3D space). Two key observations that lead to the proposed solution are: (1) Any three of the quadruple of points define a plane in the 3D space that induces a homography between the two cameras; (2) With a quadruple of points one can obtain 4 such planes, i.e. two pairs of homographies. Each pair of homographies plays a similar role as a moving plane considered in [@shen2008view], except that in our case instead of a single plane moving in time, we are considering the dual case of two planes in a rigid body. Since this case is dual to the problem considered by [@shen2008view], the construct remains the same. We illustrate this using the example of Figure \[fig:Planes\].
Let two planes $\pi_1$ (orange) in Figure \[subfig:planes\_a\] and $\pi_2$ (blue) in Figure \[subfig:planes\_b\] correspond to the triplets of 3D points $\{{\bf P}_1,{\bf P}_2,{\bf P}_3\}$ and $\{{\bf P}_1, {\bf P}_2,{\bf P}_4\}$, respectively. Let the corresponding image points be $p_r = \{{\bf p}_{r1},{\bf p}_{r2},{\bf p}_{r3},{\bf p}_{r4}\}$ and $p_q = \{{\bf p}_{q1},{\bf p}_{q2},{\bf p}_{q3},{\bf p}_{q4}\}$. We assume that no three projected points are co-linear in either views. Let also ${\bf e}_1$ and ${\bf e}_2$ denote the epipoles in the two images. Since epipoles are mapped across two images by the homography induced by any plane in the scene, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf H}_1 {\bf p}_{ri}&=&{\bf p}_{qi}, \;\;\; i=1,2,3\\
{\bf H}_1 {\bf e}_1 &=& {\bf e}_2\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf H}_2 {\bf p}_{ri}&=&{\bf p}_{qi}, \;\;\; i=1,2,4\\
{\bf H}_2 {\bf e}e_1 &=& {\bf e}_2\end{aligned}$$ These equations yield a pair of homographies through which we can define ${\cal H} = {\bf H}_1 {\bf H}_{2}^{-1}$.\
[**Proposition 1**]{}: ${\cal H}$ will reduce to a homology if and only if the presumed point correspondences $p_r$ and $p_q$ are images of the same 3D point configuration.\
The immediate consequence of this observation is that two of the eigenvalues of ${\cal H}$ must be equal if the presumed point correspondences $p_r$ and $p_q$ are images of the same 3D point configuration. This allows us to define a cost function that would make it possible to determine if a set of image points and their matching correspondences from a template image are originated from the same 3D object. Suppose we have $m$ such template images and we establish $n$ putative point correspondences between the query image and each reference template. One can then define $K=\dbinom{n}{4}$ quadruples of point correspondences, yielding a total of $2K$ matrices, ${\cal H}_{km}$, $k=1,...,2K$, for each template $m \in \{1,...,M\}$. Let $\epsilon_1({\cal H}_{km})$ and $\epsilon_2({\cal H}_{km})$ be the two closest eigenvalues of the matrix ${\cal H}_{km}$. Finding the optimal matching template $\hat m$ is then a labeling process that would be given by:
$$\hat{m}=\arg\min_{m\in\{1,...,M\}} \sum_{k=1}^{2K} \frac{|\epsilon_1({\cal H}_{km})-\epsilon_2({\cal H}_{km})|}{|\epsilon_1({\cal H}_{km})+\epsilon_2({\cal H}_{km})|} \label{eq:xdef2}$$
Experimental Results {#sec:Experimental}
====================
In this section, the performance of the proposed method on both synthetic and real-world datasets is demonstrated with wide applications such as object and face recognition.
Synthetic Data
--------------
In order to understand the behavior of the error function in equation \[eq:xdef2\] in the presence of noise in key point localization, the process of projection of 3D points on the image plane is simulated using the pinhole camera model. The point clouds used for generating the synthetic objects are obtained from the BigBIRD [@singh2014bigbird] dataset, which consist of RGBD images of objects sampled on the the viewing hemisphere. Object ’Advil’ is chosen as the positive example and the object ’Syrup’ is chosen as negative example. It is expected that the error measure for ’Advil-Advil’ pair will be lower that ’Advil-Syrup’ pair.
Two cameras are used to generate synthetic images on the image plane. The first camera which is the reference camera is fixed at the world origin and is looking at the Z axis. The second camera or the test camera is moving on the viewing hemisphere. This is achieved by rotating the reference camera around $Y$ and $Z$ axis. Since the number of points in the cloud is over one thousand, we randomly choose 8 points as the keypoints and project only these 8 points on the image plane. The focal lengths for both cameras change randomly in the range $1000 \pm 100$. Then by adding Gaussian noise to the position of keypoints on the image plane, we measure the robustness of the algorithm.
In figure \[fig:error\] the matching score for different viewing angles are plotted for both the matching query-template pair (the surface below) and the non-matching query-template pair (surface above). It can be observed that for the matching pair the error is almost zero, while for non-matching pairs the error is high. To find out the extent of separation between these (i.e. ability to distinguish between a correct and incorrect match), we added Gaussian noise to the position of the keypoints in the image planes. It can be observed that as the noise variance increases, the two error surfaces get closer and the ditinction between true match and a false match becomes harder. Our experiments show that we can handle noise strength of up to about $\sigma = 12$ which roughly equates the correspondences being 24 pixels off.
Real-World Data
---------------
We also tested the proposed method on real datasets, including a 3D multi-view object recognition dataset, and two multi-view face recognition datasets. The first dataset is coil-20 [@nene1996columbia], which consists of 20 classes, each taken with the object rotated 5 degree on a turn-table. Pointing04 [@gourier2004estimating] and UMIST[@graham1998characterising] are two multi-view face dataset used to evaluate the proposed method. UMIST consists of 575 faces from 20 different persons taken under different conditions. Pointing04 contains 2690 face photos taken from 15 people. The Pointing04 face rotation has more degrees of freedom and images are taken with and without glasses. Keypoints are extracted using the popular SIFT [@lowe2004distinctive] descriptor and matched using a nearest neighbor method. Note that unlike many methods in the literature the proposed algorithm does not assume that the coordinates of facial keypoints, such as nose and lips are given, and it only relies on the features extracted by SIFT, which may lay anywhere on the face.
Although in theory our method needs only one template per class to match two images, there has to be enough overlap between the query and reference image so that the keypoint extractor algorithm can find enough mutual keypoints in both images. Therefore, in each dataset for every class, 8 images are chosen as the templates and the rest are used as query images. For instance, in the Coil-20 dataset 8 images are taken as templates and 64 used for the test phase. The overall accuracy for all dataset are provided in \[table:accuracy\].
------------ ------ ---- ------
Coil-20 86.1 20 1440
Pointing04 77.7 15 2690
UMIST 92.5 20 565
------------ ------ ---- ------
: Object and face recognition dataset and their associated accuracy and size[]{data-label="table:accuracy"}
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, a new view-invariant template-matching method is introduced that imposes no restrictions on external or internal camera parameters. The robustness of the algorithm has been tested by adding Gaussian noise to the coordinates of the keypoints on the image to simulate the behavior of error in keypoint localization. Finally, the accuracy of the method on object and face recognition was tested, producing remarkable good results.
[^1]: Sina Lotfian and Hassan Foroosh are with the Department of Computer Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, 32816 USA (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We review our studies of elastic lattices driven by an external force $F$ in the presence of random disorder, which correspond to the case of vortices in superconducting thin films driven by external currents. Above a critical force $F_c$ we find two dynamical phase transitions at $F_p$ and $F_t$, with $F_c<F_p<F_t$. At $F_p$ there is a transition from plastic flow to smectic flow where the noise is isotropic and there is a peak in the differential resistance. At $F_t$ there is a sharp transition to a frozen transverse solid where both the transverse noise and the diffussion fall down abruptly and therefore the vortex motion is localized in the transverse direction. From a generalized fluctuation-dissipation relation we calculate an effective transverse temperature in the fluid moving phases. We find that the effective temperature decreases with increasing driving force and becomes equal to the equilibrium melting temperature when the dynamic transverse freezing occurs.'
author:
- 'Alejandro B. Kolton'
- Daniel Domínguez
title: Nonequilibrium structures and dynamic transitions in driven vortex lattices with disorder
---
[ address=[Centro Atómico Bariloche and Instituto Balseiro, 8400 San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina]{} ]{}
[ address=[Centro Atómico Bariloche and Instituto Balseiro, 8400 San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina]{} ]{}
Introduction
============
The study of the collective motion of vortex lattices in superconductors has brought new concepts in the non-equilibrium statistical physics of driven disordered media . The prediction by Koshelev and Vinokur [@KV] of a [*dynamical phase transition*]{} upon increasing drive, from a fluid-like flow regime [@plastic; @filam; @olson] to a coherently moving solid [@KV], has motivated an outburst of theoretical [@GLD; @BMR; @SV; @BF], experimental [@bhatta; @hellerq; @pardo], and simulation [@SIM; @kolton] work. The relevant physics of the high velocity driven phase is controlled by the transverse displacements (in the direction perpendicular to the driving force) [@GLD], leading to a new class of driven systems characterized by [*anisotropic spatial structures*]{} with transverse periodicity [@GLD; @BMR; @SV]. These moving anisotropic vortex structures have been observed experimentally by Pardo [*et al.*]{} [@pardo], and their different features have been studied in simulations [@SIM; @kolton].
Koshelev and Vinokur [@KV] defined a “shaking” temperature $T_{\tt sh}$ from the fluctuating force felt by a vortex configuration moving in a random pinning potential landscape. This lead to their prediction of a dynamic phase transition when $T_{\tt sh}$ equals the equilibrium melting temperature of the vortex system [@KV]. This dynamic transition separates the liquid-like phase of vortices moving at low driving forces from the “crystalline” vortex lattice moving at large forces. However, later work [@GLD; @BMR; @SV] has shown that the perturbation theory used in [@KV] breaks down and that the vortex phase at large velocities can be an anisotropic transverse glass instead of a crystal. In spite of this, the shaking temperature introduced in [@KV] has been a useful qualitative concept, at least phenomenologically.
Cugliandolo, Kurchan and Peliti [@CKP] have introduced the notion of time-scale dependent “effective temperatures” $T_{\tt eff}$ from a modification of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem (FDT) in slowly evolving out of equilibrium systems. $T_{\tt eff}$ is defined from the slope of the parametric plot of the integrated response against the correlation function of a given pair of observables when the latter is bounded or, equivalently, it is the inverse of twice the slope of the parametric plot of the integrated response against the displacement when the correlation is unbounded. This definition yields a bona fide temperature in the thermodynamic sense since it can be measured with a thermometer, it controls the direction of heat flow for a given time scale and it satisfies a zero-th law within each time scale. $T_{\tt eff}$ was found analytically in mean-field glassy models [@CK] and it was successfully studied in structural and spin glasses, both numerically [@teff_sim] and experimentally [@teff_exp], in granular matter [@teff_gran] and in weakly driven sheared fluids [@shear].
In this article, we will review our work on the dynamical regimes and nonequilibrium transitions of the driven vortex lattices as a function of the driving force [@kolton], and show how an adequate definition of an effective temperature (based on Ref. [@CKP]) can help to understand these phenomena [@kolton_teff].
Model
=====
The equation of motion of a vortex in position ${\bf r}_i$ is: $$\eta \frac{d{\bf r}_i}{dt} = -\sum_{j\not= i}{\bf\nabla}_i U_v(r_{ij})
-\sum_p{\bf \nabla}_i U_p(r_{ip}) + \bf{F}+
{\bf \zeta}_i(t)$$ where $r_{ij}=|{\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_j|$ is the distance between vortices $i,j$, $r_{ip}=|{\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_p|$ is the distance between the vortex $i$ and a pinning site at ${\bf r}_p$, $\eta=\frac{\Phi_0H_{c2}d}{c^2\rho_n}$ is the Bardeen-Stephen friction and ${\bf F}=\frac{d\Phi_0}{c}{\bf J}\times{\bf z}$ is the driving force due to an applied current ${\bf J}$. In two-dimensional superconductor the vortex-vortex interaction potential is logarithmic: $U_v(r)=-A_v\ln(r/\Lambda)$, with $A_v=\Phi_0^2/8\pi\Lambda$ [@filam]. The vortices interact with a random uniform distribution of attractive pinning centers with $U_p(r)=-A_p e^{-(r/r_p)^2}$ with $r_p$ being the coherence length. We normalize length scales by $r_p$, energy scales by $A_v$, and time is normalized by $\tau=\eta r_p^2/A_v$. The effect of a thermal bath at temperature $T$ is given by the stochastic force ${\bf\zeta}_i(t)$, satisfying $\langle {\zeta}^\mu _i(t)
\rangle=0$ and $\langle {\zeta}^\mu _i(t){\zeta}^{\mu '}_j(t')
\rangle = 2 \eta k_B T \delta(t-t') \delta_{ij} \delta_{\mu \mu '}$. We consider $N_v$ vortices and $N_p$ pinning centers in a rectangular box of size $L_x\times L_y$, and the normalized vortex density is $n_v=N_vr_p^2/L_xL_y=Br_p^2/\Phi_0$. Moving vortices induce a total electric field ${\bf
E}=\frac{B}{c}{\bf v}\times{\bf z}$, with ${\bf v}=\frac{1}{N_v}\sum_i
{\bf v}_i$. We use periodic boundary conditions and the periodic long-range logarithmic interaction is evaluated with an exact and fast converging sum [@log]. Typical simulation parameters correspond to vortex densities of $n_v=0.05-0.12$ in a box with $L_x/L_y=\sqrt{3}/2$, with $N_v=64-784$, pinning strengths of $A_p/A_v=0.1-0.35$, and densities of pinning centers $n_p > n_v$ (dense pinning $n_p>n_v$, is typically realized in experimental samples). The equations are integrated with a time step of $\Delta t=0.01-0.1\tau$ and averages are evaluated in $30000 - 80000$ integration steps after $2000-30000$ iterations for equilibration (when the total energy reaches a stationary value).
Dynamical Regimes
=================
We start by showing the vortex trajectories and their translational order in the different steady state regimes. In the upper panel of Fig. 1 we show the vortex trajectories $\{ {\bf r}_i(t)\}$ for typical values of $F$ by plotting all the positions of the vortices for all the time iteration steps. We also study the time-averaged structure factor $S({\bf k})= \langle|\frac{1}{N_v}\sum_i \exp[i{\bf k}\cdot{\bf
r}_i(t)]|^2\rangle$, which is shown in the middle pannel of Fig. 1. The number of deffects in the lattice structure can be obtained from a Voronoi construction. This in shown in the lower pannel of Fig. 1, where the lattice defects are shown in gray. In Fig. 2(a) we plot the average vortex velocity $V=\langle V_y(t)\rangle=\langle\frac{1}{N_v}\sum_i \frac{dy_i}{dt}\rangle$, in the direction of the force as a function of $F$ and its corresponding derivative $dV/dF$. Below a critical force $F_c$ all the vortices are pinned and there is no motion, $V=0$. Above $F_c$, we can distinguish three different dynamical regimes:
{height=".45\textheight"}
[*(i) Plastic flow*]{}: $F_c<F<F_p$. At $F_c$ vortices start to move in a few filamentary channels [@filam]. A typical situation is shown in Fig. 1, where a fraction of the vortices are moving in an intricate network of channels. As the force is increased a higher fraction of vortices is moving. In this regime, vortices can move in the transverse direction (perpendicular to ${\bf F}$) through the tortuous structure of channels [@olson]. We see that the corresponding $S({\bf k})$ only has the central peak showing the absence of ordering in this plastic flow regime [@plastic; @filam; @olson] and that there are a large number of defects.
[*(ii) Smectic flow*]{}: $F_p<F<F_t$. We find a peak in the differential resistance, $dV/dF$, at a characteristic force $F_p$. At $F=F_p$ we see that [*all*]{} the vortices are moving in a seemingly isotropic channel network with maximum interconnectivity. In the experiment of Hellerqvist [*et al*]{} [@hellerq] the value of $F_p$ was taken as an indication of a dynamical phase transition. In fact, we find that above $F_p$ a new dynamic regime sets in. In this case, as we show in Fig. 1, all the vortices are moving in trajectories that are mostly parallel to the force, forming “elastic channels”. Two small Bragg peaks appear in the structure factor along the $K_y=0$ axis, which correspond to ${\bf G}_1=(\pm 2\pi/a_0,0)$. This is consistent with the onset of “smectic” ordering [@BMR] in the transverse direction with elastic channels separated by a distance $\sim a_0 = n_v^{-1/2}$. In this regime the transverse motion consists in vortex jumps from one channel to another, resembling “thermally” activated transitions induced by local chaos. The rate of these transitions decreases with increasing force. In Fig. 2(b) we plot the magnitude of the Bragg peaks at $G_1$, $S_s=S(G_1)$, corresponding to smectic ordering ($K_y=0$), and the other neighboring peaks at ${\bf G}_2=\pm2\pi/a_0(1/2,\sqrt{3}/2)$ and ${\bf G}_3=\pm2\pi/a_0(-1/2,\sqrt{3}/2)$ , $S_{l}=(S(G_2)+S(G_3))/2)$, corresponding to longitudinal ordering ($K_y\not=0$). We see that above $F_p$ the intensity of the smectic peak $S_s$ starts to grow and $S_s\gg S_l$, while below $F_p$ the spatial structure is isotropic, $S_s=S_l\ll 1$. The Bragg peak heights depend with system size as $S(G) \sim N_v^{-\sigma_G}$, where $\sigma_G=0$ means long-range order (LRO), $0<\sigma_G<1$ means quasi long-range order (QLRO) and $\sigma_G\ge 1$ means short-range order (SRO). We have found that $\sigma_G \ge 1$ in this regime: there is only short range smectic order [@kolton], and thus this phase corresponds to a fluid. In this sense the transition at $F_p$ is a dynamic transition in the flow.
[*(iii) Frozen transverse solid*]{}: $F>F_t$. At a new characteristic force $F_t$, the jumps between channels suddenly stop and vortex motion becomes frozen in the direction perpendicular to ${\bf F}$. An example for $F>F_t$ is shown in Fig. 1 where we see well defined elastic channels parallel to ${\bf F}$. We see that new peaks appear in $S({\bf k})$ in directions with $K_y\not=0$, like $G_2$, $G_3$, showing that there is some longitudinal ordering between the channels. These extra peaks are smaller than the smectic peaks, and $S({\bf k})$ is very anisotropic. We note in Fig. 2(a) that $F_t$ is the point where the noisy behavior in $dV/dF$ ceases. A similar criterion was used by Bhattacharya and Higgins to define their dynamical phase diagram [@bhatta]. In Fig. 2(b) we see that in $F_t$ there is an increase in the longitudinal ordering $S_l$, and both $S_s$ and $S_l$ tend to saturate at an almost constant value for $F\gg F_t$. Furthermore, we have we found that there is QLRO with a value of $0.5<\sigma_G <0.7$ [@kolton]. We also see that in this phase there are very few defects, corresponding to dislocations oriented in the direction of the force.
{height=".5\textheight"}
Dynamical transitions
=====================
An understanding of the [*dynamical*]{} transitions can be obtained from studying the temporal behavior of the system. It has been observed experimentally that the longitudinal voltage can show low frequency noise. This voltage noise reaches a very large value above the critical current, which has been attributed to plastic flow, and then the noise decreases for large current. In addition, even when the total dc transverse voltage $\langle V_x\rangle=
\langle\frac{1}{N_v}\sum_i \frac{dx_i}{dt}\rangle$ is zero, it can also have fluctuations and noise. In fact, it is easy to understand that this transverse noise will be closely related to the wandering and wiggling of the plastic flow channels and to the jumps between elastic channels in the smectic phase. We have calculated in [@kolton] the power spectrum of both the longitudinal voltage and the transverse voltage. We have found [@kolton] that near the critical force, the longitudinal noise, $P_y$, is larger than the transverse noise, $P_x$. At $F_p$ the voltage noise becomes isotropic, $P_x=P_y$. This is the point where we have seen the highest interconnection in the channel network. The coincidence of isotropic noise, onset of short-range smectic order and peak in differential resistance suggest that there is a dynamic transition at $F_p$. Above $F_p$, the onset of elastic channels and smectic ordering reduces the longitudinal noise, while the transverse noise remains large due to the “activated” jumps between elastic channels. At $F_t$ the transverse noise falls abruptly, by several orders of magnitude. This corresponds to a [*freezing transition*]{} of vortex motion in the transverse direction. Above $F_t$ there are no more vortex jumps between elastic channels. The low frequency noise can be closely related to diffusive motion for large times. We have analyzed the average quadratic displacements of vortices in the transverse direction from their center of mass position $(X_{cm}(t),Y_{cm}(t))$ as a function of time. We define $w_x(t)=\frac{1}{N_v}\sum_i[\tilde{x}_i(t)-\tilde{x}_i(0)]^2$, where $\tilde{x}_i(t)=x_i(t)-X_{cm}(t)$. We have found that the vortex motion in the fluid regimes, for $F_c < F < F_t$, is diffusive in the transverse direction, with $w_x(t)\sim D_x t$. In Fig. 2(c) we show the behavior of the transverse diffusion coefficient $D_x$. The transverse diffusion is maximum at the peak in the differential resistance, $F_p$, and it has a clear and abrupt jump to zero at $F_t$ indicating the transverse freezing transition. It is interesting to note that melting transitions also show a jump in the diffusion coefficient.
Effective temperature
=====================
To study the fluctuation-dissipation relation (FDR), we proceed in a similar way as in simulations of structural glasses [@teff_sim] and consider the observables: $$A_\mu (t)=\frac{1}{N_v}\sum_{i=1}^{N_v} s_i r^\mu _i(t)\;;\;\;\;\;
B_\mu (t)=\sum_{i=1}^{N_v} s_i r^\mu _i(t) \; ,$$ where $s_i=-1, 1$ are random numbers with $\overline{s_i}=0$ and $\overline{s_i s_j}=\delta_{ij}$, and $r^\mu _i=R^\mu _i-R^\mu _{cm}$ with $\mu =x,y$ and ${\bf R}_{cm}$ being the center of mass coordinate. Taking ${\bf F}=F{\bf y}$ we study separately the FDR in the transverse and parallel directions with respect to ${\bf F}$. The time correlation function between the observables $A_\mu $ and $B_\mu $ is $$C_\mu (t,t_0) = \overline{\langle A_\mu (t)B_\mu (t_0)\rangle}
= \frac{1}{N_v}
\sum_{i=1}^{N_v}\langle
r^\mu _i(t) r^\mu _i(t_0)\rangle \; ,$$ since the $r^\mu _i$ are independent of the $s_i$. The integrated response function $\chi_\mu $ for the observable $A_\mu $ is obtained by applying a perturbative force ${\bf f}^\mu _i = \epsilon s_i \hat{\mu }$ (where $\hat{\mu }=\hat{x}, \hat{y}$) at time $t_0$ and keeping it constant for all subsequent times on each vortex: $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_\mu (t,t_0) = \lim_{\epsilon \to 0}\frac{1}{\epsilon}
\Bigl[ \overline{\langle {A_\mu (t)} \rangle}_{\epsilon} -
\overline{\langle {A_\mu (t)} \rangle}_{\epsilon=0}
\Bigr] \; .\end{aligned}$$ We then define a function, $T^\mu _{\tt eff}(t,t_0)$, by the relation, $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_\mu (t,t_0)=\frac{1}{2k_B T^\mu _{\tt eff}(t,t_0)} \Delta_\mu
(t,t_0) \; ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_\mu (t,t_0) = \frac{1}{N_v}\sum_{i=1}^{N_v}
\langle|r^\mu _i(t)-r^\mu _i(t_0)|^2\rangle
%\nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
= C_\mu (t,t)+C_\mu (t_0,t_0)-2C_\mu (t,t_0)$ is the quadratic mean displacement in the direction of $\hat{\mu }$. For a system in equilibrium at temperature $T$ the FDT requires that $T^x_{\tt eff}=T^y_{\tt eff}=T$. In a nonequilibrium system, like the driven vortex lattice with pinning, the FDT does not apply. Since we are interested in the [*stationary*]{} states reached by the driven vortex lattice, where aging effects are stopped [@shear], then all observables depend only on the difference $t-t_0$, if we choose $t_0$ long enough to ensure stationarity. From the parametric plot of $\chi_\mu (t)$ vs. $\Delta_\mu (t)$ one defines the effective temperature $T^\mu _{\tt eff}(t)$ using Eq. (5), provided $T^\mu _{\tt eff}(t)$ is a constant in each time-scale [@CKP].
We have studied [@kolton_teff] the transverse and longitudinal FDR for the moving vortex lattice as a function of driving force, $F$, solving the dynamic equations for different values of $A_p$, $n_v$, and $T$ within the fluid regimes, $F_c<F<F_t$. We have obtained [@kolton_teff] for each $F$ parametric plots of the transverse quadratic mean displacements, $\Delta_x(t)$ as a function of the integrated transverse response, $\chi_x(t)$. We found that the equilibrium FDT does not apply in general but two approximate linear relations exist for $\Delta_x(t)< 0.05 r_p^2$ and for $ \Delta_x(t) > r_p^2$, with a non-linear crossover between them. We have found that the short displacements region corresponds to the bath temperature, $T$, meaning that the equilibrium FDT applies in the transverse direction only for short times, $t\ll r_p/v$. For the large displacements region we have obtained a different slope corresponding to an effective transverse temperature $T_{\tt eff}^x(T) > T$. Furthermore, when comparing the results for different $T$, we have found $T_{\tt eff}^x(T) \approx T_{\tt eff}^x(0)+T$. On the other hand, a similar analysis of the FDR for the longitudinal direction does not show a constant slope for large displacements or long times such that $t>r_p/v$.
{height=".3\textheight"}
In Fig. 3 we show the transverse effective temperature obtained in Ref. [@kolton_teff], $T_{\tt eff}^x$, for $T=0$ as a function of voltage ([*i.e.*]{}, average velocity, $V$). We observe that $T_{\tt eff}^x$ is a decreasing function of $V$. The most remarkable result is that $T_{\tt eff}^x$ reaches a value close to the equilibrium melting temperature of the unpinned system, $T_m \approx 0.007$ [@tmelting], when the system approaches the transverse freezing transition at $F=F_t$ (obtained from the vanishing of the transverse diffusion $D_x$, shown in the inset). We have found that $T_{\tt eff}^x \rightarrow T_m$ when $F \rightarrow F_t$ for different values of pinning amplitude, $A_p$, and vortex density, $n_v$, even when $F_t$ depends on $A_p, n_v$.
Conclusions
===========
In conclusion, we have obtained evidence of two dynamical phase transitions. The first transition at $F_p$ is the point of isotropic noise and maximum transverse diffusion and corresponds to the observed peak in the differential resistance. The second transition at $F_t$ is a freezing transition in the [*transverse*]{} direction, where the transverse diffusion vanishes abruptly. We have been able to define an effective temperature in the moving fluid phase, using the thermodynamically adequate definition of [@CKP]. The fact that we find that dynamic freezing occurs when $T^x_{\tt eff}(T)=T_m$, clearly indicates that there is a nonequilibrium phase transition at $F_t$.
The research work reviewed here is the result of collaborations with N. Gronbech-Jensen, L. Cugliandolo and R. Exartier. Our work in Argentina has been supported by ANPCYT (grants PICT97-03-00121-02151, PICT97-03-00000-01034, PICT99-03-06343), by Fundación Antorchas (grant A-13532/1-96), Conicet (grant PIP-4946/96) and CNEA (within program P-5). A.B.K is also supported by a fellowship from Conicet.
Koshelev, A. E., and Vinokur, V. M., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**73**]{}, 3580 (1994).
Jensen, H. J., et al., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**60**]{}, 1676 (1988); Shi, A.-C., and Berlinsky, A. J., [ *Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**67**]{}, 1926 (1991); Koshelev, A. E., [*Physica C*]{} [**198**]{}, 371 (1992); Faleski, M. C., et al., [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**54**]{}, 12427 (1996); Reichhardt, C., et al., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**78**]{}, 2648 (1997).
Grønbech-Jensen, N. , Bishop, A. R., and Domínguez, D. , [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**76**]{}, 2985 (1996).
Olson, C. J. , Reichhardt, C., and Nori, F. , [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**80**]{}, 2197 (1998).
Giamarchi, T., and Le Doussal, P. , [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**76**]{}, 3408 (1996); Le Doussal, P., and Giamarchi, T. , [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**57**]{}, 11356 (1998).
Balents, L. , Marchetti, M. C., and Radzihovsky, L. , [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**57**]{}, 7705 (1998).
Scheidl, S., and Vinokur, V. M. , [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**57**]{}, 2574 (1998); [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**57**]{}, 13800 (1998).
Balents, L., and Fisher, M.P.A. , [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**75**]{}, 4270 (1995).
Bhattacharya, S., and Higgins, M. J., [*Phys.Rev. Lett. *]{} [**70**]{}, 2617 (1993); Higgins, M. J., and Bhattacharya, S., [*Physica C*]{} [**257**]{}, 232 (1996).
Hellerqvist, M. C., [ et al.]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**76**]{}, 4022 (1996).
Pardo, F., [ et al.]{}, [*Nature (London)*]{} [**396**]{}, 348 (1998).
Moon, K., [et al.]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**77**]{}, 2778 (1996); Ryu, S. [et al.]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**77**]{}, 5114 (1996); Spencer, S., and Jensen, H. J. , [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**55**]{}, 8473 (1997); Dom[í]{}nguez, D., [ et al.]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**78**]{}, 2644 (1997); Olson, C. J., [et al.]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**81**]{}, 3757 (1998); Dom[í]{}nguez, D. , [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**82**]{}, 181 (1999).
Kolton, A. B., [et al.]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**83**]{}, 3061 (1999); [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**62**]{}, R14657 (2000); [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**86**]{}, 4112 (2001).
Cugliandolo, L. F. , Kurchan, J., and Peliti, L. , [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**55**]{}, 3898 (1997). Cugliandolo, L. F., and Kurchan, J. , [*J. Phys. Soc. Japan*]{} [**69**]{}, 247 (2000).
Cugliandolo, L. F., and Kurchan, J. , [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**71**]{}, 173 (1993); [*J. Phys. A*]{} [**27**]{}, 5749 (1994). Franz, S., and Rieger,H. , [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**79**]{}, 749 (1995). Parisi, G. , [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**79**]{}, 3660 (1997). Barrat, J.-L., and Kob, W. , [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**46**]{}, 637 (1999). Di Leonardo, R., [et al.]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**84**]{}, 6054 (2000).
Grigera, T. S., and Israeloff, N. , [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**83**]{}, 5038 (1999); Bellon, L., [et al.]{}, [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**53**]{}, 511 (2000). Herisson, D., and Ocio, M. , cond-mat/0112378.
Barrat, A., [et al]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**85**]{}, 5034 (2000). Maske, H., and Kurchan, J. , [*Nature*]{} [**415**]{}, 614 (2002). Barrat, A., [et al.]{}, cond-mat/0205285.
Berthier, L. , Barrat, J.-L., and Kurchan, J. , [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**61**]{}, 5464 (2000). Barrat, J.-L., and Berthier, L. , [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**63**]{}, 012503 (2001); Berthier, L., and Barrat, J.-L. , [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**116**]{}, 6228 (2002).
Kolton, A.B. , Exartier, R. , Cugliandolo, L. , Domínguez, D., Gronbech-Jensen, N., cond-mat/0206042.
Gr[ø]{}nbech-Jensen, N., [*Int. J. Mod. Phys. C*]{} [**7**]{}, 873 (1996); [*Comp. Phys. Comm.*]{} [**119**]{}, 115 (1999).
Caillol, J. M., [et al.]{}, [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**28**]{}, 325 (1982).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Ryu [Takayama]{}[^1]$^{1,2}$ and Osamu [Sakai]{}$^{1}$'
title: ' Single Impurity Anderson Model with Coulomb Repulsion between Conduction Electrons on the Nearest-Neighbour Ligand Orbital '
---
epsf.tex
Recently, much attention has been paid to the Kondo effect for systems with Coulomb interaction between the conduction electrons (CCE). [@igarashi95; @khaliullin95; @schork94; @schork96; @davidovich97; @tornow97] It was reported that a small CCE enhances the Kondo temperature $T_{\rm K}$. A correlated host has usually been given by the Hubbard model, and the studies have been carried out by means of the perturbation theory on the CCE because its influence on the Kondo effect can be treated only by such procedures. Therefore it is not clear how the CCE affects the magnetic impurity problem when it is not weak. Detailed properties of the low energy excitation are also unknown, and thus it is not clear whether low energy properties can be described as the Kondo state. In this letter we restrict ourselves to a simplified model but study the effect of CCE in detail. We choose a model which includes the Coulomb interaction between conduction electrons only on the nearest-neighbour site of the magnetic impurity. By this simplification, change in the bulk host states caused by CCE is excluded from the consideration in the strict sense. But the effects through the local change around the impurity can be studied in detail. We expect that gross features caused by the CCE can be extracted from the studies of the present model.[@inf-Hubbard0] We calculate the dynamical excitation spectra such as the single particle and the magnetic excitation without restricting ourselves to the weak CCE cases. From these studies we show that the low energy properties are well described as the usual Kondo state with increased effective $T_{\rm K}$ when the effective bandwidth of the conduction electron, $D^{\rm eff}$, is larger than the hybridization width of the $f$-electron, $\Delta$. As the strength of CCE increases, $D^{\rm eff}$ gradually decreases. When $D^{\rm eff}$ becomes comparable to $\Delta$, the effective $T_{\rm K}$ also becomes comparable to $\Delta$. The excitation spectra change their characteristics rapidly when the strength of the CCE increases further.
In this letter we present the calculation of the dynamical excitation spectra for the following model Hamiltonian, $$\begin{aligned}
H & = & H_{\rm A} + H_{\rm L}, \label{eq:2.1} \\
H_{\rm A} & = & H_{\rm f} + H_{\rm hyb} + H_{\rm c}, \label{eq:2.2} \\
H_{\rm f} & = & \varepsilon_{\rm f} \sum_\sigma n_{\rm f \sigma} + \frac{U_{\rm ff}}{2} \sum_{\sigma
\neq \sigma'} n_{\rm f \sigma} n_{\rm f \sigma'}, \\
H_{\rm hyb} & = & \frac{V}{\sqrt{N}} \sum_{{\bf k},\sigma} (f_\sigma^{+} c_{{\bf k} \sigma} + h.c.), \\
H_{\rm c} & = & \sum_{{\bf k},\sigma} \varepsilon_{\bf k} c_{{\bf k} \sigma}^{+} c_{{\bf k} \sigma}, \\
H_{\rm L} & = & \varepsilon_{\rm L} \sum_\sigma n_{\rm L \sigma} + \frac{U_{\rm L}}{2} \sum_{\sigma
\neq \sigma'} n_{\rm L \sigma} n_{\rm L \sigma'}. \label{eq:hp}\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[eq:2.2\]) represents the single impurity Anderson model (SIA) using the standard notation. Energies $\varepsilon_{\rm f}$ and $\varepsilon_{\bf k}$ are measured relative to the Fermi level, $E_{\rm F}$. The Coulomb interaction between electrons on the ligand orbital is given by the term $H_{\rm L}$. The operator $n_{\rm L \sigma}$ is the occupation number on the ligand orbital on the nearest-neighbour site, and is defined as $n_{\rm L \sigma}=c_{\rm L \sigma}^{+} c_{\rm L \sigma}$ with $c_{\rm L \sigma}=(1/\sqrt{N})\sum_{\bf k} c_{{\bf k} \sigma}$. Here the quantities $\varepsilon_{\rm L}$ and $U_{\rm L}$ are the energies of the orbital and the Coulomb interaction on it, respectively. We restrict ourselves to the electron-hole symmetric case, i.e., $2\varepsilon_{\rm f} + U_{\rm ff} =0$ and $2\varepsilon_{\rm L} + U_{\rm L} =0$. Hereafter, we parameterize the hybridization intensity, $V$, by the hybridization width, $\Delta=\pi V^2/2D$. In this letter, we use the numerical renormalization group (NRG) method to calculate the single particle and the magnetic excitation spectra. All results are obtained using the discretization parameter $\Lambda=1.5$. [@sakai92]
We consider a band with a constant density of states which extends from $-D$ to $D$ for simplicity. [@inf-Hubbard]
Figure \[fig:spec8\] shows the excitation spectra for various cases of $U_{\rm L}$. In these figures, parameters $U_{\rm ff}$ and $\Delta$ are fixed at $U_{\rm ff}/D=8.0 \times 10^{-3}$ and $\Delta/D=3.0 \pi \times 10^{-4}$.[@parameters] For $U_{\rm L}=0$, this parameter set gives the Kondo regime of SIA, $U_{\rm ff} \gg \Delta$.
First, we examine the $U_{\rm L}$ dependence of $\rho_{\rm L0}$, which is the density of states (DOS) on the nearest-ligand orbital for a fictitious model setting as $\Delta=0$. It is indicated by the dotted lines. For $\Delta=0$, the Hamiltonian (\[eq:2.1\]) is decomposed into two independent parts, $H_{\rm f}$ and $H_{\rm L}+H_{\rm c}$. The part $H_{\rm L}+H_{\rm c}$ corresponds to the Wolff model of the magnetic impurity. The quantity $\rho_{\rm L0}$ is normalized to have an integrated intensity equal to 1. Therefore, the intensity at $\omega=0$ should be 0.5 according to Friedel’s sum rule. As seen from Fig. \[fig:spec8\](a) the present calculation fulfills this condition with about $97\%$ accuracy, and seems to be sufficient for obtaining qualitative conclusions.
When $U_{\rm L}=0$, $\rho_{\rm L0}$ is given by the rectangular DOS which extends from $-D$ to $D$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:spec8\](a). As seen from Fig. \[fig:spec8\](b), $\rho_{\rm L0}$ shows a three-peaked-structure for the case $U_{\rm L}/2 > D$. The peak which appears in the energy range $|\omega/\Delta|<10^{2}$ corresponds to the Kondo resonance of the $c$-electron for the $H_{\rm L}+H_{\rm c}$ model. Furthermore, satellite peaks are also found at $\omega/\Delta \sim \pm 2.0 \times 10^{3}$. These energies correspond to the atomic excitation, $\omega/D \sim \pm U_{\rm L}/2$. As $U_{\rm L}$ increases, the width of the Kondo resonance of $c$-electron becomes narrow. This may be regarded as the reduction of the effective bandwidth caused by the CCE. We define the effective bandwidth, $D^{\rm eff}$, as the peak position of the magnetic excitation of the $H_{\rm L}+H_{\rm c}$ model. This quantity almost coincides with the half-width of the Kondo peak of $\rho_{\rm L0}$. We have the relation $D^{\rm eff}=0.951D (\equiv D_{0})$ for $U_{\rm L}=0$. The quantity $D^{\rm eff}$ is shown by the double circles in Fig. \[fig:tk-upp\] as a function of $U_{\rm L}$.
Next, we see how the magnetic excitation spectra of the $f$-electron, $\chi_{\rm mf}''$, depend on $U_{\rm L}$ for $\Delta \neq 0$. In Fig. \[fig:spec8\], $\chi_{\rm mf}''$ is plotted as a one-dot-dash line. Its intensity is obtained by multiplying the energy of its peak position, $T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}$. We adopt this value, $T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}$, as the characteristic energy of the low-energy excitation, because it is lower than that of other excitations such as charge fluctuation. We note here that $T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}$ has a value of about $0.6 T_{\rm K}$ for the conventional SIA in the Kondo regime, where $T_{\rm K}$ denotes the Kondo temperature determined from the magnetic susceptibility at $T=0$, $\chi$, as $T_{\rm K}=1/4\chi$.
In Fig. \[fig:spec8\](a), $T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}$ is at $\omega/\Delta =5.87 \times 10^{-2}$. As $U_{\rm L}$ increases, $T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}$ initially shifts to the high-energy side (from Fig. (a) to (d)) and returns to the low-energy side (from (d) to (e)). We note that the maximum value of $T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}$ has magnitude comparable to $\Delta$ ((d)).
We replot the magnetic excitation spectra in Fig. \[fig:spec8\](f). The energy is scaled by $T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}$, and the spectra are normalized by the peak heights. The spectra almost coincide up to values of $U_{\rm L}/D \leq 8$. This means that the magnetic excitation has an almost universal shape, and therefore the low energy properties can be described as the Kondo state characterized by the energy scale $T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}$. As mentioned later, this feature can be seen when the condition $D^{\rm eff} > \Delta$ holds. On the other hand, the line shape of $\chi_{\rm mf}''$ rapidly changes to narrow at around $D^{\rm eff} \sim \Delta$ when $U_{\rm L}$ increases further.
The quantity, $T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}$, as a function of $U_{\rm L}/D$ for various $U_{\rm ff}$ cases is shown in Fig. \[fig:tk-upp\]. It increases as $U_{\rm L}$ increases in the $D^{\rm eff} > \Delta$ region, while it decreases gradually in the $D^{\rm eff} < \Delta$ region. The magnitude of the maximum value is comparable to $\Delta$ both in the extreme Kondo regime ($U_{\rm ff} \gg \Delta $) shown by the solid diamond symbols and the valence fluctuation (VF) regime ($U_{\rm ff} \ll \Delta $) shown by the solid circle symbols. In the extreme large $U_{\rm L}$ region, i.e., $D^{\rm eff} \ll \Delta$ region, $T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}$ decreases as $T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}/D \propto 16\Delta/\pi (U_{\rm L}+U_{\rm ff})$.
In the previous studies, the increase of $T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}$ in the weak CCE region is ascribed to the renormalization of the Kondo exchange interaction, $J$. [@khaliullin95; @schork96; @tornow97] It is modified from $J$ to $J(1+\gamma)$ with the renormalization factor, $\gamma \propto U_{\rm L}/D$, when one uses the perturbation theory in the lowest order of the Coulomb interaction. To check the relation, we examine the $U_{\rm L}$ dependence of $T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}$. The modification of $J$ leads to the relative change of $T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}$ [@khaliullin95] $$\frac{T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}}{T_{\rm K0}^{\rm (m)}}
= \exp\left\{\frac{\pi U_{\rm ff}}{8 \Delta}\frac{\gamma}
{1+\gamma}\right\}. \label{eq:smallu}$$ Here we use $J=8\Delta/\pi U_{\rm ff}$ for the symmetric SIA and $T_{\rm K0}^{\rm (m)}$ is the value of $T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}$ for $U_{\rm L}=0$. The quantity $\gamma$ is obtained from eq. (\[eq:smallu\]) $$\gamma = \left[1-\frac{8\Delta}{\pi U_{\rm ff}}
\log\left(\frac{T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}}{T_{\rm K0}^{\rm (m)}}\right)\right]^{-1} -1 .
\label{eq:gamma}$$ Using the results shown in Fig. \[fig:tk-upp\], we found that the linear relation $\gamma= \alpha U_{\rm L}/D$ holds well in the range $0\leq U_{\rm L}/D \leq 0.6$. Here $\alpha$ itself is a function of $\Delta$ and $U_{\rm ff}$. The value of $\alpha$ is given as $(U_{\rm ff}/D, \alpha)=
(0.8, 2.6 \times 10^{-1})$ and $(1.6, 3.6 \times 10^{-1})$ for $\Delta/D=3.0 \pi \times 10^{-2}$, $(8.0 \times 10^{-3}, 5.4 \times 10^{-3})$ and $(1.6 \times 10^{-2}, 8.8 \times 10^{-3})$ for $\Delta/D=3.0 \pi \times 10^{-4}$.
In order to examine the larger $U_{\rm L}$ region, we replot the results of Fig. \[fig:tk-upp\] in terms of the relation $T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}/\Delta$ vs $(\Delta/D_{0})\cdot(D_{0}/D^{\rm eff}-1)$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:tk-sc\].
Here $D_{0}$ is the value of $D^{\rm eff}$ for $U_{\rm L}=0$. The quantity $D_{0}/D^{\rm eff}$ corresponds to the enhancement factor of the specific heat of the $c$-electron for $H_{\rm L}+H_{\rm c}$ model. If $D^{\rm eff}$ is expressed as $D^{\rm eff}=D_{0} \exp(-\pi U_{\rm L}/4D)$, the quantity $(D_{0}/D^{\rm eff}-1)$ is proportional to $U_{\rm L}/D$ for small $U_{\rm L}/D$. When the value of $U_{\rm ff}/\Delta$ is fixed, the data points for various $\Delta$ cases are almost on a common curve. We try to reproduce the curves by using the quantity $\gamma' = \alpha'(\Delta/D_{0})(D_{0}/D^{\rm eff}-1)$ and substitute it for $\gamma$ in eq. (\[eq:smallu\]), where $\alpha'$ is the fitting parameter. The enhancement factor $\gamma$ in eq. (\[eq:gamma\]) is proportional to $(\Delta/D_{0})(D_{0}/D^{\rm eff}-1)$ in $(\Delta/D_{0})(D_{0}/D^{\rm eff}-1)<0.1$ region. We determine the value of $\alpha'$ within this region. The fitted results are plotted by dotted lines in Fig. \[fig:tk-sc\], and they reproduce $T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}$ qualitatively even in the region $D^{\rm eff} \sim \Delta$.
Let us return to Fig. \[fig:spec8\]. The solid and the two-dot-dash lines are the single particle excitation spectra (SPE) of the $f$-electron, $\rho_{\rm f}$, and the charge excitation spectra, $\chi_{\rm cf}''$, respectively. The intensity of $\rho_{\rm f}$ is illustrated by multiplying the factor $\pi\Delta/N_{\rm f}$. Therefore, the intensity at $\omega=0$ should be 1.0 in Fig. \[fig:spec8\](a) for the case of $U_{\rm L}=0$. The present calculation fulfills this condition with about 97% accuracy. In Fig. \[fig:spec8\](a), the Kondo resonance appears in the energy region $|\omega/\Delta| < 10^{-1}$, and the atomic-like excitation appears at $\omega/\Delta \sim \pm 4.0$ which correspond to $\omega \sim \pm U_{\rm ff}/2$. The peak position of $\chi_{\rm cf}''$ almost coincides with that of the atomic-like excitation. The DOS on the nearest-ligand orbital, $\rho_{\rm L}$, show a depression in the energy region $|\omega/\Delta| < 10^{-1}$ as shown by the broken line. It behaves as $\rho_{\rm L} \propto \omega^2$ in this region. Two peaks appear on each side of the depressed region. They have shoulder and peak structures which are caused by the Kondo resonance at $\omega/\Delta \sim \pm 10^{-1}$ and by the atomic excitation at $\omega \sim \pm U_{\rm ff}/2$, respectively.
When $U_{\rm L}$ increases, the width of the Kondo resonance increases in the $D^{\rm eff} > \Delta$ region as seen from Figs. \[fig:spec8\](b) and \[fig:spec8\](c). This increase can be ascribed to the enhancement of the effective exchange coupling, and is consistent with the increase of $T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}$. The intensity of $\rho_{\rm f}$ at $\omega=0$ gradually decreases when $U_{\rm L}$ increases.[@upp0] These facts indicate that the hybridization coupling between $f$ and ligand orbital is enhanced by the Coulomb interaction. The atomic excitation peak is shifted towards higher energy by a small amount and the spectral shape becomes narrow.
In the case of $D^{\rm eff} < \Delta$, the magnetic excitation has a rather sharp peak at the energy defined as $T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}$. The intensity of $\rho_{\rm f}$ in the energy region $|\omega| < T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}$ is very small as shown in Fig. \[fig:spec8\](e). On the other hand, $\rho_{\rm f}$ and $\rho_{\rm L}$ have small peaks at about $|\omega| \sim T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}$. The energy of the atomic excitation is not significantly changed. The excitation energy $T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}$ is roughly given by $16\Delta/\pi (U_{\rm L}+U_{\rm ff})$, as already noted. This energy corresponds to the exchange coupling between the electrons on the $f$ and the nearest-ligand orbital. These facts may indicate that the $f$ state and its nearest-neighbour state form a local spin singlet pair when the charge fluctuation is strongly suppressed by the $U_{\rm L}$ term. This local singlet pair couples weakly to band states in the outer region. As noted previously, $\chi_{\rm mf}''$ rapidly changes its line shape around the cross-over region from the Kondo singlet region ($D^{\rm eff} > \Delta$ region) to the local singlet one ($D^{\rm eff} < \Delta$ region).
We note that the cross-over can also be seen from the analysis of the flow chart of the renormalized energy level (FCEL) in the NRG. [@km] We have analyzed the FCEL of the present model, and found that the fixed point is the local Fermi liquid state in both cases, but the difference lies in the asymptotic area to the fixed point. In the $D^{\rm eff} > \Delta$ case, the low energy levels are similar to that of the conventional SIA, i.e., they are classified as the ordinary Kondo state. However, in the $D^{\rm eff} < \Delta$ case, the energy levels indicate that the local spin singlet pair and the conduction electrons are almost independent of each other.[@phase]
In summary, we have examined the impurity Anderson model with CCE on the nearest-ligand orbital. The interaction $U_{\rm L}$ reduces the effective bandwidth for the $c$-$f$ hybridization, $D^{\rm eff}$. The characteristics of the system depend on whether the effective bandwidth $D^{\rm eff}$ is larger or smaller than $\Delta$. In the $D^{\rm eff} > \Delta$ region, the characteristic energy of the magnetic excitation, which is defined as $T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}$, increases until its magnitude becomes comparable to $\Delta$ when $U_{\rm L}$ increases. The low energy properties are expected to be given as the Kondo state. The increase of $T_{\rm K}^{\rm (m)}$ is approximately expressed as the enhancement of the hybridization. When $U_{\rm L}$ increases further into the $D^{\rm eff} < \Delta$ region, the magnetic excitation energy decreases as $16\Delta/\pi (U_{\rm L}+U_{\rm ff})$, reflecting the formation of the spin singlet pair state from the electrons on the $f$-orbital and its nearest-neighbour orbital.
The present model includes CCE only on the ligand orbital to which the $f$-orbital has the direct hopping matrix. [@df-coulomb] However, we expect that the present results will be generalized to the model with CCE for the band states, if one concentrate on the effects due to the modification of the hybridization process. The quantity $D^{\rm eff}$ of the present model should be interpreted as the effective bandwidth of such a band CCE model. The calculation including the self-consistent procedure based on the $d=\infty$ model to extract a true effective bandwidth will be attempted in the near future.[@sakai94; @georges96]
The authors thank Dr. S. Suzuki and Mr. W. Izumida for useful discussions. We also thank Dr. H. Kusunose for valuable comments. One of the authors (R. T.) was partly supported by the Kasuya scholarship. The present work is supported by Grants-in-Aid No. 06244104, No. 09244202, and No. 09640451 from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.
[99]{} \[ref\]
T. Schork and P. Fulde: Phys. Rev. B[**50**]{} (1994) 1345.
J. Igarashi, K. Murayama and P. Fulde: Phys. Rev. B[**52**]{} (1995) 15966.
G. Khaliullin and P. Fulde: Phys. Rev. B[**52**]{} (1995) 9514.
T. Schork: Phys. Rev. B[**53**]{} (1996) 5626.
B. Davidovich and V. Zevin: preprint (cond-mat/9706283).
S. Tornow, V. Zevin and G. Zwicknagl: preprint(cond-mat/9701137).
For example, the Hubbard model in the infinite dimensional space ($d=\infty$ model) can be mapped onto the impurity Anderson model.
O. Sakai, Y. Shimizu and T. Kasuya: Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**108**]{} (1992) 73.
When we consider the $d=\infty$ Hubbard model, the effective bandwidth for the mapped impurity Anderson model is reduced strongly by the Coulomb interaction. But in this letter we set the bandwidth, $2D$, to be a constant, independent of $U_{\rm L}$. However we note that as shown later the width of the single particle excitation spectra on the ligand site is greatly reduced by $U_{\rm L}$ similar to the effective bandwidth of the $d=\infty$ model.
In the usual Anderson model, the low-energy scale (for example the Kondo temperature) depends strongly on the ratio $U_{\rm ff}/\Delta$ , but does not depend strongly on $U_{\rm ff}/D$ as far as $U_{\rm ff}/D < 1$. So we set $U_{\rm ff}/D \ll 1$ to remove the additional dependence on $U_{\rm ff}/D$. In the strong $U_{\rm L}$ cases, $U_{\rm L}/D \gg 1$, we have the relation $U_{\rm L} \gg U_{\rm ff}$ in the present model. In actual cases the relation $U_{\rm ff} > U_{\rm L}$ should be expected, but we expect that the essential point will be unchanged when the parameters are arranged by the ratio $U_{\rm ff}/\Delta$ and $U_{\rm L}/D$.
The decrease of $\rho_{\rm f}$ at $E_{\rm F}$ is ascribed to the cross-effect due to the $U_{\rm ff}$ and $U_{\rm L}$ terms. Indeed, when we put $U_{\rm ff}=0$, the intensity of $\rho_{\rm f}$ at $E_{\rm F}$ is unchanged.
H. B. Krishna-murthy, J. W. Wilkins and K. G. Wilson: Phys. Rev. B [**21**]{} (1980) 1003; [*ibid.*]{} 1044.
We note that the phase shift of the conduction electron is also $\pi/2$ in this case.
In realistic situations, the Coulomb interaction between the $f$-electron and the conduction electrons is also important, see for example, R. Takayama and O. Sakai: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**66**]{} (1997) 1512.
A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth and M. J. Rozenberg: Rev. Mod. Phys. [**68**]{} (1996) 13 and references therein.
O. Sakai and Y. Kuramoto: Solid State Commun. [**89**]{} (1994) 307.
[^1]: E-mail address: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We investigate the performance of the parametric Maximum Likelihood component separation method in the context of the CMB B-mode signal detection and its characterization by small-scale CMB suborbital experiments. We consider high-resolution (FWHM$=8'$) balloon-borne and ground-based observatories mapping low dust-contrast sky areas of 400 and 1000 square degrees, in three frequency channels, 150, 250, 410 GHz, and 90, 150, 220 GHz, with sensitivity of order 1 to 10 $\mu$K per beam-size pixel. These are chosen to be representative of some of the proposed, next-generation, bolometric experiments.
We study the residual foreground contributions left in the recovered CMB maps in the pixel and harmonic domain and discuss their impact on a determination of the tensor-to-scalar ratio, $r$. In particular, we find that the residuals derived from the simulated data of the considered balloon-borne observatories are sufficiently low not to be relevant for the B-mode science. However, the ground-based observatories are in need of some external information to permit satisfactory cleaning. We find that if such information is indeed available in the latter case, both the ground-based and balloon-borne experiments can detect the values of $r$ as low as $\sim 0.04$ at $95$% confidence level. The contribution of the foreground residuals to these limits is found to be then subdominant and these are driven by the statistical uncertainty due to CMB, including E-to-B leakage, and noise. We emphasize that reaching such levels will require a sufficient control of the level of systematic effects present in the data.
author:
- |
F. Stivoli$^{1}$, J. Grain$^{2}$, S. M. Leach$^{3}$, M. Tristram$^{4}$, C. Baccigalupi$^{3}$, R. Stompor$^{5}$\
$^{1}$ INRIA, Laboratoire de Recherche en Informatique, Université Paris-Sud 11, Bâtiment 490, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France\
$^{2}$ CNRS, Institut d’Astrophysique Spatiale, Université Paris-Sud 11, Bâtiments 120-121, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France\
$^{3}$ SISSA/ISAS, Astrophysics Sector, Via Beirut, 2-4, and INFN, Sezione di Trieste, Via Valerio 2, I-34151 Trieste, Italy\
$^{4}$ CNRS, Laboratoire de l’Accélérateur Linéaire, Université Paris-Sud 11, Bâtiment 200, 91898 Orsay Cedex, France\
$^{5}$ CNRS, Laboratoire Astroparticule & Cosmologie, 10 rue A. Domon et L. Duquet, F-75205 Paris Cedex 13, France
bibliography:
- 'arx.bib'
title: 'Maximum likelihood, parametric component separation and CMB B-mode detection in suborbital experiments'
---
Introduction
============
Astrophysical foregrounds are commonly recognized as one of the major obstacles on the way to first detecting and later exploiting the scientific potential of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) polarization signal. This is particularly the case with so called B-mode polarization [@1997PhRvD..55.1830Z] due to its minute amplitude as compared to the foreground contributions as well as CMB total intensity and E-mode polarization signals. In fact current foreground models [@2007ApJS..170..335P] generally indicate that the foreground B-mode signal may be comparable or exceed the CMB signal by a factor of a few in a broad range of angular scales even in the cleanest available sky areas. Some kind of foreground cleaning or separation procedure will therefore be necessary and its impact on the final ‘cleaned’ map of the presumed CMB sky needs to be understood and properly taken into account in its subsequent studies. Developing such an understanding is also already of importance for the designing and optimization of the future CMB experiments.
This has been recognized for some time and a number of studies have been performed and published, and which have treated the problem on different levels of generality and detail. The major challenge here is two-fold. Firstly, there is no general recipe for propagating errors incurred during the component separation step, i.e. for including both the statistical uncertainty and foreground residual uncertainty. Secondly, there is no easily calculable metric measuring the impact of the component separation on the B-mode measurement, as both the power spectrum or tensor-to-scalar ratio, $r$, require a proper evaluation of the E-to-B leakage [@2003PhRvD..67b3501B].
@2005MNRAS.360..935T have performed a Fisher analysis of the problem treating the foreground residuals as an additional source of noise, and then estimated the expected limits on $r$. In their approach the starting point was a single foreground contaminated science channel and a noisy foreground template channel from which the level of foreground residual was estimated. Although this allows to avoid specifying in great detail a foreground cleaning technique, no direct connection exists between the noise values they assume and properties of any specific experiment. They have also neglected the impact of the E-to-B leakage. A similar approach has been followed by @2006JCAP...01..019V, who have attempted to link their Fisher matrix considerations to specific, fiducial, multi-frequency data sets. The simplified error propagation they have adopted implicitly bypasses any realistic component separation approach, and so fails to include properly its effects on their final results. They also neglect the presence of the E-to-B leakage. @2005PhRvD..72l3006A performed a Fisher analysis as well, but use specific parameters anchored in those of the multi-frequency data set assumed. This last work together with @2007PhRvD..75h3508A and come the closest in the spirit to what we discuss in this paper, although neither of the latter two works includes an actual power spectrum estimator accounting for the leakage, what is justified at least in part by their focus on full-sky observations. [@2006MNRAS.372..615S] studied an application of an Independent Component Analysis based approach to the component separation of polarized partial-sky maps, resorting to the cleaned map ‘pseudo-spectra’ as a basis for a [*qualitative*]{} assessment of its performance and relevance for the B-mode work. @2009AIPC.1141..222D presented a review of most of those earlier approaches, including those incorporating a parametric approach similar to the one considered in this work, and presented their applications in the context of a potential future CMB B-mode satellite mission.
The approach we propose here is more specific. We focus on a particular component separation method and power spectrum estimation approach, which we then use to investigate the impact of the foreground separation on the CMB B-mode detection and characterization. The component separation method is a maximum likelihood (ML) parametric approach [@2006ApJ...641..665E] in a two-step implementation of @2009MNRAS.392..216S. The power spectrum estimator is a ‘pure’ pseudo-spectrum approach introduced by @2006PhRvD..74h3002S [see also @2007PhRvD..76d3001S] and elaborated on by @2009PhRvD..79l3515G. Strictly speaking, our results will therefore be specific to these two choices. However, given that these two methods are working, promising algorithms to be implemented in the data analysis pipelines of current and future CMB experiments, the results should be of practical relevance for many efforts currently going on in the field.
We note also that whenever the frequency scaling laws can be assumed to be nearly perfectly known, as in one of the cases we study, and in particular in the small-sky, and thus potentially statistics-starved limit, the parametric maximum likelihood (ML) method would likely become a method of the choice, potentially supplemented by some priors, e.g, spatial templates for all or some of the components [@2009MNRAS.397.1355E]. The results derived here can therefore be regarded as representative and realistic expectations for the performance of classes of the future experiments we consider. Moreover, part of the analysis presented here can be straightforwardly applied to any component separation method in which foreground spectral and amplitude parameters are estimated in separate steps.
Our focus in this work is on suborbital experiments. Those have a potential advantage of selecting the cleanest sky areas, but suffer due to the cut-sky effects. They also usually have a limited number of frequency channels with which to observe the sky. We consider two kinds of experiments: those with an access to the high frequencies ($\simgtalt 250$ GHz) referred to as balloon-borne, and those with access limited to frequencies lower than $250$ GHz, referred to as ground-based. We will also consider some combination and extensions of these two cases. We then apply our proposed analysis chain to simulated data for different foreground case studies, allowing for different levels of mismatch between the assumptions made on the analysis and simulation stages, in order to evaluate the impact of the component separation residuals first on the recovered B-mode power spectrum and later on the value of a $r$ which can be derived from such data.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sections \[sec:miramare\] and \[sec:xpure\], we first provide brief descriptions of the specific data analysis techniques and their implementation, used throughout this paper. In Section \[sec:mockData\] we describe our simulated sky model, and in Section \[sec:mock\] we define the experimental characteristics and a set of foreground case studies. Our results are presented in Section \[sec:Results\], and their analysis, concerning the residuals and their impact on the cosmological B-mode detection, is given in Sections \[sect:anaRes\] and \[sec:tensor2scalar\], respectively.
Parametric component separation method {#sec:miramare}
======================================
In this section we briefly outline the parametric component separation algorithm proposed by @2009MNRAS.392..216S. The multi-frequency sky signal is modelled as $$\begin{aligned}
\bd{d}_p = \bd{A}_p\,\bd{s}_p\,+\,\bd{n}_{p},
\label{eqn:dataModelIdeal}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bd{d}_p$ is a vector containing the data from $N_{freq}$ frequencies assumed to share a common angular resolution, $\bd{s}_p$ is a vector of $N_{comp}$ signal amplitudes to be estimated, $\bd{A}_p
\equiv\bd{A}_p\l(\bd{\beta}\r)$ is a component ‘mixing’ or frequency scaling matrix with a total of $N_{spec}$ free ‘spectral parameters’ $\bd{\beta}$ also to be estimated, and $\bd{n}_{p}$ is the noise at each pixel $p$. We can write down a likelihood for the data of the form $$\begin{aligned}
-2\,\ln\,{\cal L}_{data}\l(\bd{s}, \bd{\beta}\r) = \const +
\l(\bd{d}-\bd{A}\,\bd{s}\r)^t\,\bd{N}^{-1}\l(\bd{d}-\bd{A}\,\bd{s}\r),
\label{eqn:genMpixLike}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bd{N}$ is the noise covariance matrix of the data and we have now dropped the pixel index $p$. This likelihood reaches its maximum for the values of $\bd{s}$ and $\bd{\beta}$ fulfilling the relations, $$\begin{aligned}
-\l(\bd{A}_{,\bd{\beta}}\,\bd{s}\r)^t\,\bd{N}^{-1}\,\l(\bd{d}-\bd{A}\,\bd{s}\r) = 0
\label{eqn:maxRels}
\\
\bd{s} = \l(\bd{A}^t\,\bd{N}^{-1}\,\bd{A}\r)^{-1}\,\bd{A}^t\,\bd{N}^{-1}\,\bd{d},
\label{eqn:step2amps}
\end{aligned}$$ where $_{,\bd{\beta}}$ denotes a partial derivative with respect to $\bd{\beta}_i$. Under the assumption that the spectral parameters are the same for a collection of pixels, corresponding to the physical assumption that the spectral parameters vary more slowly in space than the signal amplitudes, it is possible to substitute the generalised least squares solution Equation (\[eqn:step2amps\]) into the likelihood Equation (\[eqn:genMpixLike\]), thereby eliminating the sky signals $\bd{s}$, in order to obtain a spectral index likelihood given by $$\begin{aligned}
-2\ln {\cal L}_{spec}\l(\bd{\beta}\r) &= & \hbox{{\sc const}}
\label{eqn:slopelikeMpix}
\\
&-&\l(\bd{A}^t\,\bd{N}^{-1}\,\bd{d}\r)^t\,\l(\bd{A}^t\,\bd{N}^{-1}\,\bd{A}\r)^{-1} \l( \bd{A}^t\,\bd{N}^{-1}\,\bd{d}\r).
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The spectral parameters that minimize Equation (\[eqn:slopelikeMpix\]) can be found using numerical techniques, and then substituted into Equation (\[eqn:step2amps\]) in order to find the corresponding signal amplitudes pixel by pixel. Finally, the noise covariance matrix, describing the properties of the noise contained in the data $\bd{d}$, is propagated to the component estimates $\bd{s}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\bd{N_s} \equiv \l(\bd{A}^t\,\bd{N}^{-1}\,\bd{A}\r)^{-1}.
\label{eqn:noiseCorrOptim}\end{aligned}$$
[Miramare]{}[^1], which is our implementation of this two-step algorithm, uses codes from the [CosmoMC]{} package [@2002PhRvD..66j3511L] in order to perform an initial conjugate gradient descent to the minimum of the spectral index likelihood Equation (\[eqn:slopelikeMpix\]). This is followed by estimation of the curvature of the spectral index likelihood on a regular grid, which then forms the basis of the ‘proposal function’ for drawing spectral index samples using the Markov Chain Monte-Carlo (MCMC) technique. Once the spectral parameters have been determined from an analysis of the MCMC samples, these values are substituted into Equations (\[eqn:step2amps\]) and (\[eqn:noiseCorrOptim\]) in order to obtain the signal amplitudes and their covariance.
We can check our assumption of the constancy of the spectral parameters and the overall ‘goodness of fit’ by evaluating the log-likelihood Equation (\[eqn:genMpixLike\]) at the maximum likelihood value, and comparing it with the number of degrees of freedom given by $$\begin{aligned}
N_{dof}= N_{pix}\times (N_{freq} - N_{comp}).
\label{eqn:dof}\end{aligned}$$ A poor fit, for instance, due to either the wrong parametrization assumed for the components present in the data or the spatially variability of the parameters, will be accompanied by an excessive log-likelihood. Other goodness of fit tests are also possible and will be discussed elsewhere.
The ML formalism allows to straightforwardly incorporate the uncertainty due to errors on the calibration of the input maps. This can be done by replacing the mixing matrix, $\bd{A}$, by a product of a diagonal matrix $\bd{C}$, representing the calibration for each of the single channel maps, and the foreground mixing matrix, $\bd{A}$. Following @2009MNRAS.392..216S, we denote the diagonal elements of $\bd{C}$ as, $\omega_i$, so, $$\begin{aligned}
\bd{C} = {\rm diag}\l(\omega_i\r)_{i=0,\dots, n_f-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Such a problem is clearly degenerate if no external constraints are imposed on the calibration parameters. In a case of actual observations, prior information on the calibration uncertainty is in fact usually available and can be often expressed as a Gaussian error centered around some most likely value. Mathematically, it just corresponds to multiplying the likelihood in Equation (\[eqn:slopelikeMpix\]) by the relevant priors.
We note that if the absolute calibration of the resulting component maps is not required one could in principle reduce the number of calibration parameters by one by subsuming one of the $\omega_i$, say that of the very first channel, $\omega_0$, factors into the overall normalization of the sought-after component maps. This is the approach that we will use later in this paper, always assuming that the uncertainty of the relative calibration of the higher frequency channels with respect to the lowest frequency channel can be sufficiently well described as a Gaussian random variable with a known width.
Polarized power spectrum estimation {#sec:xpure}
===================================
In this section we briefly describe the approach that we use to measure the E- and B-mode power spectra which is based on the ‘pure’ pseudo-$C_\ell$’s method proposed in [@2006PhRvD..74h3002S]. Further details of the implementation and tests on simulations can be found in [@2006PhRvD..74h3002S], [@2007PhRvD..76d3001S] and in [@2009PhRvD..79l3515G]. The latter work also extends the pure approach to the case of cross-spectra. The pure pseudo-spectrum estimators retain speed and efficiency of the standard pseudo-spectrum methods and have been devised to suppress the effect of the E-to-B leakage, thus ensuring the near optimality of the estimated B-mode power spectrum. The performance of such an estimator is demonstrated in the last part of this section where the [*statistical*]{} uncertainties on the E- and B-mode reconstruction is evaluated thanks to Monte-Carlo simulation.
The pure pseudo-$C_\ell$’s estimator
------------------------------------
In general a polarization field on the partial sky can be divided into three classes of modes: pure E-modes, pure B-modes and ambiguous modes, which are a mixture of the true E and B modes [@2003PhRvD..67b3501B]. The standard pseudo-spectrum approach consists of projecting the polarization fields $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{P}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
Q \\
U
\end{array}\right)\end{aligned}$$ onto the full-sky harmonic basis of B-modes $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{Y}^B_{\ell m}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{(\ell-2)!}{(\ell+2)!}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
i(\partial^2-\bar\partial^2) \\
\partial^2+\bar\partial^2
\end{array}\right)Y_{\ell m},\end{aligned}$$ where $\partial\,(\bar\partial)$ stands for the spin-raising (lowering) operator. However, this basis contains both pure B-modes and ambiguous modes on the partial sky. Consequently the standard pseudo-$C_\ell$ estimator includes these ambiguous modes in the B-mode power spectra estimates, thus resulting in contamination from the much larger E-mode contribution – an effect hereafter referred to as E-to-B leakage. This can be removed on averaged, but will still lead to a significant increase of the estimated spectrum variance.
The ambiguous modes can however be filtered out by projecting the polarization field onto a pure B-mode basis. Such a basis is constructed from the spherical harmonics and a particular window function $W$, such that $W$ and $\partial{W}$ vanish on the boundary of the observed sky: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Y}^{B}_{\ell m}=\sqrt{\frac{(\ell-2)!}{(\ell+2)!}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
i(\partial^2-\bar\partial^2) \\
\partial^2+\bar\partial^2
\end{array}\right)WY_{\ell m}.
\label{eqn:pureBasis}\end{aligned}$$ Pseudo-multipoles free of E-to-B leakage can be then computed from this basis by taking the dot product $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{a}^B_{\ell m}=\displaystyle\int d\vec{n}~\mathcal{Y}^{B~\dag}_{\ell m}\cdot \mathbf{P},\end{aligned}$$ from which a pseudo-power spectra can be derived $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{C}^B_\ell=\frac{1}{2\ell+1}\displaystyle\sum_m\tilde{a}^B_{\ell m}\tilde{a}^{B\star}_{\ell m}.\end{aligned}$$ The pseudo-power spectrum for the E-modes is identically derived by projecting the Stokes parameters onto the harmonic basis for the E-modes, defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Y}^{E}_{\ell m}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{(\ell-2)!}{(\ell+2)!}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\partial^2+\bar\partial^2 \\
-i(\partial^2-\bar\partial^2)
\end{array}\right)WY_{\ell m}.\end{aligned}$$ Unbiased estimates for both the E- and B-mode power spectra are finally obtained by solving the linear system $$\left(\begin{array}{cc}
M^{(+)}_{\ell\ell'} & M^{(-)}_{\ell\ell'} \\
M^{(-)}_{\ell\ell'} & M^{(+)}_{\ell\ell'}
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
C^E_{\ell'} \\
C^B_{\ell'}
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\tilde{C}^E_{\ell}-N^E_{\ell} \\
\tilde{C}^B_{\ell}-N^B_\ell
\end{array}\right)$$ where $N^{E/B}_{\ell'}$ stands for the noise bias and $\mathbf{M}^{(+/-)}_{\ell\ell'}$ for the different mode-mode coupling matrices. We emphasize that the pure formalism adopted hereafter corrects for the E-to-B leakage due to partial sky coverage only, leading to elements of $M^{(-)}$ much smaller than those of $M^{(+)}$. However, such off-diagonal elements are not strictly zero because of pixel-induced E-to-B leakage. This remaining leakage between the two type of polarization is nevertheless very small and carefully taken into account in the computation of the mode-mode coupling matrices.
The required extensions are included in our implementation of the pure pseudo-$C_\ell$’s estimator, called [Xpure]{}, which we use in this work. [Xpure]{} is a generalization of the [Xspect]{} and [Xpol]{} codes [@2005MNRAS.358..833T]. It can handle multiple maps for computing auto- and cross-power spectra. The different mode-mode couplings due to partial sky coverage (i.e. $\ell$-to-$\ell'$ mixing) and pixelization (i.e.residual E-to-B leakage) are accounted for during the mode-mode coupling matrix computation. The code is based on the [S$^2$HAT]{} library[^2] – a parallel library allowing for efficient computation of spin-weighted spherical harmonic transforms.
{width="7.5cm"} {width="7.5cm"} {width="7.5cm"} {width="7.5cm"}
Sky apodization {#Sec:Apodize}
---------------
The applicability of the pure pseudo-$C_\ell$’s estimator strongly depends on being able to compute the sky apodizations which are needed in the calculation of the relevant pure basis functions, Equation (\[eqn:pureBasis\]), and which have to fulfill appropriate boundary conditions. Different functions have been proposed, ranging from those derived from an optimization procedure to those based on some analytic expressions. Their relative merit has been extensively discussed by [@2009PhRvD..79l3515G] who showed that the optimized sky apodization scheme proposed in [@2007PhRvD..76d3001S] leads to the lowest variance on the power spectrum estimation.
The underlying strategy for deriving such an optimized sky apodization is to search for the $W$ functions which make the pure pseudo-$C_\ell$ as close as possible to optimal, quadratic power-spectrum estimator [see Section V of @2007PhRvD..76d3001S]. An optimized weighting scheme therefore involves a specific sky apodization for each $\ell$-band for which the power spectrum is to be estimated, according to the signal and noise power aliasing in each band. As shown in [@2007PhRvD..76d3001S], this optimization procedure can deal with both external and internal boundaries, due to limited sky coverage and holes induced by point source removal, respectively. Such an optimization procedure however assumes that noise and signal are known. Although this is a good assumption for noise and E-modes (which can be recovered precisely enough without optimization), this does not hold for the B-modes and an erroneous prior may introduce suboptimality in the B-modes estimate. However, it has been shown by [@2009PhRvD..79l3515G] that the B-modes prior only mildly affects the performance of the power-spectrum estimation using the optimized sky apodization. This weak dependence is in fact a direct consequence of the optimization process, which attempts to select an apodization to reduce first the sampling variance due to the E-to-B leakage and second the noise variance, with the B-mode variance itself usually being subdominant.
These optimized sky apodizations, leading to the lowest statistical uncertainties, will be used throughout this work to compute the polarized power spectra from the CMB maps estimated from the component separation process.
Statistical uncertainties {#sec:StatVariance}
-------------------------
A complete characterization of the error budget incurred by both the foreground cleaning and power spectrum estimation processes is mandatory for setting statistically meaningful constraints on the tensor-to-scalar ratio. We evaluate the sampling and noise variance induced by the power spectrum estimation stage using Monte-Carlo (MC) simulation, allowing us to determine the statistical part of the total error budget and to demonstrate the performance of the pure pseudo-$C_\ell$’s estimator.
The observed sky area for the balloon-borne and ground-based experiments considered hereafter are shown in Figure \[fig:masks\] where holes due to point-source removal are carefully taken into account. The sky fraction is roughly [$f_{\rm sky}=1\%$]{} and 2.5% for the balloon-borne and ground-based experiments, respectively. We assume homogeneous, white noise which is deduced from the noise per frequency channels using Equation (\[eqn:noiseCorrOptim\]). This gives a noise level in the CMB maps of approximately 1.65$\mu$K and 3.2$\mu$K per $3.5'$ pixel for the balloon-borne and the ground-based experiments respectively. The simulations use the WMAP 5-year best-fit cosmological model [@2009ApJS..180..306D] and the simulated B-mode includes the lensing and primordial component with a tensor-to-scalar ratio, $r$, equal to 0.05. The E- and B-mode power spectra are estimated by downweighting the simulated maps with the optimized sky apodization as described in the previous section and finally binned with a band width of $\Delta\ell=40$, with the lowest $\ell$-bin starting at $\ell=20$.
We demonstrate the performance of the pure estimator in Figure \[fig:specExample\] which shows the input E- and B-mode power spectra and the estimated variances of the reconstructed E- and B-mode power spectra derived as the standard deviation from 500 MC simulations. The three variances displayed on this figure are obtained from, i) the Fisher estimate, or so-called $f_{\rm sky}$-formula, ii) the standard deviation of 500 MC simulations using pure pseudo-$C_\ell$’s estimator and iii) the standard deviation of 500 MC simulations using standard pseudo-$C_\ell$’s estimator.
For the B-modes, the variance is significantly reduced by using the pure pseudo-$C_\ell$’s estimator at angular scales where sampling variance is dominating ($\ell\leq700$), while the two approaches lead to similar variances at smaller angular scales where noise is the dominant contribution to the statistical uncertainties. More specifically, this technique is mandatory for the balloon-borne experiment to be able to extract the B-mode from the maps of the two Stokes parameters at intermediate and large angular scales ($\ell\leq400$) while the variance is reduced by a factor 2 at those scales for the ground-based experiment. Moreover, the pure pseudo-$C_\ell$’s estimator is required for both type of experiments to be able to [*statistically*]{} disentangle the inflationary gravitational waves at $\ell\leq100$ from the secondary, lensing-induced B-mode.
For the E-modes, the standard pseudo-$C_\ell$’s estimator is preferred, for achieving higher accuracy (at least at large angular scales for the balloon-borne sky coverage). The reason for such a higher efficiency of the standard approach as compared to the pure one for E-mode is two-fold: on the one hand, B-to-E leakage only mildly affects the variance in the standard approach and, on the other hand, ambiguous modes are mainly composed of E-modes, and so a significant amount of information may be lost by removing them using the pure approach.
![Sky areas for the balloon-borne (inner) and ground-based (outer, larger patch) experimental setups. The holes mimic the effect of masking resolved point sources and are included in our optimized apodization calculation.[]{data-label="fig:masks"}](figure/mask.eps){width="6cm"}
Simulated sky {#sec:mockData}
=============
In this section we describe the sky model we use for simulations in this work. We introduce the ‘basic model’, which is a simple model of the sky signal consistent with the currently available information on diffuse foregrounds, and then discuss a number of simple extensions whose physical parameters are poorly constrained by current observations.
Sky signals - Basic model {#sec:simulated_sky}
-------------------------
Our analysis area is centered around RA$=62^{\circ}$ and Dec$=-45^{\circ}$. This sky region, which is in the anti-sun direction during the austral summer, has already been observed by several CMB polarization experiments including Boomerang [@2006ApJ...647..813M], ACBAR [@2009ApJ...694.1200R], QUAD [@2009ApJ...705..978B] and will be targeted by future experiments like EBEX [@2004SPIE.5543..320O; @2008SPIE.7020E..68G]. We first note that WMAP-based estimates of the level of unresolved point source power together with conservative assumptions about the expected level of radio source polarization suggest that this signal will be negligible compared to the lensing B-mode signal (Ben Gold, private communication). Similar conclusions hold for the infra-red sources. Certainly though, a few bright extragalactic sources will be present in the field both by chance and for the purposes of in-flight beam mapping and calibration. The process of masking out these sources is mimicked in our simulations, similar to what done in this respect by @2007PhRvD..76d3001S, as shown in Figure \[fig:masks\].
Our Galactic sky model on this relatively high Galactic latitude region consists of two diffuse foreground components: synchrotron and thermal dust emission. The synchrotron total intensity emission was simulated using the 408 MHz map of , with free-free emission subtracted and small-scale power added by . We extrapolated this template[^3] up to $65$ GHz, using the WMAP five-year maximum entropy method derived synchrotron spectral index map [@2009ApJS..180..265G]
The thermal dust total intensity emission is taken from the combined COBE-DIRBE and IRAS dust template of [@1998ApJ...500..525S], extrapolated in frequency using the scaling accounting for temperature variations as described in @1999ApJ...524..867F. We first extrapolate the dust down to $65$ GHz for matching our polarization model with WMAP data as indicated below, and then extrapolate it back into our chosen frequency range according to a uniform greybody scaling law inspired by FDS Model 3 [@1999ApJ...524..867F] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dust_scal}
A_{\rm dust}\propto\frac{{\nu}^{\beta_{d}+1}}{\exp \frac {h\nu}{kT_d}-1}\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $T_d=18.0$K and $\beta_d=1.65$.
In order to simulate the polarization in this region, we normalized the large-scale polarization amplitude to the E and B spectra estimated by @2007ApJS..170..335P. This normalization is achieved by first assuming that the polarized intensity of both synchrotron and dust is proportional to the total intensity, which introduces two free parameters, $p_{\rm dust}$ and $p_{\rm sync}$. In order to obtain the large-scale polarization angles $\theta$, we take the $Q$ and $U$ templates from the WMAP polarized dust template, which is based on information derived from starlight polarization and a geometric suppression factor taken from a three dimensional Galactic magnetic field model described in [@2007ApJS..170..335P]. This template introduces a large-scale modulation to the polarization pattern of the synchrotron and dust. We then add Gaussian fluctuations to the polarization angles on smaller scales following the method of , assuming a model $C_{l}^{\cos
2\theta,\sin 2\theta}\propto l^{\alpha}$, where $\alpha=-3$.
{width="4cm"} {width="4cm"} {width="4cm"} {width="4cm"}
With these templates of $I$, $Q$ and $U$, we evaluate the power spectra for E and B modes in order to finally normalize the $Q$ and $U$ maps to an effective polarization fraction. A good match is found for $p_{\rm dust}=p_{\rm sync}=0.1$. In Figure \[sky\_template\] we show maps of the synchrotron and dust templates at $150$ GHz. The large-scale modulation introduced by the WMAP polarized dust template is clear from the correlated appearance of the synchrotron and dust. A certain amount of correlation between these polarized components is expected because the Galactic magnetic field (GMF) is a key ingredient common to both the physics of synchrotron emission and dust alignment. Indeed theoretical modelling of the GMF is underway by several groups . However, a global model of both synchrotron and dust polarization in a turbulent GMF at high galactic latitudes is currently unavailable (see however the recent work by @2010arXiv1003.4450F), and this is why we adopt the semi-empirical approach to our GMF simulations just described. Such a modeling can potentially exaggerate the overall correlation level between these two components by extending it to smaller angular scales. This can in turn have important consequences for the performance of the component separation process, as discussed in Section \[subsect:groundBasedCases\].
In the range of frequencies relevant here, the synchrotron contribution is subdominant compared to the dust but increases monotonically with decreasing frequency. These two components become comparable at around 70 GHz, where the total foreground minimum is also found.
Sky signals - Extensions
------------------------
The problem of insufficient frequency coverage is exacerbated by effects that can generally be described as foreground complexity, which will increase the biases in the recovered components. We now introduce a few extensions to the basic model just described that we will investigate later in our analysis.
### Extra small-scale power {#sec:extra_power}
We investigate how increasing the foreground power on small angular scales impacts on foreground cleaning by varying the parameter $\alpha$. While in the basic model, the small-scale power in polarization is rapidly decaying with $\alpha=-3$, we also study a more extreme case with $\alpha=-2$.
### Spatially-varying frequency scaling {#sec:varying_spectral_index}
Foreground spectral index spatial variations, if poorly estimated, will compromise the estimation of the CMB signal. In turn this compromises the measurement of the CMB power spectrum, particularly on the angular scales on which the spectral index varies. In the basic model just described the dust scales uniformly as Equation (\[eq:dust\_scal\]). We will also investigate the impact of the FDS temperature variations [@1998ApJ...500..525S], whose effective powerlaw spectral index (minus the mean) at 150 GHz is shown in Figure \[effective\_spectral\_index\], and whose RMS variation is 0.008.
Approaches for dealing with spectral index variations include Taylor expanding the foreground continuum emission and fitting the spectral index variations as a new component [@2005MNRAS.357..145S], which requires extra frequency channels. Alternatively, the frequency channels can be degraded into many low-resolution, high signal-to-noise pixels [@2006ApJ...641..665E], in which case an approach for dealing with the high-$\ell$ modes is still required.
For the multi-pixel approach it is clear that the map could be divided up into many sub-regions in which the spectral index is estimated, thereby introducing extra foreground parameters at a cost of increased noise at low $\ell$. Gaining a quantitative understanding of the impact of spectral index variations on the multi-pixel method is clearly required, since the constancy of the spectral parameters is a central assumption in deriving the spectral index likelihood Equation (\[eqn:slopelikeMpix\]), but is not the main focus of this work.
![The dust spectral index variations at 150 GHz adopted in this paper [@1998ApJ...500..525S].[]{data-label="effective_spectral_index"}](figure/fig4.eps){width="6cm"}
Mock observations and foreground case studies {#sec:mock}
=============================================
We define here two fiducial experimental setups which we will use in the following analysis. They are chosen to reflect some general characteristics of bolometric experiments, but idealized and simplified for demonstration purposes. We emphasize that we do not attempt here to forecast a performance of any specific experiment, but rather, on one hand, to demonstrate the performance of the considered methods in the context of the future B-mode experiments, and on the other, to provide reference numbers quantifying the precision levels potentially achievable by the small-scale experiments.
Balloon-borne experiment
------------------------
We consider a balloon-borne experiment data set with the following characteristics:
- [**Survey area:**]{} Approximately $1\%$ of sky, corresponding to around $126,000$ $3.5'$ pixels, showed in Figure \[fig:masks\].
- [**Frequency coverage:**]{} Three channels at $150$, $250$, and $410$ GHz each with the same Gaussian beam of FWHM$= 8'$.
- [**Noise level:**]{} Homogeneous uncorrelated noise with an RMS of 1.5, 4 and 40 $\mu$K on a $3.5'$ pixel.
Such a [**setup**]{} can be considered as a minimal choice for a balloon-borne observatory. It takes an advantage of not being limited in the frequency range by the atmosphere on one hand, and on the other it restricts the number of dominant foreground components to one. It can be considered as an idealization of the data set anticipated from, for instance, the EBEX experiment [@2004SPIE.5543..320O; @2008SPIE.7020E..68G].
We combine these experimental specifications with the following three case studies:
[**Basic:** ]{}[Based on the basic sky model and the observation characteristics as defined above.]{}
[**Small-scale power:**]{} The basic sky model is augmented with extra small-scale power in the dust.
[**Varying spectral index:**]{} The basic sky model is augmented with a variation of the spectral index.
Ground-based experiment
-----------------------
Our ground-based experiment is characterized as follows:
- [**Survey area:**]{} Approximately $2.5\%$ of the sky corresponding roughly to $320,000$ $3.5'$ pixels, showed in Figure \[fig:masks\].
- [**Frequency coverage:**]{} Three channels at $90$, $150$, and $220$ GHz each with FWHM$= 8'$.
- [**Noise level:**]{} Homogeneous uncorrelated noise with an RMS of 3, 3, and 9 $\mu$K on a $3.5'$ pixel.
The frequency range is chosen to fit in the window allowed by the atmosphere on one hand, and on the other to conform with the optimal working conditions for bolometric detectors. As a result, the assumed, covered range is quite limited. We note that going beyond the lower frequency bound can easily be imagined by combining radiometric and bolometric data. We will however use the ‘minimal’ setup defined above as our standard case, and extend it on an as-needed basis. We finally note that such characteristics are not far from those planned for, for instance, the first deployment of the POLARBeaR experiment [@2008AIPC.1040...66L].
The qualitative difference between the ground-based and balloon-borne configurations is that the ground-based frequency channels are much closer to our foreground minimum at approximately 70 GHz where, by definition, two foregrounds are present. This leads us to consider the ground-based experimental configurations with a more involved set of foreground case studies:
[**Basic:**]{} Based on the basic sky model and the observation characteristics as defined above.
[**Dust spectral index prior from balloon-borne experiment:** ]{} Here we assume the value of the dust spectral index determined by the balloon-borne experiment. We discuss two cases with all three or only two ($150$ and $220$ GHz) channels included.
[**Synchrotron template:** ]{} In this case each channel has been corrected for the presence of the synchrotron signal via subtraction of a external synchrotron template. We will assume that the subtraction is performed down to some predefined precision level.
[**Extra low frequency channel:** ]{} Here we add an extra channel centered at $40$ GHz to the basic data set with the noise as in the $90$GHz map case.
We point out that only one case above (the basic case) is both realistic and self-contained. In all the other cases, the presence of some extra external knowledge is postulated.
In addition to the cases listed above we have also performed the same analysis assuming a lower noise level of $1 \mu$K per $3.5'$ pixel in all three channels, as well as devised specific test runs designed to highlight some particular aspects of the performance of the component separation method. These include:
[**No synchrotron:**]{} In this case the problematic synchrotron emission is removed from the sky model in order to understand the way in which it biases the dust estimation and subtraction.
[**Shuffled synchrotron template:**]{} In this case the spatial morphology of the synchrotron template is randomized. The idea here is to understand the effect of accidental correlations between the foreground components in this regime of a restricted number and coverage of the available frequency channels.
We show in Figure \[fig:input\_bmodes\] the B-mode power spectra of the input components at 150 GHz. Depending on angular scale, the dust amplitude must be suppressed by between a factor of 5 and 25 to have successful measurement of the cosmological B-mode signal.
We note again that the noise levels of the derived CMB maps in the basic balloon-borne and ground-based cases assuming a perfect knowledge of the foreground frequency scaling properties are 1.6 and 3.2 $\mu$K per $3.5'$ pixel, respectively (while in the low noise ground-case we get 0.9 $\mu$K). These can be obtained from Equation (\[eqn:noiseCorrOptim\]) and are used for the noise level shown in Figure \[fig:input\_bmodes\].
Foreground spectral modelling {#spec_model}
-----------------------------
Implicit in our approach is the assumption that the three channel configurations of the ground-based and balloon-borne just described will provide information on three, but no more than three, parameters: the CMB amplitude and the dust amplitude at each pixel, and the dust spectral index, as constrained by the ensemble of data and by two Stokes parameters. In deriving results in the following section, we begin by assuming exactly the same smooth model, Equation (\[eq:dust\_scal\]), for fitting the dust as was used in the simulations. To some degree this choice is made for expediency, in order to define a comparison benchmarks for our case studies, and in order to disentangle the effect of different factors on the quality of the CMB estimation. We do however attempt to gauge the strength of this assumption by studying two further case studies that are relevant in this context. These are map-level calibration uncertainties and ‘spectral mismatch’. Intuitively, calibration uncertainties will downgrade our ability to infer useful information about the dust model and spectral index. Spectral mismatch refers to multiplicative factors applied to the dust model at each channel, breaking the smoothness of the dust emission spectra. This situation could physically occur when the dust scaling can not be sufficiently well characterized by the three channel experiment. For instance one can conceive of a case in which two dust components with warmer and colder temperatures also have different polarization fractions, leading to a sudden change in the dust scaling (and/or position angle) coincident with the frequency coverage of the experiment. However, this particular case is thought to be not particularly likely for nearby Galactic cirrus, as reviewed by @2009AIPC.1141..222D. Spectral mismatch could also result from poorly characterized experimental bandpasses [@2003ApJ...582L..63C].
![B-mode spectra of the input components at the 150 GHz channel, for the balloon-borne (upper) and ground-based (lower panel) experiments. []{data-label="fig:input_bmodes"}](figure/cl_balloon_input.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"} ![B-mode spectra of the input components at the 150 GHz channel, for the balloon-borne (upper) and ground-based (lower panel) experiments. []{data-label="fig:input_bmodes"}](figure/cl_ground_input.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
Results {#sec:Results}
=======
Performance evaluation metric
-----------------------------
To assess the performance of our component separation method we will look both at the estimated foreground spectral indices and at the quality of the recovered CMB maps. The latter are clearly not expected to be perfect with potential contamination arising either due to the noise present already in the input, single channel maps, or a failure of the algorithm to perform the separation perfectly. This may result either in some level of non-CMB signal still present in the map, or in the CMB signal being compromised. These two effects are usually referred to as residuals. With the noise uncertainty being quite straightforward to characterize using Equation (\[eqn:noiseCorrOptim\]), it is our aim to evaluate the level of the residuals expected in the foreground case studies and then to compare it with statistical uncertainties. The latter includes just pixel noise in the case of the maps, and both the noise and CMB signal variance on the level of the power spectra analysis.
For each of the case studies described in the previous section we first estimate the best-fit spectral parameters by maximizing the spectral likelihood, Equation (\[eqn:slopelikeMpix\]), including on occasions some extra prior information. Then, given the estimated values of the spectral parameters we compute the map of residuals as, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{residuals}
\bd{\Delta} = \bd{\hat s}-\bd{s_0}- \l(\bd{\hat{A}}^t\,\bd{N}^{-1}\,\bd{\hat{A}}\r)^{-1}\,\bd{\hat{A}}^t\,\bd{N}^{-1}\,\bd{n},
\label{eqn:resDef}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bd{s_0}$ are the input simulated components and the last term on the right hand side subtracts away the noise in the recovered components $\bd{\hat s}$, given the best-fit values for the spectral parameter and the known input noise realization $n$. Directly subtracting the input noise improves upon the metric used by in which residual noise was suppressed by smoothing. The CMB element of Equation (\[residuals\]), $\bd{\Delta}^{\rm
CMB}$, quantifies the residual foreground signal contained in the estimated CMB map, as well as part of the genuine CMB signal correctly interpreted by the algorithm as the CMB contribution. Finally, we compare the latter with the anticipated level of the genuine CMB B-mode signal as well as level of its statistical uncertainty due to only CMB and noise sampling and cosmic variance. For the last step we use as a metric the B-mode power spectra calculated with help of the pure estimator. As described in Section \[sec:StatVariance\], the spectrum variance is estimated via $500$ Monte-Carlo simulations, for which we use the best-fit WMAP 5-year cosmology with $r=0.05$ as the fiducial model. A satisfactory level of foreground cleaning is achieved when the foreground residual power spectrum is smaller than the statistical uncertainties, ensuring that the systematic errors due to foreground contamination are subdominant to the global error budget.
In Section \[sect:anaRes\] we perform an analysis of these residuals, and in Section \[sec:tensor2scalar\] we express the results in terms of an [*effective*]{} detectable value of the tensor-to-scalar ratio, $r$.
Balloon-borne cases
-------------------
In Table \[beta\_balloon\] we report the recovered values of the dust spectral index $\beta$ for the three tests we have made: in all the cases this parameter was successfully estimated.
[cccc]{}\
Case & $\beta$ & $\Delta \beta$ & RMS ($\mu$K)\
Basic & 1.655 & 0.009 & 0.020\
Small-scale power & 1.655 & 0.009& 0.021\
Varying spectral index & 1.657 & 0.011& 0.024\
In Figure \[Cases\_balloon\] we show the residuals, $\bd{\Delta}$, for the basic case. To appreciate the level reached by the cleaning, they can be compared with the input foreground contamination at 150 GHz, shown in Figure \[sky\_template\]. The resulting residuals for all the balloon-borne cases differ only in a minor way and they are always dominated by the unmodelled synchrotron because the accurate estimates of the dust spectral index, as derived earlier, allow the dust to be subtracted with a superior precision.
Ground-based cases {#subsect:groundBasedCases}
------------------
To perform the foreground cleaning, we again assume the presence of a single dust foreground because the limited number of channels prevents us from performing spectral modelling of the synchrotron present in the data.
The basic result, reported in Table \[beta\_ground\], is that the estimated dust spectral index $\beta= 1.875 \pm 0.028$ is significantly biased away from the input value of 1.65, giving rise to residuals significantly higher than found in the balloon-borne cases, as shown in Figure \[Cases\_ground\] and quantified by an RMS larger by a factor $\sim 8$. This bias of the dust spectral index can be explained qualitatively by the fact that in this case not only does the synchrotron component, which remains unmodelled and unsubtracted, have a higher amplitude than before due to a presence of the 90 GHz channel, but also because it has a significant spatial correlation with the dust component, as shown in Figure \[sky\_template\] and discussed in Section \[sec:simulated\_sky\]. We have verified this explanation by making tests first with no synchrotron present and later including only the ‘shuffled synchrotron’. The latter case erases the synchrotron-dust correlation, artificially converting the synchrotron to a white noise-like component with less fluctuations on large angular scales. In both these artificial test cases, satisfactory spectral index estimates and foreground cleaning were obtained (see second and third panel of Figure \[Cases\_ps\_ground\]). Moreover we found that the pixel by pixel correlation between the dust and synchrotron, computed with the Pearson coefficient $C={\rm cov}\l(X,Y\r)/\sigma_x\sigma_y$, has to drop below $\sim 15\%$ to allow for satisfactory foreground cleaning.
[cccc]{}\
Case & $\beta$ & $\Delta \beta$ & RMS ($\mu$K)\
Basic & 1.875 & 0.028& 0.170\
No synchrotron & 1.642 & 0.030 & 0.004\
Shuffled synchrotron & 1.667 & 0.028 & 0.074\
$90$+$150$+$220\;$+ balloon expt. & $1.655^*$ & $ - $ & 0.077\
$150$+$220\;$+ balloon expt. & $ 1.655^* $ & $-$ & 0.034\
External template & 1.682 & 0.026 & 0.028\
\[beta\_ground\]
{width="6.5cm"} {width="6.5cm"}
{width="5.8cm"} {width="5.8cm"} {width="5.8cm"}
{width="6.5cm"} {width="6.5cm"}
{width="5.8cm"} {width="5.8cm"} {width="5.8cm"}
Ground-based cases with external information
--------------------------------------------
The ground-based setup discussed here is therefore not self-sufficient and thus unable to provide a appropriately cleaned CMB map. In this Section we therefore investigate the effect of using ‘external information’, specifically priors on the foreground spectral indices or an external synchrotron template, on the analysis of this data set.
The first test we made, mimicking a possible real life situation, was to impose strictly a dust spectral index prior with the value found in the balloon-borne basic case ($\beta=1.655$). At this point, there are no free spectral parameters to estimate, and the corresponding least squares components can be directly estimated. The residuals for this case are shown in the ‘delta prior’ panels of Figure \[Cases\_ground\_ps\_cure\], which demonstrates that the dust spectral index prior does help reduce to some extent the residuals and the final spectral contamination of the B-mode spectrum. Thanks to the high precision of the estimation of the dust spectral index in the balloon-borne experiment, we find that those residuals are again due to the unmodelled synchrotron (on which we will elaborate in Section \[sect:anaRes\]).
Knowing that the 90 GHz channel is contaminated by synchrotron, we also have investigated the impact of simply dropping this channel, fixing again the dust spectral index to the value determined by the balloon-borne experiment. Though clearly rather drastic, this choice could in principle provide a better foreground cleaning than the three channel setup. Unfortunately for the specific case analyzed in this work, we found that the remaining two channels are too noisy to produce a CMB cleaned map suitable for any B-mode work. We also however have found that two-channel setup could be a viable option if the noise in these two channels is suppressed down to a $\sim 1\mu$K level – a rather challenging goal. Nevertheless this result suggests that some specific attention may need be paid to finding the best trade-off between frequency bands choice and observation time for this kind of experiment.
{width="5.8cm"} {width="5.8cm"}
We also attacked the problem from the other side of the foreground minimum, using information coming from lower frequencies. First, we made use of an external template for the synchrotron, whose amplitude is assumed to be known with a $10\%$ uncertainty, subtracting it directly from the data channels. The satisfactorily foreground cleaned result for this case, in which no prior on the dust spectral index was assumed, is shown in the second panel of Figure \[Cases\_ground\_ps\_cure\]. We note that though in this test we have assumed a high resolution template as only the low-$\ell$ modes need to be corrected, a low resolution synchrotron templates, as for example anticipated from the CBASS experiment[^4] should be sufficient. Also, in cases where the overall calibration of the available template is considered less reliable than its morphology the template marginalization could be a more robust technique to be used in this context [@2004ApJ...615...55J].
Yet another option we have considered is to extend the covered frequency range by adding an extra frequency channel operating at $40$ GHz. This could be achieved for example by co-analyzing the data of two bolometric and radiometric experiments observing an overlapping sky area. In our analysis the extra $40$ GHz was assumed to have a similar noise level as the one at $90$ GHz. We have indeed found that such a combined analysis fares well in terms of residuals amplitude, which are comparable to those shown in the second panel of Figure \[Cases\_ground\_ps\_cure\], in spite of the fact the found best-fit value of the spectral index, $\beta\simeq 1.75$, is still found to be significantly away of the true input value. This fact is illustrated in Figure \[wa\_beta\] and discussed in Section \[sect:anaRes\]. We note also that the gain from the extra channel in the total noise budget of the final CMB map, Equation (\[eqn:noiseCorrOptim\]), turns out to be negligible.
To recap the results of this section so far, the balloon-borne experiment represents an example of a self-contained case where, owing to the fact that its channels are slightly displaced from the foreground minimum, a single simplistic foreground can be adequately characterized and subtracted. It also helps the ground-based experiment to alleviate the effect of biases caused by spatial correlation between the foregrounds. However it is easy to envisage the need of the ground-based experiment for further external information on the synchrotron in the form of a template or a lower frequency channel.
Miscalibration and spectral mismatch {#sec:spec_mismatch}
------------------------------------
Channel miscalibration ${\displaystyle \frac{\Delta_{\rm calibration}}{\Delta_{\rm basic}}}$
------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
$0\%, 2\%, 2\%$ $\sim 2$
$0\%, 5\%, 5\%$ $\sim 3$
$0\%, 10\%, 10\%$ $\sim 4 $
: This table summarises how miscalibration errors of the two higher frequency channels relative to the lowest frequency channel increases the foreground residuals $\Delta$ with respect to the basic case.[]{data-label="tab:miscalib"}
Here we extend the study conducted so far by incorporating two specific systematic effects which are miscalibration of the data channels and spectral mismatch between the assumed and the real model of foregrounds. These two effects differ not only as to their origin, one being due the instrument properties and the other reflecting our ignorance of the physical phenomena relevant to the following case studies. They also appear differently within the discussed component separation formalism, within which a consistent description of only the miscalibration can be incorporated and thus its effects properly accounted for.
### Miscalibration {#miscalibration .unnumbered}
We simulate a relative calibration error, uncorrelated between the channel input maps and applied directly at the map level (so that no leakage between the Stokes parameters occurs). Though this is clearly a simplification, we note that it is not completely unrealistic and may be expected for experiments implementing a fast polarization modulator, such as a continuously rotating half-wave plate used by [@2007ApJ...665...42J] and under development for use with EBEX [@2008SPIE.7020E..68G]. In such experiments the three Stokes parameters can be disentangled from data of any single detector, and the resulting maps co-added a posteriori in a noise-weighted fashion. The impact of calibration errors and uncertainties can be mitigated by modelling the calibration parameters at the same time as estimating the spectral parameters, as mentioned in Section \[sec:miramare\].
We simulate several cases in which we impose different pre-defined miscalibration values, centered on $\omega_i = 1 + \delta\omega_i$, introducing Gaussian priors on the calibration parameters, centered on $\omega_i=1$ with width $\delta\omega_i$. We then quantify the impact of calibration errors by calculating the ratio between the residuals in the basic, perfectly calibrated case, and the miscalibrated cases. We report these ratios in Table \[tab:miscalib\] which shows the effect of miscalibrating the 250 and the 410 GHz channels with respect to the 150 GHz channel, finding for instance that 5% calibration errors in these two channels leads to foreground residuals that are amplified by a factor 3. From Figure \[Cases\_ps\_balloon\], we can see that this enhancement of the foreground spectrum by a factor approximately 10 would impact adversely on the large angular scale B-mode estimation.
### Spectral mismatch {#spectral-mismatch .unnumbered}
[**Spectral**]{} mismatch $\displaystyle{\frac{\Delta_{\rm mismatch}}{\Delta_{\rm basic}}}$
---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------
$0\%, 0\%, 3\%$ $\sim 1.5$
$0\%, 3\%, 0\%$ $\sim 2.5$
$0\%, 0\%, 7\%$ $\sim 4 $
$0\%, 5\%, 0\%$ $\sim 6 $
: This table reports how a mismatch applied to the input dust models, expressed in percentage per channel, increases the foreground residuals with respect to the basic case.[]{data-label="tab:mismatch"}
Here we consider situations where a mismatch between the true and postulated scaling laws for the dust component is present. In the studied cases, we use different dust scaling laws in the simulations, but during the separation process we always assume the same, simple dependence as defined in Equation (\[eq:dust\_scal\]). The specific laws used in the simulations are: the Model 8 from @1999ApJ...524..867F and an arbitrary mismatch, where the dust amplitudes are changed by some factor from their values as expected in the model in Equation (\[eq:dust\_scal\]). Model 8 is a two-temperature model with two specific spectral indices and two temperatures for the dust. Even if its functional form is different from Model 3 of Equation (\[eq:dust\_scal\]), the two models are actually very close in the frequency range from $150$ to $410$ GHz. Fitting the greybody scaling to these Model 8 simulations, we found that the final foreground residual was small and comparable to the other successful cases already shown.
This motivated us to investigate cases with a larger spectral mismatch in which we inserted some discrete multiplicative factors in the dust scaling law used to simulate the frequency channels. We progressively broke the assumption perfect knowledge of the dust spectral behavior, until the model is too far from the simulation, leading to B-mode biases. In Table \[tab:mismatch\] we report how the results deteriorate, in terms of larger residuals $\bd{\Delta}^{\rm CMB}$, for some mismatch choices in different channels. The basic result is that mismatches of upwards of 5% in the dust scaling can lead to an enhancement by a factor 6 and upwards of the foreground residual level. It is perhaps not surprising that effective modelling and subtraction of foregrounds using few channels and few free parameters depends on the underlying smoothness of the foreground frequency scaling.
We note that this test differs from the miscalibration case discussed earlier, as only one of the components amplitude is modified and no prior is used in the separation process.
Analysis of the residuals {#sect:anaRes}
=========================
In the simulation environment we have the power to control details of all the aspects of the separation process. In this Section we take the advantage of this fact and investigate the nature and origin of the residuals $\bd{\Delta}$ shown so far in the paper. We emphasize that the considerations presented below do not depend on how the estimate of the spectral parameters have been obtained, and therefore they apply more generally than just to the specific parametric ML estimator considered here. In fact, the analogous reasoning could be applied, and similar conclusions drawn, in a case of any two step approach in which first the spectral indices estimates are derived and then the sky components estimated via Equation (\[eqn:step2amps\]). This includes FastICA [see @2010MNRAS.402..207B and reference therein], neural networks , and Correlated Component Analysis [@2007MNRAS.382.1791B].
As introduced in Equation (\[eqn:step2amps\]), the operator we apply to the data set $\bd{d}$ to recover the component estimates $\bd{s}$ is, $$\begin{aligned}
\bd{W\l(\bd{\beta}\r)} = \l(\bd{A}^t\l(\bd{\beta}\r)\,\bd{N}^{-1}\,\bd{A}\l(\bd{\beta}\r)\r)^{-1}\,\bd{A}^t\l(\bd{\beta}\r)\,\bd{N}^{-1}\,,
\label{eqn:sep_oper}
\end{aligned}$$ where we explicitly highlight the dependence on the recovered dust spectral index $\bd{\beta}$. Neglecting the presence of the noise, the data can be written as $\bd{d}=\bd{A}{\l(\bd{\beta_0}\r)}\bd{s_0}$ (hereafter the subscript $0$ refers to true, i.e., input rather than estimated quantities), and therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\bd{s} = \bd{W}\,\bd{d}\, = \bd{W}\,\bd{A}\l(\bd{\beta_0}\r)\,\bd{s_0} \equiv \bd{Z}\l(\bd{\beta}\r)\,\bd{s_0},
\label{eqn:zMatDef}
\end{aligned}$$ and thus the residuals can be written down as, $$\begin{aligned}
\bd{\Delta} = \bd{s}\, - \bd{\hat{s}_0} = \l(\bd{Z}\l(\bd{\beta\r)}-\bd{I}\r)\,\bd{s_0},
\label{eqn:resViazMat}
\end{aligned}$$ where the last definition of $\bd{\Delta}$ coincides with Equation (\[eqn:resDef\]) if no noise is considered. Here $\bd{\hat{s}_0}$ refers to the true, input component, which is modelled in the separation process and is thus a subvector of $\bd{s_0}$. The matrix $\bd{I}$ is made of a square unit matrix, corresponding to all modelled components, supplemented by extra columns of zeros – one for each unmodelled component.
The size of the matrix, $\bd{Z}$, depend on the number of actual and derived sky components and not on the number of the observed frequency channels. In most of the examples shown in this paper, $\bd{Z}$ is a $2\times3$ matrix, since we attempt to recover only two (out of three) components. We note that once we have estimated $\bd{\beta}$, the operator $\bd{Z}\l(\bd{\beta}\r)$, that transforms the input components into the output ones, can be readily computed since, in the simulations, we know the input scalings. In this case, Equation (\[eqn:resViazMat\]) provides insight into the origin of the residuals and their relative amplitudes.
We first observe that, $$\begin{aligned}
\bd{Z}\l({\bd \beta} ={\bd \beta_0}\r) = \bd{1},
\label{eqn:zOfbeta0}\end{aligned}$$ if the number of assumed and actual components is the same. If there are more components used for the simulations then subsequently recovered, this will no longer be the case. However even then the maximal square block of the matrix $\bd{Z}\l({\bd \beta} ={\bd
\beta_0}\r)$ will be equal to a unit matrix. This is shown in the upper part of Table \[tab:z\_basic\_balloon\]. Clearly, even perfect knowledge of the true dust spectral index does not assure the lack of the residual. Nevertheless, in such a case each of the recovered components contains only a contribution of this component plus one due to the unmodelled signal. In a specific case of the balloon-borne experiment considered here nearly all of the unmodelled synchrotron is added mostly to the recovered CMB signal, given the similar scaling of both these components in the respective frequency bands.
The matrix $\bd{Z(\beta)}$ computed in a more general and realistic case, when the spectral index is unknown and needs to be estimated from the data, is shown in the middle part of Table \[tab:z\_basic\_balloon\]. We note first that as before, and for the same reason, the unmodelled synchrotron contributes predominantly to the CMB residuals. Nevertheless, the dust is now divided in between the two recovered components, though the dust signal found in the recovered CMB is very subdominant. Also in the previous case, the recovered CMB component contains the entire CMB signal, which is completely absent in the recovered dust template. This is reminiscent of Equation (\[eqn:zOfbeta0\]), which in the present case holds only for the CMB component reflecting the fact that the perfect black-body derivative scaling is assumed on both the simulation and recovery stages. In this case again, the CMB residuals, $\bd{\Delta}^{\rm CMB}$, do not contain any CMB. This is no longer true if the calibration errors are allowed for as shown in the bottom of Table \[tab:z\_basic\_balloon\]. In this case the recovered CMB component contains only part of the total CMB signal as determined by $W$-matrix weighted average of the relative calibration errors for each of the channels. The remainder of the CMB is then found in the recovered dust. We note however that though for the calibration errors considered here these effects are small, the recovered CMB residual is now indeed typically a mixture of the CMB, dust and synchrotron signals. We point out that, maybe somewhat counterintuitively, the elements of $\bd{Z}$ in any column do not have to sum up to unity. This reflects the fact that due to our wrong assumptions about the spectral parameters values, the estimated components contain overall ‘more’ of the input components than there really is. This effect is small, if the estimated $\bd{\beta}$ values are close to the true ones, as to first order in $\bd{\beta}$, the columns of $\bd{Z}$ do sum up to (nearly) unity.
Finally, in all the cases we find that although the code leaves in most of the unmodelled synchrotron, it cleans the dust to better than $\sim
0.5\%$. The latter depends on the specific value of $\bd{\beta}$ assumed for the recovery as shown in Figure \[wa\_beta\], which shows the relative contamination of the recovered CMB due to the dust as a function of the recovered spectral index in the case of the balloon-borne and ground-based basic cases. The shaded band indicates the precision which is needed to avoid contamination in the cosmological B-mode recovery.
The results obtained in the ground-based cases are qualitatively similar to the ones described above. However, in the basic case, due to the different assumed frequency coverage, even for the true value of $\bd{\beta}$ we find non-zero contributions of the synchrotron in both recovered components. Moreover, the contribution to the CMB is more than three times that of the actual synchrotron signal at $150$ GHz. Assuming in turn the best-fit value $\bd{\beta}$, we find that the synchrotron levels in both recovered components remain essentially unchanged, however the [*absolute*]{} dust contribution to the CMB template increases to become of the same order as that of synchrotron.
![Dust suppression factor in the 150 GHz channel of the basic case of the the balloon-borne (solid line) and ground based (dashed line) experiments, as a function of the recovered dust spectral index $\beta_{\rm d}$. The horizontal shaded band is indicative of the requirement on the dust suppression factor in order to do B-mode science.[]{data-label="wa_beta"}](figure/fig10_rot.eps){width="7cm"}
[cccc]{}\
Input:& CMB & Dust & Synchrotron\
Output:& & &\
CMB & $1.000$ & $0.000$ & $ 1.003$\
Dust & $0.000$ & $1.000$ & $-0.037$\
\
Input:& CMB & Dust & Synchrotron\
Output:& & &\
CMB & $1.000$ & $0.005$ & $1.003$\
Dust & $0.000$ & $0.994$ & $-0.036$\
\
Input:& CMB & Dust & Synchrotron\
Output:& & &\
CMB & $0.988$ & $0.005$ & $0.992$\
Dust & $-0.0004$ & $0.982$ & $-0.037$\
[cccc]{}\
Input:& CMB & Dust & Synchrotron\
Output:& & &\
CMB & $1.000$ & $0.000$ & $ 3.116$\
Dust & $0.000$ & $1.000$ & $-1.45$\
\
Input:& CMB & Dust & Synchrotron\
Output:& & &\
CMB & $1.000$ & $0.067$ & $2.993$\
Dust & $0.000$ & $0.919$ & $-1.450$\
\
Input:& CMB & Dust & Synchrotron\
Output:& & &\
CMB & $1.000$ & $0.004$ & $3.108$\
Dust & $0.000$ & $0.995$ & $-1.441$\
Cosmological B-mode detection {#sec:tensor2scalar}
=============================
The central question of this work is to understand how much the recovery of the cosmological B-modes is affected by the presence of the foregrounds or foreground residuals left over by some foreground cleaning technique. This question is often phrased as a question about the detectable values of the tensor-to-scalar ratio, $r$, of the corresponding primordial power spectra, and the calculated limiting values of $r$ are dependent on the implicit and explicit assumptions made in the course of its derivation.
In the context of this paper this question is, however, well defined as we study specific foreground separation and power spectrum estimation algorithms. Our goal here is to derive values of $r$, which can not only be detected by the considered experiments but also convincingly argued for from a perspective of an observer as indeed being driven by the primordial signal of the cosmological origin. The limits we aim for here are not to be considered as some ‘ultimate’ lower limits on $r$, as often quoted in the literature, but rather representative of the potential of the specific experiments and data analysis techniques considered here. Reaching values of $r$ lower than our estimates by the actual experiments once they are deployed and operating, may not only be plausible but indeed is expected owing to the build up, over time, of our knowledge of foreground properties and data analysis tools.
We start by developing a model to describe statistically the foreground residuals found in the recovered CMB map, thus extending the pixel-domain discussion of the last section into the power spectrum domain. We assume that our estimates of $\bd{\beta}$ are unbiased and that the obtained statistical uncertainty of the $\bd{\beta}$ recovery is small, as is indeed the case in the cases considered. Now, if all the actual components are included in our data model, as defined by $\bd{W}\l(\bd{\beta}\r)$, it is accurate to write, $$\begin{aligned}
\bd{Z}\l(\bd{\beta}\r) - \bd{1} & \simeq &\delta\bd{\beta} \, \frac{\partial\,Z\l(\bd{\beta_0}\r)}{\partial \bd {\beta}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta\bd{\beta}(\equiv\bd{\beta}-\bd{\beta_0})$ is assumed to be a Gaussian variable with a zero mean and the dispersion as derived earlier, and we used the fact that $\bd{Z}\l(\bd{\beta_0}\r)=1$, as in Equation (\[eqn:zOfbeta0\]). Using Equation (\[eqn:resViazMat\]) we can then express the residuals of all the modelled components as, $$\begin{aligned}
\bd{\Delta^{\rm mod}} & = & \l[\bd{Z}\l(\bd{\beta}\r) - \bd{1}\r]\,\bd{s_0} \simeq \delta\bd{\beta}\,\frac{\partial\,\bd{Z}\l(\bd{\beta_0}\r)}{\partial \bd {\beta}}\,\bd{s_0}\\
&= & \delta\bd{\beta}\,\l[\frac{\partial\,\bd{W}\l(\bd{\beta_0}\r)}{\partial \bd {\beta}}\r]\,\bd{A}\l(\bd{\beta_0}\r)\,\bd{s_0},
\label{eqn:delta_est}\end{aligned}$$ and use a first row of this matrix equation to compute the foreground residuals as found in the recovered CMB map. We first introduce a tensor, $\bd{\alpha}^{ij}_k$, defined as, $$\begin{aligned}
\bd{\alpha}^{ij}_k \equiv \frac{\partial\,\bd{Z}_{ij}\l(\bd{\beta_0}\r)}{\partial \bd {\beta}_k}\end{aligned}$$ and we can then express a combined residual in the CMB map ($i=0$) due to all the modelled, non-CMB component as, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^{\rm CMB} = \sum_{k,j}\,\delta\bd{\beta}_k\,\bd{\alpha}^{0j}_k \, \bd{s_0}^j.\end{aligned}$$ This shows that the residuals behave like templates with amplitudes randomized due to the impact of the CMB and noise variance on the determination of the spectral parameters. Hereafter we will assume that the latter are Gaussian variables centered at the true value, $\bd{\beta_0}$, and with dispersions as estimated from the data, $\bd{\Sigma}^2(\equiv\l\langle\delta
\bd{\beta}\,\delta\bd{\beta}^t\r\rangle)$. Consequently, for pure spectra averaged over the statistical ensemble (of the noise and CMB) we can then write, $$\begin{aligned}
\bd{C}^{\Delta}_\ell = \sum_{k,k'}\sum_{j,j'}\,\bd{\Sigma}_{kk'}^2\,\bd{\alpha}^{0j}_k\,\bd{\alpha}^{0j'}_{k'} \, \bd{C}^{jj'}_{\bd{0},\,\ell},
\label{eqn:resSpec0}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bd{C}^{jj'}_{\bd{0},\,\ell}$ are the (pure) auto- and cross- spectra for every pair of the actual $j$ and $j'$ non-CMB components.
In a case of foreground components which can not be, and/or are not modelled in the separation process, we can no longer use the procedure outlined above to estimate their residuals. From the previous section we note that such residuals depend only weakly on the assumed spectral parameters and thus will not be stochastic over the CMB plus noise realizations and should be rather treated as a bias. Moreover, in the specific cases considered in this paper we note that the element of the matrix, $\bd{Z}$, which determines the weight with which the component is added to the cleaned CMB map is on order of at most a few, what together with the fact that the overall expected level of the synchrotron is very low, leads to the conclusion that indeed it can be neglected for the estimations of $r$ as derived here. This last statement can be phrased somewhat more formally by using the approach of @2007PhRvD..75h3508A, which allows to quantify values of $r$, denoted as $r_{res}$, which will not be affected by a bias due to some present residual. Indeed, we define the two quantities: $$\begin{aligned}
s(r) &=& \sum C_l^{cmb}(r),
\\
u &=& \sum C_l^{res}.
\label{eq:amblard}\end{aligned}$$ In the successful cases considered in the paper we find that typically $u \sim s(r_{res})$ for $r^{\l(b\r)}_{res}=0.005$ and $r^{\l(g\r)}_{res}=0.015$ for the balloon-borne and ground-based experiments respectively. They represent the smallest values of $r$ for which the unmodelled residuals due to synchrotron can be neglected.
We will now assume that the bias due to the unmodelled components is negligible and proceed to the estimation of the parameter $r$ accounting for the extra variance due to the modelled component residuals. For this we use a Fisher like approach, which in our case reads, $$\begin{aligned}
F(r) = \frac{\partial \bd{C^{\rm CMB}}_b}{\partial r} \,\,\bd{\Sigma}_{bb'}^{-1}\l(r\r)\,\,\frac{\partial \bd{C^{\rm CMB}}_{b'}}{\partial r}
\label{eqn:fisher}\end{aligned}$$ where $b$ denotes the $\ell$-bin number used for the power spectrum estimation, and, $$\begin{aligned}
\bd{\Sigma}_{bb'}\l(r\r) & \equiv & {\rm Var}\l({\bd C}^{{\rm CMB+noise}}_{bb'}\r) + \bd{C}^{\rm CMB+noise}_b\,\bd{C^{\Delta}}_{b'} \nonumber \\
& + & \bd{C}^{\rm CMB+noise}_{b'}\,\bd{C^{\Delta}}_{b} + \bd{C^{\Delta}}_{b} \bd{C^{\Delta}}_{b'}.
\label{eqn:sigma_fisher}\end{aligned}$$ Here the first term is the covariance of estimated pure CMB B-mode spectra, which we assume to be diagonal in the bin-space and which is estimated via MC simulations for a grid of values of $r$. $\bd{C^{\rm CMB+noise}}$ are the estimated pure CMB+noise spectra also computed on a grid of $r$ values. The partial derivatives are computed using the binned theoretical spectra, obtained in this case from the [camb]{} code. This is justified given that the pure estimator is assumed to be unbiased. The last term in Equation (\[eqn:sigma\_fisher\]) describes the variance due to the residual foreground treated here as a template fully correlated between different bins. The third and fourth terms reflect the cross-terms between the foreground residuals and CMB+noise. These again are non-diagonal in the bin domain. We note that the off-diagonal template-like correction appearing in Equation (\[eqn:sigma\_fisher\]) corresponds roughly to the tensor-product term found in Equation (A4) of @2009MNRAS.392..216S, which indeed describes the correction to the noise correlation matrix, Equation (\[eqn:noiseCorrOptim\]), due to the foreground residuals.
We then search for the values of $r_d$ such that $r \geq r_d \simeq
2\, F^{-1/2}\l(r\r)$, which can hence be detected at a confidence level not smaller than $95$%. For the experimental setups described in this work, we find that $r_d \sim 0.04$ both for the balloon-borne and the ground-based cases. This value of $r$ is sufficiently high that the bias expected due to the unmodelled synchrotron is indeed much smaller than the detected values. We also find that the derived value of $r$ is limited by the CMB+noise variance, with the foregrounds effects being subdominant. This observation is perhaps not surprising given the low level of the residuals as discussed in the previous Sections. However, only an analysis as the one presented in this Section, can properly account for the bin-bin correlations of the foreground residual templates.
We note that up to this point we have assumed that we are privy to some insights as to the true nature and morphology of the foreground signals and their scaling well beyond what is usually available to an actual CMB observer and data analyst. In a real life situation we will lack some of that information. Specifically we will be likely ignorant of the true value of the $\bd{\beta}$ parameters, i.e., $\bd{\beta_0}$, and cross-spectra of all the actual sky components, $\bd{C}_{\bd{0},\,\ell}^{j,j'}$. That may not look like a big issue given our conclusion above stating that the dominant uncertainty will be due to the CMB and noise variance. However, this conclusion may need to be corroborated case-by-case using data, analyzed together with some necessary external information. Whenever it turns out not to hold then a consistent procedure to account for the extra effects may be needed.
In the case at hand this can be done by replacing the needed information with their best estimates derived in the analysis process. We will thus use the best-fit value in place of $\bd{\beta_0}$ and the pure spectra of the components estimated as a result of the separation process, and corrected for the noise bias using Equation (\[eqn:noiseCorrOptim\]) in the case of the auto-spectra, $j=j'$. In Figure \[resid\_comp\] we show how this procedure fares in the case of the dust component in one of the ground-based case example considered in this paper. To evaluate the bias due to the unmodelled synchrotron, we need to use external data. We could correct for such a bias, if the available data are of sufficiently high precision, and include the resulting variance in the final power spectrum error budget. However, more typically, one would rather aim to show that the bias is indeed negligible in the sense defined above in Equation (\[eq:amblard\]). For this task the required external data however need not being very precise, not least due the fact that the unmodelled components considered here are assumed to be truly subdominant.
Using the estimated quantities in our $r$-estimation procedure we recover the limits on $r$ essentially identical to those found before. We thus conclude that values of $r\simgt$0.04 are not only [*detectable*]{} at greater than the $95$% confidence level, but can be detected in the realm of an actual experiment and argued for as of a cosmological origin, all of that providing a sufficient control of systematic effects.
![Comparison between actual and estimated residuals for the ground-based, no synchrotron case, calculated using Equation (\[eqn:resSpec0\]).[]{data-label="resid_comp"}](figure/cl_ground_residual_nosync.eps){width="7.5cm"}
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we study the performance of the maximum likelihood parametric component separation method from the point of view of its application to the CMB B-mode polarization analysis. We investigate the residuals left over from the separation in both the pixel and harmonic domains. We propose an efficient framework for evaluating the pixel domain residuals in the simulation, and show how it can be used to gain important insights into the separation process. We then compute the power spectra of the recovered CMB maps, as well as maps of the residuals, using the pure pseudo spectra technique, and estimate their variances using Monte Carlo simulations. Finally, we propose a Fisher-like approach to evaluate the effects of the foreground residuals on the $r$ parameter and use the latter to derive some estimates of typical values of $r$, which are potentially detectable by the considered experiments at the $95$% confidence level. The latter estimates thus include the uncertainties due to sampling variance, noise scatter, E-to-B leakage, and foreground residuals, all of which are consistently propagated through the proposed pipeline.
We focus here on the small-scale, bolometric experiments, broadly dividing them into two classes, referred to as balloon-borne and ground-based setups, both observing in three different frequency bands. We find that the balloon-borne case, with frequency bands at $150$, $250$, and $410$ GHz, provides a robust experimental setup for the detection of the B-mode polarization. The foreground residuals in the recovered CMB maps derived in this case are found to be usually subdominant. This is true whenever the assumed data model is indeed correct, but it also holds when some small systematic effects are permitted. Selected effects of this kind considered in this work include relative calibration errors, unmodelled spatial variation of the spectral parameters, and spectral mismatch between assumed and true spectral scaling laws. We emphasize that all these systematics, though manageable if sufficiently small, may lead to spurious effects in general, and therefore need to be controlled in actual experiments with a sufficient precision, which need to be determined specifically for any experiment.
The success of the considered balloon-borne cases is related to the wide frequency range available to such experiments, which permits selecting frequency bands at the sufficiently high frequencies to avoid the unwanted residual synchrotron. The latter is found to be a dominant source of the bias for the ground-based experiments. In the balloon case we can also afford a long leverage arm between the lowest (CMB-dominated) and the highest (dust-dominated) frequency bands, which plays a pivotal role in setting tight constraints on the spectral parameters of the dust. From our Fisher-like analysis, we show that one could detect $r$ values as low as $0.04$ at the $95\%$ confidence level with such experiments, if both our models and measurements are sufficiently well characterized.
For the ground-based case the atmospheric loading restricting the available frequency window proves to be a significant limitation. We find that even in an absence of any systematic effects with three frequency bands set at $90$, $150$, and $220$ GHz, it is generally not possible to produce sufficiently clean CMB maps. This is due to the unmodelled, and thus not separated, synchrotron contribution, which is significant enough (if the polarized emission is at the level suggested by WMAP) at these frequencies to bias the estimation of the dust spectral parameters. We point out that this contribution has been neglected in some earlier works, which consequently has arrived at a different conclusion. This therefore emphasizes the importance of accurate sky modelling for this kind of the analysis. Nevertheless, we find a satisfactory cleaning can be achieved in such a case if some external information is available. In particular, we discuss the extended ground experiment analysis allowing for the presence of the extra lower frequency channels, rough synchrotron templates, and priors on the dust scalings. We find that in such cases, and under realistic assumptions, the ground-based experiments should reach a sensitivity roughly matching those found in the balloon-borne case, in terms of a detectable $r$ parameter. We also conclude that, for both these types of the experiments, the foreground contamination anticipated in low-contrast dust regions, should not be an obstacle preventing them from exploring the parameter space of $r$ down to the values $\sim 0.04$. Indeed, for the considered experimental setups this limit is determined by the uncertainty due to the CMB itself and the instrumental noise, with the effects of the residual foregrounds found to be sub-dominant. In the realm of the actual observations, whether these limits are reached will be crucially dependent on the control of systematic effects. We note here however that the limits derived on $r$ are strongly dependent on the level of the noise assumed in the input single-channel maps. These can be therefore improved upon, if a deeper integration of the same field is performed. However, if no additional external information is used, those limits will remain appropriately higher than the $r_{res}$ values obtained earlier, and below which foreground bias would become significant.
In this context we point out that the framework described in this paper provides a blueprint for similar studies focused this time on systematic effects. It can be also extended to perform a realistic experiment optimization procedure from the viewpoint of detection of the B-mode signal of cosmological origin.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank A. Lee and S. Hanany for helpful comments on the manuscript. This research used resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, which is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. Some of the results in this paper have been derived using the [HEALPix]{} package [@2005ApJ...622..759G]. We acknowledge the use of the [CAMB]{} [@2000ApJ...538..473L] and CosmoMC [@2002PhRvD..66j3511L] packages. We acknowledge the use of the Legacy Archive for Microwave Background Data Analysis (LAMBDA). Support for LAMBDA is provided by the NASA Office of Space Science. FS and RS acknowledge the partial support of the French National Agency (ANR) through COSINUS program (project MIDAS no. ANR-09-COSI-009). We also thank the ANR-MIDAS’09 project team for helpful discussions. JG acknowledges financial support from the Groupement d’Intérêt Scientifique (GIS) ‘consortium Physique des 2 Infinis (P2I)’. CB and SL have been partially supported by ASI contract I/016/07/0 “COFIS”.
[^1]: people.sissa.it/$\sim$leach/miramare
[^2]: [S$^2$HAT]{}: [www.apc.univ-paris7.fr/$\sim$radek/s2hat.html]{}\
[pureS$^2$HAT]{}: [www.apc.univ-paris7.fr/$\sim$radek/pureS2HAT.html]{}
[^3]: [ftp.rssd.esa.int/pub/synchrotron]{}
[^4]: www.astro.caltech.edu/cbass/C-BASS\_official\_site/Home.html
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Geometric phase (GP) independent of energy and time rely only on the geometry of state space. It has been argued to have potential fault tolerance and plays an important role in quantum information and quantum computation. We present the first experiment for producing and measuring an Abelian geometric phase shift in a three-level system by using NMR interferometry. In contrast to existing experiments, based on the geometry of $S^2$, our experiment concerns the geometric phase with the geometry of $SU(3)/U(2)$. Two interacting qubits have been used to provide such a three-dimensional Hilbert space.'
author:
- 'Hongwei Chen$^{1}$,Mingguang Hu$^{2}$,Jingling Chen$^{2}$,Jiangfeng Du$^{1}$'
title: 'Observation of Geometric Phases for Three-Level Systems using NMR Interferometry'
---
When a quantum mechanical system evolves cyclically in time so that it returns to its initial physical state, its wave function can acquire a geometric phase factor in addition to the familiar dynamic phase [@1992Anandan]. If the cyclic change of the system is adiabatic, this additional factor is known as Berry’s phase [@1984Berry]. Otherwise, it is related to Aharonov-Anandan (AA) phase [@1987Aharonov] that has been pointed out to be a continuous version of earlier Pancharatnam phase [@1956Panch].
Geometric phases (GP) independent of energy and time rely only on the geometry of state space. It is therefore resilient to certain types of errors and suggests the possibility of an intrinsically fault-tolerant way of performing quantum gate operations [@2000Nielson; @2000Jones; @2003Leibfried]. This potential value makes it important to observe and further apply GP in different quantum physical systems. The observations of GP began from earlier spin-polarized neutrons through a solenoid [@1987Bitter], polarized light through a helically twisted optical fibre [@1986Tomita], and a pair of coupled protons in magnetic field using NMR [@1989Suter] to the recent superconducting qubit experiment [@2007Leek]. The principle of them are usually the same. That is, in a two-level state space the geometry of it corresponds to a sphere $S^2$ and the GP equals to one half the solid angle subtended by closed paths on $S^2$.
When one generalizes to a three-level quantum system [@1997Khanna; @1997Arvind], the geometry of $S^2$ gets replaced by a four-dimensional geometric space $SU(3)/U(2)$ or part of sphere $S^7$. Then evolutions of state correspond to actions of $SU(3)$ on $SU(3)/U(2)$ that is different from that of $SU(2)$ on $S^2$ for the two-level case. In order to observe GP, one way to vanish the dynamical phase is closely linked to the geodesic in ray space (see below). For two-level case, the geodesic in ray space happens to coincide with that on $S^2$. In contrast, it is a plane curve instead of geodesic on $S^7$ for three-level case. The GP for any cyclic evolution in three-level ray space are no longer related to solid angles on $S^7$ but referred to Bargmann invariants [@1964Bargmann; @1993Mukunda]. All of these differences indicate the observation of three-level GP technically more difficult [@2001Sander].
In this letter, we report an experimental observation of three-level GP by using NMR interferometry. The three levels referred in the experiment are chosen from a two spin-$1/2$ interacting system. Unitary evolutions for implementing cyclic paths in the three-dimensional ray space are ensured by quantum controlled logic gate operations [@2004Vandersypen]. Aimed at obtaining a measurable GP, we evolve the target state while keeping the reference state unchanged to produce a relative phase between them.
![An illustration of the parameter space for all three-level states. The local coordinates $\theta$, $\phi$, $\chi_1$ and $\chi_2$ are such that $(\theta,\phi)$ define a point in the positive octant of $S^2$ and $(\chi_1,\chi_2)$ for $(\theta,\phi)$ fixed define a point on a torus.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
In the three-dimensional Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}^{3}$, an arbitrary state can be expressed as $$\label{eq-psi}
|\psi\rangle=e^{i\eta}\big(e^{i\chi_1}\cos\theta,e^{i\chi_2}\sin\theta\cos\phi,\sin\theta\sin\phi\big),$$ where the real parameters have the range $\theta,\phi\in[0,\frac{\pi}{2}]$ and $\chi_1,\chi_2\in[0,2\pi)$. It has an one-to-one correspondence, omitting a global phase $\eta$, to the point on an octant of $S^2$ plus a torus (Fig. \[fig1\]). Consider a state evolves from $|\psi(s_1)\rangle$ to $|\psi(s_2)\rangle$ with $s_{1,2}$ being the curve parameters determined by the Eq. (\[eq-psi\]). Corresponding to this evolution, in $\mathcal{H}^3$ there is a continuous piecewise smooth parametrized curve, $C=\big\{\psi(s)\big|s_1\leq s\leq s_2\big\}$, and its image in the ray space $\mathcal{R}$ is likewise continuous and piecewise smooth denoted by $\mathcal{C}=\big\{\rho(s)=|\psi(s)\rangle\langle\psi(s)|\big|s_1\leq
s \leq s_2\big\}$. Then the GP $\beta$ associated with the cure $\mathcal{C}$ equals to the difference between a total phase $\varphi_{\text{tot}}$ and a dynamical phase $\gamma_d$ [@1997Arvind], that is, $$\begin{aligned}
\beta[\mathcal{C}]&=&\varphi_{\text{tot}}[C]-\gamma_d[C],\nonumber\\
\varphi_{\text{tot}}[C]&=&\mathrm{arg}\langle \psi(s_1)|\psi(s_2)\rangle,\label{eq-phase}\\
\gamma_d[C]&=&-\int^{s_2}_{s_1}ds
\langle\psi(s)|i\frac{\partial}{\partial s}|\psi(s)\rangle,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with both $\varphi_{\text{tot}}$ and $\gamma_d$ being functionals of the curve $C$. If the curve $\mathcal{C}$ is closed, the state change can be simply expressed as $|\psi(s_2)\rangle=\exp\{i(\gamma_d[C]+\beta[\mathcal{C}])\}|\psi(s_1)\rangle$.
The geodesics in ray space $\mathcal{R}$ are given through variations of a nondegenerate positive definite length functional [@1993Mukunda]. In two-level systems geodesics are related to the parellel transport condition. For the three-level case, every geodesic in ray space has a vanishing geometric phase and it plays a crucial role in the observation of geometric phases in the following. The simplest description of geodesic can always be achieved as follows [@1997Arvind]. Let $\rho_k$ and $\rho_{k+1}$ denote the end points of a smooth curve $\mathcal{C}$ associated with unit vectors $\psi_k$ and $\psi_{k+1}$ in $\mathcal{H}^{3}$. There is a requirement for the chosen state vectors that $\langle\psi_k|\psi_{k+1}\rangle$ must be real positive. Then the geodesic $\mathcal{C}_{\text{geo}}$ connecting $\rho_k$ to $\rho_{k+1}$ is the ray space image of the curve $C_{\text{geo}}=\{\psi(s_k)|0\leq s_k\leq s_k^0\}$ and $$\label{eq-geo}
\psi(s_k)=\psi_k\cos
s_k+\frac{\psi_{k+1}-\psi_k\langle\psi_{k}|\psi_{k+1}\rangle}{\sqrt{1-\langle\psi_k|\psi_{k+1}\rangle^2}}\sin
s_k,$$ with $0\leq s_k\leq s_k^0$ and $s_k^0=\arccos\langle\psi_{k+1}|\psi_k\rangle$. From the Eq. (\[eq-geo\]), one can see that $\psi(0)=\psi_k$ and $|\psi(s_k^0)\rangle\langle\psi(s_k^0)|=|\psi_{k+1}\rangle\langle\psi_{k+1}|=\rho_{k+1}$. For a set of points $\rho_1,\rho_2,\cdots,\rho_n\subset \mathcal{R}$ in order, suppose that no two consecutive points are mutually orthogonal and that $\rho_n$ and $\rho_1$ are also nonorthogonal. So we can obtain a closed curve $\mathcal{C}$ in $\mathcal{R}$ in the form of a $n$-sided polygon by joining these $n$ points cyclically with geodesic arcs. The geometric phase is then according to the Eq. (\[eq-phase\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\beta[\mathcal{C}]&=&\mathrm{arg}\langle\psi_1|\psi_1'\rangle-\mathrm{arg}\langle\psi_1|\psi_2\rangle-\cdots-\mathrm{arg}\langle\psi_n|\psi_1'\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&-\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{Tr}(\rho_1\rho_2\cdots\rho_n),\label{eq-phg}\end{aligned}$$ in which it has used relations of $|\psi_1'\rangle\langle\psi_1'|=|\psi_1\rangle\langle\psi_1|=\rho_1$ and $\rho_1^2=\rho_1$. The Eq. (\[eq-phg\]) combined with geodesic condition, i.e., $\langle\psi_k|\psi_{k+1}\rangle$ is real positive, shows a vanishing dynamical phase for these cyclic evolutions. It thus provides us a convenient evolution way to observe the geometric phase.
Experiments are performed on the three-dimensional subspace of two interacting spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ nuclei—spin $a$ ($^{13}$H) and spin $b$ ($^{1}$C) in the $^{13}$C-labeled chloroform molecule $\mathrm{CHCl_3}$. The reduced Hamiltonian for this two spin system is, to an excellent approximation, given by $H = \omega_aI^a_z +
\omega_b I^b_z + 2\pi J I^a_zI^b_z $. The first two terms in the Hamiltonian decribe the free precession of spin *a* and spin *b* around the magnetic field $B_0$ with Larmour frequencies $\omega_a/2\pi\approx400$ MHz and $\omega_b/2\pi\approx100$ MHz. The third term of the Hamiltonian describes a scalar spin-spin coupling of the two spins with $J=214.5$ Hz. Experiments were performed at room temperature on a Bruker AV-400 spectrometer. If we denote the spin up and down by $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$, the energy levels of such system are displayed in Fig. \[fig2\]. It has four levels written as $\{|00\rangle,|01\rangle,|10\rangle,|11\rangle\}$ corresponding to energy eigenvalues $\{\frac{1}{2}\hbar(-\omega_1-\omega_2+\pi
J),\frac{1}{2}\hbar(-\omega_1+\omega_2-\pi
J),\frac{1}{2}\hbar(\omega_1-\omega_2-\pi
J),\frac{1}{2}\hbar(\omega_1+\omega_2+\pi J)\}$. We choose basis states $\{|00\rangle$, $|10\rangle$, $|11\rangle\}$ to construct the desired three-level space $\mathcal{H}^3$ and $|01\rangle$ as the reference state which keeps unchanged during evolutions.
![Energy level diagram for (solid lines) two spins coupled by a Hamiltonian of the form of $2\pi\hbar JI_z^1I_z^2$ and (dashed lines) two uncoupled spins.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.eps "fig:"){width="0.7\columnwidth"}\
The system was first prepared in a pseudopure state $|00\rangle$ using the method of spatial averaging [@Cory120] with the pulse sequence $$\label{inintial}
R^b_x (\pi/3 ) \rightarrow G_z \rightarrow R^b_x (\pi/4 )
\rightarrow \frac{1}{2J} \rightarrow R^b_y( \pi/4 ) \rightarrow G_z,$$ which is read from left to right (as the following sequences). The rotations $R^{spins}_{axis}(angle)$ are implemented by radio-frequency pulses. $G_z$ is a pulsed field gradient which destroys all coherences (x and y magnetizations) and retains longitudinal magnetization (z magnetization component) only. $
\frac{1}{2J}$ represents a free precession period of the specified duration under the coupling Hamiltonian (no resonance offsets).
The complete sequence started by preparing the initial superposition state $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00\rangle+|01\rangle)$ with a Hadamard operation on the second qubit of the pseudopure state $|00\rangle$. Then the reference term $|01\rangle$ was kept unchanged through bipartite control operations as shown in Fig. \[fig3\]. The $|00\rangle$ term (denoted by $|\psi_1\rangle$) was first evolved to $|\psi_2\rangle=\cos s_1^0|00\rangle+\sin s_1^0|10\rangle$ with unitary operation $U_1^\text{g}(s_1)$, then to state $|\psi_3\rangle=(\cos s_1^0\cos s_2^0-e^{i\theta}\sin s_1^0\sin
s_2^0\cos\varphi)|00\rangle+(\sin s_1^0\cos s_2^0+e^{i\theta}\cos
s_1^0\sin s_2^0\cos\varphi)|10\rangle+\sin\varphi \sin
s_2^0|11\rangle$ with $U_2^\text{g}(s_2)$, and last to state $|\psi_1'\rangle=e^{i\beta}|\psi_1\rangle$ with $U_3^\text{g}(s_3)$. Corresponding to three smooth geodesics, the unitary operations can be factored into more clear form $$\begin{aligned}
U_1^{\text{g}}(s_1)&=&R(s_1),\nonumber\\
U_2^{\text{g}}(s_2)&=&R(s_1^0)R_{23}(\theta,\varphi,0)\
R(s_2)\ R_{23}^{-1}(\theta,\varphi,0)R^{-1}(s_1^0),\nonumber\\
U_3^{\text{g}}(s_3)&=&R_{23}(\chi,\tau,-\xi)\ R(-s_3)\
R_{23}^{-1}(\chi,\tau,-\xi),\label{eq-u}\end{aligned}$$ where $$R(s_k)=\begin{pmatrix} \cos s_k&0&-\sin s_k&0\\
0&1&0&0\\
\sin s_k&0&\cos s_k&0\\
0&0&0&1
\end{pmatrix},$$ and the $SU(2)_{23}$ subgroup element $$R_{23}(\theta,\phi,\varphi)=\begin{pmatrix} 1&0&0&0\\
0&1&0&0\\
0&0&e^{i\phi}\cos \theta&e^{-i\varphi}\sin\theta\\
0&0&-e^{i\varphi}\sin\theta&e^{-i\phi}\cos\theta
\end{pmatrix}.
$$ Parameters $\xi,\chi,\tau,s_3^0$ in Eq. (\[eq-u\]) are determined by the reparametrization $|\psi_3\rangle=e^{i\xi}\cos
s_3^0|00\rangle+e^{i(\xi+\chi)}\sin s_3^0\cos\tau|10\rangle+\sin
s_3^0\sin\tau|11\rangle$ and curve parameters $s_k$ ($k=1,2,3$) have ranges $0\leq s_k\leq s_k^0$ . Obviously the chosen unit vectors $\psi_k$ and $\psi_{k+1}$ satisfy the condition of $\langle\psi_k|\psi_{k+1}\rangle$ being real positive. This combined with the Eq. (\[eq-phg\]) shows a vanishing dynamical phase during these cyclic evolutions and we obtain the GP $$\label{eq-beta}
\beta[\mathcal{C}]=\mathrm{arg}(\cos s_1^0\cos s_2^0-e^{i\theta}\sin
s_1^0\sin s_2^0\cos\varphi).$$ So after one cyclic evolution described above, it effectively produces a GP and can be measured as a relative phase shift between $|0\rangle_b$ and $|1\rangle_b$ for the qubit $b$, i.e., $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00\rangle+|01\rangle)\rightarrow\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
(e^{i\beta}|00\rangle+|01\rangle)\rightarrow|0\rangle_a\otimes\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e^{i\beta}|0\rangle+|1\rangle)_b$. At last the local phase $\beta$ can be read out directly by a phase sensitive detector on qubit $b$ in NMR.
![Experimental network: two spin-$1/2$ nuclei perform unitary evolutions controlled by each other. Each circle at the second line means that performs its linked unitary evolution when the second nucleus at $|0\rangle$ state. Each dot at the first line means that performs its linked unitary evolution when the first nucleus at $|1\rangle$ state.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.eps "fig:"){width="1\columnwidth"}\
In Fig. \[fig4\] we show the measured phase $\beta$ and its dependence on different points $A,B,C$ in ray space characterized by parameters $\{s_1^0,s_2^0,\theta,\varphi\}$, all carried out at $\theta=\pi/4$, and total pulse sequence time $T$ for cyclic evolution is about $5\sim25ms$ for different evolution path. In Fig. \[fig4\] (a) and (b), we set $\varphi=0$ and $\varphi=\pi/4$ respectively with which geodesics have disparate trajectories in ray space. The measured phase is in all cases seen to fit the theoretical curve (\[eq-beta\]) well with a root-mean-square deviation across all data sets of $5.6$ degree. Thus, all results are in close agreement with the predicted geometric phase, and it is clear that we are able to accurately control the amount of phase geometrically.
![Experimental results on the GP $\beta$ versus the parameter $s_1^0$ or $s_2^0$. Changing $s_1^0$, $s_2^0$ means changing the positions of the points $B$ and $C$. The evolution paths have been depicted out in parameter space and the theoretical curves are marked out by lines. (a) It shows the result in the case of $\theta=\pi/4$ and $\varphi=0$; the $ABC$ on the octant of $S^2$ is a curve while it runs a period on the torus. (b) It shows the result in the case of $\theta=\pi/4$ and $\varphi=\pi/4$; the $ABC$ on the octant of $S^2$ is a triangle while it runs a period on the torus. []{data-label="fig4"}](fig4.eps "fig:"){width="1\columnwidth"}\
The controlled operation between the two qubits plays the main role in the experiment. It goes as that the qubit $a$ (or $b$) undergoes a $SU(2)$ operation if the qubit $b$ (or $a$) is in $|1\rangle$ while kept unchanged if it in $|0\rangle$. This is used to realize the controlled operations $R$ and $R_{23}$. The concrete operations go as follows. For the subsystem of qubit a, we can write the reduced Hamiltonian $$H_a = \omega_a I^a_z + 2 \pi J m_z^b I^a_z
= [ \omega_a - 2 \pi J (d^b -\frac{1}{2})] I^a_z ,$$ where $m_z^b$ is the eigenvalue of $I_z^b$ ($=\pm\frac{1}{2}$) and $d^b$ the corresponding computational value ($=0,\,1$). If we use a rotating frame with a frequency of $\omega_{a}'=\omega_{a}$ and $\omega_{b}'=\omega_{b}$, the Hamiltonian turns into, for $d^b=0$, $H_a^{(0)}=\pi J I^{a}_{z}$, while it becomes $H_{a}^{(1)}=-\pi J
I^{a}_{z}$ for $d^b=1$. This Hamiltonian generates controlled rotations around the z-axis. To generate the control gate $R(S_k)$, we rotate the rotation axis using radio-frequency pulses. To generate a $2S_k$ rotation around the $y$-axis, e.g., we use the sequence $$R_{x}^{a}(\frac{\pi}{2})\rightarrow \frac{S_k}{\pi J}\rightarrow
R_{x}^{a}(-\frac{\pi}{2})\rightarrow R_{y}^{a}(S_k) .$$ This represents the controlled gate operation $R(S_k)$.
For another controlled gate operation $R_{23}(\chi,\tau,-\xi)$, we have to reverse the roles of control and target qubit and apply the following sequence to qubit b: $$\begin{aligned}
&R_{z}^{2}(-\phi) \rightarrow R_{y}^{2}(-\pi-\beta) \rightarrow
\frac{\alpha}{2\pi J} \rightarrow R_{y}^{2}(\pi+\beta)&\nonumber\\
&\rightarrow R_{z}^{2}(\phi) \rightarrow
R_{n}^{2}(\alpha,\beta,\phi),& \label{e:U2}\end{aligned}$$ $R_{n}^{2}(\alpha,\beta,\phi)$ denote to rotate the second qubit $\alpha$ around the axis $\vec{n}(\beta,\phi)$, and $\alpha,\beta,\phi$ is calculated from $\chi,\tau,-\xi$.
In conclusion, when a quantum mechanical system evolves cyclically in time so that it returns to its initial physical state, its wave function can acquire a geometric phase factor in addition to the familiar dynamic phase. Geometric phases (GP) independent of energy and time rely only on the geometry of state space. It is therefore resilient to certain types of errors and suggests the possibility of an intrinsically fault-tolerant way of performing quantum gate operations. we present the first experiment for producing and measuring an Abelian geometric phase shift in a three-level system by using NMR interferometry. In contrast to existing experiments, based on the geometry of $S^2$, our experiment concerns the geometric phase with the geometry of $SU(3)/U(2)$. Two interacting qubits have been used to provide such a three-dimensional Hilbert space.
We would like to thank Prof. Zhang for inspiring conversations. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the CAS, Ministry of Education of PRC, and the National Fundamental Research Program. This work was also supported by European Commission under Contact No. 007065 (Marie Curie Fellowship). J.-L. C. acknowledges supports in part by NSF of China (Grant No. 10575053 and No. 10605013) and Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University.
[30]{} J. Anandan, *The geometric phase.* Nature **360**, 307-313 (1992). M. V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. **A392**, 45-57 (1984). Y. Aharonov and J. Anandan, *Phase Change during a Cyclic Quantum Evolution.* Phys. Rev. Lett. **58**, 1593-1596 (1987). S. Pancharatnam, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. **A44**, 247 (1956). M. A. Nielson and I. L. Chuang, *Quantum computing and Quantum Information* (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2000). J. A. Jones, V. Vedral, A. Ekert, and G. Castagnoli, *Geometric quantum computation using nuclear magnetic resonance.* Nature **403**, 869-871 (2000). D. Leibfried et al., *Experimental demonstration of a robust,high-fidelity geometric two ion-qubit phase gate.* Nature **422**, 412-415 (2003). T. Bitter and D. Dubbers, *Manifestation of Berry’s topological phase in neutron spin rotation.* Phys. Rev. Lett. **59**, 251-254 (1987). A. Tomita and R. Y. Chiao, *Observation of Berry’s Topological Phase by Use of an Optical Fiber.* Phys. Rev. Lett. **57**, 937-940 (1986). D. Suter, K. T. Mueller, and A. Pines, *Study of the Aharonov-Anandan Quantum Phase by NMR Interferometry.* Phys. Rev. Lett. **60**, 1218 (1988). P. J. Leek et al., *Observation of Berry’s Phase in a Solid-State Qubit.* Science **318**, 1889-1892 (2007). L. M. K. Vandersypen and I. L. Chuang, *NMR techniques for quantum control and computation.* Rev. Mod. Phys. **76**, 1037 (2004).
G. Khanna, S. Mukhopadhyay, R. Simon, and N. Mukunda, *Geometric Phases for $SU(3)$ Representations and Three Level Quantum Systems.* Ann. Phys. **253**, 55-82 (1997). Arvind, K. S. Mallesh, and N. Mukunda, *A generalized Pancharatnam geometric phase formula for three-level quantum systems.* J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. **30**, 2417-2431 (1997). V. Bargmann, J. Math. Phys. **5** 862 (1964). N. Mukunda and R. Simon, *Quantum Kinematic Approach to the Geometric Phase. I. General Formalism.* Ann. Phys. **228**, 205-268 (1993).
Cory, D. G., Price, M. D. & Havel, T. F. Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy: An experimentally accessible paradigm for quantum computing. *Phys. D* **120**, 82(1998).
B. C. Sanders, H. de Guise, S. D. Bartlett, and W. Zhang, *Geometric Phase of Three-Level Systems in Interferometry.* Phys. Rev. Lett. **86**, 369-372 (2001). M. Reck and A. Zeilinger, *Experimental Realization of Any discrete Unitary Operator.* Phys. Rev. Lett. **73**, 58-61 (1994).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper presents an analysis of \[\] emission based on new identifications and previous measurements of \[\] lines in , , , , and . The Fe abundances obtained by adding the abundances of the relevant Fe ions (mainly Fe$^{++}$ and Fe$^{3+}$) are found to be lower, by factors in the range 2.6–5.9, than the Fe abundances implied by \[\] emission and an ionization correction factor derived from ionization models. The most likely explanation of this discrepancy is that either the collision strengths for \[\] or the Fe ionization fractions predicted by models are unreliable. The available data neither allow one to distinguish between these two possibilities nor to exclude another possible explanation: that the discrepancy implies the presence of a gradient in the Fe abundance within the ionized gas. Further measurements of \[\] lines and checks on the Fe$^{3+}$ atomic data and ionization models are needed to reach a definitive conclusion. The discrepancy introduces an uncertainty in the determination of Fe abundances in ionized nebulae. This uncertainty has implications for our understanding of both the evolution of dust in ionized nebulae and the chemical history of low metallicity galaxies.'
author:
- Mónica Rodríguez
title: '\[\] Emission in Ionized Nebulae'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The first detection of an \[\] line in an region is due to @rub97, who measure \[\] $\lambda$2836.56 in the UV spectrum of the Orion nebula (). From this line and two previous ionization models for Orion, @rub97find $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{H}$ lower, by factors of 6.5 and 19, than the value the models need to reproduce \[\] and \[\] emission in , $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{H}=3\times10^{-6}$. According to @rub97, the difference between the results obtained from the two models is due mostly to the different average electron temperatures ($T_{\rm e}$) predicted by each model. Since the two Orion models and the measurement of the \[\] line correspond to different regions in the nebula, an underlying assumption in the above comparison is that the gaseous Fe abundance remains roughly constant within the ionized gas.
On the other hand, @rod02 calculates the Fe abundances for 12 regions in from the Fe$^+$ and Fe$^{++}$ abundances and ionization correction factors (ICFs) for the contribution of Fe$^{3+}$, obtained from grids of photoionization models. Since the Fe$^+$ abundance is very low for all positions ($\mbox{Fe}^+/\mbox{Fe}^{++}<0.3$), the results depend mostly on the derived Fe$^{++}$ abundances, and these are based on the atomic data leading to the best fit between the observed and predicted relative intensities of the \[\] lines. The final Fe abundances are lower than those derived in previous studies based on older atomic data, and show variations of more than a factor of 2: $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{H}=0.8\mbox{--}1.8\times10^{-6}$. Taking this into account, the discrepancy found by @rub97 could be reduced and now gets as close as a factor of $\sim2$, and @rod02 argues that given all the uncertainties involved in the calculations, this discrepancy might not be significant. The main uncertainties arise from the calculation of the Fe$^{3+}$ abundance from one weak UV line, which is very sensitive to $T_{\rm e}$ and the extinction correction, and from the lack of measurements of \[\], \[\], and diagnostic lines at exactly the same position in the nebula. The measurement of optical \[\] lines would solve this difficulty, but these lines are weak and difficult to observe. Since Fe$^{3+}$ is an important or dominant ionization state in most regions, the reality of this underabundance implied by \[\] emission, and the reasons behind it, are critical issues in our understanding of both the evolution of dust in regions [see @rod02] and the chemical evolution at low metallicities [see @izo99].
This paper presents the identification and analysis of one \[\] line at $\lambda6739.8$ in the optical spectra of observed by @bal00. The same line is identified in the spectra of the planetary nebula [@hyu01]. Upper limits to the intensities of \[\] $\lambda\lambda6734.4$, 6739.8 are obtained from the spectra of in the LMC observed by @ape03. Another optical \[\] line at $\lambda\sim4904$, tentatively identified by @izo01 in the spectra of the blue compact dwarf galaxy , and the measurement of \[\] $\lambda$2836.56 in by @kurt99 are used to complete a set of data in which to perform an analysis of \[\] emission and the Fe abundance in different ionized nebulae.
\[\] LINES IN SEVERAL OBJECTS
=============================
Throughout this paper air wavelengths are used for the optical lines and vacuum wavelengths for the UV ones. The transitions giving rise to the \[\] lines discussed here are identified in Figure \[f1\] (see also Table \[t0\]).
The deepest optical spectrum of has been published by @bal00. They find a weak feature at $\lambda6739.86$ which they consider as clearly detected but unidentified. The line has an extinction-corrected relative intensity of $I(\lambda6739.86)/I(\mbox{H}\beta)=3.7\times10^{-5}$. The wavelength is very close to \[\] $\lambda6739.8$ ($^2I_{11/2}\rightarrow{^4G}_{11/2}$), the brightest optical \[\] line that can be expected to form at the physical conditions prevailing in . This line was previously identified in the spectrum of [@balu95], one of the most dense and luminous planetary nebulae, which has an extremely rich spectrum. For the Orion observations the agreement in wavelength is very good, especially when accounting for the difference of $\sim2\mbox{~km~s}^{-1}$ due to the trend of velocity vs.ionization potential found by @bal00. The measurements of \[\] $\lambda$2836.56 by @rub97 and \[\] $\lambda$6739.8 by @bal00 were performed at different positions in Orion, but both positions are at similar distances from the ionizing star (32 and 37, respectively), so that it might be instructive to compare their intensities. The reddening-corrected intensities relative to H$\beta$ of both lines imply $I(\lambda6739.8)/I(\lambda2836.56)=0.039$, whereas for typical Orion physical conditions (see Table \[t1\] and §3 below) the expected value of this ratio is $\simeq0.022$. Other optical \[\] lines following $\lambda$6739.8 in intensity would be $\lambda$4906.56 ($^4F_{9/2}\rightarrow{^4G}_{11/2}$), $\lambda$6734.4 ($^2I_{13/2}\rightarrow{^4G}_{11/2}$), and $\lambda$6761.3 ($^2I_{11/2}\rightarrow{^4G}_{9/2}$), but these lines have expected intensities of about half the $\lambda$6739.8 intensity and they are at the limit of line detection of @bal00. We have then a good case for the detection of the first optical \[\] line in .
A literature search for other nebulae in which to perform an analysis of \[\] emission and the Fe abundance yielded four suitable objects: , , , and . Available spectra of these objects include one \[\] line, one or more \[\] lines, and the \[\], \[\], and \[\] lines needed to derive $T_{\rm e}$ values and electron density ($N_{\rm e}$) values, the O abundance, and the degree of ionization $\mbox{O}^+/\mbox{O}$. The optical \[\] lines measured by @est02 in and could not be used because the \[\] $\lambda3727$ lines were outside their observed wavelength range. Other objects, like the symbiotic nova , where several \[\] lines have been detected [see, for example, @mck97], were excluded because the high densities responsible for their rich spectra ($N_{\rm
e}\sim10^6$ cm$^{-3}$) prevent the application of the usual diagnostics.
is a compact planetary nebula, where @hyu01 measure an unidentified feature at $\lambda6739.14$. The difference in wavelength with \[\] $\lambda6739.8$ is compatible with the differences that @hyu01 find for other well identified lines. Since \[\] $\lambda6739.8$ is the brightest optical \[\] line for the physical conditions in (see Table \[t1\]), this is a likely identification for the measured line. The relative intensity of the line after the correction for extinction is $I(\lambda6739.14)/I(\mbox{H}\beta)=3.1\times10^{-4}$.
The spectra of observed by @ape03 shows a line at $\lambda\sim6734$ that he identifies as \[\] $\lambda6733.9$ with a possible contribution of \] $\lambda6734$. Since for the physical conditions of this object (see Table \[t1\]) \[\] $\lambda6734.4$ ($^2I_{13/2}\rightarrow{^4G}_{11/2}$) would be the brightest optical \[\] line, the measured feature could have a contribution from this line and the intensity of the feature can be used to obtain an upper limit to the Fe$^{3+}$ abundance. However, a lower upper limit can be obtained by noting the absence of \[\] $\lambda6739.8$, the optical line that should follow \[\] $\lambda6734.4$ in intensity, and taking as an upper limit to its intensity the intensity measured for a nearby weak line, \[\] $\lambda6747.5$: $I(\lambda6739.8)/I(\mbox{H}\beta)\le1.05\times10^{-4}$. There is a feature at $\lambda5032.4$ identified by @ape03 as partly due to \[\] $\lambda5032.4$ ($^2F_{5/2}\rightarrow{^4G}_{7/2}$), but this line should have a negligible intensity at low densities according to the current atomic data and, therefore, the identification seems unlikely.
The blue compact dwarf galaxy has been observed by @izo01, who tentatively identify a line measured at $\lambda4904$ as \[\] $\lambda4906.56$. Given the low spectral resolution, 8 Å, and considering the physical conditions in (see Table \[t1\]), the line is most likely a blend of three \[\] lines in the multiplet: $\lambda4899.97$ ($^4F_{7/2}\rightarrow{^4G}_{9/2}$), $\lambda4903.07$ ($^4F_{7/2}\rightarrow{^4G}_{7/2}$), and $\lambda4906.56$ ($^4F_{9/2}\rightarrow{^4G}_{11/2}$). Two of the unidentified features measured by @izo01, at $\lambda5235$ and $\lambda7224$, could also be \[\] lines: $\lambda5233.76$ ($^2F_{7/2}\rightarrow{^4G}_{9/2}$), and $\lambda7222.8$ ($^4F_{9/2}\rightarrow{^4D}_{7/2}$). The intensities of these two lines relative to the blend at $\lambda4904$ are consistent with the expected values within a factor of 2 (see Table \[t0\]). Other \[\] lines that could be present in the spectrum of are likely to be blended with stronger lines. Since the uncertainties assigned by @izo01 to the intensities of the weak lines are $\sim100\%$, no further assessment can be made on the reliability of the relative line intensities predicted by the atomic data for \[\]. The $\mbox{Fe}^{3+}$ abundance in this object will be derived from the strongest feature, the \[\] blend at $\lambda4904$, which @izo01 consider as clearly detected. The extinction-corrected intensity of this feature relative to H$\beta$ is $I(\lambda4904)/I(\mbox{H}\beta)=2.2\times10^{-3}$.
The UV and optical spectra of the Small Magellanic Cloud region have been obtained by @kurt99, who measure \[\] $\lambda$2836.56 at two positions in the nebula. The values for the extinction-corrected line ratios are $I(\lambda2837)/I(\mbox{H}\beta)=2.5\times10^{-2}$ and $2.4\times10^{-2}$ for the positions identified as bar and square A both in their paper and here.
RESULTS
=======
Atomic Data
-----------
The calculations for \[\] used throughout this paper are based on a 33-level model-atom where all collisional and downward radiative transitions are considered. The collision strengths are those calculated by @zha97, the transition probabilities those recommended by @fro98 (and those from @gar58 for those transitions not considered by @fro98), and the level energies have been taken from the NIST database[^1]. The calculations for \[\] are based on a 34-level model-atom that uses the collision strengths of @zha96 and the transition probabilities of @qui96. The physical conditions and the abundances of the O ions have been derived with the [*nebular*]{} package in IRAF.
Errors and Uncertainties
------------------------
The abundances presented here are affected by the usual uncertainties related to the method of calculation: (i) the assumption that the observed lines originate in one or two emitting layers of constant $N_{\rm e}$ and $T_{\rm e}$, (ii) the uncertainties in the atomic data used to derive physical conditions and ionic abundances, (iii) errors in the line intensities, and (iv) the uncertainties arising from the use of ICFs to account for unseen stages of ionization.
The systematic uncertainties arising from any of these causes are very difficult to estimate. The errors presented here have been calculated by considering only the errors in the line intensities, following the guidelines given by the different authors for each object, but taking 5% as the minimum error for any line intensity relative to H$\beta$. It should be kept in mind that the errors in the line intensity ratios are just estimates, and that the criteria followed by the different authors may vary. The errors for each calculated quantity have been derived by adding quadratically the errors in the line intensity ratio used to derive the ionic abundance and the errors arising from the uncertainties in both $T_{\rm e}$ and $N_{\rm e}$. The last ones are especially important for the O$^+$ abundance and all ratios involving this ion (e.g. $\mbox{O}^{+}/\mbox{O}^{++}$, $\mbox{Fe}^{++}/\mbox{O}^{+}$). Thus, the calculated errors can be used to assess the sensitivity of each quantity to the adopted uncertainties.
Physical Conditions and Ionic Abundances
----------------------------------------
Several diagnostic lines were available for , and . For these objects the $T_{\rm e}$ obtained from the diagnostic \[\] and \[\] lines have been used to derive the ionic abundances of the low and high ionization species, respectively. The values of the \[\] and \[\] $T_{\rm e}$ are listed in Table \[t1\]. The $N_{\rm e}$ values listed for these three objects have been derived from the \[\], \[\], \[\], and \[\] diagnostic lines. Table \[t1\] shows the mean and standard deviation of the $N_{\rm e}$ values obtained from the different line ratios. For and the values used for $T_{\rm e}$ and $N_{\rm e}$ were those derived from the \[\] and \[\] diagnostic lines. The upper limit of $N_{\rm e}\mbox{[\ion{S}{2}]}$ in bar was unconstrained with the errors found for the ratio of \[\] lines $I(\lambda6716)/I(\lambda6731)$. The upper limit of $N_{\rm e}$ provided in Table \[t1\] for this object was obtained from the constraints imposed on $N_{\rm e}$ by other line ratios.
Table \[t0\] shows the \[\] and \[\] lines used for the determination of the $\mbox{Fe}^{++}$ and $\mbox{Fe}^{3+}$ abundances in the different objects. In and , 13 to 14 \[\] lines were considered to be unblended and available for the abundance determination. The mean values and standard deviations of the calculated $\mbox{Fe}^{++}$ abundances are $\mbox{Fe}^{++}/\mbox{H}^{+}=1.67\pm0.21\times10^{-7}$ for and $\mbox{Fe}^{++}/\mbox{H}^{+}=3.29\pm0.21\times10^{-7}$ for . The agreement between the lines is extremely good, suggesting that the atomic data used for $\mbox{Fe}^{++}$ are quite reliable [see also @rod02]. As for the other objects, three \[\] lines could be used for and just one, \[\] $\lambda4658.1$, for and . \[The intensity given by @izo01 for \[\] $\lambda5270.4$ in is clearly wrong, as can be seen by inspecting their Fig. 1, but the weaker \[\] $\lambda4754.7$ line agrees to within 10% with the $\mbox{Fe}^{++}$ abundance implied by \[\] $\lambda4658.1$ (see Table \[t0\]).\]
The intensities measured by @kurt99 for \[\] $\lambda$2836.56 in could have a contribution from $\lambda\lambda2837.5$, 2838.4. In , these recombination lines account for nearly 90% of the blend intensity [@rub97]. The contribution of the lines to the $\lambda$2837 feature in can be estimated using the recombination coefficients of @dav00 and the C$^{++}$ abundances derived by @kurt99 from \] $\lambda1909$. Taking into account that in regions the C$^{++}$ abundances implied by recombination lines are usually a factor $\sim2$ higher than those derived from collisionally excited lines [see, for example, Table 6 in @est02], I estimate that the contribution of the lines to the intensity measured for \[\] $\lambda$2836.56 in is below 10%. This contribution will be neglected in what follows.
The large difference between the relative intensities of the \[\] and lines in and arises from the lower metallicity of the latter (by a factor $\sim3.5$ in the O abundance, see Table \[t2\]) and its associated higher $T_{\rm e}$. The intensity of the C recombination lines decreases because of the lower metallicity and higher $T_{\rm e}$, whereas the intensity of the forbidden line increases because its emissivity shows an exponential dependence on $T_{\rm e}$. The same argument can be used to rule out any significant contamination of either \[\] $\lambda4658.1$ or \[\] $\lambda4904$ by $\lambda4661.63$ and $\lambda$4906.83 in and . In , this conclusion is further confirmed by the overall agreement shown by the other \[\] and \[\] lines (see Table \[t0\]).
The final adopted values for the ionic abundances of $\mbox{O}^{+}$, $\mbox{O}^{++}$, $\mbox{Fe}^{++}$, and $\mbox{Fe}^{3+}$ are listed in Table \[t1\].
Total Abundances
----------------
The ion Fe$^{+}$, whose ionization potential is 16.2 eV, can make some contribution to the Fe abundance. Although most of the \[\] lines in regions are affected by fluorescence effects [@rod99a and references therein], an estimate of the Fe$^{+}$ contribution to the total Fe abundance can be obtained from the intensity of \[\] $\lambda$8617, a line almost insensitive to the effects of UV pumping. This line is either undetected or out of the wavelength range measured for the objects considered here. An estimate of the Fe$^{+}$ abundance in was obtained by averaging the values of $\mbox{Fe}^{+}/\mbox{H}^{+}$ found in @rod02 for three regions in that are 27 south of the position observed by @bal00, but at a similar distance from . The resulting value, $\mbox{Fe}^{+}/\mbox{H}^{+}=5.4\pm2.7\times10^{-8}$, is just $\sim15$% of the abundance derived for Fe$^{++}$. This estimate of the Fe$^{+}$ abundance in has been used in the analysis described below, which leads to a discrepancy between the expected and measured values of the $\mbox{Fe}^{3+}$ abundance of a factor $4.4$. If $\mbox{Fe}^{+}$ had been neglected in this analysis, the discrepancy would be lower, a factor $3.8$. Since the other objects have a higher degree of ionization than , the contribution of $\mbox{Fe}^{+}$ to their Fe abundance will be neglected. The effect of neglecting the $\mbox{Fe}^{+}$ abundance in the results for these higher ionization objects is likely to be even lower than for , especially for and , where no \[\] lines are detected. In any case, if the concentration of $\mbox{Fe}^{+}$ in any of these objects were not negligible, the discrepancy between the expected and calculated values of $\mbox{Fe}^{3+}$ would be higher than the values given below.
On the other hand, and show emission in their spectra. Since He$^+$, O$^{++}$ and Fe$^{3+}$ have similar ionization potentials (54.4, 54.9, and 54.8 eV, respectively), the presence of He$^{++}$ suggests that O$^{3+}$ and Fe$^{4+}$ might also be present. In fact, shows emission in \[\] $\lambda$4227 and, possibly, in some \[\] and \[\] lines whose origin is not clear [@izo01]. The \[\] $\lambda$4227 line cannot be used at the moment to derive the Fe$^{4+}$ abundance, since the required atomic data are not available. However, the amount of He$^{++}$ is low in ($\mbox{He}^{++}/\mbox{He}^{+}\simeq0.025$) and lower in ($\mbox{He}^{++}/\mbox{He}^{+}\simeq0.0053$), suggesting that the concentrations of O$^{3+}$ and Fe$^{4+}$ are negligible. Therefore, it will be assumed that $\mbox{O}/\mbox{H}=
\mbox{O}^+/\mbox{H}^++\mbox{O}^{++}/\mbox{H}^+$ and $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{H}=
\mbox{Fe}^{++}/\mbox{H}^++\mbox{Fe}^{3+}/\mbox{H}^+$ (except for where $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{H}=
\mbox{Fe}^{+}/\mbox{H}^++\mbox{Fe}^{++}/\mbox{H}^++\mbox{Fe}^{3+}/\mbox{H}^+$, with $\mbox{Fe}^{+}/\mbox{H}^{+}=5.4\pm2.7\times10^{-8}$).
Table \[t2\] shows the values of the total abundances for all the objects. Two values are given for the Fe abundance. The first one has been derived from \[\] and an ICF, $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{H}=
1.1\,[(\mbox{Fe}^++\mbox{Fe}^{++})/\mbox{O}^+]\,\mbox{O}/\mbox{H}$. The ICF is based on the grids of ionization models of @sta90 and @gru92, and is further discussed in $\S4$ below. The second value for the Fe abundance is just the sum of the derived ionic abundances, $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{H}=
\mbox{Fe}^+/\mbox{H}^+ +\mbox{Fe}^{++}/\mbox{H}^++\mbox{Fe}^{3+}/\mbox{H}^+$. The Fe abundances based on the sum of the ionic abundances can be seen to be systematically lower, by factors in the range 2.6–5.9, than those implied by the $\mbox{Fe}^{++}$ abundance and an ICF. The expected values of the $\mbox{Fe}^{3+}$ abundance, $\mbox{Fe}^{3+}_{\rm exp}$, can be obtained from the relation $\mbox{Fe}^+/\mbox{H}^+ + \mbox{Fe}^{++}/\mbox{H}^+
+\mbox{Fe}^{3+}_{\rm exp}/\mbox{H}^+=
1.1\,[(\mbox{Fe}^++\mbox{Fe}^{++})/\mbox{O}^+]\,\mbox{O}/\mbox{H}$. The values found for $\mbox{Fe}^{3+}_{\rm exp}/\mbox{Fe}^{3+}$ are shown in Table \[t2\]: the derived $\mbox{Fe}^{3+}$ abundances are lower than expected by factors $\ge2.7$ (), $3.2$ (), $4.4$ (), $5.5$ ( bar), 7.5 ( square A), and 6.1 ().
IONIZATION CORRECTION FACTORS
=============================
The above comparison between the expected and calculated values of $\mbox{Fe}^{3+}/\mbox{H}^+$ relies on the ICF applied to the $\mbox{Fe}^{++}$ abundance in order to obtain the total Fe abundance. Since \[\] lines are the Fe lines most easily detected in regions, this ICF is a key parameter in the determination of the Fe abundance in these nebulae. The O ions are probably the best choice for defining ICFs for the Fe ions. First, because both $\mbox{O}^{+}$ and $\mbox{O}^{++}$ can be easily measured from strong optical lines. Second, because the ionization potentials for the Fe and O ions are not too far apart; 16.2, 30.6, and 54.8 eV for $\mbox{Fe}^{+}$, $\mbox{Fe}^{++}$, and $\mbox{Fe}^{3+}$; 13.6, 35.1, and 54.9 eV for $\mbox{O}^{0}$, $\mbox{O}^{+}$ and $\mbox{O}^{++}$. The relations between the Fe and O ions and the $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$ abundance ratio can be expressed in the following way:
$$\frac{\mbox{Fe}}{\mbox{O}}=\Bigg[\frac{x(\mbox{O}^+)}{x(\mbox{Fe}^{++})}\Bigg]\,
\frac{\mbox{Fe}^{++}}{\mbox{O}^+},$$
$$\frac{\mbox{Fe}}{\mbox{O}}=
\Bigg[\frac{x(\mbox{O}^+)}{x(\mbox{Fe}^{+}+\mbox{Fe}^{++})}\Bigg]\,
\frac{\mbox{Fe}^{+}+\mbox{Fe}^{++}}{\mbox{O}^+},$$
$$\frac{\mbox{Fe}}{\mbox{O}}=\Bigg[\frac{x(\mbox{O}^{++})}{x(\mbox{Fe}^{3+})}\Bigg]\,
\frac{\mbox{Fe}^{3+}}{\mbox{O}^{++}},$$
where $x(X)$ is the ionization fraction for the corresponding ion, and the quantities in square brackets are ICFs that will be constant if the ionization fractions of Fe and O vary in similar ways.
The values of the ICFs $[x(\mbox{O}^+)/x(\mbox{Fe}^{++})]$, $[x(\mbox{O}^+)/x(\mbox{Fe}^{+}+\mbox{Fe}^{++})]$, and $[x(\mbox{O}^{++})/x(\mbox{Fe}^{3+})]$ are shown in Figure \[f2\] as a function of $\mbox{O}^{+}/\mbox{O}^{++}$ for the two series of models calculated by @gru92 and @sta90. The ionization models from @gru92 have metallicities Z$_\odot$, Z$_\odot/3$, Z$_\odot/10$, and Z$_\odot/100$, electron densities of 10, 100, and 1000 cm$^{-3}$, and are ionized by a single star with effective temperature $T_{\rm eff}=30900$ or 50000 K. The models from @sta90 considered in Figure \[f2\] are those ionized by one star for Z$_\odot$ and Z$_\odot/2$, and those ionized by 1, $10^2$ or $10^4$ stars for Z$_\odot/5$, Z$_\odot/10$, and Z$_\odot/50$. These models have $N_{\rm e}$ of 10 and 1000 cm$^{-3}$, and $T_{\rm eff}=32500\mbox{--}55000$ K. The main difference between the two series is that the results of @gru92 are presented for several lines of sight across each model.
The results from the two series of models shown in Figure \[f2\] can be compared with those of three individual models for : $\log[x(\mbox{O}^+)/x(\mbox{Fe}^{++})]=0.26$ [@bal91], $\log[x(\mbox{O}^+)/x(\mbox{Fe}^{++})]=0.15$ [@rub91a; @rub91b], and $\log[x(\mbox{O}^+)/x(\mbox{Fe}^{++})]=0.04$ [@bau98]. The last result has been calculated with the most recent values for the photoionization cross-sections and recombination-rate coefficients for the Fe ions [@nah96a; @nah96b], and is similar to the ICF used here.
Figure \[f2\] also shows the results obtained here for the five studied objects (the filled squares for , , , and ; the lower and upper limits for ) by assuming that $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{H}=
\mbox{Fe}^{+}/\mbox{H}^+ +\mbox{Fe}^{++}/\mbox{H}^++\mbox{Fe}^{3+}/\mbox{H}^+$.
Several comments can be made about Figure \[f2\]:
1. [The results for those models of @gru92 with solar metallicity deviate from the relation followed by the models with lower metallicities. This suggests that the ICFs might be dependent on metallicity, but the models of @sta90 and the results of @gru92 for subsolar metallicities do not show such dependence.]{}
2. [Although the results for each series of models are consistent with roughly constant values for $[x(\mbox{O}^+)/x(\mbox{Fe}^{++})]$ and $[x(\mbox{O}^+)/x(\mbox{Fe}^{+}+\mbox{Fe}^{++})]$, the values are different for each series.]{}
3. [The values of $[x(\mbox{O}^+)/x(\mbox{Fe}^{++})]$ are substantially higher than those of $[x(\mbox{O}^+)/x(\mbox{Fe}^{+}+\mbox{Fe}^{++})]$. This is due to the fact that the models predict a significant concentration of Fe$^+$, although with great scatter: $0.05<(\mbox{Fe}^+/\mbox{Fe}^{++})<0.7$. However, the values found in @rod02 for Galactic regions with $\log(\mbox{O}^{+}/\mbox{O}^{++})<0$ for $\mbox{Fe}^+/\mbox{Fe}^{++}$ are all lower than 0.3 and mostly around 0.1. The concentrations of ions with low ionization potential like Fe$^+$ are very model-dependent and, therefore, difficult to estimate with reliability. Furthermore, as suggested by the referee, this difference between the expected and calculated concentrations of Fe$^+$ can be due to the presence of significant amounts of Fe$^+$ in neutral zones, where the $T_{\rm e}$ is too low to produce the optical \[\] lines. Therefore, I consider it more reliable to use the ICF implied by $[x(\mbox{O}^+)/x(\mbox{Fe}^{+}+\mbox{Fe}^{++})]$, neglecting the contribution of $\mbox{Fe}^{+}$ for the high-ionization objects. As discussed above, this should be a good approximation for and , where no \[\] lines are detected. If the contribution of $\mbox{Fe}^{+}$ were higher than assumed, the discrepancy between the expected and calculated values of $\mbox{Fe}^{3+}$ would be even higher than the values derived here. The calculated results are in any case systematically below the expected ones.]{}
4. [According to both series of models, $[x(\mbox{O}^{++})/x(\mbox{Fe}^{3+})]\simeq1$ for $\log(\mbox{O}^{+}/\mbox{O}^{++})<0$, and therefore $\mbox{Fe}^{3+}/\mbox{O}^{++}\simeq\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$ to within 0.1 dex. Since $\mbox{Fe}^{3+}$ and $\mbox{O}^{++}$ are formed at 30.6 and 35.1 eV, and are ionized at 54.8 and 54.9 eV, for those conditions with $x(\mbox{O}^{++})\ge0.9$, most of Fe should be present as $\mbox{Fe}^{3+}$. Therefore, barring large errors in the atomic data used to derive the Fe ionization balance, $\mbox{Fe}^{3+}/\mbox{O}^{++}\simeq\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$ should be a very good approximation for high-ionization objects; whereas for any degree of ionization it should hold that $\mbox{Fe}^{3+}/\mbox{O}^{++}\ge\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$. However, as seen in Figure \[f2\]c, all the objects show $\mbox{Fe}^{3+}/\mbox{O}^{++}<\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$.]{}
5. [Although the error bars for and are almost consistent with the expected results for $[x(\mbox{O}^+)/x(\mbox{Fe}^{+}+\mbox{Fe}^{++})]$ and $[x(\mbox{O}^{++})/x(\mbox{Fe}^{3+})]$, the results for the other objects and the fact that all the calculated results deviate in the same direction from the expected ones confirm that there is a significant deviation.]{}
6. If the atomic data used in the models to derive the ionization balance of Fe were in error, the ionization fractions calculated for real objects could be used to obtain an estimate of the actual ICFs. The results in Figure \[f2\] can be interpreted in such a way. A weighted least-squares fit to the data in Figure \[f2\]a leads to the following ICF,
$$\Bigg[\frac{x(\mbox{O}^+)}{x(\mbox{Fe}^{++})}\Bigg]\,=0.78\,
\Bigg(\frac{\mbox{O}^+}{\mbox{O}^{++}}\Bigg)^{0.43},$$
for $-1.5\le\log(\mbox{O}^+/\mbox{O}^{++})\le-0.5$, but the significance of the fit is not large, and other alternatives such as a constant $[x(\mbox{O}^+)/x(\mbox{Fe}^{++})]\simeq0.25$, cannot be excluded.
In summary, there is a clear discrepancy between the calculated results and the model predictions. Even though the discrepancy might not be due to errors in the models (see §5 below), there are some problems with the models that would be worth exploring with further calculations. The ICFs selected here are in any case those leading to the lower discrepancies while at the same time being consistent with the model results.
DISCUSSION
==========
There are three possible explanations for the discrepancy in the Fe abundances obtained from \[\] and \[\]: (i) that the atomic data for \[\] are unreliable; (ii) that the concentrations for the Fe ions predicted by photoionization models are greatly in error; and (iii) that there is some unknown mechanism producing a gradient in the Fe abundance within the ionized gas, as suggested by @bau98. The high value of the discrepancy excludes other explanations, like errors in the line intensities, errors in the calculated physical conditions, or errors in the atomic data for \[\], which seem reliable, as discussed in $\S3.3$. A contribution of fluorescence to \[\] emission can also be ruled out [@luc95; @bau98].
The \[\] emissivities are almost insensitive to the values used for the transition probabilities and depend mainly on the values of the collision strengths. Therefore, to explain the discrepancies between the expected and calculated values for Fe$^{3+}$ ($\mbox{Fe}^{3+}_{\rm exp}/\mbox{Fe}^{3+}$ in Table \[t2\]), the simplest solution would be to lower all the collision strengths by a factor $\sim\mbox{Fe}^{3+}_{\rm exp}/\mbox{Fe}^{3+}$. The values and errors given in Table \[t2\] for the discrepancies imply that if the collision strengths were lower by a factor of $\sim5$, the Fe$^{3+}$ abundances would be consistent with the expected values. On the other hand, there could be a difference between the discrepancies obtained for and ($\mbox{Fe}^{3+}_{\rm exp}/\mbox{Fe}^{3+}\sim3.8$) and those for the other objects ($\mbox{Fe}^{3+}_{\rm exp}/\mbox{Fe}^{3+}\sim6$). This difference does not seem to arise from the fact that the $T_{\rm e}$ implied by the \[\] lines has been used to derive all the ionic abundances in and , whereas $T_{\rm e}$\[\] has been used in the other objects for deriving the abundances of the low ionization ions. An estimate of $T_{\rm e}$\[\] in and can be obtained from $T_{\rm e}$\[\] and the relation derived by @cam86 from the models of @sta82. If these estimates of $T_{\rm e}$\[\] were used in the analysis, the discrepancies for and would decrease, but by only a small amount to 5.1, 7.1 and 5.4 for bar, sq. A, and , respectively.
The $\mbox{Fe}^{3+}$ abundance has been obtained for and from the intensity of the line \[\] $\lambda6739.8$, whereas \[\] $\lambda$2836.56 and the \[\] blend at $\lambda4904$ have been used for and respectively. The upper level of the transition \[\] $\lambda6739.8$, $^2I_{11/2}$, is mainly populated by collisional excitations from the $^4G$ levels, which are metastable. The levels $^4F_{7/2}$ and $^4F_{9/2}$, giving rise to the blend at $\lambda4904$, are populated by collisional excitations from the $^4G$ levels and from the ground state. The upper level of \[\] $\lambda$2836.56, $^4P_{5/2}$, is populated by spontaneous emission from the $^4D$ term and by collisional excitations from both the $^4G$ term and the ground state. The different discrepancies obtained from \[\] $\lambda6739.8$, on the one hand, and \[\] $\lambda$2836.56, $\lambda4904$, on the other, could then be the effect of errors in the atomic data. As an example, if the collision strengths involving only the Fe$^{3+}$ ground state were lowered by a factor of 6.5, the expected and calculated values of the Fe$^{3+}$ abundance would differ by less than $\sim50$%. However, the difference in the discrepancies could be due to other causes. One possibility would be that the ICFs are highly dependent on metallicity; another, that the difference between the Fe abundances in the \[\] and \[\] emitting regions depends on the metallicity or varies from object to object.
If the trend of increasing $[x(\mbox{O}^+)/x(\mbox{Fe}^{++})]$ with $\mbox{O}^+/\mbox{O}^{++}$ suggested by the calculated data in Figure \[f2\] were real, the Fe ionization fractions predicted by models should be seriously questioned. The value predicted by models for the relative concentrations of $\mbox{Fe}^{++}$ and $\mbox{Fe}^{3+}$, $\mbox{Fe}^{++}/\mbox{Fe}^{3+}$, is roughly proportional to the ratio between the total recombination coefficient of Fe$^{3+}$ and the ionization cross-section for Fe$^{++}$ integrated over the radiation field. The latter ratio should then be higher by a factor $\sim5$ to explain the discrepancy. The recent calculations of the ionization and recombination cross-sections for Fe$^{++}$/Fe$^{3+}$ [@nah96a; @nah96b] are significantly different from the previous data. The new value for the total recombination coefficient for $\mbox{Fe}^{3+}$ [@nah96b] is a factor of 1.5 higher at $T_{\rm e}\sim10^4$ K than the previous value by @woo81. On the other hand, the old values for the ionization cross-section of $\mbox{Fe}^{++}$ [@rei79] were calculated for energies above 35 eV and, when extrapolated to lower energies, lead to values which are higher than those calculated by @nah96a by a factor of 5 near the ionization threshold. However, according to @bau98, this overestimation compensates in part for the contribution of the many resonant structures found by [@nah96a] at low energies. Therefore, the new data finally lead to similar values for the ICFs—at least for the Orion model of @bau98, as commented in §4 above. More extensive calculations exploring the effect of the new cross-sections for different degrees of ionization might be valuable. The effect of charge-exchange reactions, whose rates are highly uncertain [@kin96], should also be explored. Such calculations will be the subject of future work.
An error in the calculations of the Fe ionization balance would prove to be the simplest explanation for the trend in Figure \[f2\]. Some mechanism leading to the preferential destruction of dust grains in the low ionization zones could also explain such a trend, but this explanation seems rather ad hoc and less likely.
The accurate measurement of the relative intensities of several \[\] lines in various objects where the physical conditions can also be measured with reasonable accuracy would help to distinguish between all these possibilities. These measurements could be attempted in low metallicity regions. The high $T_{\rm e}$ values prevailing in these objects boost the intensities of forbidden lines while the low metallicity reduces the possible contamination with permitted lines, an important issue when trying to measure very weak lines.
Figure \[f3\] shows the values of the $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$ abundance ratio obtained from the Fe$^{++}$ abundance and an ICF (Figs. \[f3\]a and \[f3\]b) and from the Fe$^{++}$ and Fe$^{3+}$ abundances (Figs. \[f3\]c and \[f3\]d). The results are plotted as a function of the O abundance (Figs. \[f3\]a and \[f3\]c) and of the ionization degree $\mbox{O}^+/\mbox{O}^{++}$ (Figs. \[f3\]b and \[f3\]d). The solar $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$ and $\mbox{O}/\mbox{H}$ abundance ratios are shown in Figure \[f3\]a as a dotted circle [@hol01]. The real value of the $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$ abundance in the gas of a given object will be the result of two factors: the intrinsic value of $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$ (in gas and dust) and the amount of Fe depleted in dust grains. The intrinsic value of $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$ in a given object depends on the previous star formation history, but is expected to show less variation from object to object than either $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{H}$ or $\mbox{O}/\mbox{H}$. In stars of our Galaxy, $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$ increases with metallicity and is 0.2 to 0.3 dex below solar when $\mbox{O}/\mbox{H}$ is around 1 dex below solar [see, for example, @nis02]. Abundance analyses of stars in the Magellanic clouds show the same increment but displaced by about $0.2$ dex towards higher values of $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$ at a given metallicity [@kor00; @smi02 and references therein]. The intrinsic value of $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$ in the interstellar medium of the Magellanic Clouds (that is, for and ) might then be solar or up to $0.2$ dex above solar. The intrinsic value of $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$ in is not known. Chemical evolution models for another low metallicity dwarf galaxy, , predict values for $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$ ranging from $0.1$ dex above solar to about $0.7$ dex below solar [see, for example, @rec02]. This wide range of possible values arises from the uncertainties in both the star formation history and the iron yields due to massive stars, and makes it impossible to draw a conclusion on the most likely value for $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$ in . On the other hand, good constraints on these two issues could be obtained from the real value of the $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$ abundance ratio in and other low metallicity blue compact galaxies. A low amount of dust within the ionized gas of these low metallicity objects can be inferred from the low or negligible extinction measured for them. Therefore, the higher value of $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$ derived for (the one obtained with \[\] emission and an ICF) favors a near solar value for the intrinsic $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$ in the galaxy, whereas the lower $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$ implied by \[\] emission favors an intrinsic $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$ about $0.7$ dex below solar.
Figures \[f3\]b and \[f3\]d suggest an explanation for the different depletion factors of the objects in the sample. If (the only planetary nebula in the sample) is excluded, the values of $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$ implied by both procedures increase with the degree of ionization. The same behavior was found in @rod96 [@rod02] for Galactic regions with near solar metallicity and it was interpreted as due to the release of Fe atoms from dust grains by the action of energetic photons. The same process may be responsible for the low Fe depletion factors in and , but the amount of dust destruction and the slope of its dependence on the number of energetic photons depend strongly on which are the real values of $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$. Thus, the solution to the discrepancy found for \[\] emission, has implications for both the chemical evolution of low metallicity galaxies and the evolution of dust in ionized nebulae.
CONCLUSIONS
===========
The line \[\] $\lambda6739.8$ has been identified in published spectra of and . Upper limits to the intensity of this line and of \[\] $\lambda6734.4$ have been established for . The tentative identification by @izo01 of a line at $\lambda\sim4904$ in the spectra of as an \[\] feature has been confirmed. These data along with the measurement by @kurt99 of \[\] $\lambda$2836.56 in two positions of have been used to perform an analysis of \[\] emission in the five aforementioned nebulae. The Fe abundances obtained from \[\] lines and an ICF derived from ionization models, $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{H}=
1.1\,[(\mbox{Fe}^++\mbox{Fe}^{++})/\mbox{O}^+]\,\mbox{O}/\mbox{H}$, have been compared with those implied by the sum of the relevant ionic states, $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{H}=
\mbox{Fe}^+/\mbox{H}^++\mbox{Fe}^{++}/\mbox{H}^++\mbox{Fe}^{3+}/\mbox{H}^+$. The $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{H}$ abundance ratios obtained from the first method are higher than those derived from the second method by factors in the range 2.6–5.9. This result confirms the discrepancy previously found by @rub97 in between the Fe abundance implied by \[\] and \[\] lines, and that implied by \[\] $\lambda2836.56$ .
The $\mbox{Fe}^{3+}$ abundance is systematically lower than expected for the five objects by factors from 3.2 to 7.5. The uncertainties in the derived discrepancy factors are too high to reach a definitive conclusion, but the present analysis offers two hints as to the possible explanation:
1. [The discrepancies obtained with \[\] $\lambda6739.8$, on the one hand, and \[\] $\lambda2836.56$ and the \[\] blend at $\lambda4904$, on the other, might be different (see the values of $\mbox{Fe}^{3+}_{\rm exp}/\mbox{Fe}^{3+}$ in Table \[t2\]). The measurement of these lines in a single object would help to establish this issue. If confirmed, this result would imply that the collision strengths for $\mbox{Fe}^{3+}$ are unreliable.]{}
2. [The values of $[x(\mbox{O}^+)/x(\mbox{Fe}^{++})]$ derived for the objects in the sample might show a trend with the degree of ionization given by $\mbox{O}^+/\mbox{O}^{++}$ (see Fig. \[f2\]). Since the ionization models predict a constant value for this ICF, $[x(\mbox{O}^+)/x(\mbox{Fe}^{++})]\simeq1.1$, a deviation from this constant value that depends on the degree of ionization would suggest that the Fe ionization fractions predicted by models are seriously in error. The measurement of \[\] lines in more objects would help to establish the reality of this trend.]{}
Other explanations, like the existence of some kind of gradient in the Fe abundance within the ionized gas, cannot be ruled out at the moment.
The values of $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$ implied by both methods decrease with metallicity, as shown in Figure \[f3\]. This trend, which should be confirmed for other low metallicity objects, probably reflects an increase of the Fe depletion factors in the different objects as their metallicity increases. The increment of Fe atoms in the gas of low metallicity regions could be due to the effect of the harder radiation fields typically found in these objects. This is suggested by the fact that if the planetary nebula is excluded, the $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$ abundance ratios follow and extend to higher degrees of ionization the correlation with the degree of ionization previously found in @rod96 [@rod02] for Galactic regions in the solar neighborhood. The deviation of from the relationship could be due to the large uncertainties in the abundances derived for this object or to the specific origin and characteristics of dust grains in planetary nebulae. Although the values of $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$ for the other objects follow the correlation with the degree of ionization independently of whether \[\] emission is considered or not, the shape of the correlation depends on which method is used in the abundance determination. Furthermore, the $\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}$ abundance ratio in the low metallicity galaxy , which has important implications for our understanding of chemical evolution, remains uncertain by a factor of 5. All these implications emphasize the need for a correct understanding of the reasons behind the \[\] discrepancy.
I thank R. Manso Sainz and R. H. Rubin for reading the paper and providing many useful comments, improvements and corrections. I also acknowledge discussions with L. Binette and the valuable comments of an anonymous referee. This work has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service. The project was supported by the Mexican CONACYT project J37680-E.
Baldwin, J. A., Ferland, G. J., Martin, P. G., Corbin, M. R., Cota, S. A., Peterson, B. M., & Slettebak, A. 1991, , 374, 580 Baldwin, J. A., Verner, E. M., Verner, D. A., Ferland, G. J., Martin, P. G., Korista, K. T., & Rubin, R. H. 2000, , 129, 229 Baluteau, J.-P., Zavagno, A., Morisset, C., & Péquignot, D. 1995, , 303, 175 Bautista, M. A., & Pradhan, A. K. 1998, , 492, 650 Campbell, A., Terlevich, R., & Melnick, J. 1986, , 223, 811 Davey, A. R., Storey, P. J., & Kisielius, R. 2000, A&AS, 142, 85 Esteban, C., Peimbert, M., Torres-Peimbert, S., & Rodríguez, M. 2002, , 581, 241 Froese Fischer, C., & Rubin, R. H. 1998, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 31, 1657 Garstang, R. H. 1958, , 118, 572 Gruenwald, R. B., & Viegas, S. M. 1992, , 78, 153 Holweger, H. 2001, in AIP Conf. Proc. 598, Solar and Galactic Composition, ed. R. F. Wimmer-Schweingruber (New York: Springer-Verlag), 23 Hyung, S., Aller, L. H., & Lee, W.-B. 2001, , 113, 1559 Izotov, Y. I., Chaffee, F. H., & Schaerer, D. 2001, , 378, L45 Izotov, Y. I., & Thuan, T. X. 1999, ApJ, 511, 639 Kingdon, J. B., & Ferland, G. J. 1996, , 106, 205 Korn, A. J., Becker, S. R., Gummersbach, C. A., & Wolf B. 2000, , 353, 655 Kurt, C. M., Dufour, R. J., Garnett, D. R., Skillman, E. D., Mathis, J. S., Peimbert, M., Torres-Peimbert. S., & Ruiz, M.-T. 1999, , 518, 246 Lucy, L. B. 1995, , 294, 555 McKenna, F. C., Keenan, F. P., Hambly, N. C., Allende Prieto, C., Rolleston, W. R. J., Aller, L. H., & Feibelman, W. A. 1997, , 109, 225 Nahar, S. 1996a, , 53, 1545 Nahar, S. 1996b, , 53, 2417 Nissen, P. E., Primas, F., Asplund, M., & Lambert, D. L. 2002, , 390, 235 Peimbert, A. 2003, , 584, 735 Quinet, P. 1996, A&AS, 116, 573 Recchi, S., Matteucci, F., D’Ercole, A., & Tosi, M. 2002, , 384, 799 Reilman, R. F., & Manson, S. T. 1979, , 40, 815 Rodríguez, M. 1996, , 313, L5 Rodríguez, M. 1999a, , 348, 222 Rodríguez, M. 1999b, , 351, 1075 Rodríguez, M. 2002, , 389, 556 Rubin, R. H., Simpson, J. P., Haas, M. R., & Erickson, E. F. 1991a, , 374, 564 Rubin, R. H., Simpson, J. P., Haas, M. R., & Erickson, E. F. 1991b, , 103, 834 Rubin, R. H., et al. 1997, , 474, L131 Smith, V. V., et al. 2002, , 124, 3241 Stasińska, G. 1982, A&AS, 48, 299 Stasińska, G. 1990, A&AS, 83, 501 Verner, E. M., Verner, D. A., Baldwin, J. A., Ferland, G. J., & Martin, P. G. 2000, ApJ, 543, 831 Woods, D. T., Shull, J. M., & Sarazin, C. L. 1981, , 249, 399 Zhang, H. L. 1996, A&AS, 119, 523 Zhang, H. L., & Pradhan, A. K. 1997, A&AS, 126, 373
[lcccccc]{} $\lambda$4008 ($^3G_4\rightarrow{^5D}_4$) & 1.89E$-7$ & & 3.08E$-7$ & & &\
$\lambda$4080 ($^3G_4\rightarrow{^5D}_3$) & & & 3.44E$-7$ & & &\
$\lambda$4607 ($^3F_3\rightarrow{^5D}_4$) & 1.64E$-7$ & & & & &\
$\lambda$4658 ($^3F_4\rightarrow{^5D}_4$) & 1.59E$-7$ & 3.03E$-8$ & 3.13E$-7$ & 1.69E$-7$ & 1.31E$-7$ & 3.24E$-8$\
$\lambda$4667 ($^3F_2\rightarrow{^5D}_3$) & & & 3.82E$-7$ & & &\
$\lambda$4701 ($^3F_3\rightarrow{^5D}_3$) & 1.60E$-7$ & & 3.15E$-7$ & & &\
$\lambda$4734 ($^3F_2\rightarrow{^5D}_2$) & 1.75E$-7$ & & 3.45E$-7$ & & &\
$\lambda$4755 ($^3F_4\rightarrow{^5D}_3$) & 1.60E$-7$ & & 3.21E$-7$ && & 4.44E$-8$\
$\lambda$4769 ($^3F_3\rightarrow{^5D}_2$) & 2.04E$-7$ & & 3.17E$-7$ & & &\
$\lambda$4778 ($^3F_2\rightarrow{^5D}_1$) & 1.41E$-7$ & & 3.44E$-7$ & & &\
$\lambda$4881 ($^3H_4\rightarrow{^5D}_4$) & 2.03E$-7$ & 3.79E$-8$ & 3.21E$-7$ & & &\
$\lambda$4986 ($^3H_6\rightarrow{^5D}_4$) & 1.40E$-7$ & & & & &\
$\lambda$5011 ($^3P_1\rightarrow{^5D}_2$) & 1.58E$-7$ & & 3.10E$-7$ & & &\
$\lambda$5084 ($^3P_1\rightarrow{^5D}_0$) & & & 3.44E$-7$ & & &\
$\lambda$5270 ($^3P_2\rightarrow{^5D}_3$) & 1.69E$-7$ & 7.36E$-8$ & 3.07E$-7$ & & &\
$\lambda$5412 ($^3P_2\rightarrow{^5D}_1$) & 1.48E$-7$ & & 3.38E$-7$ & & &\
\
&\
\
& & & & & &\
\
$\lambda$2837 ($^4P_{5/2}\rightarrow{^6S}_{5/2}$) & & & & 3.51E$-7$ & 4.17E$-7$ &\
$\lambda$4900 $(^4F_{7/2}\rightarrow{^4G}_{9/2})+$ & & & & & &\
$\lambda$4903 $(^4F_{7/2}\rightarrow{^4G}_{7/2})+$ & & & & & &\
$\lambda$4907 $(^4F_{9/2}\rightarrow{^4G}_{11/2})$ & & & & & & 1.21E$-7$\
$\lambda$5234 ($^2F_{7/2}\rightarrow{^4G}_{9/2}$) & & & & & & 1.39E$-7$\
$\lambda$6734 ($^2I_{13/2}\rightarrow{^4G}_{11/2}$) & $\le4.70$E$-7$ & & & & &\
$\lambda$6740 ($^2I_{11/2}\rightarrow{^4G}_{11/2}$) & $\le3.46$E$-7$ & 5.57E$-7$ & 3.36E$-7$ & & &\
$\lambda$7223 ($^4F_{9/2}\rightarrow{^4D}_{7/2}$) & &&&& & 5.79E$-8$\
[lllllll]{} & $10800^{+350}_{-300}$ & 440$\pm190$ & $7.56^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ & & 5.22$\pm$0.07 &\
& 10000$\pm$200 & 440$\pm$190 & & 8.25$\pm$0.04 & & $\le5.54$\
& 12200$^{+5000}_{-2000}$ & 8700$\pm$3900 & $6.99^{+0.31}_{-0.55}$ & & $4.70^{+0.24}_{-0.60}$ &\
& 10600$^{+900}_{-600}$ & 8700$\pm$3900 & & $8.50^{+0.09}_{-0.12}$ & & $5.75^{+0.20}_{-0.34}$\
& 10000$^{+1600}_{-1000}$ & 6400$\pm$2800 & $7.92^{+0.23}_{-0.32}$ & & $5.52^{+0.16}_{-0.20}$ &\
& 8300$^{+600}_{-400}$ & 6400$\pm$2800 & & $8.46^{+0.11}_{-0.15}$ & & $5.52^{+0.24}_{-0.46}$\
& 14200$\pm$400 & 10200$^{+4800}_{-6100}$ & $6.96^{+0.11}_{-0.19}$ & 7.97$\pm$0.04 & 5.23$\pm$0.05 & 5.55$\pm$0.06\
& 13500$^{+900}_{-600}$ & 1500$^{+4500}_{-1000}$ & $6.69^{+0.19}_{-0.14}$ & $8.02^{+0.06}_{-0.08}$ & $5.12^{+0.11}_{-0.13}$ & $5.62^{+0.11}_{-0.16}$\
& 20200$^{+800}_{-700}$ & 300$^{+400}_{-270}$ & $5.92^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$ & $7.24^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$ & 4.51$\pm$0.11 & $5.08^{+0.18}_{-0.32}$\
[llllllc]{} & 8.33$\pm$0.03 & 6.04$\pm$0.07 & $-2.29^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$ & $\le5.71$ & $\le-2.62$ & $\ge2.7$\
& 8.51$^{+0.09}_{-0.12}$ & 6.26$^{+0.16}_{-0.25}$ & $-2.25^{+0.15}_{-0.20}$ & 5.78$^{+0.19}_{-0.30}$ & $-2.73^{+0.20}_{-0.33}$ & 3.2$^{+2.3}_{-2.4}$\
& 8.57$^{+0.10}_{-0.13}$ & 6.27$^{+0.19}_{-0.22}$ & $-$2.30$\pm$0.15 & 5.86$^{+0.15}_{-0.20}$ & $-2.71^{+0.17}_{-0.25}$ & 4.4$^{+4.1}_{-3.9}$\
& 8.01$\pm$0.04 & 6.32$^{+0.15}_{-0.10}$ & $-1.69^{+0.17}_{-0.10}$ & 5.72$\pm$0.05 & $-2.30^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$ & 5.5$^{+2.5}_{-1.3}$\
& 8.04$^{+0.06}_{-0.08}$ & 6.51$^{+0.14}_{-0.24}$ & $-1.53^{+0.14}_{-0.25}$ & 5.74$^{+0.10}_{-0.13}$ & $-2.30^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$ & 7.5$^{+3.2}_{-3.6}$\
& 7.26$\pm$0.04 & 5.89$^{+0.13}_{-0.14}$ & $-$1.37$\pm$0.13 & 5.19$^{+0.15}_{-0.23}$ & $-2.07^{+0.15}_{-0.23}$ & 6.1$^{+3.7}_{-3.5}$\
[^1]: Available at <http://Physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/AtData/main$_-$asd>.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'J. Biernaux'
- 'P. Magain'
- 'D. Sluse'
- 'V. Chantry'
bibliography:
- 'sl\_shape.bib'
date: October 2015
title: Analysis of luminosity distributions and the shape parameters of strong gravitational lensing elliptical galaxies
---
Introduction {#sec_intro}
============
Understanding the formation and evolution of the mass distribution of early-type galaxies is one of the major challenges of current observational extragalactic astrophysics. Early-type galaxies are, however, particularly difficult targets because of the lack of kinematic tracers, such as hydrogen emission lines, compared to spiral galaxies. Some authors have obtained dynamical data for early-type galaxies, based for example on planetary nebulae [@Rom2003] or X-ray emission [@Memola2011]. The study of their kinematics has recently become feasible: the SLUGGS survey team directly mapped star velocities in 14 early-type galaxies using the DEIMOS spectrograph at the Keck Observatory [@Cappellari2013; @Cappellari2015]. Nonetheless, those works focus on low-$z$ galaxies, possibly leading to inconclusive results regarding, for example, the quantity of dark matter and baryons in their centre.\
Gravitational lensing offers an alternative to the study of the mass distribution of galaxies. It is also the most precise technique for measuring the mass of elliptical galaxies (within the Einstein radius) up to a redshift $z=1$ [e.g. @Augeretal2010]. Many pieces of software have been developed to study the mass profiles of the lenses, such as GRAVLENS [@Keeton2001], SimpLens [@Simplens], GRALE [@Grale], PixeLens [@Pixelens], LENSTOOL [@Lenstool], Lensview [@Lensview], LensPerfect [@LensPerfect], or glafic [@Oguri2010]. Because of their usually higher surface mass density, elliptical galaxies are more often involved in gravitational lensing phenomena than are spirals. When their total mass profile can be compared to their luminosity distribution, a great deal of information can be unveiled, for example, about their distribution of dark matter [see e.g. @Bertinetal1994; @Rom2003; @Dekeletal2005; @Cappellari2015]. It is therefore of highest interest to accurately determine the luminosity distribution of lensing galaxies.\
Measuring the morphology of lensing galaxies is noticeably more complex than for non-lensing galaxies because of the lensed images. Indeed, the lens usually appears surrounded by deflected background source images and by diffuse lensed components, such as arcs. This constitutes a parasite signal that has to be subtracted from the actual galaxy signal. But even after that subtraction, the uncertainties due to the subtracted lensed images and the remaining diffuse lensed components limit the modelling to the inner regions of the galaxy and the measurements to small parts of the lens. This may cause classical fitting techniques such as GALFIT [@galfit1; @galfit2] to perform poorly on such images. For that reason, the first aim of this work is to present a technique that is as robust as possible for studying the shape parameters of lensing galaxies and that is able to work around the above-mentioned artefacts.\
Several gravitational lenses surveys have been conducted during the past decade. One of the most fruitful lens galaxy-hunting programmes has been the SLACS survey [@Bolton2006]. In that sample, the light of a background galaxy is deflected by a foreground one. Another kind of gravitational lens, multiply imaged quasars, has been considered in the SQLS survey [@SQLS]. HST images of about a hundred galaxy-quasar strong lensing systems are compiled in the CASTLES database [@castles1; @castles2]. Some of these images have already been extensively studied in publications from the COSMOGRAIL project [e.g. @Chantryetal2010; @Courbinetal2011; @Sluseetal2012a]. These authors have used a deconvolution method known as the MCS algorithm [@Magainetal1998; @ChantryMag2007]. Deriving a good proxy on the point-spread function (PSF) is one of the key aspects of analysing those images. The iterative deconvolution technique devised by [@ChantryMag2007] allows one to find the best PSF by iteratively subtracting a diffuse component, including any non-point-like object, such as galaxies and lensed arcs, until convergence to an image of the point sources. Other authors [e.g. @Keeton2006; @Morganetal2006] have used synthetic PSFs, which are based on the TinyTim software [@TinyTim1; @TinyTim2] and on the two-dimensional luminosity profile fitting software IMFITFITS [@McLeod1998; @Leharetal2000; @Mezcua2014], to derive the galaxy parameters.\
In a recent work, [@Schechter14] have mentioned the discrepancies between MCS-based image processing and other methods, regarding the measurement of the half-light radius[^1] of lensing galaxies. MCS-based studies seem to get higher half-light radii than the TinyTim-based studies. It thus appears of primary importance to examine the causes of these discrepancies. This is the second aim of this work.\
The IMFITFITS measurements result from fitting a convolved analytical model directly to the image. In contrast, the MCS measurements are based on a multi-step procedure where the image is first deconvolved by finding the best PSF and, then, a convolved model is fitted on the image. Motivated by the results of [@Schechter14], we re-analysed the data published in [@Chantryetal2010] and [@Sluseetal2012a]. We identified two likely sources of systematic errors with those data: on the one hand, the sky background was found to be underestimated, thus attributing too much luminosity to the galaxy. On the other hand, the minimisation of a merit function in the parameter space, as implemented in the Levenberg-Marquardt method-based software used in those papers [@Marq1963; @numrec], can remain stuck in local minima. Those two effects lead to overestimating the half-light radius. To tackle those problems, we decided to reprocess the published data and to design a method that allows the measurement of each shape parameter independently (i.e. ellipticity, position angle of the major axis, and half-light radius). We eventually apply this method to lensing galaxies from a sample of systems studied in both MCS and IMFITFITS works, and compare our half-light radii to the previous values. This is the third and final aim of this work.\
This paper is structured as follows. In Sect. \[sec\_sample\], we present our lens sample as well as how the data frames were pre-processed, taking the specificities of strong gravitational lensing image processing into account. In Sect. \[sec\_methods\], the methods designed to measure each shape parameter are explained, and the half-light radius measurement is compared to a widely used fitting method. The extensive error calculation is explained in Sect. \[sec\_error\]. The results of the shape parameters measurement are presented, discussed, and compared to previous works in Sects. \[sec\_results\] and \[sec\_resicurv\]. Finally, the conclusion and prospects are provided in Sect. \[sec\_ccl\].\
Throughout this paper, angular units are converted into kiloparsecs using the WMAP [@Lewis2008] cosmological parameters, for the purpose of a comparison with results from [@Chantryetal2010] and [@Sluseetal2012a]: $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.73; \;\Omega_{M} = 0.27; \;h = 0.71$. The use of more up-to-date cosmological parameters as derived by Planck ($\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.68; \;\Omega_{M} = 0.352; \;h = 0.68$ [@Planck2013] only leads to variations in the half-light radii of less than a tenth of a kiloparsec, or about 5%, even for the galaxies with the highest redshifts.\
Lens sample {#sec_sample}
===========
[| c c c c c c |]{} *System* & *\# frames* & *Source redshift* & *Lens redshift* & *RA (J2000)* & *DEC (J2000)*\
& & & & &\
MG0414+0534 & 13 & $ 2.64$ & $0.96$ & 04:14:37.73 & +05:34:44.3\
HE0435-1223 & 4 & $ 1.689$ & $0.46$ & 04:38:14.9 & $-$12:17:14.4\
RXJ0911+0551 & 4 & $2.80$ & $0.77$ & 09:11:27.50 & +05:50:52.0\
SDSS0924+0219 & 8 & $ 1.524$ & $0.359$ & 09:24:55.87 & +02:19:24.9\
PG1115+080 & 4 & $1.72$ & $0.351$ & 11:18:17.00 & +07:45:57.7\
SDSS1138+0314 & 4 & $ 2.44$ & $0.45 $ & 11:38:03.70 & +03:14:58.0\
B1422+231 & 4 & $3.62$ & $0.354$ &14:24:38.09 & +22:56:00.6\
& & & & &\
\[table\_data\]
0.3cm  \[fig\_step\]
Data {#sec_data}
----
Seven gravitational lensing systems were selected from the CASTLES database[^2] [@Castles]. They have been chosen amongst a larger sample of lenses, which were previously processed in [@Chantryetal2010] and [@Sluseetal2012a]. We have chosen to focus on quadruply lensed sources. The redshifts of each lens and source had to be securely known, and systems with multiple lenses of similar luminosity were excluded. The full sample is thus reduced to a subsample of seven systems. The images were obtained with the NIC2 camera of the NICMOS instrument onboard the HST between 1997 and 2004 in the near infrared H band. The angular scale of these images is 0.075 arcseconds per pixel.\
Previous processing of these data in [@Chantryetal2010] and [@Sluseetal2012a] includes a careful and thorough determination of the PSF for each data frame, using the MCS algorithm. These very detailed PSFs have not only given access to accurate astrometry, but also made it possible to clearly distinguish the deflected images from the galaxy, as explained in the next section. The main results of this previous processing, i.e. the PSFs and the astrometry (positions of the lensing galaxies centres and of the deflected sources), have been used as a basis for the present work.\
Pre-processing {#sec_pp}
--------------
The first step of the pre-processing consists in correcting for the cosmic rays, for hot, saturated, poorly dark-corrected or flat-field-corrected pixels, and for pixels affected by readout errors. This is performed by identifying those pixels thanks to a data quality map provided in the HST-NICMOS data package. Then, the sky background value is determined in the form of a constant value and individually computed for each frame. This is done by calculating the average intensity of object-free zones, that is, areas where there is no intensity gradient caused, for example, by the presence of the galaxy, the sources, any arc, or other object. Since the NICMOS detector is divided into four cells, four different sky background values have to be computed for each data frame. Then, the determined values are subtracted directly from the intensity of each pixel. On average, the magnitude of the underestimation of the sky in [@Chantryetal2010] and [@Sluseetal2012a] reaches about 12%.\
In addition to this pre-processing, we carry out a subtraction of the quasar lensed images. The purpose of this subtraction is to distinguish flux coming from the sources and from the lens, so that a parasite signal from the sources is removed from the galaxy’s luminosity profile. This is performed following four steps (Fig. \[fig\_step\]). First, the original image is deconvolved using the MCS-determined PSF. After deconvolution, a frame picturing only the four deconvolved lensed images is created. They are represented with a Gaussian profile of a two-pixel FWHM, the final resolution of the deconvolved image. This synthetic frame does not include any diffuse component, such as lensed arcs, a background sky, or the lens galaxy. It is then convolved by the PSF. The resulting frame depicts the four lensed images as if they were observed through the HST-NICMOS instrument without light from the intervening galaxy and sky background. Eventually, this last image is subtracted from the original image. The final result is an image of the lensing galaxy and arcs without the point sources and at the HST-NICMOS resolution. The results for each system are shown in Fig. \[fig\_subdec\].\
------------------------------------
\[0.5cm\] 
\[0.5cm\] 
\[0.5cm\] 
\[0.5cm\]
------------------------------------
\[fig\_subdec\]
------------------------------------
\[0.5cm\] 
\[0.5cm\] 
\[0.5cm\]
------------------------------------
Methods {#sec_methods}
=======
In this section, we explain how we characterise the galaxy morphology and describe our measurement method for each of its shape parameters. As explained in Sect. \[sec\_intro\], we want to determine each of them as independently from each other as possible. For each of the seven systems, the measurements are individually conducted on all the data frames (13 times for MG0414+0534, etc., as seen in Table \[table\_data\]). Then, those results are averaged over all the frames. These average values and their standard error on the mean ($\sigma_{\rm{rand}}$) are given in Sect. \[sec\_results\]. The methods described hereafter are applied directly to the PSF-convolved data frames. The results are corrected from the convolution afterwards, as described in Sect. \[subsec\_analy\].
Measurement of the position angle {#sec_pa}
---------------------------------
\
\[fig\_PA\]
The positon angle (PA) of a lens galaxy is defined as the orientation angle of its semi-major axis. To measure the PA of the galaxy, we construct four quadrant-shaped masks of a radius approximately equal to the galaxy semi-minor axis. A mask is an image consisting of null pixels, except from a chosen area where the pixels have an arbitrary intensity of one. Pixels that are only partially included in the chosen area are given an intensity equal to the fraction of their surface included in the area. To do so, the mask is created with a sampling step eight times smaller than the data frames, and then rebinned linearly to the NIC2 spatial resolution. The radius of the mask is chosen large enough to include as much galaxy signal as possible without reaching the parasite signal from the remaining arcs. The mask centre is aligned with the galaxy centre and applied on its images. This operation reveals two zones, A and B, on the elliptical luminosity distribution (Fig. \[fig\_PA\], top panel). The total intensities within zones A and B, $I_{A}$ and $I_{B}$, are respectively computed, as well as their difference, labelled $\Delta$. The mask is then rotated around its centre, and the operation is repeated for each orientation angle of the mask. A plot of $\Delta$ versus the rotation angle $\theta$ reveals the position angle, which is the value of $\theta$ that maximises $\Delta$ (Fig. \[fig\_PA\], bottom panel). A 90 uncertainty remains at that point, but it is removed when the ellipticity is known. The plots resulting from the application of this process to the analysed objects are shown in Fig. \[fig\_resmeasur\]. It should be pointed out that the measurement of the PA is carried out directly on the data frames prior to any rotation. The PA on the data frame is corrected a posteriori to obtain a PA on the sky. The latter value is given in Sect. \[sec\_results\].\
The choice of the radius of the masks potentially changes the result of the measurement. To determine whether that is the case, the measurements were conducted with masks of various radii. It is shown in Fig. \[fig\_inflb\] that regardless of the mask radius within a reasonable range, excluding the rings and arcs, the measured PA is the same within its error bar. The radius of the mask thus has no significant influence on the measured PA. Figure \[fig\_inflb\] shows the average PA measured on the four data frames of HE0435-1223 with masks of a radius from four to nine pixels. Their error bars correspond to the standard error on the mean.\
Measurement of the ellipticity {#sec_epsi}
------------------------------
\
\[fig\_elli\]
We also use a mask to measure the galaxy ellipticity. It is defined as the following expression, depending on the ratio between the semi-major and semi-minor axes $a$ and $b$: $$\label{eq_epsilon}
\varepsilon = 1 - \frac{b}{a}
.$$ Several ring-shaped masks of increasing ellipticity are successively applied to the frame. The masks are created in the same way as in Sect. \[sec\_pa\], except that they are elliptical, ring-shaped instead of circular. The isolated ring-shaped parts of the galaxy are divided into four quadrants, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_elli\] (top panel) by the labels A and B. The average intensities within areas A and B, $\overline{I}_{A}$ and $\overline{I}_{B}$, are computed at each step, as well as their difference $\Delta$. When the mask has the same ellipticity as the galaxy, it shapes out an isophote. Thus, at that very step, $\Delta = 0$. Plotting $\Delta$ versus the ellipticity of the mask and determining the intersection between this curve and $\Delta = 0$ gives the ellipticity of the galaxy (Fig. \[fig\_elli\], bottom panel and Fig. \[fig\_resmeasur\].) Once again, the ellipticity measurement does not depend on the semi-minor axis of the mask, as shown in Fig. \[fig\_inflb\]. The measurement has been conducted on the four frames of HE0435-1223 with masks of increasing semi-minor axis, from four to nine pixels. It is shown that the result remains constant within $\sigma_{\rm{rand}}$. However, the last data point, corresponding to an inner semi-minor axis of nine pixels, has a dramatic error bar and an odd value for $\varepsilon$. This is because the outer semi-major axis of the ring-shaped masks reaches 12 pixels and encloses some signal from the arc. Therefore, the masks should be chosen not to include such signal.\
The elliptical ring-shaped masks are characterised by some thickness. Usually, the difference between the inner and outer semi-minor axes is three pixels. The ellipticity and PA of each isophote may differ, because twisting can be observed in elliptical luminosity profiles [@Liller1960; @Liller1966]. The isophotes twisting within the thickness of the ring cannot be detected on the frame, particularly because of pixelation. Therefore, by considering a rather thick isophote, we can safely assume that the ellipticity of the profile is averaged over the few isophotes included in the mask.\
------------------------ --------------------------
 
\[0.5cm\]
------------------------ --------------------------
\[fig\_inflb\]
--------------------------------------- -------------------------------
 
\[0.5cm\]  
\[0.5cm\]  
\[0.5cm\]  
\[0.5cm\]
--------------------------------------- -------------------------------
\[fig\_resmeasur\]
--------------------------------------- -------------------------------
 
\[0.5cm\]  
\[0.5cm\]  
\[0.5cm\]
--------------------------------------- -------------------------------
Measurement of the half-light radius {#sec_reff}
------------------------------------
The last structural parameter to be measured is the half-light radius. This parameter is especially important, since it gives an estimate of the size of the galaxy luminous component. For a hypothetically circular galaxy, the luminosity profile is usually represented by the Sérsic profile [@Sersic1963; @Prugetal1997]:
$$I = I_{\rm{eff}}\exp{\left(-k\left((\frac{r}{r_{\rm{eff}}})^{1/n} - 1\right)\right)}
\label{eq_sersic}$$
where $I_{\rm{eff}}$ is the surface brightness at the half-light radius, and $r_{\rm{eff}}$ is the half-light radius. The constant $k$ is a normalisation constant that can be expressed as a function of the exponent $n$ [@Prugetal1997]:
$$k = 2n - \frac{1}{3} + \frac{0.009876}{n}
\label{eq_k}
.$$
In this work, we use the specific case of $n=4$, i.e. the de Vaucouleurs law. This law empirically proved to be a good representation of the luminosity profile of elliptical galaxies. However, there could be a scatter in the observed Sérsic indices [@Kormendy2009; @BOSS], and the study of $n$ will be the basis of a forthcoming paper. The convolved profile of the galaxy is assumed to be a de Vaucouleurs law at that point, but the effect of the PSF is taken into account later in Sect. \[subsec\_analy\].\
By calculating the natural logarithm of Eq. \[eq\_sersic\] with $n = 4$ we get
$$\ln{I} = \ln{I_{\rm{eff}}} - k\left(\frac{r}{r_{\rm{eff}}}\right)^{1/4} - k
\label{eq_lnsersic}
,$$
which is in fact a linear relationship between $\ln{I}$ and the radial coordinate $r^{1/4}$. The slope $s$ of this straight line is given by $$\label{eq_slope}
s = -\frac{k}{r_{\rm{eff}}^{1/4}}$$
and the half-light radius $r_{\rm{eff}}$ can be expressed as $$r_{\rm{eff}} = -\left(\frac{k}{s}\right)^{4}
\label{eq_reff1}
.$$
The half-light radius measurement procedure is based on determining the slope of this linear relationship between $\ln{I}$ and $r^{1/4}$. We therefore call it the linear regression method. For an elliptical luminosity profile, $r = \sqrt{ab}$, where $a$ and $b$ are the semi-major and semi-minor axes of the isophotes.\
Since the ellipticity and PA of the (convolved) galaxy are already known (see Sects. \[sec\_pa\] and \[sec\_epsi\]), it is possible to apply elliptical ring-shaped masks to the frame with the same ellipticity and PA as the galaxy. Thoses shape out one-pixel wide isophotes of increasing radius. The intensity $I$ of each isophote is measured, $\ln{I}$ is plotted versus the radial coordinate $r^{1/4}$, and a linear regression is performed (Fig. \[fig\_plotreff\]). The slope of the fitted straight line gives access to the (convolved) value of $r_{\rm{eff}}$ through Eq. \[eq\_slope\]. The central pixel is not considered when constructing this plot, because (1) its intensity is very sensitive to the position of the centre with respect to the pixel grid and (2) actual galaxy profiles often differ from the de Vaucouleurs law at the very centre [@Kormendy2009].
0.5cm
[c c]{}  & \
 & \
 & \
\[fig\_plotreff\]
Obtaining a deconvolved model for each lens {#subsec_analy}
-------------------------------------------
All the measurements described above are conducted directly on the data frames; therefore, the luminosity profile is still affected, at that point, by the PSF. To correct for the PSF convolution, an analytical model is produced for each lens galaxy, i.e. a two-dimensional image of an elliptical de Vaucouleurs profile. This model is then convolved by the PSF, using a classical FFT algorithm (see chapter 12.4 of [@numrec]. For higher accuracy, the model is computed on a 2\*2 finer pixel grid and then later resampled to the original pixel grid. Its ellipticity, PA, and half-light radius are measured, the same way as described above. The parameters of the analytical model are adjusted until the values measured on the convolved model match those measured on the actual data frames. The values discussed in Sect. \[sec\_results\] are from the deconvolved model. A comparison of the parameters before and after correction from the PSF is given in Table \[tab\_beforeafter\]. As expected, the convolution tends to “round up” the de Vaucouleurs profile, increasing its half-light radius and decreasing its ellipticity.\
This iterative step is a major difference between this method and the previous MCS-based works. Indeed, in [@Chantryetal2010] and [@Sluseetal2012a], a two-dimensional model was fitted on the data frames, whereas our method focuses on radial profiles for the measurement of $r_{\rm{eff}}$.\
The detailed parameters of the measurements, i.e. centre positions of the galaxies, radii, and shape parameters of the masks, are only available in electronic format. Table 6, available at the CDS, contains the following information: Column 1 lists the name of the system. Columns 2 and 3 give the galaxy centre coordinates, relative to a reference lensed image, indicated by $A$ or $A1$ in Fig. \[fig\_subdec\]. Column 4 gives the semi-minor axis of the fitting region, i.e. the semi-minor axis of the largest isophote computed in the half-light radius measurement method. Column 5 gives the name of each individual frame in the HST-NICMOS convention. Columns 6 and 7 give the PA of the galaxy on each data frame, in the data frame orientation and in the *North Up, East Right* orientation. Column 8 gives the galaxy ellipticity as directly measured on the data frames, i.e. affected by the PSF. Those ellipticities and PAs are used for the masks in the half-light radius measurement method. Finally, Column 9 gives the half-light radius of the galaxy, also affected by the PSF.
Testing the linear regression method {#sec_sim}
------------------------------------
In this section, we test the robustuness of our new method in retrieving the half-light radius of galaxies, which is the key quantity we seek in this work. We compare our method to the commonly used profile-fitting code GALFIT. The GALFIT algorithm consists in fitting a convolved model directly on a data frame, and in optimising it by minimising its $\chi^{2}$-value. This methodology is similar to the one used by many galaxy shape measurement softwares, such as IMFITFITS, setting this comparison in the context of our investigation of the discrepancies noted by [@Schechter14].\
We performed the half-light radius measurement with both the linear regression method and GALFIT on sets of simulations. We examined the impact on the results of the size of the fitting region, the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N), and the size of the galaxy compared to the PSF. We also investigate how the use of an incorrect Sérsic index affects the shape measurements. Indeed, the widely used de Vaucouleurs profile is a specific case of the Sérsic profile, and the effect of using a de Vaucouleurs law on a physical profile that might have a different exponent is of great interest. Mock galaxies are built using a circularly symmetric Sérsic luminosity profile. They are convolved using a typical NIC2 PSF, of approximately a two-pixel FWHM. Some noise is added, considering both photon noise and a Gaussian background sky noise. The S/N is calculated considering the maximum signal at the peak of the convolved Sérsic profile.\
Measuring the half-light radius with GALFIT means that only the parameters $r_{\rm{eff}}$ and the central brightness of the galaxy are free. The coordinates of the centre were constrained in a small domain around the actual values[^3]. We used the same PSF for GALFIT and the linear regression method. GALFIT requires a $1\sigma$ error image as input: we used an image of the total noise, thus taking both photon noise and background noise into account. Even though GALFIT is built to optimise the value of $n$, we chose to set it to $n=4$, because we are investigating the discrepancies between the de Vaucouleurs models.
### Effect of $n$
First, we build a mock galaxy using a Sérsic profile with an index $n=3$. We choose a set value for its half-right radius of ten pixels, which is a typical value for the systems in our sample (see Sect \[sec\_results\]). We label it $r_{\rm{eff, true}}$ as opposed to the notation $r_{\rm{eff}}$ assigned to the measured values. We choose a S/N of 800, which is unrealistically high. We only modify the region over which the fit is carried out from a radius of 1 $r_{\rm{eff, true}}$ to 5 $r_{\rm{eff, true}}$. We perform the fit using a $n=3$ Sérsic profile. Then, to test the impact of the choice of $n$ on the measurement of $r_{\rm{eff}}$, we also use the purposely incorrect value of $n=4$. For each set of values of {$n, S/N$, size of fitting region}, five iterations of the random noise generation are conducted, in order to calculate a $\sigma_{\rm{rand}}$ on $r_{\rm{eff}}$.\
The top panel in Fig. \[fig\_stabn\] shows the resulting $r_{\rm{eff}}$ of both methods. One can see that when using the incorrect $n$, GALFIT overestimates the half-light radius by a factor that depends on the size of the fitting region. For inner regions of the galaxy, the overestimation reaches 1.7, and it only goes down to 1.4, even when probing out to 5 $r_{\rm{eff, true}}$. The 1.4 overestimation factor seems to be a convergence limit for GALFIT. In contrast, the linear regression method is able to find the correct $r_{\rm{eff}}$ when probing at least 4 $r_{\rm{eff, true}}$. For the inner regions, the overestimation factor in the linear regression method reaches roughly 1.45, less than the 1.7 factor that GALFIT displays. This simulation shows how robustly the linear regression method behaves regarding the Sérsic index, and how using the de Vaucouleurs law can have consequences on the mesurement of $r_{\rm{eff}}$ on profiles that have different Sérsic indices. Those consequences turn out to be even more important for gravitational lensing images, since the modelling is often restricted to inner parts of the galaxy, where the overestimation factor is the highest.\
### Effect of the S/N
We now only consider the $n=3$ measurements. By comparing the top, middle, and bottom panels in Fig. \[fig\_stabn\], one can see that when the S/N decreases, the GALFIT bias increases. The limit value of this overestimation when probing outer regions ranges from 3% to 7% when the S/N varies from 800 to 50. The intermediate value of 170 is the typical S/N of the frames of our sample. At this ratio, the GALFIT overestimate reaches 6% for a 5-$r_{\rm{eff, true}}$ fitting region and 9% for a 1-$r_{\rm{eff, true}}$ fitting region. It appears that even in the “best conditions”, i.e. with the highest S/N and the correct $n$ and when probing a large fitting region, GALFIT still slightly overestimates $r_{\rm{eff}}$ by about 3%.\
That is not the case for the linear regression method. A change in the S/N within the explored range did not cause any change in the measured $r_{\rm{eff}}$ larger than 2%, regardless of the size of the fitting region. For a S/N similar to the one of our NIC2 data, the largest error on $r_{\rm{eff}}$ in the linear regression method reaches only 0.3%. The fact that GALFIT converges to too high a value of $r_{\rm{eff}}$ may come from the processing of the PSF. Indeed, when the measurement is performed directly on the deconvolved mock galaxy, it reaches the right value. GALFIT deconvolves a portion of the input frame that is chosen by the user. It is suggested (see user manual) to choose a convolution box that is as large as possible, although the larger the box, the more time-consuming the process. The plots in Fig. \[fig\_stabn\] were obtained using the largest possible convolution box, that is, the total size of the frame. When the size of the convolution box is equal to that of the fitting box, the overestimate of the half-light radius (with the correct $n$) reaches 10%.\
0.5cm
------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
***GALFIT*** ***Linear regression***
 
 
 
------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
\[fig\_stabn\]
### Effect of the size of the galaxy
We now set S/N = 800 and $n=3$ but only modify the half-light radius $r_{\rm{eff, true}}$. The purpose of this set of tests is to examine how both methods behave for galaxies that are not much larger than the width of the PSF.\
First, we probe a 1-$r_{\rm{eff, true}}$ region. Figure \[fig\_stabsize\] shows that the smaller the galaxy, the higher the GALFIT overestimate. The largest bias is achieved for the smallest galaxy and reaches about 18%. However, when probing a large enough region of 3 $r_{\rm{eff, true}}$, the size of the galaxy seems to matter less for GALFIT, because the overestimation factor varies between 1.08 and 1.06. In contrast, the linear regression method performs remarkably well, regardless of the size of the galaxy and of the fitting region. This demonstrates that the linear regression method is particularly well suited to studying lensing galaxies, which are in general relatively compact, and where lensed images close to the galaxies restrain their analysis to small inner regions. Furthermore, it is shown here that the linear regression method is capable of handling galaxies that are not much larger than the PSF.\
In summary, those tests show that more robust results are obtained with our technique. The linear regression method behaves better than GALFIT regarding the critical aspects of image processing, such as the S/N or the fitting region. We have also shown that this method depends less on the knowledge of $n$ than GALFIT, and determining the shape parameters independently of each other and of $n$ is one of the aims of this work. However, our simulations have a domain of validity. In particular, the PSF we used here was (1) perfectly known, which is not usually the case for actual observations and (2) free of any noise. Neither the behaviour of GALFIT nor that of the linear regression method in cases where there are uncertainties on the true PSF has been investigated in this work.
0.5cm
------------------------------- -------------------------------
***GALFIT*** ***Linear regression***
 
------------------------------- -------------------------------
\[fig\_stabsize\]
### Test on mock galaxies with $n=4$
In Sect. \[sec\_sim\] we performed tests on mock galaxies with a Sérsic index $n=3$. However, the expected Sérsic index for ellipticals is most often $n=4$. The purpose of the simulation is only to test the behaviour of both methods in the same conditions, such that the Sérsic index of the mock galaxy does not affect our conclusion. To make sure that is the case, we performed identical tests with mock galaxies corresponding to a de Vaucouleurs profile, $n=4$. We followed the same prescription as in Sect. \[sec\_sim\] but for a de Vaucouleurs profile. Specifically, we convolved the profiles and added random Gaussian noise. Their half-light radii were measured with both methods, with $n=3$ and $n=4$ profiles.\
0.5cm
------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------
***GALFIT*** ***Linear regression***
 
 
 
------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------
\[fig\_stabnnegal4\]
The conclusions are similar to those of the test on mock galaxies with $n=3$; only this time, the use of a Sérsic index that is too low leads to underestimating the half-light radius. We first consider the S/N = 800 case. When using $n=3$, GALFIT underestimates the half-light radius by a factor depending on the fitting region. The larger the fitting region, the lower the underestimation, ranging between 13% and 23%. Those negative biases are, however, less important than the positive bias observed in the test with the $n=4$ model on $n=3$ mock galaxies. The same is true for the linear regression method: using too low a Sérsic index leads to an underestimation that depends on the size of the fitting region. It reaches 26% for the innermost regions. This bias is not smaller than that of GALFIT; however, as opposed to GALFIT, the linear regression method reaches the correct half-light radius even with a Sérsic index that is too low, when probing out to at least 4 $r_{\rm{eff}}$. When using the right $n$, the method converges towards the correct value, regardless of the fitting region, whereas GALFIT still slightly overestimates the half-light radius by about 5%\
When studying $n=4$ mock galaxies, there seems to be a slightly stronger dependency on the value of the S/N for GALFIT, as well as for the linear regression method, than with $n=3$ galaxies. Indeed, when comparing the top, middle, and bottom panels for GALFIT, it can be seen that the bias increases when the S/N decreases. For example, for a 2-$r_{\rm{eff}}$ fitting region using the correct $n=4$, the overestimation reaches 7%, 12%, and 16% for the three considered S/Ns. This dependency is also visible for the linear regression method: the size of the error bars (coming from the standard error on the mean amongst five iterations of the random noise addition) increases as the S/N decreases. However, the method still converges to the correct value, regardless the size of the fitting region.\
Error calculation {#sec_error}
=================
Each measurement has been conducted on all the frames in each system. The mean results and their $\sigma_{\rm{rand}}$ have been computed. In this section, we investigate the systematic errors caused by four major factors: the determination of the positions of the deflected images, of their intensities, of the galaxy centre coordinates, and of the sky background. Each of these error sources is studied individually. For readability, the approach will be explained in detail for the sky background. A similar approach is used to estimate the error bars coming from the astrometry and intensities of the lensed images.\
The background sky is calculated based on the average intensity of object-free zones (see Sect. \[sec\_pp\]). A $1\sigma$ error bar on its value is computed using the standard error on the mean $\sigma_{\bar{x}_{i}}$: $$\label{eq_sigma}
\sigma_{\bar{x}_{i}} = \sqrt{ \frac{\sum\limits_{j=1}^m(x_{j} - \bar{x}_{i})^{2}}{m(m-1)}}$$ where $m$ is the number of measurements for each background sky value (that is, the number of object-free zones on each data frame), $x_{j}$ is the individual value of the background sky for each zone and $\bar{x}_{i}$ the average of those $m$ values.\
The pre-processing and the measurements of shape parameters are conducted twice. Once with the correct values $\bar{x}_{i}$ of the background sky, and once with too high a value of $\bar{x}_{i} + \sigma_{\bar{x}_{i}}$. The resulting shape parameters are thus affected by the error propagation from the background sky. The difference between this value and the original one gives the error bar coming from the background sky.\
The same approach is used to evaluate the error propagation from the deflected images. A $1\sigma$ dispersion error bar has been calculated for their positions and intensities amongst all the frames of each system. The work is conducted once using the correct values, e.g of their X-position, and once using a wrong value, shifted by an offset of the same magnitude as the error bar. The same is done with the Y position and intensity of the sources. These transformations are only operated on one of the four point sources, the one closest to the galaxy, because modifying an image closer to the galaxy has the strongest effect. Finally, the same process was applied to the centre coordinates of the galaxy. The measurements were conducted first using the published astrometry, then using centre coordinates shifted by their $1\sigma$ error bar [@Chantryetal2010; @Sluseetal2012a; @Courbinetal2011; @Eigenetal2006].\
Eventually, since all the error sources are assumed to be independent, the quadratic sum of all the errors on each structural parameter is computed, leading to the total error bars given in Table \[table\_results\]. Table \[tab\_differr\] compares the random and systematic errors for each system. They show how sensitive sky the measurement of the half-light radius is to the background. Indeed, it can be seen that the systematic errors are larger than the random errors (except for SDSS1138+0314). Of course, the closer a point source is to the apparent position of the galaxy, the greater its influence on the half-light radius. However, in cases where the point sources are far enough from the galaxy, it is the error bar coming from the background sky that is most important amongst the systematic error sources.\
Results and discussion {#sec_results}
======================
The results of all our measurements are shown in Table \[table\_results\], together with their error bars. The half-light radii are also presented in Table \[tab\_comp\], where they are compared to the results of previous studies. The newly measured $r_{\rm{eff}}$ are systematically lower than the previous MCS values and are, for about half of the systems, in good agreement with the IMFITFITS values. The discrepancies between the presently measured values and the previous MCS or IMFITFITS ones are discussed in this section.\
[| c c c c c |]{} *System* & *$PA$ (deg)* & *$\varepsilon$* & *$r_{\rm{eff}}$ (”)* & *$r_{\rm{eff}}$ (kpc)*\
& & & &\
MG0414+0534 & $102.7 \pm 4.5 $ & $ 0.150 \pm 0.056 $ & $ 0.737 \pm 0.096 $ & $ 5.87 \pm 0.76 $\
HE0435-1223 & $ 13.0 \pm 4.6 $ & $ 0.218 \pm 0.103 $ & $0.901 \pm 0.071 $ & $ 5.23 \pm 0.41 $\
RXJ0911+0551 & $ 15.6 \pm 2.6 $ & $ 0.128 \pm 0.069 $ & $ 0.878 \pm 0.187 $ & $ 6.51 \pm 1.39 $\
SDSS0924+0219 & $ 10.0 \pm 11.0 $ & $0.090 \pm 0.051 $ & $ 0.295 \pm 0.044 $ & $ 1.55 \pm 0.23 $\
PG1115+080 & $-95.2 \pm 8.8 $ & $0.035 \pm 0.169 $ & $0.433 \pm 0.086 $ & $ 1.96 \pm 0.39 $\
SDSS1138+0314 & $-46.4 \pm 9.9 $ & $0.000 \pm 0.092 $ & $ 0.352 \pm 0.043 $ & $ 1.81 \pm 0.22 $\
B1422+231 & $ 49.5 \pm 2.9 $ & $0.258 \pm 0.105 $ & $ 0.114 \pm 0.059 $ & $ 0.55 \pm 0.28 $\
& & & &\
\[table\_results\]
[| c | c | c | c | c |]{} *System* & &\
& $\varepsilon$ & *$r_{\rm{eff}}$ (”)* & $\varepsilon$ & *$r_{\rm{eff}}$ (”)*\
& & & &\
MG0414+0534 & $ 0.118 \pm 0.021$ & $1.307 \pm 0.067 $ & $ 0.150 \pm 0.056 $ & $ 0.737 \pm 0.096 $\
HE0435-1223 & $ 0.143 \pm 0.013 $ & $ 1.958 \pm 0.041 $ & $ 0.218 \pm 0.103 $ & $ 0.901 \pm 0.071 $\
RXJ0911+0551 & $ 0.050 \pm 0.029 $ & $ 3.045 \pm 0.311 $ & $ 0.128 \pm 0.069 $ & $ 0.878 \pm 0.187 $\
SDSS0924+0219 & $ 0.054 \pm 0.007 $ & $ 0.760 \pm 0.023 $ & $0.090 \pm 0.051 $ & $ 0.295 \pm 0.044 $\
PG1115+080 & $ 0.023 \pm 0.009 $ & $ 1.036 \pm 0.036 $ & $0.035 \pm 0.169 $ & $ 0.433\pm 0.086 $\
SDSS1138+0314 & $ 0.013 \pm 0.015 $ & $ 0.754 \pm 0.013 $ & $0.000 \pm 0.092 $ & $ 0.352 \pm 0.043 $\
B1422+231 & $ 0.222 \pm 0.067 $ & $ 0.233 \pm 0.048 $ & $0.258 \pm 0.105 $ & $ 0.114 \pm 0.059 $\
& & & &\
\[tab\_beforeafter\]
[| c c c c c c c c c c |]{} *System* & *Parameter value* & $\sigma_{\rm{rand}}$ & $\sigma_{\rm{sky}}$ & $\sigma_{\rm{xs}}$ & $\sigma_{\rm{ys}}$ & $\sigma_{\rm{Is}}$ & $\sigma_{\rm{xg}}$ & $\sigma_{\rm{yg}}$ & *Total error*\
& & & & & & & & &\
MG0414+0534 & & & & & & & & &\
$r_{\rm{eff}}$ *(”)* & 0.737 & 0.034 & 0.010 & 0.029 & 0.029 & 0.028 & 0.017 & 0.073 & 0.096\
$\varepsilon$ & 0.150 & 0.032 & 0.003 & 0.020 & 0.020 & 0.030 & 0.006 & 0.020 & 0.056\
$PA$ *(deg)* & 102.723 & 4.032 & 0.097 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.250 & 0.417 & 1.930 & 4.498\
HE0435-1223 & & & & & & & & &\
$r_{\rm{eff}}$ *(”)* & 0.901 & 0.021 & 0.001 & 0.026 & 0.027 & 0.034 & 0.030 & 0.034 & 0.071\
$\varepsilon$ & 0.218 & 0.019 & 0.023 & 0.060 & 0.060 & 0.050 & 0.005 & 0.010 & 0.103\
$PA$ *(deg)* & 13.040 & 2.452 & 3.000 & 1.000 & 2.000 & 0.750 & 0.750 & 0.188 & 4.602\
RXJ0911+0551 & & & & & & & & &\
$r_{\rm{eff}}$ *(”)* & 0.878 & 0.058 & 0.018 & 0.105 & 0.102 & 0.063 & 0.077 & 0.007 & 0.187\
$\varepsilon$ & 0.128 & 0.020 & 0.001 & 0.045 & 0.045 & 0.015 & 0.005 & 0.005 & 0.069\
$PA$ *(deg)* & 15.595 & 2.413 & 0.125 & 0.250 & 0.250 & 0.250 & 0.688 & 0.219 & 2.558\
SDSS0924+0219 & & & & & & & & &\
$r_{\rm{eff}}$ *(”)* & 0.295 & 0.010 & 0.031 & 0.009 & 0.009 & 0.009 & 0.007 & 0.025 & 0.044\
$\varepsilon$ & 0.090 & 0.013 & 0.004 & 0.020 & 0.020 & 0.020 & 0.033 & 0.014 & 0.051\
$PA$ *(deg)* & 10.011 & 4.983 & 0.065 & 0.000 & 0.250 & 0.250 & 9.641 & 1.828 & 11.011\
PG1115+080 & & & & & & & & &\
$r_{\rm{eff}}$ *(”)* & 0.433 & 0.009 & 0.041 & 0.032 & 0.032 & 0.032 & 0.017 & 0.047 & 0.086\
$\varepsilon$ & 0.035 & 0.014 & 0.143 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.060 & 0.068 & 0.169\
$PA$ *(deg)* & -95.197 & 8.647 & 0.125 & 0.250 & 0.250 & 0.250 & 0.000 & 1.344 & 8.762\
SDSS1138+0314 & & & & & & & & &\
$r_{\rm{eff}}$ *(”)* & 0.352 & 0.015 & 0.000 & 0.002 & 0.002 & 0.005 & 0.008 & 0.039 & 0.043\
$\varepsilon$ & 0.000 & 0.024 & 0.055 & 0.040 & 0.040 & 0.010 & 0.033 & 0.023 & 0.092\
$PA$ *(deg)* & -46.397 & 3.884 & 0.000 & 8.000 & 0.250 & 0.500 & 2.594 & 3.438 & 9.896\
B1422+231 & & & & & & & & &\
$r_{\rm{eff}}$ *(”)* & 0.114 & 0.023 & 0.014 & 0.030 & 0.026 & 0.027 & 0.015 & 0.014 & 0.059\
$\varepsilon$ & 0.258 & 0.048 & 0.011 & 0.045 & 0.035 & 0.065 & 0.033 & 0.000 & 0.105\
$PA$ *(deg)* & 49.508 & 1.366 & 0.130 & 0.000 & 2.250 & 0.250 & 0.344 & 1.156 & 2.909\
& & & & & & & & &\
\[tab\_differr\]
[| c c c c |]{} *System* & *Method* & *$r_{\rm{eff}}$ (”)* & *Reference*\
& & &\
MG0414+0534 & Present & $0.737 \pm 0.096 $ & Present work\
& IMFITFITS & $0.77 \pm 0.14$ & (1)\
& & &\
HE0435-1223 & Present & $0.901 \pm 0.071 $ & Present work\
& MCS & $1.5 \pm 0.08$ & (2)\
& IMFITFITS & $0.86 \pm 0.04$ & (3)\
& & &\
RXJ0911+0551 & Present & $0.878 \pm 0.187 $ & Present work\
& MCS & $1.02 \pm 0.01$ & (4)\
& IMFITFITS & $0.67 \pm 0.06$ & (1)\
& & &\
SDSS0924+0219 & Present & $0.295 \pm 0.044$ & Present work\
& MCS & $0.5 \pm 0.05$ & (5)\
& IMFITFITS & $0.436 \pm 0.004$ & (6)\
& IMFITFITS & $0.31 \pm 0.02$ & (7)\
& & &\
PG1115+080 & Present & $0.433 \pm 0.086$ & Present work\
& MCS & $0.92 \pm 0.01$ & (4)\
& IMFITFITS & $0.47 \pm 0.02$ & (1)\
& & &\
SDSS1138+0314 & Present & $0.352 \pm 0.043$ & Present work\
& MCS & $0.86 \pm 0.03$ & (8)\
& & &\
B1422+231 & Present & $0.114 \pm 0.059$ & Present work\
& MCS & $0.41 \pm 0.02$ & (4)\
& IMFITFITS & $0.31 \pm 0.09$ & (1)\
& & &\
\[tab\_comp\]
The first apparent reason for the differences between MCS values and IMFITFITS values is the use of a different deconvolution algorithm. The MCS deconvolution algorithm, as explained in [@Magainetal1998] and [@ChantryMag2007], is well suited to gravitational lensing images, because it consists in iteratively subtracting a diffuse component, including any non-point-like object, such as galaxies and lensed arcs, until convergence to an image of the point sources. Moreover, it has the important advantage of not violating the sampling theorem. [@Chantryetal2010] and [@Sluseetal2012a] used the more sophisticated MCS method to determine the PSF because TinyTim PSFs proved not to be accurate enough to model the point sources and thus to subtract their contribution [@ChantryMag2007; @Chantryetal2010]. Using an incorrect PSF (1) produces artefacts due to bad point source subtraction and (2) introduces errors in the determination of the parameters of the model, which has to be convolved by the PSF before comparison with the data. However, the present values seem to be in better agreement with the IMFITFITS values, even though we used MCS PSFs. The use of a different fitting method may therefore explain the discrepancies between MCS and IMFITFITS results as well. The background sky processing in the IMFITFITS work may also have been different, since it may have been subtracted before the fitting, as in this work. In [@Chantryetal2010] and [@Sluseetal2012a], some sky had been subtracted directly from the data frames, and during the deconvolution, a numerical background was fitted to subtract any remaining signal. This method leads to a bias in the sky levels. Finally, our simulations have shown that classical galaxy profile-fitting methods like IMFITFITS depend rather strongly on the fitting area. The choice of different regions of interests between MCS- and IMFITFITS-based works would explain part of the discrepancies as well.\
The extra pre-processing step, consisting of a direct subtraction of the point sources from the original images, is specific to this work. It significantly increases the visibility of the lensing galaxy as shown in Fig. \[fig\_subdec\]. It makes disentangling the luminosity from the galaxy and from other components easier. Indeed, if luminosity from the point sources is mistakenly attributed to the galaxy, its half-light radius increases. But this pre-processing has its own drawbacks. In particular, in the case of B1422+231, a point source appeared close in projection to the elliptical galaxy. Distinguishing the light from that specific point source and from the galaxy pixels on top of it is extremely uncertain. The PSF subtraction produces spurious artefacts in regions where the lensing galaxy is bright, yielding to systematic errors in our half-light radius measurement. This problem is treated by using a mask cancelling the value of the ill pixels. Such a treatment is performed on HE0435-1223, too. It should be pointed out that in such cases, classical fit methods may not be able to accurately separate the point source from the luminous disk either.\
Two systems seem to stand out in the crowd. First, our $r_{\rm{eff}}$ of B1422+231 is smaller than both MCS and IMFITFITS results. As explained above, one of the point sources lies very close in projection to the lens, making this measurement very tricky. Then, for RXJ0911+0551, our result lies between that of IMFITFITS and that of MCS.\
The differences between our measurements and the values reported in [@Chantryetal2010] and [@Sluseetal2012a] come mainly from the different shape parameter measurement procedures. In those works, the shape parameters were all measured simultaneously, since a de Vaucouleurs model was fitted on the data frames. The problem with such a method, the possible existence of local minima, was one of the motivations for this work. Furthermore, we do not use a two-dimensional profile on the frames, but rather a radial profile to determine the shape parameters of the convolved profile, and then implement an iterative method to correct from the PSF (see Sect. \[subsec\_analy\]). Together with the better estimation of the background sky and the subtraction of the point sources at the NIC2 resolution, those differences explain the major discrepancies between the past MCS and present values.\
Finally, discrepancies remain between the IMFITFITS works and the present, too. They come from the use of a different PSF, the instabilities in fitting methods, and their stronger dependency on the fitting area (Sect. \[sec\_methods\]).\
Deviation from de Vaucouleurs luminosity profiles {#sec_resicurv}
=================================================
For the measurement of $r_{\rm{eff}}$, $\ln{I}$ is plotted versus $r^{1/4}$. The resulting plots are shown in Fig. \[fig\_plotreff\]. One can notice that the data points usually do not align perfectly on a straight line, but instead seem to display a slight downwards concavity. This may come from two instrumental factors: (1) a poor subtraction of the background sky and (2) the convolution by the PSF. Since we conducted a secure background sky calculation and subtraction (see Sect. \[sec\_methods\]), this curvature indicates that the convolved luminosity profile does not correspond to $n=4$. The convolution indeed changes the distribution of luminosity between the central regions and the outer wings of the profile, giving the illusion of a Sérsic profile with $n < 4$. Nonetheless, some of this curvature may also be because the *physical* luminosity profiles differ from a de Vaucouleurs law.\
To determine whether that is the case, a short visual test was performed. The final model of each galaxy was convolved by the NIC2 PSF and a similar $\ln{I}$ versus $r^{1/4}$ plot was created based on that image. It displayed a downwards curvature as well. Then, this new plot was subtracted from the original one. If the result is a straight flat line, then the curvature of the convolved plot can be entirely attributed to the convolution. However, if the result still displays a curvature, then $n \ne 4$ for the actual galaxy. The result of this processing is shown in Fig \[fig\_resicurv\]. The error bars come from the dispersion amongst the various frames of each system. In some cases, such as HE0435-1223, there seems to be little residual curvature, meaning that its luminosity profile is represented well by a de Vaucouleurs law. In other cases, systems display a significant upwards curvature. This indicates that their Sérsic index $n$ may be higher than four. The error bars on B1422+231 are so large that it seems hard to rule out any residual curvature. The way lensing galaxies studied here deviate from pure de Vaucouleurs laws will be analysed in a forthcoming paper.\
Fortunately, none of the shape parameters measurements performed here depend too strongly on the value of $n$. In fact, neither the position angle nor the ellipticity measurement involves the knowledge of $n$ at all, and the linear regression has proven to not be too sensitive to the use of an incorrect $n$. However, a method that could measure the value of the Sérsic index because an individual parameter is needed. Finding the exponent $n$ that, in the $\ln{I}$ vs $r^{1/n}$ plot, gives the best alignment on a straight line, would constitute a measurement of the best-fitting Sérsic law.
0.5cm
[c c]{}  & \
 & \
 & \
\[fig\_resicurv\]
Conclusion and prospects {#sec_ccl}
========================
The luminosity profiles of seven lensing galaxies have been analysed with a newly designed method, independent of classical galaxy fitting methods. Each shape parameter was estimated individually in order to keep the results as free as possible of any influence from the other parameters. A careful pre-processing that is specific to gravitational lensing images was implemented, including a subtraction of the deflected images. It has increased the visibility of the galaxy and made the shape parameters measurements more secure. Finally, a detailed study of the systematic errors has given reliable error bars.\
Our half-light radius measurement method, called the linear regression method, was compared to GALFIT regarding various aspects of image processing (the PSF, the S/N, the portion of the galaxy that can be studied) and properties of the fitted galaxy luminosity profile (the use of an incorrect Sérsic index $n$). It proved to be less $n$-dependent and better suited to studying small galaxies compared to the PSF. In addition, it is particularly well suited to analysing lensed images, because they comprise tricky diffuse components that restrict the study of the lens luminosity profile to its inner regions, which does not impair our method, as shown by the simulations in Sect \[sec\_sim\].\
Our methods were applied to a sample of seven quadruply imaged gravitational lenses. Those objects were analysed by various authors before, using IMFITFITS and MCS deconvolutions [@Schechter14]. Our new measurements are generally in better agreement with the IMFITFITS values than with the previous MCS values. Unfortunately, such a small sample may not be sufficient to bring out any trend. The previous half-light radii presented in [@Chantryetal2010] and [@Sluseetal2012a] were dramatically overestimated. For two systems of our sample, discrepancies with IMFITFITS remain. We think that they come from (1) the use of a different PSF, (2) the point-source subtraction, and (3) the instabilities of the fitting methods regardin $n$ and the fitting region.\
Even though we measured shape parameters independently of the Sérsic index, the latter should be measured too in order to complete the characterisation of the lensing galaxies. Indeed, the residual curvature of $\ln{I}$ vs $r_{\rm{eff}}^{1/4}$ plots indicate that the physical luminosity profiles may sometimes differ from a de Vaucouleurs law, leading to a small bias on the value of the half-light radius. We are currently expanding the linear regression method to the measure of $n$ as well.\
The initial motivation of this work is to compare the luminosity profiles of lensing galaxies to their mass profiles. In particular, this comparison is needed to understand how dark matter is distributed in early-type galaxies. This will be the topic of a forthcoming paper. In the future, the ESA EUCLID mission should provide a wealth of new data to be exploited with this aim. This space telescope will conduct a six-year survey of the extragalactic sky [@Laureijsetal2014], collecting new images of strong gravitational lensing. Many fields, such as extragalactic astrophysics, cosmology, or dark matter search, benefit from the study of gravitational lensing galaxies. Therefore, high-precision methods for image processing adapted to gravitational lenses are and will be continuously needed.\
The authors wish to thank Sandrine Sohy for her considerable help in program writing in the framework of this work. J. Biernaux acknowledges the support of the F.R.I.A. fund of the F.N.R.S. Dominique Sluse acknowledges support from a Back to Belgium grant from the Belgian Federal Science Policy (BELSPO).\
[^1]: The half-light radius, or effective radius, is defined as the radius of the disk enclosing half the total surface brightness of a galaxy.
[^2]: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/castles/
[^3]: See user manual at *http://users.obs.carnegiescience.edu/peng/work/\
galfit/galfit.html*
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic $2$. In [@Carlsson2], Carlsson showed the existence of minimal models of certain semifree differential graded $k[x_1,\ldots,x_r]$-modules. Here we give an explicit construction of these minimal models without the semifreeness condition. We also prove Carlsson’s rank conjecture [@Carlsson1986 Conjecture [ ]{}.8] when the degrees of all nonzero homology groups of a differential graded module have the same parity. Dually, we construct minimal models of chain complexes of Borel constructions of spaces with a free $(\mathbb{Z}/2)^r$-action. These minimal models are called minimal Hirsch-Brown models by Allday-Puppe [@AlldayPuppe]. Puppe [@Puppe] also showed that putting certain multiplicative structures on these minimal models could be useful to improve known results on related conjectures. Here we give our construction of these models using operadic language. This enables us to put multiplicative structures on these models.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Bilkent University, Ankara, 06800, Turkey.'
author:
- 'BERRİN ŞENT" URK and " OZG" UN " UNL" U'
bibliography:
- 'secondnewarticleBibliog.bib'
title: Minimal Models of Some Differential Graded Modules
---
[^1]
Introduction {#intro}
============
Bounds for the total dimension of the cohomology of a space that admits a free torus action have been studied extensively. Puppe [@Puppe] showed that, given a certain multiplicative structure on the minimal Hirsch-Brown model for the equivariant cohomology of such a space, these bounds can be tightened to verify the Halperin-Carlsson rank conjecture.
In this paper, we discuss several ways to put a multiplicative structure on minimal Hirsch-Brown models. These multiplicative structures differ from those considered by Puppe in [@Puppe], so we do not directly obtain a proof of the Halperin-Carlsson rank conjecture. However, our work does recover and generalize some results by Carlsson in [@Carlsson2], [@Carlsson1986] and by Allday-Puppe in [@AlldayPuppe].
We also discuss a stronger version of the conjecture for free $2$-torus actions. Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic $2$ and ${S:=k[x_1,\ldots,x_r]}$ the polynomial algebra in $r$ variables of degree $-1$ with coefficients in $k$. We will say $(M,\partial)$ is a *differential graded $S$-module* (${\text{dg}}$-$S$-module) if $M$ is an $S$-module and $\partial$ is an $S$-linear endomorphism of $M$ that has degree $-1$ and satisfies $\partial^2 = 0$. Moreover we say a ${\text{dg}}$-$S$-module is *semifree* if its underlying graded $S$-module is free.
[@Carlsson1986 Conjecture [ ]{}.8]\[carlssonsconjecture\] For $S=k[x_1,\ldots,x_r]$ as above, if $(M,\partial)$ is a semifree ${\text{dg}}$-$S$-module and its homology is nonzero and finite dimensional as a $k$-vector space, then ${{\text{rank}}_S M \geq 2^r}$.
We prove the conjecture in the following case:
\[thm1\] Conjecture \[carlssonsconjecture\] holds if $n$ and $m$ have the same parity whenever $H_n(M)\neq 0$ and $H_m(M)\neq 0$.
When the characteristic of the field is odd, a result analogous to Theorem \[thm1\] is proved by Walker [@Walker], [@WalkerARC]. Also note that for any prime $p$, the Halperin-Carlsson rank conjecture about $p$-torus action is easy to prove for spaces that satisfy the topological version of the hypotheses in Theorem \[thm1\]. More precisely, assume that $G$ is a finite group, $C$ is a free $kG$-chain complex that is finite dimensional as a $k$-vector space, and $n$ and $m$ have the same parity whenever $H_n(C)\neq 0$ and $H_m(C)\neq 0$. Then $$\dim_kH(C)=\left|\chi(H(C))\right|=\left|\chi(C)\right|=\left|G\right| \left| \chi(k\otimes_{kG} C)\right|,$$ where $\chi$ denotes the Euler characteristic. Therefore, $\dim_kH(C)\geq \left|G\right| $ when $\dim_kH(C)\neq 0$. Although we cannot prove Theorem \[thm1\] with the same ease, we still consider our main contribution to be the construction of the minimal models mentioned above using the operadic language. This allow us to put multiplicative structure on these models which may pave the way to putting the right one.
Throughout this paper, $k$ is an algebraically closed field of characteristic $2$ and all (co)operads are differential graded non-symmetric (co)operads over $k$. In Section \[sec:1\], we recall definitions, notation, and well-known results about algebraic (co)operads. In Section \[sect:MinimalHirschBrown\], we discuss constructions of some minimal models and prove Theorem \[thm1\]. In Section \[secMult\], we put multiplicative structures on the minimal Hirsch-Brown models.
Definitions and Notation {#sec:1}
========================
We will take most of definitions and notation from [@Loday].
Free (co)operads {#treesection}
----------------
A *${\text{dg}}$-$\mathbb{N}$-module* $M$ is a sequence of differential graded $k$-modules $$M=(M(0),M(1),M(2),\dots ).$$
A *free operad* over the ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathbb{N}$-module $M$ is an operad $\mathscr{T}$ together with an ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathbb{N}$-module morphism $i:M \rightarrow \mathscr{T}$ such that if $\mathscr{P}$ is an operad and $f:M\rightarrow \mathscr{P}$ is an ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathbb{N}$-module morphism then there exists a unique operad morphism $\tilde{f}:\mathscr{T}\rightarrow \mathscr{P} $ with $f= \tilde{f}\circ i$.
There exists a free operad $\mathscr{T}(M)$ over every ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathbb{N}$-module $M$, see [@Loday Section 5.9.6]. This free operad is constructed by using planar trees whose $n$-leafed vertices are labelled by the elements of $M(n)$. The operad composition of $\mathscr{T}(M)$ is given by grafting trees. Hence, as an operad $\mathscr{T}(M)$ is generated by
$$\sbox0{$\begin{array}{c}
\hspace{7pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7,baseline=-1mm]
\draw [thick](0,-0.1) -- (0,-0.5);
\draw node at (0,0.25) [draw,circle, scale=0.6]{\Large{b}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}\Big\vert \, \textup{b}\in \textup{B}_0 $ }
\mathopen{\resizebox{1.2\width}{\ht0}{$\{$}}
\usebox{0}
\mathclose{\resizebox{1.2\width}{\ht0}{$\}$}}
\hspace{2pt}
\bigcup
\hspace{2pt}
\sbox0{$\begin{array}{c}
\hspace{7pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7,baseline=-1mm]
\draw [thick](0,0.6) -- (0,0.9);
\draw [thick](0,-0.1) -- (0,-0.5);
\draw node at (0,0.25) [draw,circle, scale=0.6]{\Large{b}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}\Big\vert \, \textup{b}\in \textup{B}_1 $ }
\mathopen{\resizebox{1.2\width}{\ht0}{$\{$}}
\usebox{0}
\mathclose{\resizebox{1.2\width}{\ht0}{$\}$}}
\hspace{2pt}
\bigcup
\hspace{2pt}
\sbox0{$\begin{array}{c}
\hspace{7pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7,baseline=-1mm]
\draw [thick](-0.1,0.6) -- (-0.3,0.9);
\draw [thick](0.1,0.6) -- (0.3,0.9);
\draw [thick](0,-0.1) -- (0,-0.5);
\draw node at (0,0.25) [draw,circle, scale=0.6]{\Large{b}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{array}\Big\vert \, \textup{b}\in \textup{B}_2 $ }
\mathopen{\resizebox{1.2\width}{\ht0}{$\{$}}
\usebox{0}
\mathclose{\resizebox{1.2\width}{\ht0}{$\}$}}
\hspace{2pt}
\bigcup
\hspace{2pt}
\ldots$$ where $\textup{B}_j$ is a basis for $M(j)$ as a $k$-vector space. As an ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathbb{N}$-module, $\mathscr{T}(M)$ is always equipped with an extra grading, called the weight-grading. If $M$ itself has no such extra grading, then the trees in $\mathscr{T}(M)$ with exactly $n$-vertices are said to have weight-grading $n$. If $M$ already has weight-grading, then the sum of weight-grades of elements in $M$ used to label the vertices of a tree in $\mathscr{T}(M)$ is the weight-grade of that tree. Hence we have a decomposition of $\mathscr{T}(M)$ indexed by the weight-grading $$\mathscr{T}(M)=\bigoplus _{n\geq 0}\mathscr{T}(M)^{(n)},$$ where each $\mathscr{T}(M)^{(n)}$ is ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathbb{N}$-module.
Dually, we let $\mathscr{T}^c(M)$ denote the cofree cooperad over $M$. $\mathscr{T}^c(M)$ is isomorphic to $\mathscr{T}(M)$ as a weight-graded $k$-vector space, while as a cooperad $\mathscr{T}^c(M)$ is cogenerated by the generators of $\mathscr{T}(M)$ mentioned above.
Let $sM$ denote the ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathbb{N}$-module $M$ whose degree is shifted by $1$, i.e., $sM_i(n)=M_{i-1}(n)$ for $n\in \mathbb{N}$ and $i\in \mathbb{Z}$. More generally, for any integer $m$, $s^mM$ denotes the ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathbb{N}$-module $M$ whose degree is shifted by $m$.
Quadratic (co)operads {#quadraticcoop}
---------------------
A pair $(M,R)$ is called an *operadic quadratic data pair* if $M$ is an ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathbb{N}$-module and $R$ is a sub-${\text{dg}}$-$\mathbb{N}$-module of $\mathscr{T}(M)^{(2)}$. The *quadratic operad* associated to the quadratic data pair $(M,R)$ is $$\mathscr{P}(M,R):=\mathscr{T}(M)/( R ),$$ where $( R )$ is the operatic ideal generated by $R\subseteq \mathscr{T}(M)^{(2)}$. In other words, $\mathscr{P}(M,R)$ is the largest quotient operad $\mathscr{P}$ of $\mathscr{T}(M)$ for which the composite $$R \rightarrowtail \mathscr{T}(M)^{(2)}\rightarrowtail \mathscr{T}(M)\twoheadrightarrow \mathscr{P}$$ is zero. Dually, the *quadratic cooperad* $\mathscr{C}(M,R)$ associated to the quadratic data pair $(M,R)$ is the largest subcooperad of $\mathscr{T}^c(M)$ for which the composite $$\mathscr{C} \rightarrowtail \mathscr{T}^{c}(M)\twoheadrightarrow \mathscr{T}^c(M)^{(2)} \twoheadrightarrow \mathscr{T}^c(M)^{(2)}/R$$ is zero, see [@Loday Section 7.1] and [@Dotsenko Section 6.3.1].
The *Koszul dual cooperad* of a quadratic operad $\mathscr{P}=\mathscr{P}(M,R)$ is $$\mathscr{P}^{\mbox{!`} }:=\mathscr{C}(sM,s^2R),$$ where $s^2R$ is the image of $R$ under the natural map ${\mathscr{T}(M)^{(2)}\rightarrow\mathscr{T}(sM)^{(2)}}$. Similarly, the *Koszul dual operad* of a quadratic cooperad ${\mathscr{C}=\mathscr{C}(M,R)}$ is $$\mathscr{C}^{\mbox{!`} }:=\mathscr{P}(s^{-1}M,s^{-2}R),$$ where $s^{-2}R$ is the image of $R$ under the map ${\mathscr{T}(M)^{(2)}\rightarrow\mathscr{T}(s^{-1}M)^{(2)}}$ induced by the natural degree $1$ ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathbb{N}$-module morphism $M$ to $sM$, see [@Loday Section 7.4.7].
The (co)bar construction
-------------------------
For an operad $\mathscr{P}$, let $\overline{\mathscr{P}}$ be the cokernel of the unit map $I\rightarrow \mathscr{P}$. If $\mathscr{P}=I\oplus \overline{\mathscr{P}}$ as ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathbb{N}$-modules, the *bar construction* $B\mathscr{P}$ of $\mathscr{P}$ is the ${\text{dg}}$-cooperad $\mathscr{T}^c(\,s\,\overline{\mathscr{P}})$ with differential $d_1+d_2$, where $d_1$ and $d_2$ are as in [@Loday Section 6.5.1].
Similarly, for a cooperad $\mathscr{C}$, let $\overline{\mathscr{C}}$ denote the kernel of the counit map $\mathscr{C}\rightarrow I$. If $\mathscr{C}=I\oplus \overline{\mathscr{C}}$ as ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathbb{N}$-modules, the *cobar construction* $\Omega \mathscr{C}$ of $\mathscr{C}$ is the ${\text{dg}}$-operad $\mathscr{T}(\,s^{-1}\,\overline{\mathscr{C}})$ with differential $d_1+d_2$, where $d_1$ and $d_2$ are as in [@Loday Section $6.5.2$].
Let $(M,R)$ be an operatic quadratic data pair. The quadratic operad $\mathscr{P}=\mathscr{P}(M,R)$ is *Koszul* if the natural ${\text{dg}}$-cooperad morphism ${\mathscr{P}^{ \mbox{!`} } \rightarrow {\text{B}}\mathscr{P}}$ is a quasi-isomorphism of ${\text{dg}}$-cooperads, see [@Loday Theorem 7.4.2]. When $\mathscr{P}$ is Koszul, we define the operad $\mathscr{P}_{\infty }:=\Omega \mathscr{P}^{\mbox{!`} }$.
(Co)algebras over (co)operads {#coalgebras}
-----------------------------
Let $\mathscr{P}$ be an operad. A *$\mathscr{P}$-algebra* is a differential graded $k$-module $A$ together with an operad morphism $\mathscr{P}\rightarrow\mathop{{\text{End}}}_A$, where $\mathop{{\text{End}}}_A(n)={\text{Hom}}(A^{\otimes n},A)$. Dually, for a cooperad $\mathscr{C}$, a *$\mathscr{C}$-coalgebra* is a differential graded $k$-module $C$ together with an operad morphism ${\mathscr{C}}^* \rightarrow \mathop{{\text{coEnd}}}_C$, where ${\mathscr{C}}^*$ is the dual of ${\mathscr{C}}$ and $\mathop{{\text{coEnd}}}_C(n)={\text{Hom}}(C,C^{\otimes n})$.
A cooperad $\mathscr{C}$ is called *coaugmented* if its counit map has a right inverse. Let $C$ be a coalgebra over coaugmented cooperad $\mathscr{C}$. For $x\in C$, we define $x_1,x_2,\ldots$ by $$\Delta_C(x)=(x_1,x_2,\ldots)\in \prod_{n\geq 1}\left(\mathscr{C}(n)\otimes C^{\otimes n}\right),$$ where $\Delta_C$ denotes the structure map of the coalgebra $C$. We filter the coalgebra $C$ by $F_rC:=\{x\in C \, | \, x_i=0 \mbox{ for any } i>r \}$ for $r\geq 1$. If $C=\bigcup_{r\geq 1}F_rC$, then $C$ is conilpotent, see [@Loday Section 5.8.4].
Let $\mathscr{C}$ be a ${\text{dg}}$-cooperad, $\mathscr{P}$ a ${\text{dg}}$-operad, and $\varphi:\mathscr{C}\rightarrow \mathscr{P}$ a twisting morphism as in [@Loday Section 11.1.1]. The *bar construction* ${{\text{B}}}_{\varphi}$ is a functor from the category of ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathscr{P}$-algebras to the category of conilpotent ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathscr{C}$-coalgebras, defined on a ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathscr{P}$-algebra $A$ by $${{\text{B}}}_{\varphi}A:=(\mathscr{C}\circ_{\varphi}\mathscr{P})\circ_{\mathscr{P}}A,$$ where $\circ_{\varphi}$ denotes the right-twisted composite product and $\circ_{\mathscr{P}}$ denotes the relative composite product over $\mathscr{P}$, see [@Loday Sections 6.4.7 and 11.2.1 ].
Dually, the *cobar construction* $\Omega_{\varphi}$ is a functor from the category of conilpotent ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathscr{C}$-coalgebras to the category of ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathscr{P}$-algebras, defined on a conilpotent ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathscr{C}$-algebra $C$ by $$\Omega_{\varphi}C:=(\mathscr{P}\circ_{\varphi}\mathscr{C})\circ^{\mathscr{C}}C,$$ where $\circ_{\varphi}$ denotes the left-twisted composite product and $\circ^{\mathscr{C}}$ denotes the relative composite product over $\mathscr{C}$, see [@Loday Sections 6.4.7 and 11.2.1].
Let $W$, $V$ be two $\mathscr{P}_{\infty}$-algebras. Then an *$\infty$-morphism* $f:W\rightarrow V$ is a ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathbb{N}$-module morphism $\mathscr{P}^{\mbox{!`} }\rightarrow\mathop{{\text{End}}}_V^W$, where $\mathop{{\text{End}}}_V^W(n)={\text{Hom}}(W^{\otimes n},V)$. Moreover, $f$ is an *$\infty$-quasi-isomorphism* if $f$ sends the counit in $\mathscr{P}^{\mbox{!`} }$ to a quasi-isomorphism in $\mathop{{\text{End}}}_V^W(1)$.
Homotopy operadic algebras
--------------------------
Let $(W,d_W)$ and $(V,d_V)$ be chain complexes that are ${\text{dg}}$-$k$-modules. Assume $i$ and $p$ are chain maps and $h$ is chain homotopy as in the diagram\
.
$W$ is a *homotopy retract* of $V$ if ${\text{Id}}_V-{i\circ p}=d_V\circ h+h\circ d_V $ and $i$ is a quasi-isomorphism. Moreover, $W$ is a *deformation retract* of $V$ if we also have $ {\text{Id}}_W=p\circ i$.
[@Loday Theorem 10.3.1]\[HTT\] Let $ \mathscr{P}$ be a Koszul operad and $(W,d_W)$ a homotopy retract of $(V,d_V)$. Any $\mathscr{P}_{\infty}$-algebra structure on $V$ can be transferred to a $\mathscr{P}_{\infty}$-algebra structure on $W$ such that $i$ extends to an ${\infty}$-quasi-isomorphism.
This theorem, known as the Homotopy Transfer Theorem, is a generalization of [@Kade Theorem 1] and will be used in Sections \[sect:MinimalHirschBrown\] and \[secMult\] to construct minimal Hirsch-Brown models and minimal models discussed by Carlsson. In these constructions, we also use the following property of the bar construction:
[@Loday Proposition 11.2.3]\[barquasi\] Let $\varphi:\mathscr{C}\rightarrow \mathscr{P}$ be an operadic twisting morphism and $A$, $A'$ ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathscr{P}$-algebras. If $f: A\rightarrow A'$ is a quasi-isomorphism, then $f$ induces a quasi-isomorphism between the ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathscr{C}$-coalgebras ${\text{B}}_{\varphi}A$ and ${\text{B}}_{\varphi}A'$.
The bar and cobar constructions form adjoint functor pair.
[@Loday Corollary 11.3.5]\[barcobar\] Let $\mathscr{P}$ be a Koszul operad with canonical twisting morphism $\kappa:\mathscr{P}^{\mbox{!`} }\rightarrow \mathscr{P}$. For every ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathscr{P}$-algebra $A$, the counit of the adjunction $$\epsilon_{\kappa}:\Omega_{\kappa}{\text{B}}_{\kappa}A\rightarrow A$$ is a quasi-isomorphism of ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathscr{P}$-algebras. Dually, for every conilpotent ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathscr{P}^{\mbox{!`} }$-coalgebra $C$, the unit of the adjunction $$\nu_{\kappa}:C\rightarrow {\text{B}}_{\kappa}\Omega_{\kappa}C$$ is a quasi-isomorphism of ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathscr{P}^{\mbox{!`} }$-coalgebras.
The relation between $\infty$-quasi-isomorphisms and quasi-isomorphisms is given by the following:
[@Loday Theorem 11.4.9] \[zigzag\] Let $\mathscr{P}$ be a Koszul operad and $A$, $A'$ ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathscr{P}_{\infty}$-algebras. There exists an $\infty$-quasi-isomorphism of ${\text{dg}}$ $\mathscr{P}_{\infty}$-algebras $A\rightarrow A'$ if and only if there exists a zigzag of quasi-isomorphisms of ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathscr{P}_{\infty}$-algebras $A\leftarrow\bullet\rightarrow\bullet \leftarrow \bullet \rightarrow\bullet \ldots\rightarrow A'$.
Such a zigzag of quasi-isomorphism will be written $A\leftrightsquigarrow A'$.
Minimal Models {#sect:MinimalHirschBrown}
==============
In this section, $r$ denotes a positive integer. Here we discuss Hirsch-Brown Models in view of the Homotopy Transfer Theorem.
Unary quadratic (co)operads
---------------------------
Let $(M,R)$ be the quadratic data pair $$M=(0,k\textup{v}_1\oplus k\textup{v}_2\oplus \dots \oplus
k\textup{v}_r ,0,\dots), \, R=\{\,\textup{v}_i\textup{v}_j+\textup{v}_j\textup{v}_i\,|\,1\leq i<j\leq r\,\}.$$ We define the quadratic cooperads $$\mathscr{E}:=\mathscr{C}(M,R)\text{\ \ \ \ and \ \ \ \ }\mathscr{S}:=\mathscr{C}(sM^{*},s^2R^{\perp }),$$ and the quadratic operads $$\mathscr{P}:=\mathscr{E}^{\mbox{!`} }=\mathscr{P}(s^{-1}M,s^{-2}R)\cong \mathscr{S}^*\text{\ \ \ and\ \ \ }\mathscr{W}:=\mathscr{S}^{\mbox{!`} }=\mathscr{P}(M^*,R^{\perp })\cong \mathscr{E}^*.$$
For $i$ in $\{1,2,\dots r\}$, define $t_i$ in $\mathscr{E}(1)$ and $x_i$ in $\mathscr{P}(1)$ as in Section \[treesection\] $$\begin{aligned}
t_i:=
\hspace{7pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.8,baseline=-1mm]
\draw [thick](0,0.7) -- (0,1);
\draw [thick](0,-0.2) -- (0,-0.5);
\draw node at (0,0.25) [draw,circle, scale=1]{\small{v}$_i$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{7pt} \hspace{7pt}
x_i:=
\hspace{7pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.8,baseline=-1mm]
\draw [thick](0,0.68) -- (0,1);
\draw [thick](0,-0.18) -- (0,-0.5);
\draw node at (0,0.25) [draw,circle, scale=0.5]{\large{{$s^{-1}$v}$_i$}};
\end{tikzpicture}\end{aligned}$$ Then $\mathscr{E}(1)$ is the exterior coalgebra $\Lambda_{\mathbf{c}}:=\Lambda(t_1,t_2,\ldots,t_r)_{\mathbf{c}}$ and $\mathscr{P}(1)$ is the polynomial algebra $S=k[x_1,\ldots,x_r]$. Both the cooperad $\mathscr{E}$ and the operad $\mathscr{W}$ are isomorphic to $$(0,\Lambda_{\mathbf{c}},0,0,0, \dots )$$ as ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathbb{N}$-modules. However, when we consider the operad structure on $\mathscr{W}$, the algebra $\mathscr{W}(1)$ is the exterior algebra $\Lambda$.
The operad $\mathscr{P}$ and the cooperad $\mathscr{S}$ are both isomorphic to $$(0,S,0,0,0, \dots )$$ as ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathbb{N}$-modules. However, $\mathscr{S}(1)$ is isomorphic to the polynomial coalgebra $S_{\mathbf{c}}$.
Minimal Hirsch-Brown models {#minmodelsection}
---------------------------
Let $G$ be an elementary abelian $2$-group of rank $r$ with generators $\{g_1,\ldots,g_r\}$. Assume that $G$ acts freely on a finite simplicial set $X$. The goal of this section is to construct minimal Hirsch-Brown models as in [@AlldayPuppe]. In other words, we construct a differential structure on $H^{\bullet}(BG;k){\otimes}H^{\bullet}(X;k)$ whose cohomology is isomorphic to the cohomology of the Borel construction $EG\times_G X$. Note that $ H^{\bullet}(BG;k)\cong S$.
The chain complex $C=C_{\bullet}(X;k)$ is a finite ${\text{dg}}$-$kG$-module. By identifying $t_i$ with $1+g_i$, we can view $kG$ as the exterior algebra $\Lambda$. Hence $C$ is a $\mathscr{W}$-algebra. Recall that $\mathscr{S}=\mathscr{W}^{\mbox{!`} }$ and $\mathscr{W}_{\infty}=\Omega\mathscr{S}$. Let $j$ denote the inclusion of ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathscr{W}$-algebras into ${\text{dg}}$-$\Omega\mathscr{S}$-algebras. Since $H(C)$ is a deformation retract of $jC$ as ${\text{dg}}$-$k$-modules, by Theorem \[HTT\] they are $\infty $-quasi-isomorphic as $\Omega\mathscr{S}$-algebras. We know that $\mathscr{W}$ is also a Koszul operad. Then by Theorem \[zigzag\], there exists a zigzag of quasi-isomorphisms of ${\text{dg}}$-$\Omega\mathscr{S}$-algebras $H(C)\leftrightsquigarrow jC$.
Note that $\mathscr{S}$ is a connected cooperad, so it is conilpotent. Let ${\iota:\mathscr{S}\rightarrow \Omega\mathscr{S}}$ be the universal twisting morphism. By Theorem \[barquasi\], there is a zigzag of quasi-isomorphisms ${\text{B}}_{\iota} H(C)\leftrightsquigarrow ({\text{B}}_{\iota}\circ j)(C)$ as $\mathscr{S}$-coalgebras. As graded $\mathbb{N}$-modules, we have the following isomorphisms: $${\text{B}}_{\iota} H(C)=\left(\mathscr{S}\circ_{\iota}\Omega \mathscr{S}\right)\circ_{\Omega \mathscr{S}}H(C)\cong \mathscr{S}\circ H(C)\cong S_{\mathbf{c}}\otimes H(C).$$ We call the ${\mathscr{S}^*}$-algebra $({\text{B}}_{\iota} H(C))^*$ the minimal Hirsch-Brown model because $$\begin{aligned}
({\text{B}}_{\iota} H(C))^*&\cong(S_{\mathbf{c}}\widetilde{\otimes}H(C))^*\\
&\cong S\widetilde{\otimes}(H_{\bullet}(X;k))^*\\
&\cong H^{\bullet}(BG;k)\widetilde{\otimes}H^{\bullet}(X;k)\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde{\otimes}$ is the usual tensor product of $k$-modules with a possibly twisted differential, see [@AlldayPuppe]. Let $\kappa: \mathscr{S}\rightarrow \mathscr{W}$ be the canonical twisting morphism. Note that $C_{\bullet}(EG;k)$ is $kG$-chain homotopy equivalent to $S_{\mathbf{c}}\widetilde{\otimes}kG:=\mathscr{S}\circ_{\kappa}\mathscr{W}$, where both are considered as right $kG$-modules. Also we have $({\text{B}}_{\iota}\circ j)= {\text{B}}_{\kappa}$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
({\text{B}}_{\iota}\circ j)(C)&\cong S_{\mathbf{c}}\widetilde{\otimes}kG \otimes_{kG}C\\
&\simeq C_{\bullet}(EG;k)\otimes_{kG}C\\
&\simeq C_{\bullet}(EG\times_G X;k)\end{aligned}$$ For the last homotopy equivalence see [@AlldayPuppe proof of Theorem 1.2.8] and [@Dold [ ]{}.12].
The Minimal model of Carlsson {#minCarls}
-----------------------------
Let $N$ be a differential graded $S$-module. We view $N$ as a ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathscr{S}$-coalgebra. The goal of this section is to construct Carlsson’s minimal model [@Carlsson2] for $N$. We construct a ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathscr{S}$-coalgebra that is quasi-isomorphic to $N$ and has zero differential when tensored with $k$ over $\mathscr{S}$.
We have $F=F_2(N)$ in the filtration from Section \[coalgebras\], so the coalgebra $N$ is conilpotent. As a ${\text{dg}}$-$k$-module $H(N)$ is a deformation retract of $N$. We obtain the following deformation retract of ${\text{dg}}$-$k$-modules by applying the functor $\Omega_{\kappa}$, where $\kappa:\mathscr{S}\rightarrow \mathscr{S}^{\mbox{!`} } $ is the canonical twisting morphism
.
Then by Theorem \[HTT\], $\Omega_{\kappa}N \xleftarrow{\Omega_{\kappa}(i)} \Omega_{\kappa}H(N)$ extends to an $\infty$-quasi-isomorphism of ${\text{dg}}$-$\Omega\mathscr{S}$-algebras. Furthermore, we have another deformation retract
and so $\Omega_{\kappa}H(N)\xleftarrow{i'} H(\Omega_{\kappa}H(N))$ extends to an $\infty$-quasi-isomorphism of ${\text{dg}}$-$\Omega\mathscr{S}$-algebras by Theorem \[HTT\]. Combining these two $\infty$-quasi-isomorphisms, we have an $\infty$-quasi-isomorphism of ${\text{dg}}$-$\Omega\mathscr{S}$-algebras $\Omega_{\kappa}N\leftarrow H(\Omega_{\kappa}H(N))$. Thus by Theorem \[zigzag\], there is a zigzag of quasi-isomorphisms as ${\text{dg}}$-$\Omega\mathscr{S}$-algebras $$\Omega_{\kappa}N \leftrightsquigarrow H(\Omega_{\kappa}H(N)).$$ Then by Theorem \[barquasi\], we have a zigzag of quasi-isomorphisms of ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathscr{S}$-coalgebras $${\text{B}}_{\kappa}\Omega_{\kappa}N \leftrightsquigarrow {\text{B}}_{\kappa}H(\Omega_{\kappa}H(N)).$$ There is a quasi-isomorphism of ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathscr{S}$-coalgebras $N\rightarrow {\text{B}}_{\kappa}\Omega_{\kappa}N$ by Proposition \[barcobar\]. Therefore, we obtain a zigzag quasi-isomorphism of ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathscr{S}$-coalgebras $$N \leftrightsquigarrow {\text{B}}_{\kappa}H(\Omega_{\kappa}H(N)).$$ Note that $k\otimes_{S}{\text{B}}_{\kappa}H(\Omega_{\kappa}H(N))$ has zero differential. Hence we call the ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathscr{S}$-coalgebra ${\text{B}}_{\kappa}H(\Omega_{\kappa}H(N))$ the Carlsson minimal model of $N$.
A special case of Carlsson’s conjecture
---------------------------------------
The following is equivalent to Theorem \[thm1\]:
Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic $2$ and $S$ the polynomial algebra in $r$ variables of degree $-1$ with coefficients in $k$. Assume $(M,\partial)$ is a semifree ${\text{dg}}$-$S$-module and its homology is nonzero and finite dimensional as a $k$-vector space. Further assume that $n$ and $m$ have the same parity whenever $H_n(M)\neq 0$ and $H_m(M)\neq 0$. Then $2^r\leq {\text{rank}}_S M$.
We can consider $M$ as a ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathscr{S}$-coalgebra. As in Section \[minCarls\], we have a zigzag of quasi-isomorphism of ${\text{dg}}$-$\mathscr{S}$-coalgebras $$M\leftrightsquigarrow {\text{B}}_{\kappa}H(\Omega_{\kappa}H(M)),$$ where each middle term in this zigzag is semifree.
If $f: K\rightarrow L$ is a quasi-isomorphism of bounded-below complexes of free modules, then the mapping cone of $f$ is a bounded-below acyclic complex of free modules. Therefore, the mapping cone is contractible and $f$ is split, so $f$ is a homotopy equivalence [@Brown Proposition 0.3, Proposition 0.7]. This implies the following zigzag of quasi-isomorphism: $$k\otimes_{S}M\leftrightsquigarrow k
\otimes_{S}{\text{B}}_{\kappa}H(\Omega_{\kappa}H(M))\cong H(\Omega_{\kappa}H(M)).$$ If $H(M)$ is concentrated in only odd or even degrees, then the differential on $\Omega_{\kappa}H(M)$ is zero. Hence, $$\dim_k(H(\Omega_{\kappa}H(M)))=\dim_k(\Omega_{\kappa}H(M))=2^r\dim_kH(M)\geq 2^r,$$ because $M$ has non-zero homology. Thus, $$2^r\leq \dim_k(H(k\otimes_S M))\leq \dim_k(k\otimes_S M)={\text{rank}}_S(M).$$
Multiplicative structures on minimal Hirsch-Brown models {#secMult}
========================================================
In this section, we define an operad $\tilde{\mathscr{W}}$ that will play the same role of $\mathscr{W}$ as in \[minmodelsection\].
The operad $\tilde{\mathscr{W}}$ {#ssBV}
--------------------------------
Let $\mathscr{P}$ be a unary non-symmetric operad and $\mathscr{Q}$ be a non-symmetric operad. Assume that their presentations are given by $\mathscr{P}=\mathscr{T}(X)/(R)$, where $X(n)=0$ when $n\neq 1$ and $\displaystyle\mathscr{Q}=\mathscr{T}(Y)/(L)$. Then the *Boardman-Vogt* tensor product of $\mathscr{P}$ and $\mathscr{Q}$ is the operad $\mathscr{P}\otimes _{\text{BV}} \mathscr{Q}$ defined by $$\mathscr{P}\otimes _{\text{BV}} \mathscr{Q}=\mathscr{T}(X\oplus Y)/(R\oplus L\oplus I),$$ where $I$ is generated by the relations of the form $\gamma(p;q)-\gamma(q;p,\ldots,p)$ for $p\in X(1)$, $q\in Y(m)$, and $\gamma$ is the composition map of $\mathscr{T}(X\oplus Y)$.
The associative operad ${\text{As}}$ is $\mathscr{P}(M,R)$, where $$M = (0, 0, k\mu ,0,0,0,\dots ), \, R = k(\mu \circ _1\mu + \mu \circ _2 \mu).$$ In terms of trees, we have $$\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9,baseline=-0.5mm]
\draw [thick](0,0.1) -- (-0.5,0.5);
\draw [thick](0,0.1) -- (0.5,0.5);
\draw [thick](0,0.1) -- (0,-0.55);
\draw[fill] (0,0.1) circle [radius=0.07];
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{5pt}:=
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.8,baseline=-1mm]
\draw [thick](-0.2,0.2) -- (-0.5,0.5);
\draw [thick](0.2,0.2) -- (0.5,0.5);
\draw [thick](0,-0.3) -- (0,-0.7);
\draw node at (0,0) [draw,circle, scale=0.7]{$\mu$};
\end{tikzpicture} \mbox{ with the relation }
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9,baseline=-0.5mm]
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (-0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0,-0.55);
\draw [thick](-0.3,0.3) -- (0,0.6);
\draw [thick](-0.3,0.3) -- (-0.6,0.6);
\draw[fill] (0,0) circle [radius=0.07];
\draw[fill] (-0.3,0.3) circle [radius=0.07];
\end{tikzpicture}\,\, = \,\,
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9,baseline=-0.5mm]
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (-0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0,-0.55);
\draw [thick](0.3,0.3) -- (0.6,0.6);
\draw [thick](0.3,0.3) -- (0,0.6);
\draw[fill] (0,0) circle [radius=0.07];
\draw[fill] (0.3,0.3) circle [radius=0.07];
\end{tikzpicture}\text{ in }As.$$ Here, we consider a ${\text{dg}}$-${\text{As}}$-algebra structure as a multiplicative structure. To put a multiplicative structure on minimal Hirsch-Brown model, we define an operad $$\tilde{\mathscr{W}}:= \mathscr{E}^{\ast}\otimes_{BV} ({{\text{As}}}^{\mbox{!`} } )^*.$$ In the case $r=1$, we have $$\tilde{\mathscr{W}}=
\sbox0{$\begin{array}{c}
\hspace{5pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9,baseline=-0.5mm]
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0,-0.55);
\draw[fill] (0,-0.1) circle [radius=0.07];
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{5pt},\hspace{5pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9,baseline=-0.5mm]
\draw [thick](0,-0.1) -- (-0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,-0.1) -- (0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,-0.1) -- (0,-0.55);
\draw[fill] (0,-0.1) circle [radius=0.07];
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{5pt};\hspace{5pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9,baseline=-0.5mm]
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0,0.6);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0,-0.55);
\draw[fill] (0,0.3) circle [radius=0.07];
\draw[fill] (0,0) circle [radius=0.07];
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{5pt},\hspace{5pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9,baseline=-0.5mm]
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (-0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0,-0.55);
\draw [thick](-0.3,0.3) -- (0,0.6);
\draw [thick](-0.3,0.3) -- (-0.6,0.6);
\draw[fill] (0,0) circle [radius=0.07];
\draw[fill] (-0.3,0.3) circle [radius=0.07];
\end{tikzpicture}\,\, +\,\,
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9,baseline=-0.5mm]
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (-0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0,-0.55);
\draw [thick](0.3,0.3) -- (0.6,0.6);
\draw [thick](0.3,0.3) -- (0,0.6);
\draw[fill] (0,0) circle [radius=0.07];
\draw[fill] (0.3,0.3) circle [radius=0.07];
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{5pt},\hspace{5pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9,baseline=-0.5mm]
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0,-0.55);
\draw [thick](0,0.3) -- (0.3,0.6);
\draw [thick](0,0.3) -- (-0.3,0.6);
\draw[fill] (0,0) circle [radius=0.07];
\draw[fill] (0,0.3) circle [radius=0.07];
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{5pt}+\hspace{5pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9,baseline=-0.5mm]
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (-0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0.3,0.3) -- (0.3,0.6);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0,-0.55);
\draw [thick](-0.3,0.3) -- (-0.3,0.6);
\draw[fill] (0,0) circle [radius=0.07];
\draw[fill] (-0.3,0.3) circle [radius=0.07];
\draw[fill] (0.3,0.3) circle [radius=0.07];
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{5pt}
\end{array}$}
\mathopen{\resizebox{1.2\width}{\ht0}{$\Bigg\langle$}}
\usebox{0}
\mathclose{\resizebox{1.2\width}{\ht0}{$\Bigg\rangle$}}$$ where $<M;R>$ denotes the free operad divided by the operadic ideal generated by $R$. Considering $t=t_1$ and $t<\mu$, we have $$\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9,baseline=-0.5mm]
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0,-0.4);
\draw[fill] (0,0) circle [radius=0.07];
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{5pt}<\hspace{5pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9,baseline=-0.5mm]
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (-0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0,-0.4);
\draw[fill] (0,0) circle [radius=0.07];
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{5pt}<\hspace{5pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9,baseline=-0.5mm]
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (-0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0,-0.4);
\draw [thick](0.3,0.3) -- (0.3,0.6);
\draw[fill] (0,0) circle [radius=0.07];
\draw[fill] (0.3,0.3) circle [radius=0.07];
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{5pt}<\hspace{5pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9,baseline=-0.5mm]
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (-0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0,-0.4);
\draw [thick](-0.3,0.3) -- (-0.3,0.6);
\draw[fill] (0,0) circle [radius=0.07];
\draw[fill] (-0.3,0.3) circle [radius=0.07];
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{5pt}<\hspace{5pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9,baseline=-0.5mm]
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (-0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0,-0.4);
\draw [thick](0.3,0.3) -- (0.3,0.6);
\draw [thick](-0.3,0.3) -- (-0.3,0.6);
\draw[fill] (0,0) circle [radius=0.07];
\draw[fill] (-0.3,0.3) circle [radius=0.07];
\draw[fill] (0.3,0.3) circle [radius=0.07];
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{5pt}<\hspace{5pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9,baseline=-0.5mm]
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (-0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0,-0.4);
\draw [thick](0.3,0.3) -- (0,0.6);
\draw [thick](0.3,0.3) -- (0.6,0.6);
\draw[fill] (0,0) circle [radius=0.07];
\draw[fill] (0.3,0.3) circle [radius=0.07];
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{5pt}<\hspace{5pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9,baseline=-0.5mm]
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (-0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0,-0.4);
\draw [thick](0.3,0.3) -- (0,0.6);
\draw [thick](0.3,0.3) -- (0.6,0.6);
\draw [thick](0.6,0.6) -- (0.6,0.9);
\draw[fill] (0,0) circle [radius=0.07];
\draw[fill] (0.3,0.3) circle [radius=0.07];
\draw[fill] (0.6,0.6) circle [radius=0.07];
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{5pt}<\hspace{5pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9,baseline=-0.5mm]
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (-0.3,0.3);
\draw [thick](0,0) -- (0,-0.4);
\draw [thick](0.3,0.3) -- (0,0.6);
\draw [thick](0.3,0.3) -- (0.6,0.6);
\draw [thick](0,0.6) -- (0,0.9);
\draw[fill] (0,0) circle [radius=0.07];
\draw[fill] (0.3,0.3) circle [radius=0.07];
\draw[fill] (0,0.6) circle [radius=0.07];
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{5pt}<\hspace{5pt}
\ldots \hspace{35pt}$$ Correspondingly, we have the following path sequences of the planar rooted trees above: $$\begin{aligned}
\scalebox{0.9}[1]{
$(t)<(\mu,\mu)<(\mu,\mu t)<(\mu t,\mu)<(\mu t,\mu t)
<(\mu,\mu^2,\mu^2)<(\mu,\mu^2,\mu^2 t)<(\mu,\mu^2 t,\mu^2)< \ldots$}\end{aligned}$$
More generally, when $r$ is a positive integer, $I\subseteq \{1,\ldots,r\}$, let $t(I)=\prod_{j\in I} t_j$, where it is understood that $t(\emptyset)=1$. Then a basis for $\tilde{\mathscr{W}}(n)$ is $$\{ \,\mu t(I_1), {\mu}^2 t(I_2),\ldots, {\mu}^{n-1} t(I_{n-1}),{\mu}^{n-1} t(I_n)\, \},$$ where $I_i \subseteq \{1,\ldots,r\}$ for all $ i \in \{1,\ldots,n\}$. Considering the graded path lexicographic order with $t_1< t_2<\ldots<t_r<\mu $, it is straightforward to check that this basis satisfies conditions $1$ and $2$ of [@Hoffbeck Section 6.3]. Hence it is a Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt basis for $\tilde{\mathscr{W}}$.
Note that $\tilde{\mathscr{W}}$ is not a quadratic operad so we cannot use the Koszul dual definition discussed in Section \[quadraticcoop\]. Thus, we use the general Koszul dual construction for operads given in [@FresseKoszul]. Since $\tilde{\mathscr{W}}$ has a Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt basis, the operad is Koszul by [@Hoffbeck Theorem 6.6]. Moreover $\tilde{\mathscr{W}}$ is a connected operad with trivial differential, hence the Koszul dual construction for $\tilde{\mathscr{W}}$ is defined by $$K({\tilde{\mathscr{W}}})^{(n)}:=H_n({\text{B}}\tilde{\mathscr{W}}^{(n)})$$ where $n$ denotes the weight-grade.
Multiplicative structure on minimal Hirsch-Brown models
-------------------------------------------------------
Let $G$, $X$, and $C$ be as in Section \[minmodelsection\]. The Alexander-Whitney diagonal map $C\rightarrow C\otimes C$ is coassociative by [@MacLane], and it induces a coassociative degree $-1$ map $s^{-1}C\rightarrow s^{-1}C\otimes s^{-1} C$. Hence, we can consider $s^{-1}C$ as a ${\text{dg}}$-$\tilde{\mathscr{W}}^*$-coalgebra and $sC^*$ as a ${\text{dg}}$-$\tilde{\mathscr{W}}$-algebra.
Set $\tilde{\mathscr{S}}=K(\tilde{\mathscr{W}})$ as defined at the end of Section \[ssBV\]. Following [@FresseProp Theorem B], we will call the $(\tilde{\mathscr{S}})^*$-algebra $({\text{B}}_{\iota} H(sC^*))^*$ the minimal Hirsch-Brown model as in Section \[minmodelsection\]. Now, note that this minimal Hirsch-Brown model of $X$ has an associative algebra structure induced by the inclusion $({{\text{As}}}^{\mbox{!`} } )^*\cong (K({{\text{As}}}))^*\rightarrowtail \tilde{\mathscr{W}}$, which gives ${{\text{As}}}^*\rightarrowtail \tilde{\mathscr{S}}$, so ${{\text{As}}}\rightarrowtail {\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}^*$. Our result shows that it is possible to put a multiplicative structure on minimal Hirsh-Brown models. Note that this multiplicative structure is different than the multiplicative structure discussed by Puppe since ${\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}^*$ is not quadratic.
We conclude with three questions: (1) Is it possible to use this multiplicative structure to obtain a result similar to [@Puppe Corollary 5.2]? (2) Can we put a filtration on the minimal Hirsch-Brown model obtained in this section by using the weight-grading of ${\tilde{\mathscr{S}}}^*$? (3) Would this filtration have properties similar to the properties listed in [@Puppe Proposition 3.2]? (4) Instead of $\tilde{\mathscr{W}}$, can one use a quadratic minimal model for $\tilde{\mathscr{W}}$ similar to the minimal model discussed in Theorem $40$ of [@ValletteKoszul]? Affirmative answers to these questions might tighten the bounds mentioned in Section \[intro\].
[^1]: The second author is partially supported by TÜBİTAK-TBAG$/117$F$085$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Imre Csiszár[^1]$^{,4}$, Fumio Hiai[^2]$^{,5}$ and Dénes Petz[^3]$^{,4}$
$^4$ Alfréd Rényi Institute of Mathematics,\
H-1364 Budapest, POB 127, Hungary
$^5$ Graduate School of Information Sciences, Tohoku University\
Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8579, Japan
> [**Abstract:**]{} In a quantum mechanical model, Diósi, Feldmann and Kosloff arrived at a conjecture stating that the limit of the entropy of certain mixtures is the relative entropy as system size goes to infinity. The conjecture is proven in this paper for density matrices. The first proof is analytic and uses the quantum law of large numbers. The second one clarifies the relation to channel capacity per unit cost for classical-quantum channels. Both proofs lead to generalizations of the conjecture.
>
> [**Key words:**]{} Shannon entropy, von Neumann entropy, relative entropy, capacity per unit cost, Holevo bound.
Introduction
============
It was conjectured by Diósi, Feldmann and Kosloff in [@diosi], based on thermodynamical considerations, that the von Neumann entropy of a quantum state equal to a mixture $$R_n:=\frac{1}{n}\left(\sigma\ot \rho^{\ot (n-1)}
+\rho \ot \sigma \ot \rho^{\ot (n-2)}+ \dots
+ \rho^{\ot (n-1)} \ot \sigma\right)$$ exceeds the entropy of a component asymptotically by the Umegaki relative entropy $S(\sigma\|\rho)$, that is, $$\label{conj}
S(R_n)- (n-1)S(\rho)-S(\sigma)\to S(\sigma\|\rho)$$ as $n \to \infty$. Here $\rho$ and $\sigma$ are density matrices acting on a finite dimensional Hilbert space. Recall that $S(\sigma)=-\Tr\, \sigma \log \sigma$ and $$S(\sigma \| \rho)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\Tr\, \sigma(\log \sigma -\log \rho) \quad & \hbox{if } \supp
\sigma\,\,\le \,\supp \rho\\
+\infty &\hbox{otherwise.} \end{array} \right.$$ Concerning the background of quantum entropy quantities, we refer to [@OP; @pd].
Apparently no exact proof of (\[conj\]) has been published even for the classical case, although for that case a heuristic proof is offered in [@diosi].
In the paper first an analytic proof of (\[conj\]) is given for the case $\supp \sigma\,\,\le \,\supp \rho$, using an inequality between the Umegaki and the Belavkin-Staszewski relative entropies, and the weak law of large numbers in the quantum case. In the second part of the paper, it is clarified that the problem is related to the theory of classical-quantum channels. The essential observation is the fact that $S(R_n)- (n-1)S(\rho)-S(\sigma)$ in the conjecture is a Holevo quantity (classical-quantum mutual information) for a certain channel for which the relative entropy emerges as the capacity per unit cost.
The two different proofs lead to two different generalizations of the conjecture.
An analytic proof of the conjecture
===================================
In this section we assume that $\supp \sigma \le \supp \rho$ for the support projections of $\sigma$ and $\rho$. One can simply compute: $$\begin{aligned}
S(R_n\|\rho^{\otimes n})
&=\Tr (R_n\log R_n-R_n\log\rho^{\otimes n}) \\
&=-S(R_n)-(n-1)\Tr\,\rho\log\rho-\Tr\,\sigma\log\rho.\end{aligned}$$ Hence the identity $$S(R_n\|\rho^{\otimes n}) =-S(R_n)+(n-1)S(\rho)+S(\sigma\|\rho)+S(\sigma)$$ holds. It follows that the conjecture (\[conj\]) is equivalent to the statement $$S(R_n\|\rho^{\otimes n}) \to 0 \quad\mbox{as}\quad n\to\infty$$ when $\supp \sigma \le \supp \rho$.
Recall the Belavkin-Staszewski relative entropy $$S_\BS (\omega\|\rho)= \Tr (\omega \log (\omega^{1/2} \rho^{-1} \omega^{1/2}))
= - \Tr (\rho\, \eta (\rho^{-1/2}\omega \rho^{-1/2}))$$ if $\supp \omega \le \supp \rho$, where $\eta(t):=-t \log t$, see [@BS; @OP]. It was proved by Hiai and Petz that $$\label{HPin}
S (\omega\|\rho) \le S_\BS (\omega\|\rho),$$ see [@HP], or Proposition 7.11 in [@OP].
\[T:1\] If $\supp \sigma \le \supp \rho$, then $S(R_n) -(n-1)S(\rho)-S(\sigma)\to
S(\sigma \| \rho)$ as $n \to \infty$.
We want to use the quantum law of large numbers, see Proposition 1.17 in [@OP]. Assume that $\rho$ and $\sigma$ are $d \times d$ density matrices and we may suppose that $\rho$ is invertible. Due to the GNS-construction with respect to the limit $\varphi_\infty$ of the product states $\varphi_n(A)
=\Tr\,\rho^{\ot n}A$ on the $n$-fold tensor product $M_d(\bbbc)^{\ot n}$, $n \in \bbbn$, all finite tensor products $M_d(\bbbc)^{\ot n}$ are embedded into a von Neumann algebra $\iM$ acting on a Hilbert space $\iH$. If $\gamma$ denotes the right shift and $X:=\rho^{-1/2}\sigma\rho^{-1/2}$, then $R_n$ is written as $$R_n=(\rho^{1/2})^{\otimes n}\Biggl({1\over n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\gamma^i(X)\Biggr)
(\rho^{1/2})^{\otimes n}.$$
By inequality (\[HPin\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
0\le S(R_n\|\rho^{\otimes n})
&\le S_{\mathrm{BS}}(R_n\|\rho^{\otimes n}) \nonumber \\
&=-\Tr \Bigl(\rho^{\otimes n}\,
\eta\Bigl((\rho^{-1/2})^{\otimes n}R_n(\rho^{-1/2})^{\otimes n}\Bigr)\Bigr)
\nonumber\\
&=\Big\< \Omega ,\eta\Biggl({1\over n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}
\gamma^i(X)\Biggr)\Omega\Big\>\,,\label{upb}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega$ is the cyclic vector in the GNS-construction.
The law of large numbers gives $${1\over n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\gamma^i(X) \to I$$ in the strong operator topology in $B(\iH)$, since $\varphi(X)=\Tr\,\rho\rho^{-1/2}
\sigma\rho^{-1/2}=1$.
Since the continuous functional calculus preserves the strong convergence (simply due to approximation by polynomials on a compact set), we obtain $$\eta\Biggl({1\over n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\gamma^i(X)\Biggr)
\to \eta(I)=0\ \ \mbox{strongly}.$$ This shows that the upper bound (\[upb\]) converges to 0 and the proof is complete.
By the same proof one can obtain that for $$R_{m,n}:=\frac{1}{n}\left(\sigma^{\otimes m}\ot \rho^{\ot(n-1)}
+\rho \ot \sigma^{\otimes m} \ot \rho^{\ot(n-2)}
+ \dots + \rho^{\ot(n-1)} \ot \sigma^{\otimes m}\right),$$ the limit relation $$S(R_{m,n})-(n-1)S(\rho)-mS(\sigma) \to m S(\sigma\|\rho)$$ holds as $n\to\infty$ when $m$ is fixed.
In the next theorem we treat the probabilistic case in a matrix language. The proof includes the case when $\supp \sigma \le \supp \rho$ is not true. Those readers who are not familiar with the quantum setting of the previous theorem are suggested to follow the arguments below.
\[T:2\] Assume that $\rho$ and $\sigma$ are commuting density matrices. Then $S(R_n) -(n-1)S(\rho)-S(\sigma)\to S(\sigma \| \rho)$ as $n \to \infty$.
We may assume that $\rho=\Diag(\mu_1,\dots,\mu_\ell, 0,\dots,0)$ and $\sigma=\Diag(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_d)$ are $d \times d$ diagonal matrices, $\mu_1, \dots, \mu_\ell >0$ and $\ell < d$. (We may consider $\rho,\sigma$ in a matrix algebra of bigger size if $\rho$ is invertible.) If $\supp \sigma \le \supp \rho$, then $\lambda_{\ell+1}= \dots =\lambda_d=0$; this will be called the regular case. When $\supp \sigma \le \supp \rho$ is not true, we may assume that $\lambda_d>0$ and we refer to the singular case.
The eigenvalues of $R_n$ correspond to elements $(i_1,\dots ,i_n)$ of $\{1,\dots,d\}^n$: $$\label{ev}
{1\over n}(\lambda_{i_1}\mu_{i_2}\cdots\mu_{i_n}
+\mu_{i_1}\lambda_{i_2}\mu_{i_3}\cdots\mu_{i_n}
+\dots+\mu_{i_1}\cdots\mu_{i_{n-1}}\lambda_{i_n}).$$ We divide the eigenvalues in three different groups as follows:
- $A$ corresponds to $(i_1,\dots ,i_n)\in\{1,\dots,d\}^n$ with $1 \le i_1,\dots ,i_n \le \ell$,
- $B$ corresponds to $(i_1,\dots ,i_n)\in\{1,\dots,d\}^n$ which contains exactly one $d$,
- $C$ is the rest of the eigenvalues.
If the eigenvalue (\[ev\]) is in group $A$, then it is $${(\lambda_{i_1}/\mu_{i_1})+\dots+(\lambda_{i_n}/\mu_{i_n})\over n}
\,\mu_{i_1}\mu_{i_2}\cdots\mu_{i_n}.$$ First we compute $$\sum_{\kappa \in A}\eta(\kappa)=\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_n} \eta
\biggl({(\lambda_{i_1}/\mu_{i_1})+\dots+(\lambda_{i_n}/\mu_{i_n})\over n}
\,\mu_{i_1}\cdots\mu_{i_n}\biggr).$$ Below the summations are over $1\le i_1,\dots,i_n \le \ell$: $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_n} \eta
\biggl({(\lambda_{i_1}/\mu_{i_1})+\dots+(\lambda_{i_n}/\mu_{i_n})\over n}
\,\mu_{i_1}\cdots\mu_{i_n}\biggr) \\ & \qquad =-\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_n}
({(\lambda_{i_1}/\mu_{i_1})+\dots+(\lambda_{i_n}/\mu_{i_n})\over n}
\,\mu_{i_1}\cdots\mu_{i_n}\biggr)\log(\mu_{i_1}\cdots\mu_{i_n})+Q_n \\
&\qquad =-{1\over n}\sum_{k=1}^n\Biggl(\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_n}
\lambda_{i_1}\mu_{i_2}\cdots\mu_{i_n}\log\mu_{i_k}
+\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_n}\lambda_{i_1}\mu_{i_2}\cdots\mu_{i_n}\log\mu_{i_k} \\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+\dots
+\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_n}\lambda_{i_1}\mu_{i_2}\cdots\mu_{i_n}\log\mu_{i_k}
\Biggr)+Q_n \\
&\qquad =-{1\over n}\sum_{k=1}^n\Biggl((n-1)\sum_{i_k}\mu_{i_k}\log\mu_{i_k}
+\sum_{i_k}\lambda_{i_k}\log\mu_{i_k}\Biggr)+Q_n \\
%&\qquad =-(n-1)\sum_{i=1}^\ell \mu_i\log\mu_i-\sum_{i=1}^\ell \lambda_i\log\mu_i+Q_n \\
&\qquad =(n-1)S(\rho)-\sum_{i=1}^\ell\lambda_i\log\mu_i +Q_n,\end{aligned}$$ where $$Q_n:=\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_n}(\mu_{i_1}\cdots\mu_{i_n})
\eta\biggl({(\lambda_{i_1}/\mu_{i_1})+\dots+(\lambda_{i_n}/\mu_{i_n})\over n}
\biggr).$$
Consider a probability space $$(\Omega,\mathbb{P}):=\bigl(\{1,\dots,\ell\}^\bN,(\mu_1,\dots,\mu_\ell)^\bN\bigr),$$ where $(\mu_1,\dots,\mu_\ell)^\bN$ is the product of the measure on $\{1,
\dots,\ell\}$ with the distribution $(\mu_1,\dots,\mu_\ell)$. For each $n\in\bN$ let $X_n$ be a random variable on $\Omega$ depending on the $n$th $\{1,\dots,\ell\}$ so that the value of $X_n$ at $i\in\{1,\dots,\ell\}$ is $\lambda_i/\mu_i$. Then $X_1,X_2,\dots$ are identically distributed independent random variables and $Q_n$ is the expectation value of $$\eta \biggl({X_1+\dots+X_n\over n}\biggr).$$ The strong law of large numbers says that $${X_1+\dots+X_n\over n}\to \bE(X_1)
=\sum_{i=1}^\ell\biggl({\lambda_i\over\mu_i}\biggr)\mu_i=\sum_{i=1}^\ell \lambda_i
\ \ \mbox{almost surely}.$$ Since $ \eta((X_1+\dots+X_n)/n)$ is uniformly bounded, the Lebesgue bounded convergence theorem implies that $$Q_n\to \eta\Big(\sum_{i=1}^\ell \lambda_i\Big)$$ as $n\to\infty$.
In the regular case $\sum_{i=1}^\ell \lambda_i=1$, $Q_n \to 0$ and all non-zero eigenvalues are in group $A$. Hence we have $$S(R_n)-(n-1)S(\rho)-S(\sigma)
=-\sum_{i=1}^\ell\lambda_i\log\mu_i+ \sum_{i=1}^\ell \lambda_i\log\lambda_i +Q_n
=S(\sigma\|\rho)+Q_n$$ and the statement is clear.
Next we consider the singular case, when we have $$\sum_{\kappa \in A} \eta(\kappa)=(n-1)S(\rho)+ O(1),$$ and we turn to eigenvalues in $B$. If the eigenvalue corresponding to $(i_1,\dots ,i_n)\in\{1,\dots,d\}^n$ is in group $B$ and $i_1=d$, then the eigenvalue is $${1\over n}\lambda_{d}\mu_{i_2}\dots\mu_{i_n}.$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
&& -\sum_{i_2,\dots,i_n}
\Big(\frac{\lambda_d\mu_{i_2}\cdots\mu_{i_n}}{n}\Big)
\log \Big(\frac{\lambda_d\mu_{i_2}\cdots\mu_{i_n}}{n}\Big)
\cr
&&\qquad = -\frac{\lambda_d}{n}\sum_{i_2,\dots,i_n}
(\mu_{i_2}\cdots\mu_{i_n}) \log (\mu_{i_2}\cdots\mu_{i_n})
-\frac{\lambda_d}{n}\log \frac{\lambda_d}{n}
\cr
&&\qquad
= \frac{\lambda_d}{n}(n-1)S(\rho)-\frac{\lambda_d}{n}\log \frac{\lambda_d}{n}.\end{aligned}$$ When $i_2=d, \dots, i_n=d$, we get the same quantity, so this should be multiplied with $n$: $$\sum_{\kappa \in B} \eta(\kappa)=
\lambda_d (n-1)S(\rho)- \lambda_d \log \frac{\lambda_d}{n}.$$ We make a lower estimate to the entropy of $R_n$ in such a way that we compute $\sum_\kappa \eta(\kappa)$ when $\kappa$ runs over $A$ and $B$. It is clear now that $$\begin{aligned}
S(R_n)- (n-1)S(\rho)-S(\sigma)
&\ge& \sum_{\kappa \in A} \eta(\kappa)+\sum_{\kappa \in B} \eta(\kappa)-
(n-1)S(\rho)-S(\sigma) \cr
&\ge& \lambda_d (n-1)S(\rho)+\lambda_d \log n + O(1)
\to +\infty\end{aligned}$$ as $n \to \infty$.
Interpretation as capacity
==========================
A classical-quantum channel with classical input alphabet $\iX$ transfers the input $x\in \iX$ into the output $W(x) \equiv \rho_x$ which is a density matrix acting on a Hilbert space $\iK$. We restrict ourselves to the case when $\iX$ is finite and $\iK$ is finite dimensional.
If a classical random variable $X$ is chosen to be the input, with probability distribution $P=\{p(x): x \in \iX\}$, then the corresponding output is the quantum state $\rho_X:= \sum_{x \in \iX} p(x) \rho_x$. When a measurement is performed on the output quantum system, it gives rise to an output random variable $Y$ which is jointly distributed with the input $X$. If a partition of unity $\{F_y :y \in \iX\}$ in $B(\iK)$ describes the measurement, then $$\label{E:tr}
\Prob (Y=y\, |\, X=x )= \Tr\, \rho_x F_y \qquad (x,y \in \iX).$$
According to the Holevo bound, we have $$\label{E:Ho}
I(X\wedge Y):=H(Y)-H(Y|X) \le I(X,W):=S(\rho_X)-\sum_{x \in \iX} p(x) S(\rho_x),$$ which is actually a simple consequence of the monotonicity of the relative entropy under state transformation [@Ho1973b], see also [@OPW]. $I(X,W)$ is the so-called Holevo quantity or classical-quantum mutual information, and it satisfies the identity $$\label{E:ident}
\sum_{x \in \iX} p(x) S(\rho_x\|\rho)=I(X,W)+S(\rho_X\|\rho),$$ where $\rho$ is an arbitrary density.
The channel is used to transfer sequences from the classical alphabet; $\bfx=(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n) \in \iX^n$ is transferred into the quantum state $W^{\ot n}(\bfx)=\rho_\bfx:=\rho_{x_1}\ot \rho_{x_2}\ot \dots \ot \rho_{x_n}$. A code for the channel $W^{\ot n}$ is defined by a subset $A_n \subset \iX^n$, which is called a codeword set. The decoder is a measurement $\{F_\bfy: \bfy \in \iX^n\}$. The probability of error is $\Prob(X\ne Y)$, where $X$ is the input random variable uniformly distributed on $A_n$ and the output random variable is determined by (\[E:tr\]), where $x$ and $y$ are replaced by $\bfx$ and $\bfy$.
The essential observation is the fact that $S(R_n)- (n-1)S(\rho)-S(\sigma)$ in the conjecture is a Holevo quantity in case of a channel with input sequences $(x_1,x_2,\dots, x_n)\in \{0,1\}^n$ and outputs $\rho_{x_1}\ot \rho_{x_2}\ot \dots \ot\rho_{x_n}$, where $\rho_0=\sigma$, $\rho_1=\rho$ and the codewords are all sequences containing exactly one 0. More generally, we shall consider Holevo quantities $$I(A,\rho_0,\rho_1):= S\Big(\frac{1}{|A|}\sum_{\bfx \in A}
\rho_\bfx\Big)-\frac{1}{|A|}\sum_{\bfx \in A}
S(\rho_\bfx).$$ defined for any set $A \subset \{0,1\}^n$ of binary sequences of length $n$.
The concept related to the conjecture we study is the channel capacity per unit cost which is defined next for simplicity only in the case where $\iX=\{0,1\}$, the cost of a character $0\in \iX$ is 1, while the cost of $1 \in \iX$ is 0.
For a memoryless channel with a binary input alphabet $\iX=\{0,1\}$ and an $\eps>0$, a number $R>0$ is called an $\eps$-achievable rate per unit cost if for every $\delta >0$ and for any sufficiently large $T$, there exists a code of length $n>T$ with at least $e^{T(R-\delta)}$ codewords such that each of the codewords contains at most $T$ 0’s and the error probability is at most $\eps$. The largest $R$ which is an $\eps$-achievable per unit cost for every $\eps>0$ is the channel capacity per unit cost.
\[L:2\] For an arbitrary $A \subset \{0,1\}^n$, $$I(A,\rho_0,\rho_1) \le c(A) S(\rho_0\|\rho_1)$$ holds, where $$c(A):= \frac{1}{|A|}\sum_{\bfx \in A}|\{i: x_i=0\}|.$$
Let $c(\bfx):=|\{i: x_i=0\}|$ for $\bfx \in A$. Since $I(A,\rho_0,\rho_1)$ is a particular Holevo quantity $I(X, W^{\ot n})$, we can use the identity (\[E:ident\]) to get an upper bound $$\frac{1}{|A|}\sum_{\bfx \in A} S(\rho_\bfx\|\rho_1^{\ot n})=
\frac{1}{|A|}\sum_{\bfx \in A} c(\bfx)S(\rho_0\|\rho_1)=
c(A)S(\rho_0\|\rho_1)$$ for $I(A,\rho_0,\rho_1)$.
\[L:4\] If $A \subset \{0,1\}^n$ is a code of the channel $W^{\ot n}$, whose probability of error $($for some decoding scheme$)$ does not exceed a given $0 < \eps <1$, then $$(1-\eps) \log |A| - \log 2 \le I(A,\rho_0,\rho_1).$$
The right-hand side is a bound for the classical mutual information $I(X\wedge Y)=H(Y)-H(Y|X)$, where $Y$ is the channel output, see (\[E:Ho\]). Since the error probability $\Prob(X\ne Y)$ is smaller than $\eps$, application of the Fano inequality (see [@CT]) gives $$H(X |Y )\le \eps \log |A| +\log 2.$$ Therefore $$I(X \wedge Y )= H(X)-H(X | Y ) \ge (1-\eps)\log |A| - \log2,$$ and the proof is complete.
The above two lemmas shows that the relative entropy $S(\rho_0\|\rho_1)$ is an upper bound for the channel capacity per unit cost of the channel $W(0)=\rho_0$ and $W(1)=\rho_1$ with a binary input alphabet. In fact, assume that $R>0$ is an $\eps$-achievable rate. For every $\delta>0$ and $T>0$ there is a code $A\subset\{0,1\}^n$ for which we get by Lemmas \[L:2\] and \[L:4\] $$\begin{aligned}
TS(\rho_0\|\rho_1)&\ge c(A)S(\rho_0\|\rho_1)\ge I(A,\rho_0,\rho_1) \\
&\ge(1-\eps)\log|A|-\log2 \\
&\ge(1-\eps)T(R-\delta)-\log 2.\end{aligned}$$ Since $T$ is arbitrarily large and $\eps,\delta$ are arbitrarily small, $R\le S(\rho_0\|\rho_1)$ follows. That $S(\rho_0\|\rho_1)$ equals the channel capacity per unit cost will be verified below.
\[T:3\] Let the classical-quantum channel $W:\iX=\{0,1\} \to B(\iK)$ be defined as $W(0)=\rho_0\equiv \sigma$ and $W(1)=\rho_1\equiv\rho$. Assume that $A_n \subset \{0,1\}^n$ is chosen such that
- each element $\bfx=(x_1,x_2,\dots, x_n) \in A_n$ contains at most $\ell$ copies of 0,
- $\log |A_n|/ \log n \to c$ as $n \to \infty$,
- $$c(A_n):= \frac{1}{|A_n|}\sum_{\bfx \in A_n}|\{i: x_i=0\}| \to c
\quad\mbox{as}\quad n \to \infty$$
for some real number $c>0$ and for some natural number $\ell$. If the random variable $X_n$ has a uniform distribution on $A_n$, then $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \Big( S(\rho_{X_n})-\frac{1}{|A_n|} \sum_{{\bf x} \in A_n}
S(\rho_{{\bf x}}) \Big) = cS(\sigma\|\rho).$$
The proof of the theorem is divided into lemmas. We need the direct part of the so-called quantum Stein lemma obtained in [@HP], see also [@Bje; @Hay; @ON; @pd].
\[L:1\] Let $\rho_0$ and $\rho_1$ be density matrices. For every $\eta >0$ and $0 < R < S(\rho_0\|\rho_1)$, if $N$ is sufficiently large, then there is a projection $E \in B(\iK^{\ot N})$ such that $$\alpha_N[E]:=\Tr\, \rho_0^{\ot N}(I-E) < \eta$$ and for $\beta_N[E]:=\Tr\, \rho_1^{\ot N}E$ the estimate $$\frac{1}{N} \log \beta_N[E] < - R$$ holds.
Note that $\alpha_N$ is called the error of the first kind, while $\beta_N$ is the error of the second kind.
\[L:3\] Assume that $\eps >0$, $0<R< S(\rho_0 \|\rho_1)$, $\ell$ is a positive integer and the sequences $\bfx$ in $A_n \subset \{0,1\}^n$ contain at most $\ell$ copies of 0. Let the codewords be the $N$-fold repetitions $\bfx^N=(\bfx,\bfx,
\dots,\bfx)$ of the sequences $\bfx \in A_n$. If $N$ is the integer part of $$\frac{1}{R} \log \frac{2n}{\eps}$$ and $n$ is large enough, then there is a decoding scheme such that the error probability is smaller than $\eps$.
We follow the probabilistic construction in [@Ve]. Let the codewords be the $N$-fold repetitions $\bfx^N=(\bfx,\bfx,\dots,\bfx)$ of the sequences $\bfx \in A_n$. The corresponding output density matrices act on the Hilbert space $\iK^{\ot Nn}\equiv (\iK^{\ot n})^{\ot N}$. We decompose this Hilbert space into an $N$-fold product in a different way. For each $1 \le i \le n$, let $\iK_i$ be the tensor product of the factors $i,i+n,i+2n,\dots, i+(N-1)n$. So $\iK$ is identified with $\iK_1 \ot \iK_2
\ot \dots \ot \iK_n$.
For each $1 \le i \le n$ we perform a hypothesis testing on the Hilbert space $\iK_i$. The 0-hypothesis is that the $i$th component of the actually chosen $\bfx \in A_n$ is $0$. Based on the channel outputs at time instances $i,i+n,\dots, i+(N-1)n$, the 0-hypothesis is tested against the alternative hypothesis that the $i$th component of $\bfx$ is $1$. According to the quantum Stein lemma (Lemma \[L:1\]), given any $\eta>0$ and $0<R < S(\sigma\|\rho)$, for $N$ sufficiently large, there exists a test $E_i$ such that the probability of error of the first kind is smaller than $\eta$, while the probability of error of the second kind is smaller than $e^{-NR}$. The projections $E_i$ and $I-E_i$ form a partition of unity in the Hilbert space $\iK_i$, and the $n$-fold tensor product of these commuting projection will give a partition of unity in $\iK^{\ot Nn}$. Let $\bfy \in \{0,1\}^n$ and set $F_{\bfy}:= \ot_{i=1}^n F_{y_i}$, where $F_{y_i}=E_i$ if $y_i=0$ and $F_{y_i}=I-E_i$ if $y_i=1$. Therefore, the result of decoding can be an arbitrary $0$–$1$ sequence in $\{0,1\}^n$.
The decoding scheme gives $\bfy \in \{0,1\}^n$ in such a way that $y_i=0$ if the tests accepted the 0-hypothesis for $i$ and $y_i=1$ if the alternative was accepted. The error probability should be estimated: $$\begin{aligned}
\Prob(Y\ne X|X=\bfx)&=
\sum_{\bfy:\bfy\ne \bfx} \Tr\,\rho_\bfx^{\ot N} F_\bfy
=\sum_{\bfy:\bfy\ne \bfx}\prod_{i=1}^n \Tr\,\rho_{x_i}^{\ot N} F_{y_i} \cr
&\le \sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{\bfy: y_i \ne x_i}
\prod_{j=1}^n \Tr\,\rho_{x_j}^{\ot N} F_{y_j}
\le \sum_{i=1}^n \Tr\,\rho_{x_i}^{\ot N} (I-F_{x_i}).\end{aligned}$$ If $x_i=0$, then $$\Tr\, \rho_{x_i}^{\ot N} (I-F_{x_i}) = \Tr\, \rho_{0}^{\ot N} (I-E_{i}) \le \eta,$$ because it is an error of the first kind. When $x_i=1$, $$\Tr\, \rho_{x_i}^{\ot N} (I-F_{x_i}) = \Tr\, \rho_{1}^{\ot N} E_{i} \le e^{-R N}$$ from the error of the second kind. It follows that $\ell \eta +ne^{-NR}$ is a bound for the error probability. The first term will be small if $\eta$ is small. The second term will be small if $N$ is large enough. If both terms are majorized by $\eps/2$, then the statement of the lemma holds. We can choose $n$ so large that $N$ defined by the statement should be large enough.
[*Proof of Theorem \[T:3\]*]{}: Since Lemma \[L:2\] gives an upper bound, that is, $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\Big( S(\rho_{X_n})-\frac{1}{|A_n|} \sum_{{\bf x} \in
A_n}
S(\rho_{{\bf x}}) \Big) \le cS(\sigma\|\rho),$$ it remains to prove that $$\liminf_{n \to \infty} \Big( S(\rho_{X_n})-\frac{1}{|A_n|}
\sum_{{\bf x} \in A_n} S(\rho_{{\bf x}}) \Big) \ge cS(\sigma\|\rho).$$
Lemma \[L:3\] is about the $N$-times repeated input $X^N$ and describes a decoding scheme with error probability at most $\eps$. According to Lemma \[L:4\] we have $$(1-\eps) \log |A_n| -1 \le S(\rho_{X^N})-\frac{1}{|A|}
\sum_{\bfx \in A_n} S(\rho_{\bfx^N}).$$ From the subadditivity of the entropy we have $$S(\rho_{X^N}) \le N S(\rho_{X})$$ and $$S(\rho_{\bfx^N}) = N S(\rho_{\bfx})$$ holds due to the additivity for product. It follows that $$(1-\eps) \frac{\log |A_n|}{N} -\frac{1}{N}
\le S(\rho_{X})-\frac{1}{|A_n|}\sum_{\bfx \in A_n} S(\rho_{\bfx}).$$ From the choice of $N$ in Lemma \[L:3\] we have $$R \,\frac{\log |A_n|}{\log n}\,\frac{\log n}{\log n +\log 2 - \log \eps}
\le \frac{\log |A_n|}{N}$$ and the lower bound is arbitrarily close to $cR$. Since $R < S(\rho_0\| \rho_1)$ was arbitrary, the proof is complete.
[99]{}
V.P. Belavkin and P. Staszewski, C\*-algebraic generalization of relative entropy and entropy, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar[é]{}, Sec. A [**37**]{}(1982), 51–58.
I. Bjelaković, J. Deuschel, T. Krüger, R. Seiler, R. Siegmund-Schultze and A. Szkoła, A quantum version of Sanov’s theorem, Comm. Math. Phys. [**260**]{}(2005), 659–671.
T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, [*Elements of Information Theory*]{}, Second edition, Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ, 2006.
L. Diósi, T. Feldmann and R. Kosloff, On the exact identity between thermodynamic and informatic entropies in a unitary model of friction, Int. J. Quantum Information, [**4**]{}(2006), 99–104.
M. Hayashi, [*Quantum information. An introduction*]{}, Springer, 2006.
F. Hiai and D. Petz, The proper formula for relative entropy and its asymptotics in quantum probability, Comm. Math. Phys. [**143**]{}(1991), 99–114.
A.S. Holevo, Some estimates for the amount of information transmittable by a quantum communication channel (in Russian), Problemy Peredachi Informacii, [**9**]{}(1973), 3–11.
M.A. Nielsen and I.L. Chuang, [*Quantum computation and quantum information*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.
T. Ogawa and H. Nagaoka, Strong converse and Stein’s lemma in quantum hypothesis testing, IEEE Tans. Inf. Theory [**46**]{}(2000), 2428–2433.
M. Ohya and D. Petz, [*Quantum Entropy and its Use*]{}, Springer, 1993.
M. Ohya, D. Petz and N. Watanabe, On capacities of quantum channels, Prob. Math. Stat. [**17**]{}(1997), 179–196.
D. Petz, [*Lectures on quantum information theory and quantum statistics*]{}, book manuscript in preparation.
S. Verdu, On channel capacity per unit cost, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory [**36**]{}(1990), 1019–1030.
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]. Partially supported by the Hungarian Research Grant OTKA T068258.
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected]. Partially supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B)17340043.
[^3]: E-mail: [email protected]. Partially supported by the Hungarian Research Grant OTKA T068258.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
c ł u v Ł ¶ §
ø
Ø
0.7cm
UT-08-33\
IPMU-08-0115
1.35cm
[ **Cosmic Ray Positron and Electron Excess from Hidden-Fermion Dark Matter Decays** ]{} 1.2cm Koichi Hamaguchi$^{1,2}$, Satoshi Shirai$^1$ and T. T. Yanagida$^{1,2}$ 0.4cm
[*$^1$ Department of Physics, University of Tokyo,\
Tokyo 113-0033, Japan\
$^2$ Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe, University of Tokyo,\
Chiba 277-8568, Japan*]{}
1.5cm
Introduction
============
The presence of dark matter (DM) has been established by numerous observations, which requires physics beyond the standard model (SM). The nature of the DM is now one of the most important issues not only in cosmology but also in particle physics.
The minimal extension of the SM is to introduce one extra particle called $X$, that is, a candidate particle for the DM [@Davoudiasl:2004be]. We assume the DM $X$ to be a singlet of the SM gauge groups. The $X$ particle can be a boson or a fermion. We consider in this letter the case of fermion. We denote the DM $X$ as $\Psi$ to distinguish it from the case of boson [^1].
The new particle $\Psi$ may have Yukawa couplings as \_i \^i H + [h.c.]{} , \[eq:2body\] which induces too fast decay of the $\Psi$. Here, $\ell$ is the lepton doublet, $H$ the Higgs doublet and $i=1,2,3$ denotes family indices of the leptons. Thus, we assume the Yukawa coupling is strongly suppressed, otherwise the $\Psi$ can not be a candidate of the DM. The required suppression may be easily obtained by suitable configurations of particle wavefunctions in a higher dimensional theory [^2].
If the above dangerous Yukawa coupling constants $\lambda_i$ in Eq. (\[eq:2body\]) are strongly suppressed as $|\lambda_i|\ll 10^{-26}$, the dominant operators become dimension six four-Fermi interactions among the SM particles and $\Psi$: $$\frac{1}{M^2_*}\Psi \ell^i\ell^j {\bar e}^k, ~~~~\frac{1}{M^2_*}\Psi {\bar d}^i{\bar d}^j{\bar u}^k,$$ where $i, j, k =1,2,3$ and $M_*$ is the cut-off scale, which would be regarded as the Grand Unification scale. The lifetime of the $\Psi$ is given by $$\tau_\Psi \simeq 10^{26}~ {\rm sec} ~\left(\frac{M_*}{10^{15}~{\rm GeV}}\right)^4~\left(\frac{1~{\rm TeV}}{m_{\Psi}}\right)^5, \label{eq:life}$$ where $m_{\Psi}$ is the mass of the DM $\Psi$. We see that the lifetime is much longer than the age of the universe in a large parameter space of $M_*$ and $m_{\Psi}$ and hence the $\Psi$ can be a candidate of the DM.
The $\Psi$ may be produced non-thermally in the early universe through the above dimension six interactions. The density parameter of the $\Psi$ is given by $$\Omega_{\psi} h^2 = {\cal O}(0.1) \left(\frac{T_R}{10^{11} {\rm GeV}}\right)^3~
\left(\frac{10^{15}~{\rm GeV}}{M_*}\right)^4~
~\left(\frac{m_\Psi}{1~{\rm TeV}}\right), \label{eq:density}$$ where $T_R$ is the reheating temperature after the inflation [^3]. We see that the observed DM density $\Omega_{\rm DM}h^2\simeq 0.1$ is also explained for a wide region of the parameter space of $M_*, m_\Psi$ and $T_R$.
The purpose of this letter is to show that the anomalous excess of cosmic ray electron and positron recently observed by PAMELA [@Adriani:2008zr] and ATIC [@:2008zz]/PPB-BETS [@Torii:2008xu] is naturally explained by the decay of the DM $\Psi$ [^4]. In the present analysis we assume the following dimension six operator, for simplicity; $$\frac{1}{M_*^2}[(\Psi {\bar e}^1) (\ell^1\ell^3) + \alpha\;(\Psi {\bar u}^1) ({\bar d}^1{\bar d}^3)]+{\rm h.c}., \label{eq:3body}$$ where $\alpha$ is a free parameter of ${\cal O}(1)$. We find that the replacement of the third family by the second family does not significantly change our final result and hence we consider only the above operators. However, the more general analysis including all possible dimension six operators is straightforward and will be given elsewhere.
For completeness, we also study the case that the two-body decays of the DM are induced by Eq. (\[eq:2body\]). We find that the required lifetime for the DM $\Psi$ is given if the Yukawa couplings $|\lambda_i|$ are sufficiently small as ${\cal O}(10^{-26})$. We choose the flavor structure as $|\lambda_1|\gg |\lambda_{2,3}|$ in the present analysis.
Cosmic rays from the hidden fermion DM decays
=============================================
Let us discuss the cosmic ray signals from the decays of the DM $\Psi$. The interaction (\[eq:2body\]) dominantly causes two-body decays of the DM $\Psi$, h , Z , W\^e\^ \[eq:2\] with branching ratio $1:1:2$.
The interaction (\[eq:3body\]) mainly causes three-body decays \^ e\^ , e\^ e\^, dbu, |[d]{}|[b]{}|[u]{} \[eq:3\] with branching ratio $1:1:3\alpha^2:3\alpha^2$. Here, we have assumed that the $\Psi$ is a Majorana fermion and that $m_h \simeq 110$ GeV and $m_{\Psi}\gg m_{h}$. In both cases Eqs. (\[eq:2\]) and (\[eq:3\]), high energy electron, positron, photon and antiproton are produced. To estimate the energy spectrum of these decay products, we have used the program PYTHIA [@Sjostrand:2006za]. The particles produced in the DM decays are influenced by various factors in the propagation. For the propagation in the Galaxy, we adopt the method discussed in Refs. [@Ibarra; @Hisano:2005ec] with Navarro, Frenk and White halo profile [@Navarro:1996gj]; \_[DM]{}=,\[eq:NFW\] where $\rho_0=0.26~ {\rm GeV cm^{-3}}$ and $r_c= 20~{\rm kpc}$.
Positrons and electrons {#positrons-and-electrons .unnumbered}
-----------------------
As a diffusion model, we use MED model in Ref. [@Delahaye:2007fr]. We see that the positrons and electrons come from the DM decays inside the Galaxy, and especially the decays within a few kpc from us are important. In Fig. \[fig:FLUX\], we show the total flux of the electron and positron. The left figure shows the case that the interaction (\[eq:3body\]) is a dominant interaction causing three-body decay. We set the DM mass $m_{\Psi}=1800$ GeV, the lifetime $\tau_{\Psi}=9\times10^{25}$ sec and $\alpha=(2\sqrt{2})^{-1}$. Hereafter we fix $\alpha=(2\sqrt{2})^{-1}$. The lifetime is given by $M_* \simeq 3\times 10^{15}$ GeV in Eq. (\[eq:life\]). For the right figure, the case that the interaction (\[eq:2body\]) is dominant is shown. Here, we set the DM mass $m_{\Psi}=1200$ GeV, the lifetime $\tau_{\Psi}=8\times10^{25}$ sec. The lifetime is obtained by $\lambda_1 \simeq 1\times 10^{-26}$ in Eq. (\[eq:2body\]). As for the background flux, we set $0.0253(E/1~{ {\rm GeV} })^{-3.206}~{\rm GeV^{-1} cm^{-2}s^{-1}sr^{-1}}$ in both cases [^5] .
[cc]{}
[cc]{}
Next, we estimate the positron fraction. For the background, we extrapolate the background estimated in Fig. \[fig:FLUX\] and assume that the background consists entirely of the electron, since the secondary positron would be negligible for $E{ \mathop{}_{\textstyle \sim}^{\textstyle >} }10$ GeV. Fig. \[fig:FRAC\] shows the positron fraction. One can see good agreements with the experimental data in both cases except in a low-energy region. The behavior of the background in the low-energy region is complicated due to various factors such as solar modulation or contamination from the secondary positron. This can be reasons why the naive background estimation is not good in the low energy region. The detailed treatment of the background is out of the reach of this letter.
Gamma ray {#gamma-ray .unnumbered}
---------
For the gamma ray, both of the DM decays in the halo and extra-Galaxy are important. To estimate the halo component, we have used the NFW profile in Eq. (\[eq:NFW\]) and averaged the halo signal over the whole sky excluding the region within $\pm 10^\circ$ around the Galactic plane.
For the extragalactic component, the gamma ray is influenced by the red-shift. We estimate the extragalactic component by using the following cosmological parameters; $\Omega_{\Psi}h^2\simeq0.11,~\Omega_{\rm matter}h^2\simeq0.13,~\Omega_{\Lambda}\simeq0.74,~\rho_c \simeq 1.0537\times 10^{-5} h^2~ {\rm GeV cm^{-3}},~h\simeq 0.72$ [@Komatsu:2008hk].
In Fig. \[fig:GFLUX\], the gamma ray fluxes are shown. We set the background flux as $5.18\times 10^{-7}(E/1~{ {\rm GeV} })^{-2.499}~{\rm GeV^{-1} cm^{-2}s^{-1}sr^{-1}}$ as in Ref. [@Ishiwata:2008cu]. We have assumed the energy resolution is $15 \%$. In both cases, the DM signals are consistent with the current experiment data and anomalous behavior of the gamma ray flux is expected to continue up to higher energy. This will be tested by upcoming Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope (FGST, formerly named GLAST [@FGST]).
[cc]{}
Antiproton {#antiproton .unnumbered}
----------
We estimate the antiproton flux, following the Refs. [@Ibarra]. For the solar modulation, we set $\phi_F=500$ MV. In Fig. \[fig:ANTIFLUX\], we show the antiproton fluxes for some different diffusion models [@Delahaye:2007fr]. Here, we show only the DM signals. We can see the contradiction between the experiments and the signals in some diffusion models. However, in both cases of the two- and three-body decay, MIN models (and also MED model for the three-body decay case) do not conflict with the experimental data. Therefore, for the antiproton, the DM $\psi$ is consistent with the experimental data at least in some diffusion models.
[cc]{}
Discussion and conclusions
==========================
In this letter, we have investigated the case of the fermionic DM. Both two- and three-body decays can explain the anomaly of electron and positron cosmic ray. In addition, they are also consistent with the gamma ray anomaly. Especially, the decay caused by the dimension six operators seems to be attractive, since it naturally explains the proper lifetime of the DM for the GUT-scale cut-off $M_*\simeq 10^{15}$–$10^{16}$ GeV[^6].
There are remaining issues. For example, the reason of large suppression of Eq. (\[eq:2body\]) is unclear. In addition, the reason why the DM $\Psi$ decays dominantly into the first family leptons is unclear. However this problem may be solved by choosing suitable Froggatt-Nielsen charge for the DM $\Psi$ [^7].
Finally, we should note that the hidden fermion $\Psi$ can be identified as the lightest neutralino in the supersymmetric standard model. In this case, R-parity breaking operators may induce the DM $\Psi$ decays in similar ways discussed in the present letter.
#### *Note Added:*
Discrimination between two- and three-body decay of the DM would be possible in the future cosmic ray experiments [@Chen:2008fx].
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
KH thanks to C. R. Chen, M. M. Nojiri and F. Takahashi for discussions. This work was supported by World Premier International Center Initiative (WPI Program), MEXT, Japan. The work of SS is supported in part by JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists.
[99]{}
H. Davoudiasl, R. Kitano, T. Li and H. Murayama, Phys. Lett. B [**609**]{}, 117 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0405097\]. C. R. Chen, F. Takahashi and T. T. Yanagida, arXiv:0809.0792 \[hep-ph\], arXiv:0811.0477 \[hep-ph\]; C. R. Chen, M. M. Nojiri, F. Takahashi and T. T. Yanagida, arXiv:0811.3357 \[astro-ph\]. O. Adriani [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:0810.4995 \[astro-ph\]. J. Chang [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**456**]{}, 362 (2008). S. Torii [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:0809.0760 \[astro-ph\].
A. Ibarra and D. Tran, JCAP [**0807**]{}, 002 (2008) \[arXiv:0804.4596 \[astro-ph\]\]; K. Ishiwata, S. Matsumoto and T. Moroi, arXiv:0805.1133 \[hep-ph\], arXiv:0811.0250 \[hep-ph\], arXiv:0811.4492 \[astro-ph\]; L. Covi, M. Grefe, A. Ibarra and D. Tran, arXiv:0809.5030 \[hep-ph\].
K. Hamaguchi, S. Shirai and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B [**654**]{} (2007) 110 \[arXiv:0707.2463 \[hep-ph\]\]; K. Hamaguchi, E. Nakamura, S. Shirai and T. T. Yanagida, arXiv:0811.0737 \[hep-ph\]; E. Nardi, F. Sannino and A. Strumia, arXiv:0811.4153 \[hep-ph\].
C. R. Chen and F. Takahashi, arXiv:0810.4110 \[hep-ph\]; P. f. Yin, Q. Yuan, J. Liu, J. Zhang, X. j. Bi and S. h. Zhu, arXiv:0811.0176 \[hep-ph\]; A. Ibarra and D. Tran, arXiv:0811.1555 \[hep-ph\]; J. Hisano, M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri and K. Nakayama, arXiv:0812.0219 \[hep-ph\]. M. Pospelov and M. Trott, arXiv:0812.0432 \[hep-ph\]; J. Zhang, X. J. Bi, J. Liu, S. M. Liu, P. f. Yin, Q. Yuan and S. H. Zhu, arXiv:0812.0522 \[astro-ph\]; J. Liu, P. f. Yin and S. h. Zhu, arXiv:0812.0964 \[astro-ph\].
A. Ibarra and D. Tran, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{} (2008) 061301 \[arXiv:0709.4593 \[astro-ph\]\], JCAP [**0807**]{}, 002 (2008) in Ref. [@DMdecay-gravitino].
T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna and P. Skands, JHEP [**0605**]{}, 026 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0603175\].
J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, O. Saito and M. Senami, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 055004 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0511118\]. J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J. [**490**]{}, 493 (1997) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9611107\].
T. Delahaye, R. Lineros, F. Donato, N. Fornengo and P. Salati, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 063527 (2008) \[arXiv:0712.2312 \[astro-ph\]\].
M. Aguilar [*et al.*]{} \[AMS-01 Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**646**]{}, 145 (2007) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0703154\]. S. W. Barwick [*et al.*]{} \[HEAT Collaboration\], Astrophys. J. [**482**]{}, L191 (1997) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9703192\]. E. Komatsu [*et al.*]{} \[WMAP Collaboration\], arXiv:0803.0547 \[astro-ph\]. K. Ishiwata, S. Matsumoto and T. Moroi, arXiv:0805.1133 \[hep-ph\], in Ref. [@DMdecay-gravitino].
http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov
P. Sreekumar [*et al.*]{} \[EGRET Collaboration\], Astrophys. J. [**494**]{}, 523 (1998) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9709257\]. A. W. Strong, I. V. Moskalenko and O. Reimer, Astrophys. J. [**613**]{}, 956 (2004) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0405441\].
H. Matsunaga [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 4052 (1998) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9809326\]; S. Orito [*et al.*]{} \[BESS Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 1078 (2000) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9906426\].
M. Boezio [*et al.*]{} \[WiZard/CAPRICE Collaboration\], Astrophys. J. [**561**]{}, 787 (2001) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0103513\].
A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, P. W. Graham, R. Harnik and S. Rajendran, arXiv:0812.2075 \[hep-ph\].
E. Nardi, F. Sannino and A. Strumia, arXiv:0811.4153 \[hep-ph\].
M. Fujii, K. Hamaguchi and T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 123513 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0102187\]. C. R. Chen, K. Hamaguchi, M. M. Nojiri, F. Takahashi and S. Torii, arXiv:0812.4200 \[astro-ph\].
[^1]: See Refs. [@CTY] for the case of $X$ being a hidden gauge boson $A'$.
[^2]: An example is given in a 5-dimensional space-time with an extra dimension $S^1/Z_2$. We put the $\Psi$ on one boundary and the Higgs $H$ on the other boundary. We put quarks and leptons in the bulk. Then, we find the Yukawa coupling $\Psi \ell H$ is exponentially suppressed if the size of the extra dimension is large enough, compared with the inverse of the cut-off scale in the 5-dimensional theory.
[^3]: The derivation of Eq. (\[eq:density\]) is as follows: The production cross section of the $\Psi$ is $\left<\sigma v\right>\approx T^2 M_*^{-4}$. Following the Boltzmann equation, one can get $n_{\psi}/n_{\rm rad} \approx \left. n_{\rm rad} \left<\sigma v\right> H^{-1}\right|_{T=T_R}$.
[^4]: For recent progress in the study of the decaying DM signal, see Refs. [@CTY; @DMdecay-gravitino; @DMdecay-composite; @DMdecay-others].
[^5]: This background is estimated by fitting the data points as BG + signal, assuming BG is power-low and adopting the signal in the case of three-body decay. As the fitting parameters, we have used the lifetime of the $\Psi$, $\alpha$ in Eq. (\[eq:3body\]), and the coefficient and power of the background. Here, we set the weight for each data point $1$.
[^6]: DM decays via GUT-scale physics have been also discussed in a recent work [@Arvanitaki:2008hq; @Nardi:2008ix].
[^7]: For example, we can consider a discrete $Z_6$ symmetry [@Fujii:2001zr]. Since the $\Psi$ is a Majorana particle, the $\Psi$ should have $3$ of the $Z_6$ charge. The $Z_6$ charges of other particles are $(\ell_1,\ell_2,\ell_3);(1,0,0)$, $(\bar{e}_1,\bar{e}_2,\bar{e}_3);(2,1,0)$, $(q_1,q_2,q_3);(2,1,0)$, $(\bar{u}_1,\bar{u}_2,\bar{u}_3);(2,1,0)$, $(\bar{d}_1,\bar{d}_2,\bar{d}_3);(1,0,0)$, $H;0$. This choice of Froggatt-Nielsen charge leads to the $\Psi$ decays considered in the text.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The *non-backtracking matrix* and its eigenvalues have many applications in network science and graph mining, such as node and edge centrality, community detection, length spectrum theory, graph distance, and epidemic and percolation thresholds. Moreover, in network epidemiology, the reciprocal of the largest eigenvalue of the non-backtracking matrix is a good approximation for the epidemic threshold of certain network dynamics. In this work, we develop techniques that identify which nodes have the largest impact on the leading non-backtracking eigenvalue. We do so by studying the behavior of the spectrum of the non-backtracking matrix after a node is removed from the graph. From this analysis we derive two new centrality measures: ** and **. We perform extensive experimentation with targeted immunization strategies derived from these two centrality measures. Our spectral analysis and centrality measures can be broadly applied, and will be of interest to both theorists and practitioners alike.\
**Keywords.** Non-backtracking matrix, epidemic threshold, perturbation analysis
author:
- |
Leo Torres\
`[email protected]`\
Network Science Institute,\
Northeastern University\
- |
Kevin S. Chan\
`[email protected]`\
U.S. Army Research Lab
- |
Hanghang Tong\
`[email protected]`\
Department of Computer Science,\
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
- |
Tina Eliassi-Rad\
`[email protected]`\
Network Science Institute and\
Khoury College of Computer Sciences,\
Northeastern University
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Node Immunization with Non-backtracking Eigenvalues'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
A *non-backtracking walk* in a graph is a sequence of pairwise adjacent edges such that no edge is traversed twice in succession, i.e., the walk does not contain *backtracks*. Non-backtracking walks are known to mix faster than standard random walks [@alon07], whereas *non-backtracking cycles* (i.e. closed non-backtracking walks) contain important topological information from the so-called *length spectrum* of the graph [@Torres2019]. The associated *non-backtracking matrix* is the unnormalized transition matrix of a random walker that does not trace backtracks, and it has many applications such as community detection [@bordenave2015; @krzakala2013spectral], influencer identification [@morone2016collective; @morone2015influence], graph distance [@Torres2019; @mellor2019], etc. Additionally, the *non-backtracking centrality* of nodes, defined in terms of the principal eigenvector of the non-backtracking matrix, has more desirable properties than the standard eigenvector centrality [@martin2014localization]. The non-backtracking framework has also been adapted to directed networks [@arrigo2017directed], weighted networks [@kempton2016non], and multi-layer networks [@arrigo2018exponential]. In this paper, to avoid repetition we use the prefix “NB” to mean non-backtracking. For example, we refer to the non-backtracking matrix as the NB-matrix.
The eigenvalues of the NB-matrix (or NB-eigenvalues for short) are related to certain kinds of spreading dynamics. @karrer2014percolation and @hamilton2014tight showed that the percolation threshold is approximated by the inverse of the largest NB-eigenvalue $\lambda_1$. This implies that the epidemic threshold of susceptible-infectious-recovered (SIR) dynamics can also be approximated by $\lambda_1$ [@pastor2015epidemic; @newman2002spread]. Furthermore, @shrestha2015message argued the same for susceptible-infectious-susceptible (SIS) dynamics, though @castellano2018relevance highlight that this may only hold for networks with certain amounts of degree heterogeneity, and propose a fully non-backtracking version of SIS dynamics where the NB-walks also play a large role. Whether one is talking about the percolation threshold or the epidemic threshold on SIR or SIS dynamics, $\lambda_1$ of the NB-matrix provides a better approximation to the true epidemic threshold than the largest eigenvalue of the adjacency matrix [@shrestha2015message; @karrer2014percolation].
Given the importance of the largest NB-eigenvalue in network dynamics, we ask: **which nodes have the largest influence on the largest NB-eigenvalue?** In the cases of SIR and SIS dynamics, answering this question will lead to targeted immunization strategies, as it is equivalent to asking which are the nodes whose removal from the network causes the epidemic threshold to increase the most. In the case of percolation, this is equivalent to determining which nodes’ removal will put the network closer to splitting into many connected components. Operationally, we frame this question as follows.
Consider a graph $G$ with largest NB-eigenvalue $\lambda_1$. Given an arbitrary node $c$, define $\lambda_1(c)$ as the largest NB-eigenvalue of the network after removing $c$. Define $\lambda_1 - \lambda_1(c)$ as the *eigen-drop induced by $c$*. **Which node $c$ induces the maximum eigen-drop?**
The contributions of the present work are as follows:
- We develop the spectral theory of the NB-matrix to study the behavior of its eigenvalues under the removal of a node.
- For Problem 1, we propose two new centrality measures, ** and *(or ) centrality*. Further, can be computed in approximately log-linear time in the number of nodes.
- Our experiments show that immunization strategies induced by and centrality are more effective than other methods.
In Section \[sec:background\] we present the necessary background theory. In Section \[sec:theory\] we develop a spectral perturbation theory of the NB-matrix. We use this theory in Section \[sec:immunization\] to introduce two new centrality measures and argue why they are effective at identifying nodes with largest eigen-drops. In Section \[sec:related-work\] we review previous studies related to the present work. In Section \[sec:experiments\] we provide experimental evidence for our claims. We conclude the paper in Section \[sec:conclusion\].
Background {#sec:background}
==========
Let $G$ be a simple undirected graph with node set $V$ and edge set $E$. We consider the set of directed edges $\overline{E}$ where each undirected edge $(i, j) \in E$ gives rise to two directed edges $i \to j \in \overline{E}$ and $j \to i \in \overline{E}$. A *walk* in $G$ is a sequence of directed edges $i_1 \to j_1$, …, $i_k \to j_k$, where $j_r = i_{r+1}$ for each $r=1,\ldots, k-1$. Here, $k$ is the *length* of the walk. A walk is *closed* if $j_k = i_1$. A *backtrack* is a walk of length $2$ of the form $i \to j, j \to i$. A walk is a *non-backtracking walk*, or *NB-walk*, if no two consecutive edges in it form a backtrack. The *non-backtracking matrix*, or *NB-matrix*, $B$ is the unnormalized transition matrix of a walker that does not perform backtracks. Concretely, $B$ is indexed in the rows and columns by elements of $\overline{E}$. Let $m = |E|$, then $B$ is of size $2m \times 2m$, and it is defined by $$\label{eqn:nbm-element}
B_{k \to l, i \to j} = \delta_{jk} \left( 1 - \delta_{il} \right),$$ where $\delta$ is the Kronecker delta. In words, $B_{k \to l, i \to j}$ is $1$ iff $j = k$ and $i \to j, j \to l$ is not a backtrack. Notably, the powers of $B$ count the number of NB-walks in $G$, i.e. $\left( B^r \right)_{k \to l, i \to j}$ is the number of NB-walks that start with $i \to j$ and end with $k \to l$ of length $r+1$.
Among other applications, the NB-matrix has been used to define a notion of node centrality that has more desirable properties than the usual eigenvector centrality [@martin2014localization; @radicchi2016leveraging]. Concretely, let $\lambda$ be the largest eigenvalue of $B$ and let $\mathbf{v}$ be the corresponding unit right eigenvector. By Perron-Frobenius theory, $\lambda$ is positive, real, and has multiplicity one, while $\mathbf{v}$ can be chosen to be non-negative. The *non-backtracking centrality* of a node $i$ is defined as $$\label{eqn:nb-centrality}
\mathbf{v}^{i} = \sum_j a_{ij} \mathbf{v}_{j \to i},$$ where $A = \left( a_{ij} \right)$ is the adjacency matrix of $G$. Now let $D$ be the diagonal matrix with the degree of each node, and let $\mathbf{v}_{aux}$ be the left principal eigenvector of $$\label{eqn:aux-nb-matrix}
B_{aux} =
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & D - I_n \\
- I_n & A
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $I_r$ is the identity matrix of size $r$. We have that $\mathbf{v}_{aux} = \left( \mathbf{f}, -\lambda \mathbf{f} \right)$, where $\mathbf{f}$ is of size $n$, and it is known that $\mathbf{f}$ is parallel to the vector of NB-centralities, $\mathbf{f}^i \propto \mathbf{v}^i$ [@martin2014localization]. It is more efficient to use $B_{aux}$ than $B$ when computing the NB-centrality, since the former matrix is of size $2n \times 2n$, where $n = |V|$.
The NB-matrix is not symmetric and therefore its eigenvalues, other than the largest one, can be complex numbers. Even so, it contains a subtle structure, sometimes called PT-symmetry [@bordenave2015]. Indeed, let $P$ be the matrix such that $P \mathbf{x}_{i \to j} = \mathbf{x}_{j \to i}$ for any vector $\mathbf{x}$ indexed by $\overline{E}$. It is readily checked that (i) the product $PB$ is symmetric, and (ii) there exists a basis where $P$ can be written as $$\label{eqn:p}
P =
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & I_m \\
I_m & 0
\end{array}
\right).$$
Non-backtracking eigenvalues under node removal {#sec:theory}
===============================================
We are interested in the behavior of the NB-eigenvalues when we remove a node from $G$. Suppose the target node we want to remove is $c \in V$, and partition the edges in $\overline{E}$ as those that are incident to $c$ and those that are not. Sort the rows and columns of $B$ accordingly, so that it takes the block form $$\label{eqn:block-form}
B =
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
B' & D \\
E & F
\end{array}
\right),$$ as shown in Figure \[fig:blue-yellow\]. Here, $B'$ is the NB-matrix of the graph after node $c$ is removed, while $F$ is the NB-matrix of the star graph centered at $c$; if $d$ is the degree of $c$, then $F$ is of size $2d \times 2d$. Further, $D$ is indexed in the rows by directed edges not incident to $c$, and in the columns by directed edges incident to $c$, and vice versa for $E$.
![*Top:* Graph $G$ with target node $c$ before and after removal. $G$ has $m$ edges and $c$ has degree $d$. Dashed yellow edges are incident to $c$, all other edges in solid blue. *Bottom:* Corresponding NB-matrices before and after removal.[]{data-label="fig:blue-yellow"}](blue_yellow){width="80.00000%"}
B = (
[c;[2pt/2pt]{}c]{}
[ccc]{} & &\
& B’ &\
& &\
& D\
E & F\
)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\left.\phantom{\begin{array}{c} \\ D \\ \\ \end{array}}\right\} 2m - 2d $
$\left.\phantom{\begin{array}{c} F \end{array}}\right\} 2d $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(
[ccc]{} & &\
& B’ &\
& &\
)
The characteristic polynomial {#sec:characteristic-polynomial}
-----------------------------
The NB-eigenvalues are the roots of the characteristic polynomial $\det \left( B - t I \right)$. The theory of Schur complements gives us an identity for the determinant of a block matrix, $$\begin{aligned}
\det \left( B- tI \right) &=
\left|
\begin{array}{cc}
B' - tI & D \\
E & F - tI
\end{array}
\right| \\
&= \det \left( F - tI \right) \det \left( B' - tI - D \left( F- tI \right)^{-1} E \right),
\label{eqn:schur}\end{aligned}$$
where the size of $I$ is given by context. This formula holds whenever $\left( F - tI \right)$ is invertible, i.e., whenever $t$ is not an eigenvalue of $F$. To simplify this expression, we make the following observations.
\[lem:de-ff\] Let $d$ be the degree of target node $c$. With $D, E, F$ as in Equation (\[eqn:block-form\]), we have $DE = 0$ and $F^2 = 0$. Therefore, $F$ is nilpotent, that is, all its eigenvalues are zero, and hence $\det \left( F - tI \right) = t^{2d}$. Finally, we have $\left( F - tI \right)^{-1} = - \left( F + tI \right) / t^2$ when $t \neq 0$.
Since $D, E, F$ are sub-matrices of $B$, their element is given by Equation (\[eqn:nbm-element\]). Hence, computing $DE$ and $F^2$ is straightforward, as long as care is placed in keeping track of the appropriate indices for the rows and columns of the involved matrices. Now, $F^2 = 0$ implies that all its eigenvalues are zero and that $\det \left( F - tI \right) = t^{2d}$. Finally, one can manually check that $\left( F - tI \right) \left( F + tI \right) = - t^2 I$.
Now define $X = DFE$. One can manually check that $$\label{eqn:x}
X_{k \to l, i \to j} = a_{ck}a_{cj} \left( 1 - \delta_{kj} \right).$$ Per the Lemma, Equation (\[eqn:schur\]) holds for $t \neq 0$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\det \left( B - tI \right) &= t^{2d} \det \left( B' - tI + \frac{DFE}{t^2} + \frac{DE}{t} \right) \\
&= t^{2d} \det \left( B' - tI + \frac{X}{t^2} \right).
\label{eqn:b-prime-x}\end{aligned}$$
\[thm:char-poly\] For a graph $G$ and target node $c$, suppose the NB-matrix of $G$ is $B$ and the NB-matrix after removing $c$ is $B'$, and let $X$ be as in Equation (\[eqn:b-prime-x\]). If $t$ is not an eigenvalue of $B'$ then we have $$\label{eqn:char-poly}
\frac{\det \left( B - tI \right)}{\det \left( B' - tI \right)} = t^{2d} \det \left( I + \frac{1}{t^2} \left( B' - tI \right)^{-1} X\right).$$
Immediate from (\[eqn:b-prime-x\]) by factoring out $B' - tI$.
If $c$ has degree $1$, then $X$ equals the zero matrix, and Equation (\[eqn:char-poly\]) simplifies to show that removing $c$ has no influence on the non-zero NB-eigenvalues. There are other nodes whose removal do not influence the non-zero NB-eigenvalues, which are characterized as follows. Let the *$2$-core* of $G$ be the graph that remains after iteratively removing nodes of degree $1$. Let the *$1$-shell* of $G$ be the graph induced by the nodes outside of the $2$-core.
\[cor:degree-one\] If $c$ is in the $1$-shell of $G$, removing it does not change the non-zero NB-eigenvalues.
If $c$ has degree $1$, Equation (\[eqn:x\]) gives $X=0$. In this case, (\[eqn:char-poly\]) becomes $\det \left( B - tI \right) = t^{2d} \det \left( B' - tI \right)$, which implies the assertion. In general, if $c$ is in the $1$-shell, then it must have degree $1$ after iteratively removing some sequence of nodes each of which has degree $1$ at the time of removal. Each of these removals has no effect on the non-zero eigenvalues, and therefore neither does the removal of $c$.
Intuitively, since $F$ is the NB-matrix of a star graph, which contains no NB-walks of length $3$ or more, then immediately we have $F^2 = 0$. Following Figure \[fig:blue-yellow\], $F^2$ counts the number of NB-walks of length $3$ whose edges are yellow-yellow-yellow, of which there are none. Similarly, $DE$ counts the NB-walks whose edges are blue-yellow-blue, which also do not exist. Finally, $X=DFE$ counts the NB-walks of color blue-yellow-yellow-blue, which are precisely those that are destroyed when removing $c$. It is then no surprise that the rest of our analysis pivots fundamentally on the matrix $X$.
The largest eigenvalue {#sec:largest-eigenvalue}
----------------------
We now pivot to study the eigen-drop induced by removing $c$. The larger this eigen-drop, the more influential the target node is in determining the epidemic or percolation thresholds.
With the same assumptions as in Theorem \[thm:char-poly\], let $\lambda_1$ be the largest eigenvalue of $B$ and let $\mathbf{w}$ be a vector such that in Equation (\[eqn:b-prime-x\]) we have $$\label{eqn:eigenvector}
\left( B' - \lambda_1 I + \frac{X}{\lambda_1^2} \right) \mathbf{w} = 0.$$ Suppose $\{\mathbf{v}_i\}$ is a basis of right eigenvectors of $B'$ and write $\mathbf{w}$ in this basis, $\mathbf{w} = \sum_i w_i \mathbf{v}_i$. Let $\mathbf{u}_1$ be the left eigenvector of $B'$ corresponding to $\mathbf{v}_1$, and set $\alpha_i = \mathbf{u}_1^T X \mathbf{v}_i$. Finally, let $\lambda_1'$ be the largest eigenvalue of $B'$, so that the eigen-drop induced by $c$ is $\lambda_1 - \lambda_1'$ . Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:main-result}
\lambda_1 - \lambda_1' = \frac{1}{\lambda_1^2} \sum_{i} \frac{w_i}{w_1} \alpha_i.\end{aligned}$$
If $\mathbf{v}_i$ corresponds to the eigenvalue $\lambda_i'$, then (\[eqn:eigenvector\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:bar-baz}
\sum_i w_i \left( B' - \lambda_1 I + \frac{X}{\lambda_1^2} \right) \mathbf{v}_i &=
\sum_i w_i \left( \lambda_i' \mathbf{v}_i - \lambda_1 \mathbf{v}_i + \frac{X \mathbf{v}_i}{\lambda_1^2} \right) = 0.\end{aligned}$$
Let $\mathbf{u}_1$ be the left eigenvector corresponding to $\mathbf{v}_1$ normalized such that $\mathbf{u}_1^T \mathbf{v}_1 = 1$. Recall that $\mathbf{u}_1$ is orthogonal to every right eigenvector corresponding to a different eigenvalue. Since $\lambda_1'$ has multiplicity one, we have $\mathbf{u}_1^T \mathbf{v}_i = 0$ for each $i \neq 1$. Multiply by $\mathbf{u}_1$ on the left to get
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:true-diff}
w_1 \left(\lambda_1' - \lambda_1 \right) + \sum_i w_i \frac{\mathbf{u}_1^T X \mathbf{v}_i}{\lambda_1^2} = 0.\end{aligned}$$
Define $\alpha_i = \mathbf{u}_1^T X \mathbf{v}_i$ and rearrange to get Equation (\[eqn:main-result\]).
We can reverse our argument and interpret (\[eqn:main-result\]) in terms of node addition rather than removal. Suppose the original graph does not contain $c$, and therefore its NB-matrix is $B'$. Then, the NB-matrix *after adding node $c$* is given by (\[eqn:block-form\]). All our arguments are valid in this setting, and (\[eqn:main-result\]) then says that the new largest NB-eigenvalue is the solution to a third-degree polynomial, the coefficients of which depend on the full eigendecomposition of $B'$.
### An approximation {#sec:first-approx}
Unfortunately, Equation (\[eqn:main-result\]) requires knowledge of all eigenvectors of $B'$. However, in our experience, the vector $\mathbf{w}$ is extremely closely aligned to $\mathbf{v}_1$ and therefore the coefficients $w_i / w_1 \ll 1$. In this case, all but one term in the right-hand side of Equation (\[eqn:main-result\]) can be neglected and we get $$\label{eqn:first-approx}
\lambda_1^2 \left( \lambda_1 - \lambda_1' \right) - \alpha_1 \approx 0.$$
Here, the larger $\alpha_1$, the larger the eigen-drop $\lambda_1 - \lambda_1'$. Therefore, we study the significance of $\alpha_1$ next.
\[lem:x-nb-centrality\] Let $\mathbf{u}_1, \mathbf{v}_1$ be the left and right eigenvectors of $B'$ normalized such that $\mathbf{u}_1^T \mathbf{v}_1 = 1$. Then we have $$\label{eqn:x-nb-centrality}
\alpha_1 = \mathbf{u}_1^T X \mathbf{v}_1 = \mathbf{v}_1^T P X \mathbf{v}_1 = \left( \sum_i a_{ci} \mathbf{v}_1^i \right)^2 - \sum_i a_{ci} \left( \mathbf{v}_1^i \right)^2,$$ where $\mathbf{v}_1^i$ is the NB-centrality of node $i$ in the graph after removal (see Equation (\[eqn:nb-centrality\])). We call $\alpha_1$ the **, or *centrality*, of $c$.
The first equality comes from the fact that $\mathbf{u}_1 = P \mathbf{v}_1$, by Lemma \[lem:right-left\]. We can find $PX_{k \to l, i \to j} = a_{cl}a_{cj} \left( 1 - \delta_{lj} \right)$ using Equations (\[eqn:x\]) and (\[eqn:p\]). The result then follows from manually computing $\mathbf{v}_1^T PX \mathbf{v}_1$ and applying Equation (\[eqn:nb-centrality\]).
The Proposition establishes that the behavior of the eigen-drop in (\[eqn:first-approx\]) is governed by the centrality of $c$ in (\[eqn:x-nb-centrality\]), which is a function only of the NB-centralities of $c$’s neighbors. Importantly, these centralities are measured *after* $c$ is removed. We come back to this point in Section \[sec:immunization\]. Notably, the principal eigenvector is normalized by $\mathbf{u}_1^T \mathbf{v}_1 = \mathbf{v}_1^T P \mathbf{v}_1 = 1$, i.e. it does not have unit length.
### An upper bound {#sec:upper-bound}
An alternative way of studying the eigen-drop is by choosing $\mathbf{w}$ such that $w_1 = 1$, and bounding $$q = q(c) = \sum_i w_i \alpha_i,$$ which drives the right-hand side of Equation (\[eqn:main-result\]).
Suppose that $R$ is the matrix whose columns are the eigenvectors $\{\mathbf{v}_i\}$, and let $L = R^{-1}$ such that $B' = R \Lambda L$, where $\Lambda$ is the diagonal matrix of the eigenvalues $\{\lambda_i'\}$. The rows of $L$ are left eigenvectors of $B'$, in particular, $\mathbf{u}_1^T$ is the first row of $L$. Then we have $\alpha_i = \left( L X R \right)_{1i}$, and $q$ is the dot product between the first row of $LXR$ and $\mathbf{w}$, $$q = \mathbf{e_1^T} L X R \mathbf{w} = \operatorname{Tr}\left( L X R \, \mathbf{w} \mathbf{e_1^T} \right),$$ where $\mathbf{e_1} = \left( 1, 0, \ldots, 0 \right)$. Using the cyclic property of the trace, and the fact that $P^2 = I$, we now have $$\begin{aligned}
q &= \operatorname{Tr}\left( L X R \, \mathbf{w} \mathbf{e_1^T} \right) = \operatorname{Tr}\left( X R \, \mathbf{w} \mathbf{e_1^T} \, L \right) = \operatorname{Tr}\left( P X R \, \mathbf{w} \mathbf{e_1^T} \, L P \right).\end{aligned}$$ Applying the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality for the trace gives us $$\begin{aligned}
q &\leq \left| PX \right|_F \, \left| R \, \mathbf{w} \mathbf{e_1^T} \, L P \right|_F,\end{aligned}$$ where $\left| M \right|_F^2 = \operatorname{Tr}\left( M^T M \right)$ is the Frobenius norm. Finally, the fact that $\mathbf{w} \mathbf{e_1^T}$ is a matrix with rank one gives $$\begin{aligned}
q &\leq \left| PX \right|_F \, \left( \mathbf{e_1^T} L P R \mathbf{w} \right).\end{aligned}$$ As before, we have $w_i / w_1 \ll 1$ and since we chose $w_1 = 1$, the term $\left( \mathbf{e_1^T} L P R \mathbf{w} \right)$ is very close to $1$. Therefore, we obtain $|PX|_F$ as an (approximate) upper bound for $q$. Observe that since $PX$ is non-negative, we have $|PX|_F = {\mathbf{1}}^T PX {\mathbf{1}}$, where ${\mathbf{1}}= \left( 1, 1, \ldots, 1\right)$.
\[lem:x-degree-centrality\] In Equation (\[eqn:main-result\]), let $\mathbf{w}$ be such that $w_1 = 1$, and define $q = \sum_i w_i \alpha_i$. The quantity ${\mathbf{1}}^T PX {\mathbf{1}}$ is an approximate upper bound for $q$, that is, $q \leq {\mathbf{1}}^T PX {\mathbf{1}}\left( \mathbf{e_1^T} L P R \mathbf{w} \right)$. Furthermore, we have $$\label{eqn:x-degree-centrality-minus-one}
{\mathbf{1}}^T PX {\mathbf{1}}= \left( \sum_i a_{ci} \left(d_i - 1 \right) \right)^2 - \sum_i a_{ci} \left(d_i - 1\right)^2,$$ where $d_i$ is the degree of node $i$ in the original graph, before removal. We call ${\mathbf{1}}^T PX {\mathbf{1}}$ the *centrality* of $c$.
The first claim was proved in the previous paragraphs. The second claim comes from direct evaluation of ${\mathbf{1}}^T PX {\mathbf{1}}$ using $PX_{k \to l, i \to j} = a_{cl}a_{cj} \left( 1 - \delta_{lj} \right)$, keeping in mind the degrees are measured after removal.
The fact that the of $c$, ${\mathbf{1}}^T PX {\mathbf{1}}$, bounds $q$ only approximately merits further theoretical consideration. However, it will be immaterial in our exposition going forward, as our experiments will show that, in practice, the of nodes is an excellent predictor of the node’s eigen-gap, regardless of the value of $\mathbf{e_1^T} L P R \mathbf{w}$.
X-centrality {#sec:x-centrality}
------------
In Section \[sec:first-approx\] we use the centrality, $\mathbf{v}_1^T PX \mathbf{v}_1$, while in Section \[sec:upper-bound\] we use the centrality, $\mathbf{1}^T PX \mathbf{1}$, both for the purpose of studying the eigen-drop induced by $c$. The former is a function of the NB-centralities of the neighbors of $c$ (Proposition \[lem:x-nb-centrality\]), while the latter is a function of their degrees (Proposition \[lem:x-degree-centrality\]). Importantly, both centralities are measured *after* $c$ has been removed.
Consider a fixed target node $c$, which in turn fixes $X$ and $P$. The matrix $PX$ is capable of defining new node-level statistics given a vector of values for each directed edge. It does so by aggregating the edge values along NB-walks that go through $c$; following Figure \[fig:blue-yellow\], this aggregation is done along blue-yellow-yellow-blue walks. Recall that if $G$ has $m$ (undirected) edges and $c$ has degree $d$, then $X$ and $P$ are of size $2m - 2d$. Given an arbitrary vector $\mathbf{z}$ of size $2m - 2d$, we have $$\label{eqn:quadratic-form}
\mathbf{z}^T PX \mathbf{z} = \left( \sum_i a_{ci} \sum_j \mathbf{z}_{j \to i} \right)^2 - \sum_i a_{ci} \left( \sum_j \mathbf{z}_{j \to i}\right)^2.$$
One can evaluate the right-hand side of (\[eqn:quadratic-form\]) for any vector $\mathbf{z}$ of size $2m$, and use only the $2m - 2d$ entries that correspond to edges not incident to $c$. In other words, we do not need to know $X$ or $P$, but only who the neighbors of $c$ are. Since $c$ determines both $X$ and $P$, the same vector $\mathbf{z}$ can be evaluated using different target nodes. Therefore the quantity in (\[eqn:quadratic-form\]) naturally corresponds to whichever target node was used to evaluate it, and can be thought of as a node-level quantity derived from $\mathbf{z}$.
Now define $\mathbf{z}^i = \sum_j \mathbf{z}_{j \to i}$ and let $\operatorname{Var}_c \left( \mathbf{z}^i \right)$ be the variance of the $\mathbf{z}^i$ values corresponding to neighbors of $c$. Then we have $$\operatorname{Var}_c \left( \mathbf{z}^i \right) = \frac{\sum_i a_{ci} \left( \mathbf{z}^i \right)^2}{d} - \left( \frac{\sum_i a_{ci} \mathbf{z}^i}{d} \right)^2,$$ which differs from (\[eqn:quadratic-form\]) only in sign and a (non-linear) normalization. Accordingly, $\mathbf{z}^T PX \mathbf{z}$ will have large values when $\mathbf{z}^i$ has little variability among the neighbors of $c$.
Using this framework we could define, for example, *centrality*, *centrality*, etc. Whether these concepts are as useful as the two studied here remains an open question.
Node immunization {#sec:immunization}
=================
Targeted immunization works as follows. Given a graph $G$ and an integer $p$, we want to remove from $G$ the $p$ nodes that increase the epidemic threshold the most (equivalently, decrease the largest NB-eigenvalue the most). Common strategies involve three steps: (i) the nodes are sorted by decreasing values of a certain statistic, for example degree; (ii) the node with the highest value of this statistic is removed from the graph; and (iii) the statistic has to be recomputed after each time a node is removed. These steps are repeated until the target number $p$ has been removed. In this context, our framework presents two major obstacles:
1. Both the and centralities of a node must be computed *after* the node has been removed. So, to execute the step (i) above, we need to temporarily remove each node in turn before we decide which one to ultimately remove, which defeats the purpose of targeted immunization.
2. For step (iii), we must guarantee that recomputing the statistic of every node at each step is an efficient procedure.
Using X-NB centrality {#sec:using-x-nb}
---------------------
Algorithm \[alg:naive-xnb\] naively follows the steps above to implement an immunization strategy based on centrality. We are tempted to think this strategy is the “right” one, as it approximates the true effect of a node’s removal in the epidemic threshold. However, we must address the obstacles mentioned above.
$\leftarrow \emptyset$ $\leftarrow 0$ for each node i
$\leftarrow \emptyset$ $\leftarrow 0$ for each node i
To overcome obstacle (a), we propose to approximate Equation (\[eqn:x-nb-centrality\]) by using the NB-centralities in the original graph before removing any node even temporarily. Algorithm \[alg:approx-xnb\] takes this approximation into account. The error incurred by this approximation is dampened by the fact that what we are ultimately interested in is the ranking of the nodes rather than the actual values of their centralities. For obstacle (b), one could use a strategy similar to [@ChenTPTEFC16], where they devise an algorithm to approximate the impact on a node’s eigenvector centrality after the removal of a node without having to recompute the values again. However, doing so for $X$-NB centrality remains an open question.
### Complexity Analysis {#sec:complexity-1 .unnumbered}
We assume that $G$ is given in adjacency list format. In Algorithm \[alg:naive-xnb\], lines $2$ and $8$ take $n$ operations each. Line $5$ creates a copy $H$ of the adjacency list and removes the target node $c$ from it (but leaves $G$ intact). Line $6$ uses Equation (\[eqn:aux-nb-matrix\]) to compute the auxiliary NB-matrix, which takes $O(m)$ time, and it takes $O\left( m \right)$ to compute the principal eigenvector (using, e.g. the Lanczos algorithm with a number of iterations that does not depend on the parameters). Line $7$ uses Lemma \[lem:small-big\] to compute the correctly normalized NB-centralities, and Equation (\[eqn:x-nb-centrality\]) to compute centralities, both of which take $n$ operations. The remaining lines take constant time. Accounting for loops, Algorithm \[alg:naive-xnb\] takes a total of $O\left(n + p \left( n \left( m + n \right) + n \right) \right) = O\left( pn \left( m + n \right) \right)$. In Algorithm \[alg:approx-xnb\], the NB-centralities are computed outside of the inner loop, which gives a complexity of $O\left( p \left( m + n \right) \right)$, or $O\left( m + n \right)$ for constant $p$.
Using X-degree {#sec:using-x-deg}
--------------
can be easily computed without temporarily removing any nodes, see Equation (\[eqn:x-degree-centrality-minus-one\]). Indeed, all we need to know about the graph after removal is the degree of each node. Hence, obstacle (a) is easily overcome in this case. Further, after each step we need not recompute the of all nodes, but only of those nodes two steps away from the target node. Indeed, removing $c$ changes the degree of its neighbors, which in turn changes the of its neighbors’ neighbors. So obstacle (b) is also overcome. Algorithm \[alg:xdeg\] implements this strategy. Importantly, it does not involve the computation of any matrices or their eigenvectors.
### Complexity Analysis {#sec:complexity-2 .unnumbered}
Lines $1,6,10,11$ of Algorithm \[alg:xdeg\] take constant time, while line $2$ takes $O(m)$. When using a standard map (or dictionary) to store the values, line $4$ takes $O(n)$ operations, and line $9$ takes $O(1)$. Now suppose that the nodes removed by Algorithm \[alg:xdeg\] are, in order, $i_1,\ldots,i_p$. At iteration $j$, the loop in line $5$ takes $d_{i_j}$ operations, and the double loop in lines $7-8$ takes as many iterations as the number of nodes two steps away from $i_j$, say $D_{i_j}$. This yields a total of $O \left( m + p n + \sum_{j=1}^p d_{i_j} + \sum_{j=1}^p D_{i_j} \right)$. We can also implement Algorithm \[alg:xdeg\] using an indexed priority queue (IPQ) to store the values instead of a map; see Appendix \[app:complexity\]. In this case the worst case scenario complexity is $O \left( m + p \log n + \sum_{j=1}^p d_{i_j} + \log n \sum_{j=1}^p D_{i_j} \right)$. In Appendix \[app:complexity\] we refine this analysis for networks with homogeneous or heterogeneous degree distributions, and show that the map or IPQ versions have better worst case scenario scalability for different values of network parameters.
Importantly, the average runtime of both versions is in fact close to linear, with the IPQ version being the fastest. Figure \[fig:scaling\] shows the average runtime of both versions on random power-law configuration model graphs with varying degree exponent $\gamma$ and constant $p$ (see Appendix \[app:complexity\] for details). The reason the average runtime is considerably faster than the worst-case scenario is because graphs typically have very few large hubs. That is, roughly speaking, there are $O(1)$ many nodes that take $O(n)$ time to process, while there are $O(n)$ many nodes that take $O(1)$ time to process. This effect is intensified the closer $\gamma$ is to $2$, which counterbalances the exponent $\frac{2}{\gamma - 1}$ in the worst case scenario.
$\leftarrow \emptyset$ $\leftarrow$ for each node i
![Average runtime scaling of Algorithm \[alg:xdeg\] on random power-law graphs with varying degree exponent $\gamma$. The runtimes are linear, with IPQ being faster than Map.[]{data-label="fig:scaling"}](plot_scaling){width="0.75\columnwidth"}
Related work {#sec:related-work}
============
#### Perturbation of NB-matrix
@zhang2014non briefly treats the case of eigenvalue perturbation of a matrix derived from the NB-matrix in the case of edge removal, while @abs-1907-05603 analyze the perturbation of quadratic eigenvalue problems, with applications to the NB-eigenvalues of the stochastic block model. Our theory is more general since it studies node removal (as opposed to single edge removal), and it applies to any arbitrary graph.
#### NB centrality
Many notions of centrality based on the NB-matrix exist, for example NB-PageRank [@ArrigoHN19], NB-centrality [@martin2014localization; @radicchi2016leveraging], and Collective Influence [@morone2015influence; @morone2016collective]. The latter two have been proposed as solutions to the problem of “influencer identification”. This problem aims to find nodes that determine the course of spreading dynamics, and is thus more general than our objective of increasing the epidemic threshold. Collective Influence in particular is similar to ; see Appendix \[app:ci\]. Also in this context, @kitsak2010identification propose to use the $k$-core index, and @abs-1912-08459 highlight the importance of node degree. We compare our algorithms to all of these baselines in Section \[sec:experiments\]. Finally, @EverettB10 study the influence of a node’s removal in other nodes’ centrality, which is reminiscent to our $X$-centrality framework.
#### Targeted immunization
@pastor2015epidemic review general immunization strategies and other generalities of spreading dynamics on networks. @ChenTPTEFC16 propose `NetShield`, an efficient algorithm for immunization focusing on decreasing the largest eigenvalue of the adjacency matrix. We prefer to focus on decreasing the largest NB-eigenvalue instead since it provides a tighter bound to the true epidemic threshold in certain cases [@karrer2014percolation; @hamilton2014tight; @shrestha2015message]. @LinCZ17 study the percolation threshold in terms of so-called high-order non-backtracking matrices. Percolation thresholds are tightly related to epidemic thresholds of SIR dynamics [@pastor2015epidemic; @newman2002spread].
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
Approximating the Eigenvalue {#sec:exp-theoretical-accuracy}
----------------------------
**How close is the approximation in Equation (\[eqn:first-approx\])?** We first compute the largest NB-eigenvalue $\lambda_1$ of a graph $G$. Then we fix a target node $c$ and remove it from $G$ and compute the new eigenvalue $\lambda_c$. (For ease of notation, in this section we use $\lambda_c$ instead of $\lambda_1'$, and $\alpha$ instead of $\alpha_1$.) Finally, we use (\[eqn:first-approx\]) to compute two approximations, $$\widehat{\lambda}_c = \lambda_1 - \alpha / \lambda_1^2, \quad\quad
\widetilde{\lambda}_c = \lambda_1 - \widetilde{\alpha} / \lambda_1^2,$$ where $\alpha$ is the true centrality of $c$, and $\widetilde{\alpha}$ is the approximate centrality used in Algorithm \[alg:approx-xnb\], i.e., it is computed using the NB-centralities before removing $c$. We now compare the approximations $\widehat{\lambda}_c$ and $\widetilde{\lambda}_c$ to the true value of $\lambda_c$ for randomly selected nodes of synthetic graphs. We use different synthetic random graph models: Watts-Strogatz (WS) [@watts1998collective], Stochastic Block Model (SBM) [@girvan2002community; @karrer2011stochastic], Barabási-Albert (BA) [@albert2002statistical], and Block Two–Level Erdős-Rényi (BTER) [@seshadhri2012community]. See Section \[app:data\] for more details on the data sets, and Section \[app:approximating-the-eigenvalue\] for details on the experimental setup.
Fig. \[fig:th-acc\]a shows that our approximation is extremely close for all graphs tested, though it tends to underestimate the eigen-drop in WS graphs. Fig. \[fig:th-acc\]c shows the average relative error versus degree. Our approximation worsens as degree increases, though it is quite small for most degrees. In the worst case, the relative error is less than $10^{-4}$, or $0.01\%$. Fig. \[fig:th-acc\]b shows the eigen-drop computed using the approximate version of . This approximation is systematically overestimating the true eigen-drop. Fig. \[fig:th-acc\]d shows that this systematic error is of the order of $10\%$ in the worst case, though it is negligible for small degrees. In all, Figure \[fig:th-acc\] confirms the accuracy of our approximations, and it points to the fact that the terms neglected in (\[eqn:first-approx\]) will become larger as degree increases.
Predicting the Eigen-drop {#sec:exp-predicting-eigengap}
-------------------------
**How well can centrality and predict a node’s eigen-drop?** Unlike in Experiment \[sec:exp-theoretical-accuracy\], here we do not approximate the eigen-drop, but only seek to predict its size. (In fact, we cannot use to approximate the eigen-drop at all.) See Section \[app:predicting-the-eigengap\] for experimental setup, and Section \[app:data\] for details on data sets.
In Fig. \[fig:predicting\]a we measure how correlated the true value of , denoted by $\alpha$, is to the true eigen-drop. For SBM, BA, and BTER graphs, the magnitude of $\alpha$ lines up extremely closely with the value of the eigen-drop, showing a correlation coefficient of $r=1.00$. In all cases, $\alpha$ is better correlated to the eigen-drop than degree (as shown by the correlation coefficients $r_{\deg}$). In WS we see considerably more variance than in other ensembles though $\alpha$ is still an excellent predictor of the eigen-drop, at $r=0.98$. This picture repeats itself when using the approximate value of , $\widetilde{\alpha}$ (Fig. \[fig:predicting\]b), and (Fig. \[fig:predicting\]c). $\widetilde{\alpha}$ seems to slightly underestimate the eigen-drop, while has noticeably more variance than the other two statistics, especially in WS. All three statistics are better correlated to the eigen-drop than degree in all graph ensembles. We highlight that even when some of the panels in Fig. \[fig:predicting\] are not precisely linear, they all show that the eigen-drop is an increasing function of all of $\alpha$, $\widetilde{\alpha}$, and . These results encourage us to use and as immunization strategies. Further, using $\alpha$ has very little advantage over $\widetilde{\alpha}$, and therefore we are justified in using Algorithm \[alg:approx-xnb\] instead Algorithm \[alg:naive-xnb\] for computational reasons.
Immunization with and {#sec:yyyyyy}
----------------------
**How effective are and at immunization?** We remove $1,2$ and $3$ percent of nodes using different strategies and evaluate the resulting eigenvalue. We use the immunization strategies node degree (`degree`), $k$-core index (`core`), NetShield (`NS`), Collective Influence (`CI`), NB-centrality (`NB`), approximate (`XNB`), and (`Xdeg`). For computational reasons, we do not use the true value of ; for more details on baselines see Section \[app:baselines\]. In all data sets, `core` had the least performance and is therefore not shown in our results. We hypothesize this is because many nodes can have the same $k$-core index at the same time, so `core` cannot identify which is the best one among all of them.
Table \[tab:imm\] shows the percentage reduction of the eigenvalue after immunization, averaged over repetitions on synthetic graphs. We can arrange immunization strategies in tiers according to increasing performance: strategies within a tier have comparable performance across data sets. The third tier is made up of `NS` and `degree`. They perform similarly because `NS` targets the largest eigenvalue of the adjacency matrix, which is largely dominated by node degree. Strategies in this tier perform substantially better than `core` (not shown), and are very close to the strategies in the next two tiers, i.e. `degree` is a very strong baseline in this task. The second tier is comprised of `CI` and `Xdeg`, with `Xdeg` having a slight advantage over `CI`. Finally, the best performance was achieved by `NB` and `XNB`. Their performances were almost indistinguishable in most data sets, though they have a small margin over `CI` and `Xdeg`.
Strategies in the best two tiers, i.e. `CI`, `Xdeg`, `NB` and `XNB`, all showed standard deviations of similar magnitude across all data sets (not shown), and the ordering in increasing performance `CI` < `Xdeg` < `NB` $\approx$ `XNB` is statistically significant at $p \ll 10^{-10}$ (see Appendix \[app:immunization\]). Further, the best two (`NB` and `XNB)` use the principal NB-eigenvector, whereas `CI` and `Xdeg` depend only on node degree, and are therefore much more computationally efficient.
Table \[tab:imm-real\] shows the results on real data sets, where we have run only `degree`, `CI`, and `Xdeg` for computational reasons. We use social networks [@de2013anatomy; @LeskovecLDM09], transportation networks, [@opsahlBlog; @transportationRepo; @LeskovecLDM09], Autonomous Systems (AS) of the Internet networks [@ZhangLMZ04; @karrer2014percolation], and web crawl networks [@albert1999diameter]. See Section \[app:data\] for data set descriptions. We remove from each network $1$, $10$, and $100$ nodes at a time. Again, `degree` is a very strong baseline, but it is never better than both `CI` and `Xdeg` at the same time. All three strategies are able to drastically immunize the autonomous systems networks `AS-1` and `AS-2` at $100$ nodes removed, probably owing to the fact that their degree distribution is extremely heterogeneous and thus the nodes with largest degree have a large eigen-drop. In all other networks, achieves the best performance. An interesting case is that of `Transport-Sydney`. The node identified by all three strategies has an eigen-drop of exactly $0.0$. Following Corollary \[cor:degree-one\], this means that the chosen node lies outside of the $2$-core of the graph and thus has no impact on non-zero NB-eigenvalues. After $10$ nodes are removed, both `degree` and `CI` continue to achieve zero eigen-drop, while `Xdeg` already identifies the correct nodes and ahieves $6.50\%$ decrease. Even at $100$ nodes removed, `degree` cannot identify nodes that generate an eigen-drop. A similar case occurs on `Transport-California`, where the first node identified by `degree` and `CI` generates no eigen-drop, while `Xdeg` is able to correctly identify influential nodes.
We conclude that in cases where efficiency is of the essence, `Xdeg` is the best overall immunization strategy, as it has a slight advantage over `CI` and its performance is close to optimal. If effectiveness is more important than efficiency, either `XNB` or `NB` should be used.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We developed a theory of spectral analysis for the NB-matrix by studying what happens to its largest eigenvalue when one node is removed from the network. Our theory is independent of the structure of the graph, i.e. we make no assumptions of locally tree-like structure or density or length of cycles, as is usual in other studies. We find two new node-level statistics, or centrality measures, centrality and , which are excellent predictors of a node’s influence on the largest NB-eigenvalue. Finally, we focus on the application of targeted immunization, where we propose two new algorithms that are shown to be more effective than other strategies for a variety of real and synthetic graph ensembles.
Our techniques open many possibilities for further research. For instance, the left-hand side of Equation (\[eqn:char-poly\]) is reminiscent to certain quantities used in the theory of eigenvalue interlacing [@godsil2013algebraic], while the matrix $\left( B' - tI \right)^{-1}$ on the right-hand side is known as the *resolvent* of $B'$, which has many applications in random matrix theory [@taoStieltjes]. On a different note, @cvetkovic1980spectra highlight that most matrices associated to graphs are *linear* combinations of $I$, $A$, and $D$, whereas the NB-matrix is associated with a *quadratic* combination of $I$, $A$, and $D$, via Equation (\[eqn:aux-nb-matrix\]). In the future, we will explore which other matrices associated with graphs can be studied via quadratic, or higher order, combinations of $I$, $A$, and $D$.
We focused on the application to targeted immunization. However, other applications of NB-eigenvalues exist – e.g., community detection and graph distance. Further studying the behavior of NB-eigenvalues under small perturbations of the graph, using the framework presented here, has potential to affect those applications.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
L.T. thanks Gabor Lippner for many invaluable discussions.
Technical Lemmas {#app:lemmas}
================
In this subsection, $B$ is the NB-matrix of a graph $G$, $P$ is defined in Section \[sec:background\], and $\lambda, \mathbf{v}$ are the Perron eigenvalue and corresponding unit right eigenvector of $B$. Let also $\mathbf{v}^i = \sum_j \mathbf{v}_{j \to i}$ as in Equation (\[eqn:nb-centrality\]) and let $\overline{\mathbf{v}} = \left( \mathbf{v}^1, \ldots, \mathbf{v}^n \right)$.
\[lem:right-left\] $P \mathbf{v}$ is a left eigenvector of $B$ corresponding to $\lambda$.
Since $PB$ is symmetric and $P^2 = I$, we have $B = P B^T P$. Now $B \mathbf{v} = \lambda \mathbf{v}$ implies $B^T P \mathbf{v} = \lambda P \mathbf{v}$, which completes the proof.
\[lem:small-big\] Suppose $\mathbf{v}$ is such that $\mathbf{v}^T P \mathbf{v} = 1$. Let $(\mathbf{f}, -\lambda \mathbf{f})$ be the left unit eigenvector of $B_{aux}$ corresponding to $\lambda$. Then, we have $\| \overline{\mathbf{v}} \| = \mu \| \mathbf{f} \|$, where $$\mu = \sqrt{\frac{\lambda \left( \lambda^2 - 1 \right)} {1 - \mathbf{f}^T D \, \mathbf{f}}}.$$
First, from $\mathbf{v}^T P \mathbf{v} = 1$ we get $\mathbf{v}^T P B \mathbf{v} = \lambda \mathbf{v}^T P \mathbf{v} = \lambda$, and we can expand $\mathbf{v}^T P B \mathbf{v}$ to find $\| \overline{\mathbf{v}} \|^2 - \| \mathbf{v} \|^2 = \lambda$. Second, since $\left(\mathbf{f}, -\lambda \mathbf{f} \right)$ has unit length, we have $\| \mathbf{f} \| ^2 = 1 / \left( \lambda^2 + 1 \right)$. Therefore, $$\label{eqn:v-bar-1}
\mu^2 = \left(\lambda^2 + 1 \right) \left( \lambda + \| \mathbf{v} \|^2 \right).$$ Now, $B\mathbf{v} = \lambda \mathbf{v}$ implies $\mathbf{v}_{j \to i} + \lambda \mathbf{v}_{i \to j} = \mathbf{v}^i $ for any $i,j$. Plug this identity in $\| \mathbf{v} \|^2 = \sum_{i,j} a_{ij} \mathbf{v}_{i \to j}^2$ to find $$\label{eqn:v-bar-2}
\| \mathbf{v} \|^2 \left( \lambda^2 + 1 \right) + 2 \lambda = \sum_i \left( \mathbf{v}^i \right)^2 \deg i = \overline{\mathbf{v}}^T D \overline{\mathbf{v}} = \mu^2 \mathbf{f}^T D \, \mathbf{f}.$$ Using (\[eqn:v-bar-1\]) and (\[eqn:v-bar-2\]) together finishes the proof.
Both $\overline{\mathbf{v}}$ and $\mathbf{f}$ determine the same node centrality ranking, though the latter is easier to compute. However, the normalization $\mathbf{v}^T P \mathbf{v} = 1$ is fundamental in our theory, which makes $\overline{\mathbf{v}}$ the more appropriate choice. Lemma \[lem:small-big\] allows us to compute $\overline{\mathbf{v}}$ only with the knowledge of $\mathbf{f},\lambda$ and $D$, which is much more efficient than computing $\mathbf{v}$ and $\overline{\mathbf{v}}$ directly.
Complexity Analysis of Algorithm \[alg:xdeg\] {#app:complexity}
=============================================
In Section \[sec:complexity-2\] we used a standard map (i.e. hash table, or dictionary) to store the values in line $2$ of Algorithm \[alg:xdeg\]. Alternatively, we can use an indexed priority queue (IPQ). An IPQ is a data structure that behaves like a priority queue except that, additionally, elements in the IPQ can be updated efficiently. The underlying data structure is a max-heap. An IPQ can find the maximum element in the heap, as well as update any element, in logarithmic time.
In this case, line $2$ of Algorithm \[alg:xdeg\] takes $m$ operations to compute the values plus $n$ operations to heapify the IPQ. Further, lines $4$ and $9$ take $O \left( \log n \right)$ time, which yields a time complexity of $$O \left( m + n + p \log n + \sum_{j=1}^p d_{i_j}+ \log n \sum_{j=1}^p D_{i_j} \right).$$
Homogeneous degree distribution {#app:complexity-homogeneous}
-------------------------------
In networks with a homogeneous degree distribution (e.g. Poisson) we can estimate $d_{i_j} \approx \langle k \rangle$ and $D_{i_j} \approx \langle k \rangle^2 $, where $\langle k \rangle$ is the average degree. This yields $O \left( m + n + p \langle k \rangle^2 \log n \right)$ total complexity for the IPQ version, while the map version gives $O \left( m + p n + p \langle k \rangle^2 \right)$. If $p = O(n)$ and $\langle k \rangle = O(1)$, the IPQ version scales better in the worst case scenario.
Heterogeneous degree distribution {#app:complexity-heterogeneous}
---------------------------------
In networks whose degree distribution is well approximated by a power law, the probability of finding a node of degree $d$ scales as $d^{-\gamma}$, for some $\gamma > 0$. In this case, the first few nodes removed by Algorithm \[alg:xdeg\] will usually have large degree, comparable to the largest degree in the network, $d_{i_j} = O\left( d_{\max} \right)$ for each $j$. Further, in the worst case scenario, each of their neighbors will also have a degree comparable to $d_{\max}$ and thus $D_{i_j} = O \left( d_{\max}^2 \right)$ for each $j$. Using $d_{\max} = O \left( n^\frac{1}{\gamma - 1} \right)$ [@barabasi2014network] yields $O \left( m + p n + p n^\frac{2}{\gamma - 1} \right)$ for the map version and $O \left( m + p n^\frac{2}{\gamma - 1} \log n \right)$ for the IPQ version. In the typical case $ 2 \leq \gamma \leq 3$, the exponent $\frac{2}{\gamma - 1}$ varies between $1$ and $2$.
Average runtime {#app:complexity-runtime}
---------------
We have provided the analysis of worst case scenario runtime. However, the average runtime of both the IPQ and map versions is close to linear, as shown in Figure \[fig:scaling\]. This figure was generated by first sampling a degree sequence from a power-law density $p_d \propto d^{-\gamma}$, and then generating a graph at random using the configuration model. Self-loops and multi-edges were removed and only the largest component was kept. Each marker is the average of $30$ repetitions. We used $p = 100$.
Experimental Setup {#app:experiments}
==================
Base lines {#app:baselines}
----------
#### Degree.
The degree of a node $i$, denoted $d_i$ is the number of neighbors it has in the graph. Nodes of degree $1$ have zero Collective Influence, , NB-centrality, centrality.
#### $k$-core index.
The $k$-core index of a node, also called *coreness*, is defined as follows. First, iteratively remove all nodes of degree $1$ until there are none. All nodes removed in this step are assigned a value of $k$-core index of $1$. Then, iteratively remove all nodes of degree $2$; all nodes removed at this step have $k$-core $2$. Repeat this process until there are no more nodes in the graph. Notably, following Corollary \[cor:degree-one\], all nodes with $k$-core value of $1$ have zero NB-centrality.
#### NB-centrality.
The NB-centrality of a node is defined in Equation (\[eqn:nb-centrality\]). It was proposed in [@radicchi2016leveraging] as an indicator of influential spreaders on locally tree-like networks for the SIR model.
#### NetShield.
NetShield is an efficient algorithm that identifies a subset of nodes with the highest “shield-value”, which is defined as the impact a node, or set of nodes, has on the largest eigenvalue of the adjacency matrix [@ChenTPTEFC16].
#### Collective Influence. {#app:ci}
The Collective Influence (CI) of node $i$ is $$CI_i = \left( d_i - 1 \right) \sum_j a_{ij} \left( d_j -1 \right),$$ though this definition can be generalized to include nodes in arbitrarily large neighborhoods around $i$ [@morone2015influence]. Note that this is quite similar in nature to in Equation (\[eqn:x-degree-centrality-minus-one\]). We think of as a second-order aggregation of the values $\left( d_j - 1 \right)$ of the neighbors of $i$, while CI is a first-order aggregation. Further, one can apply Algorithm \[alg:xdeg\] to perform targeted immunization based on CI instead of , and hence they have the same running time complexity (see Section \[sec:complexity-2\] and Appendix \[app:complexity\]). @morone2016collective claim that the CI algorithm runs in $O\left( n \log n \right)$ time, though we were not able to reproduce this result. In any case, any efficient algorithm that computes CI can be used to compute as well.
Data sets {#app:data}
---------
All synthetic graphs have $n=10^5$ nodes and parameters were chosen so that the average degree was approximately $12$. SBM graphs were generated with two blocks, or communities, so that the average within-block degree is $9$ and the between-block degree is $3$. WS graphs generated with rewiring probability $0.1$. BTER graphs were generated with target average local clustering coefficient of $0.98$, and target global clustering coefficient of $0.4$. BTER graphs were generated with the authors’ implementation [@KoldaPPS14]; all other graphs were generated using NetworkX [@hagberg2008exploring] version 2.3. After generation, we extracted the largest connected component of each graph and converted all multi-edges to single edges and deleted self-loops. $100$ graphs were generated from each ensemble. Table \[tab:real-data\] describes the real data sets used. Directed networks were converted to undirected, and only the largest connected component of each data set was used.
Approximating the Largest Eigenvalue {#app:approximating-the-eigenvalue}
------------------------------------
Since nodes of large degree are bound to induce a larger eigen-drop than those of small degree, we chose target nodes at random by sampling $1\%$ of nodes from each graph, proportionally to their degree. This was achieved by sampling one edge at random, with replacement, and then choosing one of its endpoints randomly. This yields a probability of sampling node $i$ equal to $d_i / 2m$.
Predicting the Eigen-drop {#app:predicting-the-eigengap}
-------------------------
Nodes were sampled in the same way as in \[app:approximating-the-eigenvalue\]. Figure \[fig:predicting\] shows correlation coefficients, defined as the covariance divided by the product of the standard deviations of the two variables. We computed the correlation between the eigen-drop and each of the statistics: $\alpha$, $\widetilde{\alpha}$, , and degree. No three-way correlation was computed.
Immunization with and {#app:immunization}
----------------------
To confirm the ordering in increasing performance `CI` $<$ `Xdeg` $<$ `NB` $\approx$ `XNB`, we used a one-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test, which is a non-parametric version of the paired T-test. In a paired sample setting, this test tests the null hypothesis that the median of the differences between the two samples is positive, against the alternative that it is negative. Therefore, a small $p$-value means that there is little probability that the first sample’s median is smaller than the second’s. For each graph ensemble and each percentage of removed nodes (1%, 2%, 3%), the ranking `CI` $<$ `Xdeg` $<$ `NB` was confirmed with $p \ll 10^{-10}$ in all cases. Further, we have `NB` $<$ `XNB` in WS networks ($ p \ll 10^{-10}$) and BTER networks ($ p < 0.05$), and `NB` $>$ `XNB` in BA networks ($ p \ll 10^{-10}$) and SBM networks ($ p < 0.05$). We summarize these results by writing `CI` $<$ `Xdeg` $<$ `NB` $\approx$ `XNB`.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present $K\arcmin$-band (2.12 $\micron$) imaging observations of the SGR 1806–20 field taken during its very active phase in mid 2004, which reveal brightening of sources within the [*[Chandra]{}*]{} X-ray error circle when compared with earlier images obtained in 2002. One source brightened by more than a factor of 2, and so we consider this to be the probable infrared counterpart for SGR 1806–20. The other two sources are located in close proximity to the probable counterpart and show marginal brightening, which may suggest that the high-energy photons emitted from the SGR during its active phase have induced dust sublimation or brightening of the unresolved background around the SGR.'
author:
-
title: 'A VARIABLE INFRARED COUNTERPART TO THE SOFT GAMMA-RAY REPEATER SGR 1806–20[^1]'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The soft gamma-ray repeaters (SGRs) are now commonly believed to be magnetars, isolated young neutron stars with ultrahigh magnetic fields of $B > 10^{14}$ G [e.g., @dun1992]. Detections of long period X-ray pulsations and their rapid spin-down rates [$P$ = 5–8 s and $\dot{P} \sim 10^{-11}$ ss$^{-1}$, respectively; e.g., @kou1998; @kou1999; @hur1999], cyclotron resonance features in the burst X-ray spectrum [@ibr2002], and burst energetics [e.g., @pac1992; @tho1995] all strongly support the magnetar model.
Another small class of objects, the anomalous X-ray pulsars [AXPs: @mer1995], are also presumed to be magnetars, owing to their similarities with SGRs both in spin period and deceleration rate. In addition, the discovery of several SGR-like X-ray bursts from AXPs [@gav2002; @kas2003] has increased the evidence for a connection between SGRs and AXPs. To date, possible optical-infrared (optical-IR) counterparts with unusual colors have been found for five out of six AXPs. Four show variability in some way correlated with changes in X-ray flux ([4U 0142+61: @ker2002; @hul2004]; [1E 2259+586: @kas2003]; [1E 1048.1-5937: @isr2002]; [and XTE J1810-19704: @rea2004]). In the case of AXP 1E 2259+586, the $K_{s}$-band flux increased by a factor of $\sim3$ by the third day after an X-ray burst. Thus, variability is thought to be a common characteristic of the optical-IR counterparts for AXPs. In contrast, none of the five SGRs have convincing counterparts detected with optical-IR variability, despite considerable observational effort. The detection of optical-IR counterparts for SGRs is essential in order to investigate the connection between SGRs and AXPs. If optical-IR counterparts for SGRs show a relation between variability and burst activity similar to the AXPs, it will enable much easier detection of SGR counterparts after outbursts.
SGR 1806–20 gradually entered an active phase in late 2003 [e.g., @hur2003]. It showed recurrent intense bursts in mid 2004, and a series of many bursts in late 2004. Finally, a giant flare, the first observed from SGR 1806–20, occurred on 2004 December 27 [e.g., @bor2004; @hur2005], and left a fading radio afterglow with a precise localization [e.g., @cam2005; @gae2005]. A series of infrared observations were performed with the Subaru 8.2-m telescope during the active phase of SGR 1806–20 in mid – late 2004, several months prior to the giant flare. Here we report the discovery of the probable infrared counterpart for SGR 1806–20 within the [*[Chandra]{}*]{} X-ray error circle. We also discuss the influence of the high-energy photons emitted by the SGR burst upon the surroundings.
OBSERVATIONS, DATA ANALYSIS, AND RESULTS
========================================
Infrared Data and Photometry
----------------------------
Our first epoch observations were obtained on 2002 May 25 in $J$ (1.25 $\micron$), $H$ (1.63 $\micron$), and $K\arcmin$ (2.12 $\micron$) bands using the infrared camera and spectrograph [IRCS: @kob2000] on the Subaru 8.2-m telescope [@iye2004] under photometric sky conditions. A plate scale of $0\farcs058$ pixel$^{-1}$ was chosen so as to match the average seeing conditions (FWHM = $0\farcs30$ in $K\arcmin$-band) on the night of the observation. The field of view (FOV) was approximately $1\arcmin \times 1\arcmin$. Images were taken by using nine-point dithering of three coadds with 30-s exposures each, and the resulting total integration time was 810 s for all three bands. A UKIRT faint standard star FS 148 [@cas1992] was also observed using the same configuration. We carried out a second epoch of observations in the $K\arcmin$ band on 2004 August 8, during the active phase, with the same configurations as for the first epoch, to allow a precise comparison of the images from the two epochs. The sky conditions were again excellent, and the seeing size was $0\farcs32$. A total integration time of 1260 s was achieved with a nine- and a five-point dithering of 90-s exposures at each position. We also performed another observation in the $K\arcmin$ band with adaptive optics [AO: @tak2004] on the same night using a 13.7-th magnitude star located 30" north of the SGR as the natural reference star. The plate scale was set to $0\farcs023$ pixel$^{-1}$ (FOV was $23\arcsec $ square), and the stellar image size improved to $0\farcs20$. Two sets of nine-point dithering observations of 90-s exposures at each position were obtained. Fourteen frames with good seeing were selected, and the resulting total integration time was 1260 s. The 3rd and the 4th epoch observations were carried out using AO on 2004 September 3 and 23, respectively, also during the active phase. The best quality frames with three coadds of 30-s exposures were selected to create final images for those epochs. The resulting total integration time and the stellar image size were 1710 s and $0\farcs22$ for the 3rd epoch, and 1980 s and $0\farcs38$ for the 4th epoch.
The standard imaging calibration procedures were applied for each epoch data using the IRAF data analysis software.[^2] There is some latency in the ALADDIN array when bright objects are focused on it; therefore, the locations of bright objects in the previous frame were masked before stacking selected images. Then, a photometry of the field stars in the vicinity of the SGR X-ray position was carried out with the DAOPHOT/ALLSTAR package [@ste1987] in IRAF. The radius of the point spread function (PSF) was set to twice the stellar FWHM at each epoch, and the aperture radius for the photometry was set equal to the FWHM. We applied the photometric standard star FS 148 to our first epoch data and measured a field star C as a secondary standard. The $K\arcmin$-band magnitude of star C was $K\arcmin$ = 16.48 $\pm$ 0.05, which is consistent with previous work by @wac2004 but slightly different to that of @eik2001. For the other epoch data, photometry was conducted relative to star C, based on the assumption that the star is not variable. The 3-$\sigma$ limiting magnitudes were 21.5, 21.4, 21.9, 22.0, and 21.0 for the 1st epoch, 2nd epoch without AO, 2nd epoch with AO, 3rd epoch, and 4th epoch data, respectively.
Optical Data and Astrometry
---------------------------
An unfiltered optical image of a 10-s exposure, covering a FOV of $6\arcmin$ diameter, was taken with the faint optical camera and spectrograph [FOCAS: @kas2002] on the Subaru telescope on 2002 June 18. As the seeing was $0\farcs9$ and the limiting magnitude was sufficiently deep, we used this image as a reference to obtain precise astrometry for our IR data. First, the positions of 22 unsaturated, stellar-like sources in the optical image were measured and compared with the USNO-B1.0 catalog [@mon2003]. The optical image was then compared with the $J$-band image using 20 stars common to both images. Finally, the $J$-band image was compared with the $K\arcmin$-band image using another 16 stars. Taking the positional errors of the individual stars from the USNO-B1.0 catalog into account, the astrometric errors incurred in these procedures were $0\farcs06$, $0\farcs01$, and less than $0\farcs01$, respectively, in each coordinate. An empirical value for the size of local offsets in the southern part of the USNO-B1.0 catalog compared to the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF) is $0\farcs136$ [@sil2005]. The resulting final astrometric uncertainties in our $K\arcmin$-band images are $0\farcs15$. Thus, the 99% uncertainties for the [*[Chandra]{}*]{} X-ray error radius [$0\farcs3$; @kap2002] and the VLA radio afterglow error radius [$0\farcs1$; @cam2005] on our infrared images are $0\farcs77$ and $0\farcs41$, respectively. The positions of the field stars, along with the 2nd epoch photometry, are summarized in Table \[tbl-2\].
Field Around SGR 1806–20
------------------------
The SGR 1806–20 field along with its putative associated massive cluster is shown in Figure 1A. A luminous blue variable star LBV 1806–20 is seen $12\arcsec$ east of the center. Bright cluster stars are located mainly to the north to north-west of the SGR position. As mentioned by @cor2004, the color of these stars indicates that they suffer large extinction ($A_{V} \sim$ 30). A region of even higher reddening can be observed about $25\arcsec$ to the north-west of the center. The close-up (Figure 1B) shows a lot of faint and redder, consequently probable cluster member, stars. There are two remarkable moniliform stellar arcs $2\farcs1$ north and $3\farcs6$ south-west of the SGR. Unfortunately, ghost images of the bright star, produced by the compensator inside the IRCS optics, overlap with part of the stellar arc to the south-west. It is intriguing that the center of curvature of both arcs is located close to the SGR position.
Multi-epoch $K\arcmin$-band images are presented in Figure 2. Figure 2D shows the [*[Chandra]{}*]{} and VLA positions with 99% confidence error circles (see 2.2) along with the labels of individual field stars. Stars A, B, and C in @eik2001 correspond to our stars A1 to A4, B1 to B3, and C, respectively. Better spatial resolution and a deeper detection limit enabled us to spot the multiplicity of the stars A and B. A remarkable difference can be seen between Figure 2A and 2B: star B3 can hardly be seen in the 1st epoch but is bright in the 2nd epoch. There is no other major difference between the two images. All good quality images taken with AO are accumulated to create a high-resolution image (Figure 2C; FWHM = $0\farcs18$).
The light curve of each field star is presented in Figure 3. Most of the stars are constant within the error bars, which implies that star C, used in calibration, was constant during the period covered by our observations. B3 shows brightening by more than a factor of 2, whereas A3 shows a small amount of fading. B1 and B2 show slight brightening that just exceeds the error bars.
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
===========================
Detection of a Variable IR Counterpart
--------------------------------------
The position of SGR 1806–20 is well localized in the X-ray; however, the field of SGR 1806–20 is very crowded at IR wavelengths and the probability of a chance coincidence with unrelated IR sources is relatively high. Therefore, variability is a key means of distinguishing the real IR counterpart. The IR source B3 is the only source to show brightening in the $K\arcmin$ band clearly during the active phase. The chance probability of finding a variable star is generally low, i.e., $4.1 \times 10^{-3}$ is derived from the Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment (OGLE-II) dataset [@zeb2001], and is much lower if we select highly variable stars like B3.
Recently, the persistent hard X-ray emission ($\lesssim$200 keV) from SGR 1806–20 was presented, and its spectral shape was different from that of the bright bursts [@mol2004]. It is also to be noted that the persistent hard X-ray emission correlates in intensity and spectral hardness with the level of bursting activity [@mer2004]. The flux in the 20–100 keV energy band was almost doubled during the active phase in 2004 September to October compared with the data in 2003. On the other hands, our first epoch data was taken in 2002, and the IR flux for B3 increased by more than a factor of 2 in our third epoch in 2004. It is likely that the IR flux would increase with the persistent X-ray flux.
We should also note here that two short bursts were detected on 2002 August 25 by Konus-Wind and Ulysses [@hur2002], just 1.5 and 9 hours prior to our $K\arcmin$-band observations. Our second epoch observations were made 11.4 and 15.9 days after the short bursts on July 28 and July 23 with fluences of $4.4 \times 10^{-6}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ and $7.5 \times 10^{-6}$ erg cm$^{-2}$, respectively [@gol2004a]. Our third epoch data were collected 5.8 and 8.3 days after two intense intermediate bursts on August 28 ($4.0 \times 10^{-5}$ erg cm$^{-2}$; [@gol2004c]) and August 25 ($2.1 \times 10^{-5}$ erg cm$^{-2}$; [@gol2004b]), respectively. Some intense SGR bursts are followed by an X-ray tail or afterglow that decays with time [e.g., @ibr2001; @len2003]. Assuming that the SGR has an IR afterglow associated with X-ray burst activity, by analogy with AXPs (e.g., [AXP 1E 2259+586: @kas2003; @tam2004]; and [XTE J1810-197: @rea2004]), SGR 1806–20’s IR counterpart would be expected to be brighter at the third epoch than at the second, because the elapsed time since the last burst was shorter and the fluence of the burst was larger. The light curve of B3 between the 2nd and 3rd epochs is also consistent with this model. On the other hand, the elapsed time period since the last burst for the 1st epoch data is much shorter than for the 2nd epoch data, but B3 is only marginally detected in the 1st epoch. This implies either that 1) time lags exist between X-ray and IR flux enhancements, or 2) multiple burst activities are in some way accumulated in the IR.
An alternative interpretation of the brightening behavior of B3 is that B3 could have a large proper motion ($0\farcs1$ yr$^{-1}$) and so was very close to B1 in the 1st epoch. In this scenario the difficulties in accurately separating B1 and B3 may have caused the apparent brightening of B1 and fading of B3 at the 1st epoch. Future high-resolution imaging observations are necessary in order to measure precisely the proper motion of these sources.
Brightening of Nearby Stars
---------------------------
The active phase of SGR 1806–20 has been ongoing for several months, and so the inter-stellar medium (ISM) surrounding the SGR may be affected by the presence of high energy photons. In the case of gamma-ray bursts, for example, a large amount of dust sublimation is expected by the optical-UV prompt emission [@wax2000] and X-ray radiation [@fru2001]. It is suspected that SGR 1806–20 is associated with a massive molecular cloud [@cor2004], and suffers a large extinction ($A_{V} >$ 30) inferred from its X-ray column density of $N_{H} \approx 6 \times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ [@son1994; @mer2000] and the relation of $A_{V}/N_{H} = 5.6 \times 10^{-22}$ [@pre1995]. As the burst activity has been ongoing for a considerable period, the dust in a spherical region centered on the SGR is expected to have been sublimated, and hence the brightness of the background stars close to the line of sight of SGR 1806–20 might be expected to brighten. In fact, we marginally detected subtle brightening of the nearby stars B1 and B2. However, the brightening of the nearby stars could also be interpreted as the brightening of unresolved background (nebulosity) owing to the heating of the dust surrounding the SGR. We can discriminate between these two mechanisms by measuring the variability in different wavelengths. In the first scenario, the color of the stars may change, i.e. they will be brighter at shorter wavelengths, and the scale of the variability follows the extinction law. In the latter case, the variability may be larger at longer wavelengths. The distances of the stars B1 and B2 from the line of sight toward B3 are $0\farcs23$ and $0\farcs30$, which correspond to 20.3 and 26.0 light-days, respectively, at a distance of 15.1 kpc [@cor2004]. Therefore, the burst photons could clearly have reached and affected the ISM along the line of sight towards B1 and B2 when the observations were obtained. Further multicolor monitoring is required to confirm these conclusions.
We would like to thank all staff members of the Subaru Telescope for their observational and data analysis support, and the FOCAS team members for the use of the data taken in their scientific verification phase. We also express our gratitude to the referee Kevin Hurley for his helpful comments and suggestions.
Borkowski, J., Gotz, D., Mereghetti, S., Mowlavi, N., Shaw, S., & Turler, M. 2004, GCN Circ., 2920 Casali, M., & Hawarden, T. 1992, UKIRT Newsletter, 4, 33 Cameron, P. B., et al. 2005, , submitted (astro-ph/0502428) Corbel, S., & Eikenberry, S. S. 2004, , 419, 191 de Silva Neto, D. N., Andrei, A. H., Assafin, M., & Vieira Martins, R. 2005, , 429, 739 Duncan, R. C., & Thompson, C. 1992, , 392, 9 Eikenberry, S. S., et al. 2001, , 563, 133 Fruchter, A., Krolik, J. H., & Rhoads, J. E., 2001, , 563, 597 Gaensler, B. M., et al. 2005, , submitted (astro-ph/0502393) Golenetskii, S., et al. 2004a, GCN Circ., 2633 Golenetskii, S., et al. 2004b, GCN Circ., 2665 Golenetskii, S., et al. 2004c, GCN Circ., 2693 Gavriil, F. P., Kaspi, V. M., & Woods, P. M. 2002, , 419, 142 Hulleman, F., van Kerkwijk, M. H., & Kulkarni, S. R. 2004, , 416, 1037 Hurley, K., et al. 1999, , 397, 41 Hurley, K., Mazets, E., Golenetskii, S., & Cline, T. 2002, GCN Circ., 1396 Hurley, K., et al. 2003, GCN Circ., 2504 Hurley, K., et al. 2005, , submitted (astro-ph/0502329) Ibrahim, A. I., et al. 2001, , 558, 237 Ibrahim, A. I., Safi-Harb, S., Swank, J. H., Parke, W., Zane, S., & Turolla, R. 2002, , 574, 51 Israel, G. L., et al. 2002, , 580, 143 Iye, M., et al. 2004, , 56, 381 Kaplan, D. L., Fox, D. W., Kulkarni, S. R., Gotthelf, E. V., Vasisht, G., & Frail, D. A. 2002, , 564, 935 Kashikawa, N., et al. 2002, , 54, 819 Kaspi, V. M., Gavriil, F. P., Woods, P. M., Jensen, J. B., Roberts, M. S. E., & Chakrabarty, D. 2003, , 588, 93 Kern, B., & Martin, C. 2002, , 417, 527 Kobayashi, N., et al. 2000, Proc. SPIE, 4008, 1056 Kouveliotou, C., et al. 1998, , 393, 235 Kouveliotou, C., et al. 1999, , 510, 115 Lenters, G. T., et al. 2003, , 587, 761 Mereghetti, S., & Stella, L. 1995, , 442, 17 Mereghetti, S., Cremonesi, D., Feroci, M., & Tavani, M. 2000, , 361, 240 Mereghetti, S., Götz, D., Mirabel, I. F., & Hurley, K. 2004, , accepted (astro-ph/0411695) Molkov, S., Hurley, K., Sunyaev, R., Shtykovsky, P., Revnivtsev, M. 2004, , accepted (astro-ph/0411696) Monet, D. G., et al. 2003, , 125, 984 Paczyński, B. 1992, , 42, 145 Predehl, P., & Schmitt, J. H. M. M. 1995, , 293, 889 Rea, N., et al. 2004, , 425, 5L Sonobe, T., Murakami, T., Kulkarni, S. R., Aoki, T., & Yoshida, A. 1994, , 436, 23 Stetson, P. B. 1987, , 99, 191 Takami, H., et al. 2004, , 56, 225 Tam, C. R., Kaspi, V. M., van Kerkwijk, M. H., & Durant, M. 2004, , 617, 53 Thompson, C., & Duncan, R. C. 1995, , 275, 255 Wachter, S., et al. 2004, , 615, 887 Waxman, E., & Draine, B. T., 2000, , 537, 796 Żebruń, K., et al. 2001, , 51, 317
[ccccc]{}
A1 & 18 08 39.386 & -20 24 39.02 & 17.63 $\pm$ 0.05\
A2 & 18 08 39.369 & -20 24 39.43 & 17.91 $\pm$ 0.05\
A3 & 18 08 39.358 & -20 24 39.01 & 19.27 $\pm$ 0.07\
A4 & 18 08 39.383 & -20 24 39.18 & 19.88 $\pm$ 0.08\
B1 & 18 08 39.340 & -20 24 39.77 & 19.39 $\pm$ 0.07\
B2 & 18 08 39.343 & -20 24 40.14 & 19.36 $\pm$ 0.07\
B3 & 18 08 39.329 & -20 24 39.94 & 21.00 $\pm$ 0.36\
C & 18 08 39.319 & -20 24 40.81 & 16.48 $\pm$ 0.05\
F1 & 18 08 39.382 & -20 24 40.34 & 19.72 $\pm$ 0.08\
F2 & 18 08 39.290 & -20 24 40.31 & 19.32 $\pm$ 0.07\
F3 & 18 08 39.277 & -20 24 39.26 & 20.00 $\pm$ 0.12\
F4 & 18 08 39.257 & -20 24 39.24 & 19.52 $\pm$ 0.07\
F5 & 18 08 39.214 & -20 24 40.27 & 19.19 $\pm$ 0.06\
F6 & 18 08 39.229 & -20 24 40.85 & 19.45 $\pm$ 0.06\
F7 & 18 08 39.223 & -20 24 38.63 & 20.58 $\pm$ 0.13\
[^1]: Based on data collected at the Subaru Telescope, which is operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.
[^2]: IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We introduce a derivative-free computational framework for approximating solutions to nonlinear PDE-constrained inverse problems. The general aim is to merge ideas from iterative regularization with ensemble Kalman methods from Bayesian inference to develop a derivative-free stable method easy to implement in applications where the PDE (forward) model is only accessible as a black box (e.g. with commercial software). The proposed regularizing ensemble Kalman method can be derived as an approximation of the regularizing Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) scheme [@Hanke] in which the derivative of the forward operator and its adjoint are replaced with empirical covariances from an ensemble of elements from the admissible space of solutions. The resulting ensemble method consists of an update formula that is applied to each ensemble member and that has a regularization parameter selected in a similar fashion to the one in the LM scheme. Moreover, an early termination of the scheme is proposed according to a discrepancy principle-type of criterion. The proposed method can be also viewed as a regularizing version of standard Kalman approaches which are often unstable unless ad-hoc fixes, such as covariance localization, are implemented.
The aim of this paper is to provide a detailed numerical investigation of the regularizing and convergence properties of the proposed regularizing ensemble Kalman scheme; the proof of these properties is an open problem. By means of numerical experiments, we investigate the conditions under which the proposed method inherits the regularizing properties of the LM scheme of [@Hanke] and is thus stable and suitable for its application in problems where the computation of the Fréchet derivative is not computationally feasible. More concretely, we study the effect of ensemble size, number of measurements, selection of initial ensemble and tunable parameters on the performance of the method. The numerical investigation is carried out with synthetic experiments on two model inverse problems: (i) identification of conductivity on a Darcy flow model and (ii) electrical impedance tomography with the complete electrode model. We further demonstrate the potential application of the method in solving shape identification problems that arises from the aforementioned forward models by means of a level-set approach for the parameterization of unknown geometries.
address: 'School of Mathematical Sciences, The University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, United Kingdom.'
author:
- 'Marco A. Iglesias'
bibliography:
- 'Ensemble\_bib.bib'
title: 'A regularizing iterative ensemble Kalman method for PDE-constrained inverse problems'
---
Introduction {#Intro}
============
We propose a computational derivative-free regularization method for approximating solutions to nonlinear PDE-constrained inverse problems. More precisely, the aim of the method is to identify parameters in PDE models given data/observations of the solution of the PDE. Inverse problems of this kind are ill-posed in the sense of stability; small perturbations of the data may have uncontrolled effects on the approximation of the unknown parameters in the PDE. Therefore, the computation of stable approximations of solutions to these inverse problems requires *regularization*. Classical regularization methods (e.g. Tikhonov regularization) [@Engl] reformulate the inverse problem so that the regularized version can be solved with, for example, standard optimization methods. In contrast, *iterative regularization* approaches regularize while computing a stable approximation to the inverse problem [@Iterative]. The aim of these methods is to compute an estimate/approximation controlled by the noise level. As the noise in the data goes to zero, this approximation converges to a solution of the identification problem.
Contribution of this work
-------------------------
Most existing iterative regularization methods [@Iterative] require the implementation of the Fréchet derivative of the forward map as well as the corresponding adjoint operator. In various applications, however, standard software for forward simulation does not provide numerical approximations of the Fréchet derivative and/or its associated adjoint. In some cases, even if the linearization of the forward map is computed within the forward simulation (e.g. in a Newton-type solver for nonlinear PDEs) this may not be accessible in a modular fashion suitable for an iterative regularization framework. In this paper we present a derivative-free ensemble Kalman-based iterative regularization technique for the approximation of PDE-constrained identification problems. While standard ensemble Kalman methods are aimed at approximating an inverse problem posed in a Bayesian inference framework, the objective of the present work is to merge ideas from iterative regularization with ensemble Kalman methods to develop a computational framework with the regularization properties needed to solve classical (deterministic) identification problems. The proposed framework offers the flexibility of typical implementations of ensemble Kalman methods often used for large-scale data assimilation. In particular, it uses the forward map in a black-box fashion which makes it easy to implement and thus ideal for applications where modeling and simulation are performed with complex computer codes.
The proposed method can be derived as an approximation of the regularizing Levenberg-Marquard (LM) scheme developed by Hanke in [@Hanke]. More specifically, we construct an iterative ensemble method from the regularizing LM scheme by replacing operators involving the Fréchet derivative of the forward map and its adjoint by empirical covariances from an ensemble of elements from the parameter space. Members from this ensemble are iteratively updated according to an expression that resembles the Kalman update from standard ensemble Kalman filter/smoother methods [@evensen2009data]. However, in contrast to those standard methods, we propose an update formula with a regularization parameter whose selection is made similar to the one of the regularization parameter in the LM scheme [@Hanke] but with the aforementioned ensemble approximations of the forward map and its adjoint. Similarly, we propose an early termination of the scheme motivated by the discrepancy principle used in iterative regularization methods. The proposed ensemble Kalman regularizing scheme can then be regarded as (i) a derivative-free approximation of the regularizing LM scheme and/or (ii) a regularizing version of standard iterative Kalman methods [@EnKF_US].
An iterative regularizing ensemble Kalman method of the type presented here has been recently introduced in [@Yo] for the solution of Bayesian inverse problems in reservoir modeling applications. The aim of [@Yo] was to show that importing ideas from iterative regularization may improve the performance of Kalman methods for approximating the Bayesian posterior. The classical approach to the inverse problem is now pursued in the present work. More concretely, we wish to assess the convergence and regularizing properties of ensemble Kalman methods derived from iterative regularization techniques. In contrast to [@Yo] where the framework was Bayesian and focused on reservoir applications, our objective here is to study the performance of regularizing ensemble methods for solving classical identification problems in generic PDE-constrained applications.
The contribution of the present work is threefold. First, we show that the proposed method addresses the ill-conditioning typically exhibited by existing implementations of ensemble methods. We show that importing ideas from iterative regularization such as the discrepancy principle can offer stability that, in existing implementations are often treated with ad-hoc methodologies such as covariance localization and covariance inflation. The second contribution of this paper is to showcase the potential application of the proposed methods for addressing a wide range of parameter identification problems. We show that, with reasonable computational cost, the proposed method can be not only computationally advantageous but also robust and accurate. We consider two model inverse problems: (i) identification of hydraulic head in a Darcy flow model and (ii) electrical impedance tomography (EIT) with a complete electrode model (CEM). In addition, we display the capabilities of the proposed method to solve shape identification problems where the computation of the shape derivative of the forward map may be cumbersome. In concrete, we combine the proposed ensemble method with the level-set approach of [@Level_set_US] to estimate shapes whose boundaries determine regions of sharp discontinuities of parameters in the PDE models under consideration. Since our methodology does not require derivatives, our level-set based formulation is considerably more simple than standard approaches where shape derivatives are needed [@BurgerSurvey; @BurgerGB; @Santosa]. Moreover, the proposed ensemble level-set approach does not use the level-set equation as in standard formulations; our iterative scheme induces a stable evolution of the unknown interface. In addition, by initializing the ensemble according to the ideas recently proposed in [@Level_set_US] we avoid computational issues such as the flattening of the level-set function which is often observed with standard methods and typically addressed with ad-hoc techniques. The third contribution of the present work is to provide an extensive numerical investigation in order to assess the convergence and regularization properties of the proposed ensemble scheme with respect to ensemble size, number of measurements, initial ensemble and tunable parameters. Although the convergence theory of the proposed regularizing ensemble Kalman method is an open problem, our numerical study offers deep insight into the potential application of iterative regularization for the development of derivative-free ensemble methods thereby opening up a whole new field for application and theory.
The rest of the manuscript is organized as follows. In we introduce the general framework for the identification problem. The proposed ensemble Kalman method is introduced in subsection \[subsec:EnKF\]. The test models used for the validation of the proposed scheme are introduced in subsection \[test\]. Preliminary numerical examples that show the regularizing properties of the method are presented in subsection \[unreg\]. In Section \[sec:EnKF\] we discuss general aspects and properties of the proposed scheme including the derivation of the method as an ensemble approximation of the regularizing LM scheme of [@Hanke]. In Section \[Numerics\] we then conduct an extensive numerical investigation of the proposed scheme. In particular, we study the relation between the ensemble size and the number of measurements in terms of their effect on the regularization and convergence properties of the scheme. We investigate the effect of the tunable parameters of the scheme and the regularization properties with respect to the ensemble size in the small noise limit. In Section \[Sec:Applications\] we discuss some potential applications of the scheme for the solution of geometrical inverse problems. Conclusions and future research are provided in .
PDE-constrained inverse problems {#Sec:PDE}
================================
General framework {#prel}
-----------------
Let us denote by $G: X \to Y$ the (nonlinear) [*forward operator*]{} that arises from the PDE-constrained model under consideration. In other words, $G$ maps the space $X$ of PDE parameters (e.g. coefficients, source terms and/or boundary conditions) to the observation space $Y$ defined in terms of observable quantities related to the solution of the PDE (e.g. pointwise measurements of the solution). We assume that $X$ and $Y$ separable Hilbert spaces with norms denoted by $\vert\vert \cdot \vert\vert_{X}$ and $\vert\vert \cdot \vert\vert_{Y}$ respectively. For the applications under consideration, the dimension of the observation space is often small (i.e. order of $10^3$ - $10^4$). Therefore, we consider the case where $Y$ is finite dimensional. However, upon discretization, the dimensions of $X$ could be large (i.e. greater than $10^6$). Therefore, in order to derive algorithms robust under grid refinement we consider the case where $\dim(X)=\infty$; our aim is thus to keep our formulation within a functional analytical framework.
The PDE-constrained model has an unknown parameter $u^{\dagger}\in X$ that we wish to identify from noisy measurements $y^{\eta}\in Y$ defined by $$\label{eq:data}
y^{\eta}\equiv G(u^{\dagger})+ \xi$$ where $\xi \in Y$ is noise which for the purpose of this exposition will be considered deterministic. In addition to $y^{\eta}$, we assume we have knowledge of the (weighted) noise level $\eta$ defined by $$\label{eq:nl}
\eta \equiv \vert\vert \Gamma^{-1/2}(y^{\eta} - G(u^{\dagger})) \vert\vert_{Y}$$ where $\Gamma:Y\to Y$ is a self-adjoint positive-definite operator which for the present analysis can be understood as a weighting/scaling operator that enable us, for example, to include information concerning the precision of our measurement device.
The identification problem is the following: *Given $y^{\eta}$, find $u\in X$ such that $G(u)=y^{\eta}$*. Since the data may not be in the range of the forward operator we may alternatively formulate the identification as the minimizer of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{data_misfit}
\Phi(u)\equiv \vert\vert \Gamma^{-1/2}(y^{\eta}-G(u))\vert\vert_{Y}\end{aligned}$$ However, forward operators $G$ that arise from PDE models are typically compact and weakly sequentially closed [@Ill-posed]. From this property it follows that the inverse problem is ill-posed in the sense of stability. In other words, we may find $u_{n}$ such that $G(u_{n})\to y^{\eta}$ but $u_{n}\nrightarrow u^{\dagger}$. Therefore the computation of a minimizer of (\[data\_misfit\]) with standard (unregularized) iterative minimization approaches may be unstable. This lack of stability can be alleviated by means of iterative regularization methods. As discussed in , iterative regularization provides a computational framework to compute stable approximation to the inverse problem. In concrete, their aim is to compute an estimate/approximation $u^{\eta}$ controlled by the noise level $\eta$, that converges, in the small noise limit, to a solution of the identification problem, i.e. $u^{\eta}\to u$ as $\eta\to 0$, where the limit $u$ satisfies $G(u)=G(u^{\dagger})$. Most iterative regularization approaches require the computation of the Fréchet derivative of the forward operator $G$. In some applications where commercial software is used for forward simulations Fréchet derivatives may not available and so the application of those iterative methods may be limited. The objective of the present work is to introduce a derivative-free regularization ensemble Kalman method for the stable computations of the identification problem.
The regularizing ensemble Kalman method {#subsec:EnKF}
---------------------------------------
Let us assume that we are given an ensemble of $N_{e}$ elements $u_{0}^{(j)}$ ($j\in\{1,\dots,N_{e}\}$) of the parameter space $X$. One may think of $\{u_{0}^{(j)}\}_{j=1}^{N_{e}}$ as an ensemble of potential initial guesses for any iterative regularization method applied for the stable identification of the unknown parameter $u^{\dagger}$. We will discuss the selection of such initial ensemble $\{u_{0}^{(j)}\}_{j=1}^{N_{e}}$ in subsection \[initial\].
We now propose an iterative scheme where, at every iteration level $n$, each ensemble member $u_{n}^{(j)}$ is updated in such a way that the corresponding ensemble mean $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m7A}
\overline{u}_{n}\equiv \frac{1}{N_{e}}\sum_{j=1}^{N_{e}}u_{n}^{(j)}\end{aligned}$$ approximates the inverse problem in the small noise limit as described in subsection \[prel\]. In other words, we need that algorithm stops at finite iteration level $n^{\star}$ producing an estimate $u^{\eta}\equiv \overline{u}_{n}^{\star}$ such that $u^{\eta}\to u$ as $\eta\to 0$, where $G(u)=G(u^{\dagger})$ . The proposed regularizing ensemble Kalman method is presented below.
[Iterative regularizing ensemble Kalman method]{}\[Al1\]\
Let $\{u_{0}^{(j)}\}_{j=1}^{N_{e}}\subset X$ be the initial ensemble of $N_{e}$ elements. Let $\rho\in (0,1)$ and $\tau>1/\rho$.\
For $n=0,1,\dots$
- **Prediction step.** Evaluate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m14}
w_{n}^{(j)}= G(u_{n}^{(j)}),\qquad j\in\{1,\dots, N_{e}\}\end{aligned}$$ and define $\overline{w}_{n}=\frac{1}{N_{e}}\sum_{j=1}^{N_{e}}w_{n}^{(j)}$
- **Discrepancy principle**. If $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m15}
\vert\vert \Gamma^{-1/2}(y^{\eta}-\overline{w}_{n})\vert\vert_{Y} \leq \tau \eta \end{aligned}$$ stop. Output $\overline{u}_{n} \equiv \frac{1}{N_{e}}\sum_{j=1}^{N_{e}} u_{n}^{(j)}$.\
- **Analysis step.** Define $C_{n}^{uw}$, $C_{n}^{ww}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m8b}
C_{n}^{ww}(\cdot)=\frac{1}{N_{e}-1}\sum_{j=1}^{N_{e}}(G(u_{n}^{(j)})-\overline{w}_{n})\langle G(u_{n}^{(j)})-\overline{w}_{n}),\cdot\rangle_{Y}\\
C_{n}^{uw}(\cdot) = \frac{1}{N_{e}-1}\sum_{j=1}^{N_{e}} (u_{n}^{(j)}-\overline{u}_{n})\langle G(u_{n}^{(j)})-\overline{w}_{n}),\cdot \rangle_{Y}.\label{eq:m8c}\end{aligned}$$ Update each ensemble member: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m16}
\fl u_{n+1}^{(j)} =u_{n}^{(j)}+C_{n}^{uw}(C_{n}^{ww} +\alpha_{n}\Gamma )^{-1}(y^{\eta}-w_{n}^{(j)}),\qquad j\in\{1,\dots, N_{e}\}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_{n}$ is chosen by the following sequence $$\label{eq:m17}
\alpha_{n}^{i+1}=2^{i}\alpha_{n}^{0}.$$ where $\alpha_{n}^{0}$ is an initial guess. We then define $\alpha_{n}\equiv \alpha_{n}^{N}$ where $N$ is the first integer such that $$\alpha_{n}^{N}\vert\vert \Gamma^{1/2}(C_{n}^{ww} +\alpha_{n}^{N}\Gamma )^{-1}(y^{\eta}-\overline{w}_{n})\vert\vert\ge \rho\vert\vert \Gamma^{-1/2}(y^{\eta}-\overline{w}_{n})\vert\vert$$
Note that, in contrast to other regularization techniques, the discrepancy principle in (\[eq:m15\]) is applied to $\overline{w}_{n}$ which (see expression (\[eq:m7\])) is the average of the model output $G(u^{(j)})$ of each ensemble member. While this quantity approximates $G(\overline{u}_{n})$ to first order (see subsection \[deriva\]), it is clearly not the data misfit of the proposed estimate.
The proof of convergence of Algorithm \[Al1\] to a stable solution of the inverse problem is beyond the scope of the present manuscript; our aim is to offer numerical evidence of the convergence and regularization properties of the scheme.
Test Models {#test}
-----------
The proposed ensemble Kalman method will be tested on two PDE-constrained inverse problems. We consider small test inverse problems where we have the computational flexibility to conduct a large amount of numerical experiments in order to understand the effect that the tunable parameters, ensemble size, selection of initial ensemble and number of measurements have on the regularization properties and accuracy of the proposed method. We introduce the test models under consideration below.
### Test model I. Darcy flow. {#Darcy}
We consider single-phase steady-state Darcy flow in a two-dimensional confined aquifer whose physical domain is $D=[0,6]\times [0,6]$. $\kappa$ denotes the hydraulic conductivity. The flow is described in term of the piezometric head $h(x)$ ($x\in D$) given by the solution to [@Bear] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:a1}
-\nabla\cdot \kappa \nabla h&=f &\qquad\textrm{in}~~D\end{aligned}$$ where $f$ is the source which for the present work is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:a2}
f(x_{1},x_{2})=\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}
0 &\textrm{if}& 0< x_{2}\leq 4,\\
137&\textrm{if}& 4< x_{2}< 5,\\
274&\textrm{if}& 5\leq x_{2} < 6.\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ The following boundary conditions are considered $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:a3}
\fl h(x,0)=100, \qquad \frac{\partial h}{\partial x}(6,y)=0,\qquad
-\kappa\frac{\partial h}{\partial x}(0,y)=500,\qquad \frac{\partial h}{\partial y}(x,6)=0,\end{aligned}$$ We are interested in recovering the logarithm of the hydraulic conductivity $u\equiv \log{\kappa}$, from noisy pointwise measurements of the piezometric head $h$. In other words, we consider $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:a4}
G(u) = (h(x_{1}),\dots, h(x_{M}))\end{aligned}$$ where $h$ is the solution to (\[eq:a1\])-(\[eq:a3\]) and $\{x_{j}\}_{j=1}^{M}$ are the measurement locations. This groundwater model was used first used as benchmark for inverse modeling in [@Carrera]. It has been also used as a test model for the identification of parameters with iterative regularization methods in [@Hanke; @Repre] and with an ensemble Kalman approach in [@EnKF_US].
### Test model II. Complete Electrode Model. {#EIT}
Our second test model is based on the Complete Electrode Model (CEM) for Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT). The objective of EIT is to identify the conductivity $\kappa$ of a body $D$ given measurements of voltages from a configuration of $m_{e}$ electrodes on $\{e_{k}\}_{k=1}^{m_{e}}$ places on the boundary $\partial D$. The measured voltage arise from current patterns applied on those electrodes. The forward model associated to EIT is the CEM which consist of computing the voltage $v$ in $D$ and the voltages $\{V_{k}\}_{k=1}^{m_{e}}$ on $\{e_{k}\}_{k=1}^{m_{e}}$ that satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
&~~~~~~~\nabla \cdot \kappa \nabla v&=0\qquad\textrm{in}~~D,\\
&v+z_{k} \kappa \nabla v\cdot \n&=V_{k} \qquad\textrm{on}~~e_k, ~~k=1,\dots,m_{e},\\
&~~~~~~~~~\nabla v\cdot \n &=0 \qquad\textrm{on}~~\partial D\setminus \cup_{k=1}^{m_{e}}e_{k},\\
&\int_{e_{k}}\kappa \nabla v\cdot \n ~ds &= I_{k}\qquad ~~k=1,\dots,m_{e},\end{aligned}$$ where $\{I_{k}\}_{k=1}^{m_{e}}$ are the currents injected through the electrodes, $\{z_{k}\}_{k=1}^{m_{e}}$ are the contact impedances of the electrodes and $u=\log{\kappa}$ where $\kappa$ is the conductivity. Well posedness of the CEM model requires conservation of charge $$\sum_{k=1}^{m_{e}}I_{k}=0$$ Given $\kappa$ and $\{z_{k}\}_{k=1}^{m_{e}}$, for each current patter $I=\{I_{k}\}_{k=1}^{m_{e}}$ there exists a unique solution $[v,\{V_{k}\}_{k=1}^{m_{e}}]$ to the CEM [@cheney]. The EIT problem consists now of finding $\kappa$ and $\{z_{k}\}_{k=1}^{m_{e}}$ from a set of $n_{p}$ measurements of voltages $V_1=\{V_{1,k}\}_{k=1}^{m_{e}}, \dots , V_{n_p}=\{V_{n_p,k}\}_{k=1}^{m_{e}}$ obtained from $n_{p}$ current paters $I_{1}=\{I_{1,k}\}_{k=1}^{m_{e}},\dots I_{n_{p}}=\{I_{n_p,k}\}_{k=1}^{m_{e}}$. For simplicity we assume that the contact impedances of the electrodes are known. Therefore, the identification problem is to find $\kappa$ given $$G(u)=\big[\{V_{1,k}\}_{k=1}^{m_{e}}, \dots , \{V_{n_p,k}\}_{k=1}^{m_{e}}\big]$$ For a review of the EIT problem we refer the reader to [@EIT_revew].
Regularizing properties of the ensemble Kalman method. {#unreg}
------------------------------------------------------
Although ensemble Kalman methods have been typically used in the statistical Bayesian framework, several publications [@EnKF_US; @IterativeEnKF] have explored the use of these approaches for solving (deterministic) inverse problems such as the parameter identification PDE-constrained problems described earlier. However, most of these approaches are based on update formulas of the form of (\[eq:m16\]) but with a fixed parameter $\alpha_{n}=1$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:11d}
u_{n+1}^{(j)} =u_{n}^{(j)}+C_{n}^{uw}(C_{n}^{ww} +\Gamma )^{-1}(y-w_{n}^{(j)})\end{aligned}$$ As we discuss in subsection \[bayesian\], the standard choice $\alpha_{n}=1$ is motivated by the application of Kalman methods for solving Bayesian inference problems when the model $G$ is linear, and the underlying prior distribution is Gaussian [@Tarantola]. For nonlinear forward models, however, the same choice of $\alpha_{n}$ leads to instabilities that are often fixed with ad-hoc methods such as covariance localization. The main objective of the present work is to show numerically that such instabilities can be addressed by the proposed ensemble Kalman method when the ensemble size $N_e$ is sufficiently large.
In this subsection we briefly present numerical evidence of the regularization properties of the proposed scheme; a detailed numerical investigation will be presented in . We apply Algorithm \[Al1\] to the identification of the “true” log hydraulic conductivity $u^{\dagger}$ displayed in Figure \[Fig10\] (top). We use use synthetic measurements of hydraulic head from the Darcy model of subsection \[Darcy\] with the measurement locations displayed in (left). Both the truth and the elements of the initial ensemble are generated from a Gaussian distribution. For details on the generation of synthetic data (avoiding inverse crimes) and the generation of initial ensemble, we refer the reader to subsection \[Darcy\_Num\]. In the middle row (resp. bottom row) of Figure \[Fig10\] we display the estimate obtained from the ensemble mean at different iterations computed with the standard unregularized approach (resp. the proposed regularized method). For the regularized method we select $\rho=0.7$ and $\tau=1/\rho$. For the unregularized method we simply apply (\[eq:11d\]) with no stopping criterion. Both methods are applied with the same (fixed) initial ensemble of $N_{e}=150$ members generated as described in subsection \[Darcy\_Num\]. (left) shows the data misfit (\[data\_misfit\]) for the ensemble mean $\overline{u}_{n}$ computed with the standard unregularized approach (solid red line) and our regularized method (dotted-black line). Additionally, in (left) we also display (the dotted-blue line ) the data misfit with respect to the averaged ensemble data predictions (expression (\[eq:m15\])) which we monitor for the termination of Algorithm \[Al1\].
In (middle) we show the relative $L^2$-error with respect to the truth for the ensemble mean $\overline{u}_{n}$, (i.e. $\vert\vert \overline{u}_{n}-u^{\dagger}\vert\vert_{L^2}/\vert\vert u^{\dagger}\vert\vert_{L^2}$), computed with the standard unregularized approach (solid red line) and our regularized method (dotted-blue line). For the standard method we see that a fast decrease of the data misfit and relative error are observed at the early iterations. While the data misfit keeps decreasing, the error starts to increase when apparently the data misfit drops below the noise level whose value is indicated with the horizontal line in (left). This increase in the error comes as no surprise since the corresponding estimates overfit the data. Iterative methods applied for the solution of ill-posed inverse problems often display such behavior [@Engl; @Kirsch]. In fact, a similar semiconvergent behavior was reported in the ensemble Kalman method of [@EnKF_US] and inspired the present work where not only a regularization of the estimates need to be introduced (here by means of the parameter $\alpha_{n}$) but also the proper early termination of the scheme that avoids fitting the noise. Indeed, we note that the regularizing algorithm (see ), both relative error and data misfit decreases very slowly. Once the (averaged) data misfit (of expression (\[eq:m15\])) is close to the noise level, the algorithm is stopped producing a considerably more accurate estimate of the truth than the one obtained with the unregularized algorithm which blows up the update at the early iterations. However, if the proposed regularized algorithm is not stopped, the error with respect to the truth could potentially increase as we observe in subsequent experiments (see ). From the log-conductivity estimates ( middle and bottom rows), we see that the unregularized method produces uncontrolled estimates of the unknown while the proposed method results in small incremental transitions which eventually captures the truth more accurately. As we will discuss in Section \[Numerics\], the ability of the proposed method for regularizing the computations of the inverse problem depends on the size of the ensemble $N_e$.
The selection of $\alpha_{n}$ according to (\[eq:m12\]) is crucial for the regularizing of the proposed method. We monitor numerically these values of $\alpha_{n}$ obtained from the application of Algorithm \[Al1\] to the identification problem described in the preceding paragraph. We apply the method for several choices of the parameter $\rho$ ($\rho=0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8$). In (right) we display the values of $\alpha_{n}$ that we obtained from the proposed selection (\[eq:m12\]) as the number of iterations increases. At the early iterations $\alpha_{n}$ is large hence controlling the updates of the approximation. As the iteration progresses and the data misfit decreases, $\alpha_{n}$ also decreases. For larger $\rho$ the decay of $\alpha_{n}$ is slower; this provides more regularization to the expense of a more costly algorithm (see Remark \[rema1\]). From (right) we can observe that when the data misfit has dropped to a value close to the noise level by which the algorithm will be terminated according to (\[eq:dis2\]), $\alpha_{n}$ has dropped down to a value close to $\alpha_{n}=1$ which is, in turn, the intrinsic value for the standard Kalman method. Interestingly, there is indeed an apparent intrinsic parameter $\alpha_{n}=1$ once the scheme arrives at the optimal approximation of the inverse problem. However, choosing this parameter at early iterations can be substantially detrimental to the performance of the scheme. In the following section, the selection of $\alpha_{n}$ is derived by using ensemble approximations of the Fréchet derivative of the forward map in the selection of the parameter $\alpha_{n}$ that has been proven to provide stability in the regularizing LM scheme of Hanke [@Hanke]. As stated earlier, for the present methodology, such a theory is beyond the scope of the present work.
![Top: true log-conductivity. Middle row: ensemble mean at some iterations of the standard (unregularized) ensemble Kalman method. Bottom row: ensemble mean at some iterations of the regularizing ensemble Kalman method. []{data-label="Fig10"}](True_GW "fig:")\
![Top: true log-conductivity. Middle row: ensemble mean at some iterations of the standard (unregularized) ensemble Kalman method. Bottom row: ensemble mean at some iterations of the regularizing ensemble Kalman method. []{data-label="Fig10"}](NoReg_1 "fig:") ![Top: true log-conductivity. Middle row: ensemble mean at some iterations of the standard (unregularized) ensemble Kalman method. Bottom row: ensemble mean at some iterations of the regularizing ensemble Kalman method. []{data-label="Fig10"}](NoReg_2 "fig:") ![Top: true log-conductivity. Middle row: ensemble mean at some iterations of the standard (unregularized) ensemble Kalman method. Bottom row: ensemble mean at some iterations of the regularizing ensemble Kalman method. []{data-label="Fig10"}](NoReg_3 "fig:") ![Top: true log-conductivity. Middle row: ensemble mean at some iterations of the standard (unregularized) ensemble Kalman method. Bottom row: ensemble mean at some iterations of the regularizing ensemble Kalman method. []{data-label="Fig10"}](NoReg_10 "fig:") ![Top: true log-conductivity. Middle row: ensemble mean at some iterations of the standard (unregularized) ensemble Kalman method. Bottom row: ensemble mean at some iterations of the regularizing ensemble Kalman method. []{data-label="Fig10"}](NoReg_15 "fig:")\
![Top: true log-conductivity. Middle row: ensemble mean at some iterations of the standard (unregularized) ensemble Kalman method. Bottom row: ensemble mean at some iterations of the regularizing ensemble Kalman method. []{data-label="Fig10"}](Reg_150_5 "fig:") ![Top: true log-conductivity. Middle row: ensemble mean at some iterations of the standard (unregularized) ensemble Kalman method. Bottom row: ensemble mean at some iterations of the regularizing ensemble Kalman method. []{data-label="Fig10"}](Reg_150_7 "fig:") ![Top: true log-conductivity. Middle row: ensemble mean at some iterations of the standard (unregularized) ensemble Kalman method. Bottom row: ensemble mean at some iterations of the regularizing ensemble Kalman method. []{data-label="Fig10"}](Reg_150_9 "fig:") ![Top: true log-conductivity. Middle row: ensemble mean at some iterations of the standard (unregularized) ensemble Kalman method. Bottom row: ensemble mean at some iterations of the regularizing ensemble Kalman method. []{data-label="Fig10"}](Reg_150_11 "fig:") ![Top: true log-conductivity. Middle row: ensemble mean at some iterations of the standard (unregularized) ensemble Kalman method. Bottom row: ensemble mean at some iterations of the regularizing ensemble Kalman method. []{data-label="Fig10"}](Reg_150_13 "fig:")
![Log-data misfit (left) and relative error w.r.t truth (middle) of the ensemble mean at some iterations obtained with the unregularized ensemble Kalman method (solid red line) and with the proposed regularizing scheme (dotted blue line). Right: $\log (\alpha_{n})$ as a function of the number of iterations of Algorithm \[Al1\] from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size $N_{e}=150$.[]{data-label="Fig11"}](compaGW_misfit "fig:") ![Log-data misfit (left) and relative error w.r.t truth (middle) of the ensemble mean at some iterations obtained with the unregularized ensemble Kalman method (solid red line) and with the proposed regularizing scheme (dotted blue line). Right: $\log (\alpha_{n})$ as a function of the number of iterations of Algorithm \[Al1\] from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size $N_{e}=150$.[]{data-label="Fig11"}](compaGW_error "fig:") ![Log-data misfit (left) and relative error w.r.t truth (middle) of the ensemble mean at some iterations obtained with the unregularized ensemble Kalman method (solid red line) and with the proposed regularizing scheme (dotted blue line). Right: $\log (\alpha_{n})$ as a function of the number of iterations of Algorithm \[Al1\] from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size $N_{e}=150$.[]{data-label="Fig11"}](log_alpha_B "fig:")
Properties and computational aspects of the regularizing ensemble Kalman method {#sec:EnKF}
===============================================================================
In this subsection we discuss some properties and general computational aspects of the proposed regularizing ensemble Kalman method presented in subsection \[subsec:EnKF\].
The initial ensemble {#initial}
--------------------
One of the main properties of the proposed ensemble Kalman method is that the estimate $\overline{u}_{n}$ obtained from Algorithm \[Al1\] lives in the subspace generated by the initial ensemble $\{u_{0}^{(j)}\}_{j=1}^{N_{e}}$.
\[Prp2\] At every iteration of the scheme, the ensemble mean $\overline{u}_{n}$ defined by (\[eq:m7A\]) satisfies $\overline{u}_{n}\in \textrm{span} \{u_{0}^{(j)} \}_{j=1}^{N_{e}}$
**Proof:** Once we rewrite Algorithm \[Al1\] in the augmented version of subsection \[3\_2\], the proof follows directly with the same argument as [@EnKF_US Theorem 2.1] $\Box$.
From the invariance subspace property it follows that the selection of the initial ensemble is a design parameter crucial to the performance of the proposed scheme; we study this numerically in subsection \[num\_EIT\]. Prior knowledge of the space of admissible solutions $X$ can be used for such selection. For example, $\{u_{0}^{(j)}\}_{j=1}^{N_{e}}$ can be a truncated basis for $X$. Another example of prior knowledge that we may use for the construction of the initial ensemble is the regularity of the elements in $X$. More concretely, we may construct an ensemble by drawing its members from some probability distribution with the desired regularity. While the problem under consideration is deterministic, the use of a probability distribution is made for the sake of the generation of the initial ensemble with the regularity of the parameter space. The aforementioned invariance subspace property then ensures that the estimate produced by the proposed method inherits the regularity of the space of admissible solutions. Clearly, Gaussian distributions are desirable since sampling from them is relatively easy. Nonetheless, other priors such as Besov [@Besov] could also be considered. In subsections \[num\_EIT\] we provide examples where probability distributions are considered in order to generate an initial ensemble that we use with our computational approach for the EIT problem described in subsection \[EIT\]. In general, the construction of the prior ensemble is based on prior knowledge of the problem under consideration.
The Regularizing LM scheme {#LM}
--------------------------
In the following subsection we derive the proposed method as an approximation of the regularizing LM scheme [@Hanke]. For the subsequent derivation we consider $X$ completed with the norm $\vert\vert C^{-1/2} \cdot \vert\vert_{X}$ where $C^{-1}:D(C^{-1})\subset X\to X$ is a densely-defined unbounded self-adjoint operator with compact resolvent and $C^{-1/2}$ is defined in terms of the spectral decomposition of $C^{-1}$ (see [@EnKF_US Section 2.1]). For the purpose of this work, $C^{-1}$ is an operator selected a priori that enforces regularity on the functional space $X$. Introducing an operator $C^{-1}$ in our formulation enable us to (i) derive the proposed method from the regularizing LM scheme of Hanke [@Hanke] and (ii) establish a connection between the classical (deterministic) and the Bayesian approach for inverse problems. In the Bayesian framework, $C^{-1}$ is the inverse of the covariance operator $C$ from a prior distribution [@Andrew]. It is important to remark that the definition of $C^{-1}$ does not appear in the proposed scheme Algorithm \[Al1\].
The regularizing LM scheme of [@Hanke] is an iterative method that possess the regularizing properties need for the stable computation of solution to the identification problem described in the preceding section. In concrete Hanke in [@Hanke] proposes an iterative scheme where the $u_{n+1}$ iteration level is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m1}
\fl u_{n+1}=u_{n}+\arg\min_{v\in X}\vert\vert \Gamma^{-1/2}(y^{\eta}-G(u_{n})-DG(u_{n})v\vert\vert_{Y}^2+\alpha_{n}\vert\vert C^{-1/2} v\vert\vert_{X}^{2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha>0$ is a regularization parameter chosen below and $DG$ denotes the Fréchet derivative of $G$. From the first order optimality conditions associated to the right hand side of (\[eq:m1\]) it follows that the previous expression is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m2}
\fl u_{n+1} =u_{n}+(DG^{\ast}(u_{n})\,\Gamma^{-1}\,DG(u_{n}) +\alpha_{n} C^{-1} )^{-1}C\,DG^{\ast}(u_{n})(y^{\eta}-G(u_{n})).\end{aligned}$$ The convergence and regularizing properties of the method of [@Hanke] requires that $\alpha_{n}$ in (\[eq:m1\]) satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m3}
\fl \rho \vert\vert \Gamma^{-1/2}(y^{\eta}-G(u_{n}))\vert\vert_{Y} \leq \alpha_{n} \vert\vert \Gamma^{-1/2}( y^{\eta}-G(u_{n})-DG(u_{n})(u_{n+1} -u_{n}) )\vert\vert_{Y}\end{aligned}$$ for $\rho\in (0,1)$ selected a priori and that the scheme is terminated whenever the $n$th iteration level satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m4}
\vert\vert \Gamma^{-1/2}(y^{\eta}-G(u_{n}))\vert\vert_{Y} \leq \tau \eta < \vert\vert \Gamma^{-1/2}(y^{\eta}-G(u_{n-1}))\vert\vert_{Y}\end{aligned}$$ for some $\tau>0$ that satisfies $\tau>1/\rho$.
The theory of Hanke provides assumptions on the forward operator under which the regularizing LM scheme terminates after a finite number of iterations and the corresponding approximation is a solution of the inverse problem in the small noise limit as described in subsection \[prel\]. For full details of the theoretical framework for the regularizing LM scheme the reader is referred to the work of Hanke in [@Hanke]. An application of this method to inverse problems in the geosciences can be found in [@LM].
In order to derive the proposed ensemble method as an approximation of the LM scheme, we need the following lemma where we assume that $Y=\mathbb{R}^{M}$ (recall that $\textrm{dim}(Y)<\infty$) with the standard Euclidean inner product.
\[lema:Rep1\] Assume that for any $u\in X$, the linear functionals $D_{m}G(u):X\to \mathbb{R}$ ($m=1,\dots, M$) are linearly independent. Then, expression (\[eq:m2\]) is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m6}
\fl u_{n+1} =u_{n}+C\,DG^{\ast}(u_{n})(DG(u_{n})\,C\,DG^{\ast}(u_{n}) +\alpha_{n}\Gamma )^{-1}(y-G(u_{n}))\end{aligned}$$
**Proof:** See appendix.\
Note that (\[eq:m6\]) can be used to rewrite (\[eq:m3\]) as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m5}
\fl \rho \vert\vert \Gamma^{-1/2}(y^{\eta}-G(u_{n}))\vert\vert_{Y} \leq \alpha_{n} \vert\vert \Gamma^{1/2}(DG(u_{n})\,CDG^{\ast}(u_n)+\alpha_{n}\Gamma)^{-1}(y^{\eta}-G(u_{n}))\vert\vert_{Y}\end{aligned}$$ Expressions (\[eq:m6\])-(\[eq:m5\]) are computationally more convenient since the operator inversion of $(DG(u_{n})\,C\,DG^{\ast}(u_{n}) +\alpha_{n}\Gamma )$ is conducted on a finite dimensional space. Upon discretization the aforementioned inversion has often negligible cost since the number of observations is typically small. Note that when $X$ is finite dimensional the relation between (\[eq:m2\]) and (\[eq:m6\]) follows simply from matrix Lemmas which cannot be applied in the present case.
The proposed method as an approximation of the regularizing LM scheme {#deriva}
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us consider a first order approximation of $G(u_{n}^{(j)})$ around the ensemble mean, i.e. $$G(u_{n}^{(j)})\approx G(\overline{u}_{n})+DG(\overline{u}_{n})(u_{n}^{(j)}-\overline{u}_{n})$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m7}
\fl \overline{w}_{n}\equiv \frac{1}{N_{e}}\sum_{j=1}^{N_{e}}G(u_{n}^{(j)})\approx G(\overline{u}_{n})\quad \textrm{and}\quad
\langle DG(\overline{u}_{n})(u_{n}^{(j)}-\overline{u}_{n}),w \rangle_{Y} \approx \langle G(u_{n}^{(j)})- G(\overline{u}_{n}),w\rangle_{Y}.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ Define the following covariance operator $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m8a}
C_{n}^{uu}(\cdot) = \frac{1}{N_{e}-1}\sum_{j=1}^{N_{e}} (u_{n}^{(j)}-\overline{u}_{n})\langle u_{n}^{(j)}-\overline{u}_{n},\cdot\rangle_{X}\end{aligned}$$ From (\[eq:m7\])-(\[eq:m8a\]) and (\[eq:m8b\]) -(\[eq:m8c\]) we find that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m9}
\fl C_{n}^{uu}DG^{*}(\overline{u}_{n})v= \frac{1}{N_{e}-1}\sum_{j=1}^{N_{e}}(u_{n}^{(j)}-\overline{u}_{n})\langle(u_{n}^{(j)}-\overline{u}_{n}),DG^{*}(\overline{u}_{n})v\rangle_{X}\nonumber\\
\approx \frac{1}{N_{e}-1}\sum_{j=1}^{N_{e}}(u_{n}^{(j)}-\overline{u}_{n})\langle G(u_{n}^{(j)})- G(\overline{u}_{n}),v\rangle =C_{n}^{uw}v\end{aligned}$$ and from similar arguments we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m10}
DG(\overline{u}_{n})C_{n}^{uu}DG(\overline{u}_{n})^{*}v \approx C_{n}^{ww}v\end{aligned}$$ In expression (\[eq:m6\]) we now replace the following terms and the corresponding approximations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m11}
~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~u_{n} &\Longrightarrow \overline{u}_{n},\\
~~~~~~~~~~~C\,DG^{*}(u_{n})&\Longrightarrow C_{n}^{uu}DG^{*}(\overline{u}_{n})\approx C_{n}^{uw}\label{eq:m11bb}\\
DG(u_{n})\,C\,DG^{*}(u_{n})&\Longrightarrow DG(\overline{u}_{n})C_{n}^{uu}DG^{*}(\overline{u}_{n}) \approx C_{n}^{ww}\label{eq:m11cc}\end{aligned}$$ thereby obtaining $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:11b}
\overline{u}_{n+1} =\overline{u}_{n}+C_{n}^{uw}(C_{n}^{ww} +\alpha_{n}\Gamma )^{-1}(y^{\eta}-\overline{w}_{n})\end{aligned}$$ that we use as the update formula for the ensemble mean of our iterative scheme. Similarly, from (\[eq:m7\]) - (\[eq:m11cc\]), the selection of $\alpha$ in (\[eq:m5\]) and the stopping criteria (\[eq:m4\]) become $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m12}
\fl \rho \vert\vert \Gamma^{-1/2}( y^{\eta}-\overline{w}_{n}))\vert\vert_{Y} \leq \alpha_{n} \vert\vert \Gamma^{1/2}(C_{n}^{ww}+\alpha_{n}\Gamma)^{-1}(y^{\eta}-\overline{w}_{n})\vert\vert_{Y}.\end{aligned}$$ and (\[eq:m15\]), respectively. The sequence defined in (\[eq:m17\]) satisfies (\[eq:m12\]). In addition, note that the sample mean obtained from the ensemble updated according to formula (\[eq:m16\]) satisfies indeed (\[eq:11b\]). We then obtain the proposed ensemble Kalman scheme presented in Algorithm \[Al1\].
The proposed method as a sequence of linear inverse problems {#3_2}
------------------------------------------------------------
As state earlier, the proof of convergence of Algorithm \[Al1\] is beyond the scope of the present manuscript. Nonetheless, in this subsection we show some relevant properties which shed light on its regularizing effect. In order to study the aforementioned properties it is advantageous to rewrite the proposed algorithm in terms of the following augmented variables [@EnKF_US], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m18}
z=\left(\begin{array}{c}
u\\
w\end{array}\right),\qquad \Xi(z)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
u\\
G(u)\end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ the space $Z\equiv X\times Y$ and the projection operators $H$ and $H^{\perp}$ defined by $Hz=w$ and $H^{\perp}z=u$, respectively. It is not difficult to see that, in terms of these new variables, Algorithm \[Al1\] becomes
[ ]{}\[Al2\]\
Let $\{u_{0}^{(j)}\}_{j=1}^{N_{e}}\subset X$ be the initial ensemble of $N_{e}$ elements. Let $\rho\in (0,1)$ and $\tau>1/\rho$. Define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fwd}
z_{0}^{(j,a)}\equiv \left(\begin{array}{c}
u_{0}^{(j)}\\
G(u_{0}^{(j)})\end{array}\right)\end{aligned}$$ For $n=1,\dots$
- **Prediction step.** Evaluate the forward map (\[eq:m18\]), $$\label{eq:m19}
z_{n}^{(j,f)}=\Xi(z_{n-1}^{(j,a)}).$$ and define sample mean: $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{z}_{n}^{f}=\frac{1}{N_{e}}\sum_{j=1}^{N_{e}} z_{n}^{(j,f)}\end{aligned}$$
- **Discrepancy principle**. If $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dis2}
\vert\vert \Gamma^{-1/2}(y-H\overline{z}_{n}^{f})\vert\vert_{Y}\leq \tau \eta \end{aligned}$$ stop. Output $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:update3}
\overline{u}_{n} \equiv \frac{1}{N_{e}}\sum_{j=1}^{N_{e}} H^{\perp} z_{n}^{(j,f)} =\frac{1}{N_{e}}\sum_{j=1}^{N_{e}} u_{n}^{(j)}\end{aligned}$$ Define sample covariance: $$\begin{aligned}
C_{n} z =\frac{1}{N_{e}-1}\sum_{j=1}^{N_{e}} (z_{n}^{(j,f)}-\overline{z}_{n}^{f})\langle z_{n}^{(j,f)}-\overline{z}_{n}^{f},z\rangle_{Z}.\label{eq:cov}\end{aligned}$$
- **Analysis step.** Update each ensemble member as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:updateB}
z_{n}^{(j,a)}&=&z_{n}^{(j,f)}+C_{n}H^{\ast} (HC_{n}H^{\ast}+\alpha\Gamma)^{-1}(y^{\eta}-Hz_{n}^{(j,f)})\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m13}
\rho \vert\vert \Gamma^{-1/2}(y^{\eta}-H\overline{z}_{n}^{f} )\vert\vert_{Y}\leq \vert\vert \Gamma^{-1/2}( y^{\eta}-H\overline{z}_{n}^{a}(\alpha))\vert\vert_{Y}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:new1}
\overline{z}_{n}^{a}=\frac{1}{N_{e}}\sum_{j=1}^{N_{e}} z_{n}^{(j,a)}\end{aligned}$$
It is not difficult to see [@EnKF_US] that $C_{n}$ in (\[eq:cov\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
C_{n} =\left( \begin{array}{cc}
C_{n}^{uu} &C_{n}^{uw}\\
C_{n}^{wu} & C_{n}^{ww} \end{array}\right)\end{aligned}$$
While the regularization properties of the proposed method will be studied numerically in , it is clear that the essence of the proposed regularizing Kalman method is the selection of $\alpha$ by means of (\[eq:m13\]). Since $0<\rho<1$, the existence of such $\alpha$ is ensured by the following proposition
\[Prp2B\] At every iteration of the scheme, the ensemble mean $\overline{z}_{n}^{a}(\alpha)$ defined by (\[eq:new1\]) satisfies
- $\vert\vert \Gamma^{-1/2}(y-H\overline{z}_{n}^{a}(\alpha))\vert\vert_{Y}\to\vert\vert \Gamma^{-1/2}(y-H\overline{z}_{n}^{f})\vert\vert_{Y}$ as $\alpha\to \infty$.
- $\vert\vert \Gamma^{-1/2}(y-H\overline{z}_{n}^{a}(\alpha))\vert\vert_{Y}\to 0$ as $\alpha\to 0$.
- The map $\alpha\to \vert\vert\Gamma^{-1/2}( y-H\overline{z}_{n}^{a}(\alpha))\vert\vert_{Y}$ is monotonously nondecreasing
**Proof:** The proof can be carried out as in [@Kirsch Theorem 2.16] $\Box$.
Similar to the regularizing LM scheme where each iterate solves a linear inverse problem (see expression (\[eq:m1\])), our ensemble Kalman scheme can be posed as Tikhonov-type regularization. This equivalence motivates the need to further regularize standard Kalman methods.
Note that the ensemble mean of the analysis step (\[eq:updateB\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mean_update}
\overline{z}_{n}^{a}=\overline{z}_{n}^{f}+C_{n}H^{\ast} (HC_{n}H^{\ast}+\alpha\Gamma)^{-1}(y^{\eta}-H\overline{z}_{n}^{f})\end{aligned}$$ We now show that (\[eq:mean\_update\]) can be posed as the solution of a regularized linear inverse problem
\[Prp3\] Assume that at each iteration, the ensemble $\{z_{n}^{(j,f)}\}_{j=1}^{N_{e}}$ is linearly independent. Then, the ensemble mean of the analysis step (\[eq:mean\_update\]) of the ensemble Kalman algorithm satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m19}
\fl \overline{z}_{n}^{a } =\textrm{argmin}_{z\in \mathcal{Z}_{n}}\Big(\vert\vert \Gamma^{-\frac{1}{2}}(y^{\eta}-H\overline{z}_{n}^{f }-H(z-\overline{z}_{n}^{f }))\vert\vert_{Y}^2+\alpha\vert\vert z-\overline{z}_{n}^{f}\vert\vert_{ C_{n}} ^2\Big)\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{Z}_{n}$ is the completion of $\mathcal{R}(C_{n})$ with respect to the norm induced by $\langle\cdot ,C_{n}^{-1}\cdot \rangle_{Z}$ and denoted by $\vert\vert \cdot \vert\vert_{ C_{n}}$.
**Proof:** From the definition of $C_{n}$ in (\[eq:cov\]) it is clear that the rank of $C_{n}$ is given by $\mathcal{R}(C_{n})=span\{ z_{n}^{(j,f}\}$. Also note that $C_{n}$ is a sum of rank-one operators, hence compact. If $N_{e}<\infty$, then $\textrm{dim}(\mathcal{R}(C_{n}))=N_{e}<\infty$; thus from the linearly independence of the initial ensemble it follows that the restriction $C_{n}:\mathcal{R}(C_{n}) \to \mathcal{R}(C_{n})$ is a positive definite operator. Hence its inverse $C_{n}^{-1}:\mathcal{R}(C_{n}) \to\mathcal{R}(C_{n})$ exists. Moreover, we may consider the restriction of $H$ into $\mathcal{R}(C_{n})$ as well as its adjoint $H^{*}:\mathcal{R}(C_{n})\to Y$. Thus, the operators $C_{n}$, $C_{n}^{-1}$ and $H$ can be represented with matrices and so standard matrix algebra can be directly applied to show that (\[eq:m1\]) is equivalent to [@Tarantola] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ape9}
( H^{*}\Gamma^{-1}H + \alpha C_{n}^{-1} )(\overline{z}_{n}^{a }-\overline{z}_{n}^{f}))=H^{*}\Gamma^{-1}(y-H\overline{z}_{n}^{f})\end{aligned}$$ which, from simple standard arguments is the solution to the normal equations associated to the minimization of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ape10}
J(z)\equiv \vert\vert \Gamma^{-\frac{1}{2}}(y-H\overline{z}_{n}^{f }-H(z-\overline{z}_{n}^{f }))\vert\vert^2+\alpha \vert\vert z-\overline{z}_{n}^{f}\vert\vert_{ C_{n}} ^2\end{aligned}$$ in the space $\mathcal{Z}_{n}$. For the case $N_{e}\to \infty$ we may consider $C_{n}^{-1}:\mathcal{R}(C_{n}) \to \mathcal{R}(C_{n})$ as a densely defined unbounded operator. Then a proof based on representers can then be carried out similarly to the proof of Lemma \[lema:Rep1\]. $\Box$.
From Proposition \[Prp3\] we notice that the ensemble mean at each iteration of the ensemble Kalman algorithm is the Tikhonov-regularized solution (in the subspace $\mathcal{Z}_{n}$ with norm $\vert\vert \cdot\vert\vert_{C_{n}}$) of the following “artificial” linear inverse problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ip}
\fl \textit{given\quad $\tilde{y}\equiv y^{\eta}-H\overline{z}_{n}^{f }$\quad find \quad $w\equiv z-\overline{z}_{n}^{f}\in \mathcal{Z}_{n}$ \quad such that\quad }
\tilde{y}= Hw\end{aligned}$$ Let us define $z^{\dagger}=(u^{\dagger}, G(u^{\dagger}))^{T}$ and $w^{\dagger}\equiv z^{\dagger}-\overline{z}_{n}^{f}$ where $u^{\dagger}$, we recall, is the truth. If at the $n$th iteration we were to solve the original identification problem (i.e find/approximate $u^{\dagger}$) that would imply to find $w^{\dagger}$ defined above. In other words, $w^{\dagger}$ is the solution to the inverse problem (\[eq:ip\]) and so the corresponding exact data is $ \tilde{y}^{\dagger}\equiv Hw^{\dagger}$ which is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m20}
\fl \tilde{y}^{\dagger}\equiv Hw^{\dagger}= H(z^{\dagger}-\overline{z}_{n}^{f})=G(u^{\dagger})-H\overline{z}_{n}^{f}=y^{\eta}-\xi-H\overline{z}_{n}^{f}=\tilde{y}-\xi\end{aligned}$$ where we have used (\[eq:data\]) and the definition of $H$. From the previous expression and (\[eq:nl\]) it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m21}
\vert\vert \Gamma^{-1/2}(\tilde{y}^{\dagger}-\tilde{y} )=\vert \vert \Gamma^{-1/2}\xi\vert\vert_{Y}=\eta\end{aligned}$$ which implies that the noise level for the linearized inverse problem solved by $\overline{z}_{n}^{a}$, is the same as the noise level of the original nonlinear inverse problem that we aim at solving by means of the proposed method. Moreover, note that before convergence is achieved, i.e. when $\tau \eta <\vert\vert \Gamma^{-1/2}(y^{\eta}-H\overline{z}_{n}^{f} )\vert\vert_{Y}$ from (\[eq:m13\]) we then have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m22}
\fl \eta< \frac{1}{\tau}\vert\vert \Gamma^{-1/2}(y^{\eta}-H\overline{z}_{n}^{f})\vert\vert_{Y}\leq \rho \vert\vert \Gamma^{-1/2}(y-H\overline{z}_{n}^{f})\vert\vert_{Y}\leq \vert\vert \Gamma^{-1/2}(y^{\eta}-H\overline{z}_{n}^{a}(\alpha))\vert\vert_{Y}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, at each iteration, the selection of $\alpha$ in (\[eq:m13\]) honors the discrepancy principle for the artificial inverse problem that the ensemble mean solves at each iteration of the scheme.
\[rema1\] From the augmented version of the proposed ensemble Kalman method we may appreciate more clearly the role of the parameter $\rho$. Indeed, note from Proposition \[Prp2B\] that a value of $\rho\approx 1$ ($\rho<1$) in (\[eq:m13\]) will results in a very large $\alpha$ and so the estimate $\overline{z}_{n}^{a}(\alpha)$ will move slightly from the previous estimate $\overline{z}_{n}^{f}(\alpha)$. Then, a selection of $\tau\approx 1/\rho$, ($\tau>1/\rho$) for $\rho\approx 1$ will enable us to allow the algorithm to progress until the data misfit is close to the noise level. In contrast, a smaller $\rho$ results in a smaller $\alpha$ and thus a less controlled estimate $\overline{z}_{n}^{f}(\alpha)$. Therefore, choosing $\tau\approx 1/\rho$, ($\tau>1/\rho$) for smaller $\rho$ implies that we need to stop the algorithm via (\[eq:dis2\]) much earlier to prevent the data overfitting as previously discussed. While it seems clear that a choice of $\rho\approx 1$ will result in a more stabilized scheme, it may be also detrimental to the performance of the scheme. In we investigate, with numerical experiments, practical choices for the parameter $\rho$.
The connection with the Bayesian framework {#bayesian}
------------------------------------------
While here we propose an ensemble Kalman method as a derivative-free regularizing method for classical inverse problems, most Kalman-based approaches are posed in a Bayesian inference framework where the objective is to produce an ensemble from which statistical information from the Bayesian posterior can be computed. In order to fully understand the underlying motivation of our method it is instructive to consider the role of the proposed method in the context of Bayesian inversion. Let us then assume that the noise $\xi$ in (\[eq:data\]) centered Gaussian noise with covariance $\Gamma$. Additionally, assume that there is an underlying Gaussian prior distribution $N(\overline{u},C)$ of the unknown $u$, where the mean and covariance of such distribution are $\overline{u}$ and $C$ respectively. Choose an initial ensemble generated from samples of this distribution, i.e. $u_{0}^{(j)}\sim N(\overline{u}, C)$. Let us now consider the first iteration $n=0$ of Algorithm \[Al1\] with a fixed parameter $\alpha=1$ and replace $y^{\eta}$ in (\[eq:m16\]) by $y^{(j)}=y^{\eta}+\eta^{(j)}$ where $\eta^{(j)}\sim N(0,\Gamma)$. Then, Algorithm \[Al1\] becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:m23}
u_{1}^{(j)} =u_{0}^{(j)}+C_{0}^{uw}(C_{0}^{ww} +\Gamma )^{-1}(y^{(j)}-G(u_{0}^{(j)}))\end{aligned}$$ which is also the standard formula for the so-called Ensemble Smoother [@evensen2009data]. If the forward operator $G$ is linear then it can be shown [@EnKF_US] that the updated ensemble $\{u_{1}^{(j)}\}_{j=1}^{N_{e}}$ fully characterizes, as $N_{e}\to \infty$, the conditional probability of $u$ given the data $y^{\eta}$. In other words, (\[eq:m23\]) provides an ensemble approximation of the Bayesian posterior. Moreover, the mean of the ensemble converges, in the limit $N_{e}\to \infty$, to the maximum a posterior estimate, i.e. the maximizer of the aforementioned posterior distribution. The linear-Gaussian case is trivial in the sense that the posterior is Gaussian and it can be easily characterized with its mean and covariance. However, when the forward operator $G$ is nonlinear, such as the ones described in subsection \[test\], the Bayesian posterior is in general non-Gaussian and the ensemble smoother provides only an approximation whose convergence theory, to our best knowledge, is nonexistent. It has been often reported, however, than when straight forward application of (\[eq:m23\]) are used in the general nonlinear case, inaccurate approximations of the Bayesian posterior may be obtained [@Evaluation]. In a recent publication [@Yo], we have demonstrated that the application of iterative regularization methods like the ones proposed here may improve the accuracy of ensemble methods for approximation of the statistical inverse problem. The present work follows the classical approach; we endow an intrinsically Bayesian method with the regularizing properties needed to address deterministic inverse problem in a derivative-free easy-to-implement computational framework.
Small ensemble size ill-conditioning
------------------------------------
As stated above, issues of stability of ensemble Kalman methods for data assimilation have been often reported. Ad-hoc fixes such as covariance localization and covariance inflation have become standard practice to address such lack of stability which have been typically associated and more noted with implementations of small ensemble size with respect to the number of measurements [@EnKF_Review]. Indeed, note that since $\textrm{dim}(Y)=M<\infty$,then $\textrm{dim}(\mathcal{R}(C_{n}^{ww}))=\min\{N_{e},M\}$. Clearly, when $N_{e}<M$, $C_{n}^{ww}$ is singular and, even though $(C_{n}^{ww}+\Gamma)^{-1}$ is strictly positive definite, it could potentially have a large conditioning number for some choices of $\Gamma$, which is in turn selected according to measurement information. This type ill-conditioning when $N_{e}<M$ has the similar effect of the ill-posedness of the Fréchet derivative of the forward map in the regularizing LM scheme. Thus, it comes as no surprise that the application of ideas from iterative regularization techniques can be useful for addressing the ill-conditioning of the method when used with a small ensemble size with respect to the number of measurements. From either sources of ill-conditioning, it is clear that ensemble Kalman methods need regularization and, to our best knowledge, the standard fixes indicated above do not possess a mathematical framework which provides general guidelines for developing robust implementations. In contrast, iterative regularization has a rigorous general mathematical ground; our goal here is to use it as the tool to empower ensemble Kalman methods with the stabilization/regularization required to applied them as accurate robust but computationally tractable solvers for large-scale PDE-constrained inverse problems.
Computational aspects of the scheme {#Sec:cost}
-----------------------------------
Under our assumption that the number of measurements is small compared to the dimension of the (discretized) parameters space, the main computational cost of the proposed scheme is in the evaluation of the forward map in the prediction step (\[eq:m14\]). The construction of $C_{n}^{uw}$, $C_{n}^{ww}$ as well as the inversion of $(C_{n}^{ww} +\alpha_{n}\Gamma )^{-1}$ are negligible for the number of measurement considered for the present applications.Therefore, the cost of Algorithm \[Al1\] is mainly $n^{*}N_{e}$ forward model evaluations where $n^{\star}$ is the stopping iteration determined by (\[eq:m13\]). It is clear that Algorithm \[Al1\] is computationally feasible provided that, with a few $N_{e}$ ensemble members, a reasonably accurate estimate can be achieved in only a few iterations. In Section \[Numerics\] we provide an extensive numerical investigation of the performance and computational feasibility of the scheme. In some cases, a relatively large number of ensembles are required to achieve stable computations with reasonable accuracy.
Numerical Experiments {#Numerics}
=====================
By means of numerical experiments, in this section we investigate the convergence and regularizing properties of the iterative regularizing ensemble Kalman method. We consider the identification problems on the test models from subsection \[test\] and conduct synthetic experiments where we apply the proposed scheme with synthetic data generated with a true parameter. Algorithm \[Al1\] then produces an estimate (the ensemble mean (\[eq:m7A\])) which we compare against the truth in order to assess the accuracy of the scheme. By conducting synthetic experiments, our aim is to study the accuracy, convergence and regularizing properties of the proposed methods with respect to
- ensemble size $N_{e}$
- tunable parameters $\rho$ and $\tau$
- number of measurements $M$
- noise level $\eta$
- selection of initial ensemble $\{u_{0}^{(j)}\}_{j=1}^{N_{e}}$
Test Model I. Darcy flow {#Darcy_Num}
------------------------
We now describe the generation of synthetic data from the Darcy flow model of subsection \[Darcy\]. We consider the identification of the log of the “true” hydraulic conductivity $u^{\dagger}$ of Figure \[Fig1\] (left). The true conductivity is a random field drawn from a Gaussian measure $N(0,C)$ with covariance $C:L^{2}(D)\to L^{2}(D)$ defined by $$\label{eq:cova2}
C \phi(x) = \int_{D}c(x, y)\phi (y){ \,\textrm{d}}y$$ with a spherical covariance function $$\label{eq:cova2B}
c(x, y) = \left\{\begin{array}{cc}
c_{0}\Big[1-\frac{3}{2}\frac{h}{a}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{h^3}{a^3}\Big] &\textrm{if}~~h\equiv \vert x-y\vert<a \\
0 &\textrm{if}~~h>a \end{array}\right.$$ where $a>0$ is the correlation length and $c_{0}>0$ is the variance of the field. Gaussian distributions with covariance operators of this type are often used to model the geologic properties of some formations [@geos]. The true log conductivity field is used in equations (\[eq:a1\])-(\[eq:a3\]) to find the true head field displayed in Figure \[Fig1\] (middle). The latter is then used in (\[eq:a4\]) where the measurement locations $\{x_{m}\}_{m=1}^{M}$ will be specified below. Then, Gaussian noise is added to the synthetic data; the norm of the noise is $1\%$ of the norm of the data. The Darcy flow model is solved numerically with cell-centered finite differences [@Mixed]. The matrix $\Gamma$ is simply a diagonal matrix with entries proportional to the size of the corresponding entry of $G(u^{\dagger})$. In order to avoid inverse crimes, Algorithm \[Al1\] is applied on a coarser grid (of $80\times 80$ cells) than the one (of $160\times 160$ cells) used for the generation of the synthetic data.
For the experiments of this section, we apply Algorithm \[Al1\] with an initial ensemble that consists of $N_{e}$ (to be defined below) random fields drawn from the same Gaussian measure $N(0,C)$ that we use to generate the truth. Some members of the initial ensemble are displayed in Figure \[Fig2\]. The generation of these fields (as well as the truth) is conducted by means of the Karhunen-Loeve (KL) expansion of a random field distributed according to $N(0,C)$. Although the truth and the prior ensemble are samples from the same probability distribution, note that (i) the truth is generated on a much finer grid and (ii) the truth (or its projection on the coarser grid) is not part of the initial ensemble.
The motivation for selecting the truth as a realization from the same distribution from the initial ensemble is twofold. On the one hand, in subsurface applications there is often prior knowledge of the geologic properties in terms of a prior probability distribution for the truth. It is then natural, as in the Bayesian approach, to use this distribution to generate the initial ensemble. On the other hand, by choosing the truth and the initial ensemble form the same probability distribution we expect to reduce (although not completely eliminate) the effect that the selection of an initial ensemble has on the performance of the proposed scheme. More precisely, from the invariance subspace property (Proposition \[Prp2\]) we know that the approximation provided by our method lives in the subspace generated by the initial ensemble. Therefore, each initial ensemble will produce a different estimate. However, by generating the initial ensemble from the same distribution that we use to generate the truth, our initial ensembles, while different from the truth, have the same regularity and spatial structure (e.g. correlation) of the true field. In the following subsection we study an inverse problem where the truth is a prescribed field with no association whatsoever to the initial ensemble and there we study the effect that the spatial correlation of the initial ensemble has on the accuracy of the proposed ensemble method to identify the truth.
While the initial ensemble generated as described above will provide estimates with the same spatial features of the truth, from the aforementioned subspace property we certainly expect that the results form Algorithm \[Al1\] will vary with the selection of the ensemble. Therefore, in order to fully assess the numerical properties of this algorithm without the influence of the initial ensemble, for the present work we will conduct multiple experiments corresponding to different choices of the initial ensemble and provide averages over these experiments and thus reliable quantities related to the average performance of the scheme. It is worth reiterating that the initial ensemble is a design parameter that can be chosen in various ways according to available information.
![Left: true log-conductivity. Middle: log-data misfit. Right: relative error with respect to the truth []{data-label="Fig1"}](True_GW "fig:") ![Left: true log-conductivity. Middle: log-data misfit. Right: relative error with respect to the truth []{data-label="Fig1"}](True_GWp "fig:") ![Left: true log-conductivity. Middle: log-data misfit. Right: relative error with respect to the truth []{data-label="Fig1"}](Well_Loc "fig:")
![Some elements from the initial ensemble.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](Prior)
### Effect of the ensemble size $N_{e}$.
We generate synthetic data as described below with the array of 100 measurement locations displayed in Figure \[Fig1\] (right). We use these data in Algorithm \[Al1\] with a (fixed) parameter $\rho=0.7$. In order to appreciate the effect of the early termination of the scheme, the algorithm is allowed to progress even when the data misfit goes below $\eta /\rho$ (recall the stopping criteria (\[eq:m15\]) requires $\tau>1/\rho$). In the top (resp. bottom) of Figure \[Fig3\] we plot the relative error with respect to the truth $\vert\vert u_{n} -u^{\dagger}\vert\vert_{L^{2}(D)} /\vert\vert u^{\dagger}\vert\vert_{L^{2}(D)}$ (resp. log - data misfit) from 40 different experiments corresponding to different selection of the initial ensemble (recall each initial ensemble is a set of $N_{e}$ draws from a the Gaussian distribution defined above). Different panels corresponds to different selections of ensemble size $N_{e}$. Each of the blue curves (resp. red curves) represents the log-data misfit (resp. error with respect to the truth) that we obtain from the ensemble mean $\overline{u}_{n}$ (expression (\[eq:m7A\])) computed with Algorithm \[Al1\] initialized with each of the 40 initial ensembles mentioned earlier. We reiterate that by “data misfit” we mean the misfit between data and the average of the model outputs from the ensemble defined in (\[eq:m15\]) which is, in turn, the quantity monitored for the convergence of the scheme.
The green curve in the bottom (resp. top) of represents the log-data misfit (resp. error w.r.t truth) averaged, at each iteration, over the 40 experiments from different initial ensembles. The dotted vertical line defines the iteration number after which the averaged relative error w.r.t. the truth starts increasing. The dotted horizontal line in (bottom) indicates the log of the value of $\eta/\rho$. The solid red line indicates the value of the noise level $\eta$. As we expected, these results confirm that Algorithm \[Al1\] reduces the relative error w.r.t. truth. However, after some number of iterations, this error will start increasing unless the algorithm is stopped. The results from reveals that there is a critical ensemble size for which, on average (over several experiments with different initial ensembles), the discrepancy principle (\[eq:m15\]), with $\tau\approx 1/\rho$ is a reliable stopping criteria which terminates the algorithm before the error w.r.t. the truth increases due to data overfitting. In other words, the stability that the scheme inherits from the regularizing LM scheme depends on the ensemble size. For this experiment the critical ensemble size is $N_{e}=125$. In average, for $N_{e}<125$ the error with respect to the truth of the ensemble mean will increase before the data misfit has dropped below $\eta /\rho$. For $N_{e}\ge 125$ we observe that the error will increase when the data misfit has reached the value in $\eta/\rho$ as we would expect if the regularization properties were inherited from the regularizing LM scheme. For larger ensemble sizes $N_{e}\ge 200$ the relative error with respect to the truth will not increase even when the data misfit takes values below $\eta/\rho$ but a slow increase starts showing when the data misfit drops below the noise level.
We also note from that, as we increase the ensemble size, the ensemble mean $\overline{u}_{n}$ provides a more accurate approximation of the truth (provided the scheme is properly stopped). However, a further increase in the ensemble size results in higher computational cost of the scheme. In Figure \[Fig4\] we show the ensemble mean that we obtain, when Algorithm \[Al1\] is initialized with different ensemble sizes $N_{e}$ and the scheme stopped according to (\[eq:m15\]) with $\tau=1/\rho$. For this result, the members of the smaller initial ensembles are contained in the larger ones. We can clearly appreciate that for smaller ensemble sizes, the stabilization of the scheme may be lost and thus its accuracy.
![Relative error w.r.t. the truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) from 40 different experiments with $\rho=0.7$ associated to different initial ensembles of size (from left to right) $N_{e}=75,100,125,200,400$[]{data-label="Fig3"}](FigII_75 "fig:") ![Relative error w.r.t. the truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) from 40 different experiments with $\rho=0.7$ associated to different initial ensembles of size (from left to right) $N_{e}=75,100,125,200,400$[]{data-label="Fig3"}](FigII_100 "fig:") ![Relative error w.r.t. the truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) from 40 different experiments with $\rho=0.7$ associated to different initial ensembles of size (from left to right) $N_{e}=75,100,125,200,400$[]{data-label="Fig3"}](FigII_125 "fig:") ![Relative error w.r.t. the truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) from 40 different experiments with $\rho=0.7$ associated to different initial ensembles of size (from left to right) $N_{e}=75,100,125,200,400$[]{data-label="Fig3"}](FigII_200 "fig:") ![Relative error w.r.t. the truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) from 40 different experiments with $\rho=0.7$ associated to different initial ensembles of size (from left to right) $N_{e}=75,100,125,200,400$[]{data-label="Fig3"}](FigII_400 "fig:")\
![Relative error w.r.t. the truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) from 40 different experiments with $\rho=0.7$ associated to different initial ensembles of size (from left to right) $N_{e}=75,100,125,200,400$[]{data-label="Fig3"}](FigI_75 "fig:") ![Relative error w.r.t. the truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) from 40 different experiments with $\rho=0.7$ associated to different initial ensembles of size (from left to right) $N_{e}=75,100,125,200,400$[]{data-label="Fig3"}](FigI_100 "fig:") ![Relative error w.r.t. the truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) from 40 different experiments with $\rho=0.7$ associated to different initial ensembles of size (from left to right) $N_{e}=75,100,125,200,400$[]{data-label="Fig3"}](FigI_125 "fig:") ![Relative error w.r.t. the truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) from 40 different experiments with $\rho=0.7$ associated to different initial ensembles of size (from left to right) $N_{e}=75,100,125,200,400$[]{data-label="Fig3"}](FigI_200 "fig:") ![Relative error w.r.t. the truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) from 40 different experiments with $\rho=0.7$ associated to different initial ensembles of size (from left to right) $N_{e}=75,100,125,200,400$[]{data-label="Fig3"}](FigI_400 "fig:")
![Log - conductivity estimates obtained from an initial ensemble size of (from left to right) 75, 100, 150, 200 (the larger ensembles contains the smaller ones). These estimates are the ensemble mean obtained from Algorithm \[Al1\] with $\tau=1/\rho$ in (\[eq:m15\]).[]{data-label="Fig4"}](Reg_75_15 "fig:") ![Log - conductivity estimates obtained from an initial ensemble size of (from left to right) 75, 100, 150, 200 (the larger ensembles contains the smaller ones). These estimates are the ensemble mean obtained from Algorithm \[Al1\] with $\tau=1/\rho$ in (\[eq:m15\]).[]{data-label="Fig4"}](Reg_100_15 "fig:") ![Log - conductivity estimates obtained from an initial ensemble size of (from left to right) 75, 100, 150, 200 (the larger ensembles contains the smaller ones). These estimates are the ensemble mean obtained from Algorithm \[Al1\] with $\tau=1/\rho$ in (\[eq:m15\]).[]{data-label="Fig4"}](Reg_150_15 "fig:") ![Log - conductivity estimates obtained from an initial ensemble size of (from left to right) 75, 100, 150, 200 (the larger ensembles contains the smaller ones). These estimates are the ensemble mean obtained from Algorithm \[Al1\] with $\tau=1/\rho$ in (\[eq:m15\]).[]{data-label="Fig4"}](Reg_200_13 "fig:") ![Log - conductivity estimates obtained from an initial ensemble size of (from left to right) 75, 100, 150, 200 (the larger ensembles contains the smaller ones). These estimates are the ensemble mean obtained from Algorithm \[Al1\] with $\tau=1/\rho$ in (\[eq:m15\]).[]{data-label="Fig4"}](True_GW "fig:")
### Effect of the number of measurements.
We now investigate the relation between the number of measurements and the critical size that enable us to observe the regularization properties inherited by the regularizing LM scheme. As discussed in subsection \[unreg\] stability issues for $N_{e}<M$ may arise unless the parameter $\alpha_{n}$ controls the inversion in (\[eq:m16\]). We recall that the selection of $\alpha_{n}$ according to (\[eq:m12\]) is inspired by the regularizing LM scheme which addresses a different type of ill-posedness (although is reflected in a similar fashion). Thus, this selection of $\alpha_{n}$ may not necessarily address the stability issues that arise in the ensemble method when $N_{e}<M$. In the following experiments we show that under some conditions, the selection of $\alpha_{n}$ and the stopping criteria does indeed resolve the stability issues even when $N_{e}<M$.
We conduct a set of experiments, each of them similar to the one described in the preceding subsection but with synthetic data generated from different measurement configurations. For each measurement configuration and ensemble size, we conduct a set of 40 experiments corresponding to different initial ensembles generated as described earlier. Then, log-data misfit and relative error with respect to the truth were computed and averaged (over the 40 experiments) at each iteration of the scheme. For clarity we only report these averaged quantities corresponding to each ensemble size and each measurement configurations. In the left column of and we display the measurement configuration for each experiment. The middle and right columns of Figures \[Fig5\] and \[Fig6\] show the (averaged over different experiments) log data misfit and error w.r.t truth for four different ensemble sizes (increasing from top to bottom in the legend of these Figures). The dotted horizontal line in the middle columns of and denotes the value of the data misfit corresponding to $\eta /\rho$. The vertical line in the middle and right columns indicate the iteration after which the error w.r.t truth increases for the second choice (from to top to bottom) of ensemble size displayed on the legend of these figures. It is important to note that, irrespective of the ensemble size, the proposed algorithm does stabilize the estimates obtained in the early iterations. In other words, it avoids uncontrolled estimates that some standard unregularized Kalman-based methods may display in the first couple of iterations. However, the relation between ensemble size and number of measurements has severe effects on the ability of the stopping criteria (\[eq:m15\]) to successfully terminate the algorithm under the guidelines that arise from the application of iterative regularization (i.e. with $\tau \approx 1/\rho$). Let us, for example, examine the case $M\leq 100$ reported in Figure \[Fig5\]. For smaller measurement locations (i.e. $M=25,36$), an ensemble size equal to the number of measurements $N_{e}= M$, on average, will provide an estimate whose error with respect to the truth will decrease in the first iterations but then starts increasing long before the data-misfit has reached the value $\eta/\rho$. A similar but less drastic behavior is observed for larger number of measurements ($M=49, 64$). However, as we increase $M$, we find that a selection $N_{e}=M$ yields results that seemed to be stabilized whenever the scheme is stopped according to (\[eq:m15\]) with $\tau=1/\rho$. Note that for these measurement configurations with $M\leq100$, the ensemble size needs to be larger than the number of measurements so that the computational solution is properly stabilized with the proposed stopping criteria.
Let us consider now the case $M>100$ reported in Figure \[Fig6\]. In contrast to the previous case where an ensemble of a size larger than that number of measurements is needed for the stabilization of the computations, here certain choices of $N_{e}$ with $N_{e}<M$ may suffice. Note for example that for $M=225$, an ensemble with $N_{e}=169$ will result in stable computations by using (\[eq:m15\]) with $\tau\approx 1/\rho$. Interestingly, for larger $M$ it is more evident that the selection $N_{e}>M$ is unnecessary for the algorithm to exhibit the regularization properties based on the stopping criteria mentioned above. Indeed, for $M=400$ and $N=484$ we note that $N_{e}=196$ and $N_{e}=225$ will clearly provide regularized estimates in the sense that their error will not increase before the data misfit reaches the value $\eta /\rho$. For these cases with $M> 100$, a selection of $N_{e}\ge M$ will clearly result in not only stable but an accurate identification. However, it is worth reiterating that for large-scale applications, the smallest ensemble size that produce a regularized solution is desirable due to the high computational cost of the forward simulations. In summary, there seems to be an apparent critical number of measurements ($M=100$) below of which a selection of $N_{e}>M$ is needed for the proposed method to fully stabilize the scheme. However, for larger number of measurements the regularizing properties of the scheme enable us to use a selection of $N_{e}<M$ which results in a reasonable computational cost.
![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](Well_Loc_3 "fig:") ![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](FigTotI3 "fig:") ![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](FigTotII3 "fig:")\
![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](Well_Loc_4 "fig:") ![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](FigTotI4 "fig:") ![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](FigTotII4 "fig:")\
![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](Well_Loc_5 "fig:") ![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](FigTotI5 "fig:") ![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](FigTotII5 "fig:")\
![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](Well_Loc_6 "fig:") ![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](FigTotI6 "fig:") ![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](FigTotII6 "fig:") ![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](Well_Loc_7 "fig:") ![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](FigTotI7 "fig:") ![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](FigTotII7 "fig:")\
![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment. []{data-label="Fig6"}](Well_Loc_8 "fig:") ![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment. []{data-label="Fig6"}](FigTotI8 "fig:") ![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment. []{data-label="Fig6"}](FigTotII8 "fig:")\
![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment. []{data-label="Fig6"}](Well_Loc_9 "fig:") ![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment. []{data-label="Fig6"}](FigTotI9 "fig:") ![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment. []{data-label="Fig6"}](FigTotII9 "fig:")\
![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment. []{data-label="Fig6"}](Well_Loc_12 "fig:") ![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment. []{data-label="Fig6"}](FigTotI12 "fig:") ![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment. []{data-label="Fig6"}](FigTotII12 "fig:")\
![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment. []{data-label="Fig6"}](Well_Loc_12 "fig:") ![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment. []{data-label="Fig6"}](FigTotI13 "fig:") ![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment. []{data-label="Fig6"}](FigTotII13 "fig:")\
![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment. []{data-label="Fig6"}](Well_Loc_14 "fig:") ![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment. []{data-label="Fig6"}](FigTotI14 "fig:") ![Numerical results with the proposed method for $\rho=0.7$ and different measurement configurations and ensemble sizes. Left column: measurement configuration. Middle column: relative error w.r.t. the truth. Right column: Log - data misfit. Quantities are averaged at each iteration, over 40 experiments corresponding to different experiment. []{data-label="Fig6"}](FigTotII14 "fig:")
### The tunable parameters $\rho$.
As we discussed in subsection \[3\_2\], the parameter $\rho$ controls the ensemble updates. The choice of this parameter has a significant effect on both accuracy and cost of the proposed scheme. We now investigate this effect with our Darcy flow model with the measurement configuration of $100$ locations displayed in Figure \[Fig1\] (right). The results from the preceding section indicate that an ensemble of size $N_{e}>100$ will provide the stabilization needed with the choice $\tau\approx 1/\rho$ in the stopping criteria. We select $N_{e}=150$ for conducting a set of experiments where Algorithm \[Al1\] is applied with several choices of $\rho$. For each choices of $\rho$, the experiment is repeated 40 times with a different selection of the initial ensemble generated as we previously described. In Figure \[Fig7\] we display, for these 40 experiments, the log-data misfit (bottom) and the relative error with respect to the truth (top) of the ensemble mean obtained with the proposed scheme with different choices of $\rho$. The horizontal dotted line in Figure \[Fig7\] (bottom) represent the log of $\eta/\rho$. Note that the stopping criteria (\[eq:m15\]) with $\tau \approx 1/\rho$ provides a reasonable stabilization of algorithm. For $\rho<0.7$ we observe that the error with respect to the truth increases quite rapidly when the data misfit drops below the value $\eta/\rho$. We note that, on average, there is a slight decrease of the error with respect to the truth as we increase $\rho$. However, this slight increase in the accuracy of the identification has associated an increase in the computational cost. For the Darcy flow model, our experiments suggest that $\rho=0.7$ represents a reasonable choice in terms of accuracy and cost.
![Regularizing ensemble method applied with $N_{e}=150$, $100$ measurements and $\rho$ (from left to right) $\rho=0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.85$. Top row: relative error w.r.t. truth. Bottom row: Log - data misfit. []{data-label="Fig7"}](FigII_150_0_5 "fig:") ![Regularizing ensemble method applied with $N_{e}=150$, $100$ measurements and $\rho$ (from left to right) $\rho=0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.85$. Top row: relative error w.r.t. truth. Bottom row: Log - data misfit. []{data-label="Fig7"}](FigII_150_0_6 "fig:") ![Regularizing ensemble method applied with $N_{e}=150$, $100$ measurements and $\rho$ (from left to right) $\rho=0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.85$. Top row: relative error w.r.t. truth. Bottom row: Log - data misfit. []{data-label="Fig7"}](FigII_150_0_7 "fig:") ![Regularizing ensemble method applied with $N_{e}=150$, $100$ measurements and $\rho$ (from left to right) $\rho=0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.85$. Top row: relative error w.r.t. truth. Bottom row: Log - data misfit. []{data-label="Fig7"}](FigII_150_0_8 "fig:") ![Regularizing ensemble method applied with $N_{e}=150$, $100$ measurements and $\rho$ (from left to right) $\rho=0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.85$. Top row: relative error w.r.t. truth. Bottom row: Log - data misfit. []{data-label="Fig7"}](FigII_150_0_85 "fig:")\
![Regularizing ensemble method applied with $N_{e}=150$, $100$ measurements and $\rho$ (from left to right) $\rho=0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.85$. Top row: relative error w.r.t. truth. Bottom row: Log - data misfit. []{data-label="Fig7"}](FigI_150_0_5 "fig:") ![Regularizing ensemble method applied with $N_{e}=150$, $100$ measurements and $\rho$ (from left to right) $\rho=0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.85$. Top row: relative error w.r.t. truth. Bottom row: Log - data misfit. []{data-label="Fig7"}](FigI_150_0_6 "fig:") ![Regularizing ensemble method applied with $N_{e}=150$, $100$ measurements and $\rho$ (from left to right) $\rho=0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.85$. Top row: relative error w.r.t. truth. Bottom row: Log - data misfit. []{data-label="Fig7"}](FigI_150_0_7 "fig:") ![Regularizing ensemble method applied with $N_{e}=150$, $100$ measurements and $\rho$ (from left to right) $\rho=0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.85$. Top row: relative error w.r.t. truth. Bottom row: Log - data misfit. []{data-label="Fig7"}](FigI_150_0_8 "fig:") ![Regularizing ensemble method applied with $N_{e}=150$, $100$ measurements and $\rho$ (from left to right) $\rho=0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.85$. Top row: relative error w.r.t. truth. Bottom row: Log - data misfit. []{data-label="Fig7"}](FigI_150_0_85 "fig:")
### Regularizing properties of the proposed method in the small-noise limit
In this section we conduct experiments to study the regularization properties of the proposed scheme in the small noise limit. The previous experiments show that with a reasonable selection of the ensemble size with respect to the measurement configurations, the mean of the proposed ensemble method achieve stable approximations of the truth. In other words, the early termination of the scheme, say at iteration $n^{\star}$, yields an approximation $u^{\eta}\equiv \overline{u}_{n^{\star}}$ given by the mean of the ensemble at the stopped iteration. As discussed earlier, the aim of our iterative regularizing algorithm is to provide a stable approximation in the sense that, as $\eta\to 0$, $u^{\eta}\to u$ where $G(u)=G(u^{\dagger})$. Due to the lack of uniqueness of the identification problem we cannot claim that $u=u^{\dagger}$ (the estimate converges to the truth). Nevertheless, we expect that the elements $u\in X$ such that $G(u)=G(u^{\dagger})$ will possess similar spacial features of the truth.
We consider again the configuration with $M=100$ as before and we vary the ensemble size. In Figure \[Fig8\] we show the relative error with respect to the truth (top) and the log-data misfit (bottom) obtained for each ensemble size with a different selection of noise levels. The level of noise is selected so that the norm of the noise relative to the data is of the percentage indicated in the plots. The matrix $\Gamma$ as selected as described earlier but kept fixed for these experiments associated to different noise levels. For this particular experiment the algorithm is stopped according to (\[eq:m15\]) with $\tau=1/\rho$. We note that for the smallest noise considered here $0.5\%$ an ensemble of size $N_{e}=150$ was needed to properly stabilize the computations. Again, this shows that the proposed method, for sufficient large ensemble, inherits the regularization properties of the regularization LM scheme of [@Hanke].
![Log - data misfit (bottom) and relative error w.r.t. the truth (top) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size of (from left to right) 75, 100, 150, 200 and different choices of noise level.[]{data-label="Fig8"}](Noise_norm75 "fig:") ![Log - data misfit (bottom) and relative error w.r.t. the truth (top) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size of (from left to right) 75, 100, 150, 200 and different choices of noise level.[]{data-label="Fig8"}](Noise_norm100 "fig:") ![Log - data misfit (bottom) and relative error w.r.t. the truth (top) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size of (from left to right) 75, 100, 150, 200 and different choices of noise level.[]{data-label="Fig8"}](Noise_norm150 "fig:") ![Log - data misfit (bottom) and relative error w.r.t. the truth (top) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size of (from left to right) 75, 100, 150, 200 and different choices of noise level.[]{data-label="Fig8"}](Noise_norm200 "fig:")\
![Log - data misfit (bottom) and relative error w.r.t. the truth (top) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size of (from left to right) 75, 100, 150, 200 and different choices of noise level.[]{data-label="Fig8"}](Noise_data75 "fig:") ![Log - data misfit (bottom) and relative error w.r.t. the truth (top) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size of (from left to right) 75, 100, 150, 200 and different choices of noise level.[]{data-label="Fig8"}](Noise_data100 "fig:") ![Log - data misfit (bottom) and relative error w.r.t. the truth (top) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size of (from left to right) 75, 100, 150, 200 and different choices of noise level.[]{data-label="Fig8"}](Noise_data150 "fig:") ![Log - data misfit (bottom) and relative error w.r.t. the truth (top) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size of (from left to right) 75, 100, 150, 200 and different choices of noise level.[]{data-label="Fig8"}](Noise_data200 "fig:")
### Comparison with the regularizing LM scheme.
In Figure \[Fig9\] we display the numerical results from the application of the proposed scheme to identify the log-conductivity described in the preceding subsections. As before, we used 40 different experiments corresponding to different initial ensembles of size $N_{e}=150$. In this case, however, we compare with the regularizing LM scheme applied to the solution of the parameter identification but constrained to the subspace generated by the initial ensemble. The numerical results displayed in Figure \[Fig9\] suggests that the proposed ensemble Kalman method produces a derivative-free approximation of the regularizing LM scheme where the Fréchet derivative is approximated by the ensemble covariance. Moreover, these results show that the proposed ensemble Kalman algorithm is minimizing the data misfit is a stable fashion.
![Log-data misfit (left) and rel. error w.r.t truth (right) from estimates obtained with the regularizing LM scheme and the proposed ensemble method (Results from 50 experiments with different initial ensembles of size $N_{e}=150$).[]{data-label="Fig9"}](compaLM_misfit "fig:") ![Log-data misfit (left) and rel. error w.r.t truth (right) from estimates obtained with the regularizing LM scheme and the proposed ensemble method (Results from 50 experiments with different initial ensembles of size $N_{e}=150$).[]{data-label="Fig9"}](compaLM_error "fig:")
Test Model II: EIT {#num_EIT}
------------------
In this section we investigate the performance of the regularizing ensemble Kalman method for the solution of the EIT problem described in subsection \[EIT\]. Similar to the previous subsection, our aim is to understand fundamental aspects of the regularizing properties of the scheme. In particular, in this subsection our aim is to observe the effect of the selection of the initial ensemble on the accuracy and cost of the proposed technique. In contrast to the previous subsection where the true unknown field was a random draw from a distribution that we used as well for the generation of the initial ensemble, here we prescribe a conductivity $\kappa$ that consist of three cicular inclusions on a circular domain $D$ of unit radius similar to the one used in [@WM]. This true conductivity is displayed in along with the configuration of 16 electrodes used in the CEM described in subsection \[EIT\]. We consider 15 current patterns where current is injected between a pair of adjacent electrodes. For each current pattern we collect measurements on all the electrodes thereby having $M=240$ observations. We choose a value $z_{k}=0.01$ for the contact impedances of all the electrodes.
In the middle and middle-right of we show some of the true voltages obtained with the FEM solver from EIDORS MATLAB framework [@EIDORS]. Synthetic data were generated from the aforementioned voltages by adding Gaussian random noise of standard deviation of $2\%$ of the signal. Inverse crimes are avoided by using a finer mesh (with 7744 elements) than the one used for the application of Algorithm \[Al1\] (mesh of 6400 elements). The experiments in this subsection are focused on the electrode and measurement configuration described earlier.
![Left: true log-conductivity. Middle and Right: Two of the 15 voltage simulations patterns computed with the true conductivity. []{data-label="FigEIT1"}](True_EIT "fig:") ![Left: true log-conductivity. Middle and Right: Two of the 15 voltage simulations patterns computed with the true conductivity. []{data-label="FigEIT1"}](True_vol1 "fig:") ![Left: true log-conductivity. Middle and Right: Two of the 15 voltage simulations patterns computed with the true conductivity. []{data-label="FigEIT1"}](True_vol2 "fig:")
Note that the experiments from this subsection comprise the more general case where there is no characterization of the truth in terms of a probability distribution. In this case, we still consider an initial ensemble generated from samples from a Gaussian measure $N(0,C)$. However, this probability distribution is completely artificial and defined only for the purpose of generating an initial ensemble. In other words, we assume no link between the truth and our choice of initial ensemble. We consider the covariance operator that arises from the Wittle-Matter correlation function [@WM]. In 2D, such covariance operator takes the form $$\label{eq:cova1}
C =\omega L^2( 1-L^2 \Delta)^{-\theta}$$ where $\Delta$ is the Laplacian operator, $L$ is a correlation length. For the purpose of this work we regard $\theta$ as a parameter that controls the regularity of the samples and $\omega$ as a scaling constant. Some samples from such distribution with parameter $L=0.2$, $\theta=5$ and $\omega=0.1$ are displayed in . As before, samples from $N(0,C)$ are obtained by means of the KL expansion of random fields $N(0,C)$. Samples are generated on a regular rectangular domain that contains the computational domain shown in and projected on the FEM domain used for the computation of the CEM.
![Draws from a Gaussian prior of the form (\[eq:cova1\]) with $L=0.2$ and $\theta=5$. []{data-label="FigEIT2"}](Perm_PriorB_1_1 "fig:") ![Draws from a Gaussian prior of the form (\[eq:cova1\]) with $L=0.2$ and $\theta=5$. []{data-label="FigEIT2"}](Perm_PriorB_1_2 "fig:") ![Draws from a Gaussian prior of the form (\[eq:cova1\]) with $L=0.2$ and $\theta=5$. []{data-label="FigEIT2"}](Perm_PriorB_1_3 "fig:") ![Draws from a Gaussian prior of the form (\[eq:cova1\]) with $L=0.2$ and $\theta=5$. []{data-label="FigEIT2"}](Perm_PriorB_1_4 "fig:") ![Draws from a Gaussian prior of the form (\[eq:cova1\]) with $L=0.2$ and $\theta=5$. []{data-label="FigEIT2"}](Perm_PriorB_1_5 "fig:")
### Ensemble size $N_{e}$, tunable parameter $\rho$ and small noise limit.
In subsection \[Darcy\_Num\] we have extensively studied the role of ensemble size and tunable parameters. The aim here is to briefly verify that similar results are obtained when Algorithm \[Al1\] is applied to the EIT problem. For a fixed parameter $\rho=0.5$ we conduct a set of experiments where the scheme is applied to 40 different initial ensembles generated from the Gaussian measure described above. The corresponding log-data misfit (bottom) and relative error (top) from these experiments are displayed in . As with the previous test model, the ensemble size is crucial to the performance of the proposed iterative scheme. We observe a critical ensemble size of $N_{e}=75$ above which the proposed scheme is properly stabilized when the early termination is carried out according to (\[eq:m15\]) with the selection of $\tau\approx 1/\rho$ provided by the theory of the regularizing LM scheme. In this case we note again that the critical size above which the method exhibits regularizing properties was smaller than the number of measurements; this confirms that the proposed scheme addresses the small ensemble effect described in subsection \[unreg\]. The ensemble mean $\overline{u}_{n}$ from 5 experiments (from different initial ensembles) with $N_{e}=100$ are displayed in .
In we fix $N_{e}=100$ and now perform a set of experiments with different selections of $\rho$ in (\[eq:m12\]). As before, we confirm that for this sufficiently large ensemble size, the selection of $\tau>1/\rho$ in the termination of the scheme ensures stabilized estimates. It is worth noticing that the aforementioned selection of $\tau$ is essential as the relative error increases abruptly once the data misfit drops below the value $\eta/\rho$. While there is a slight increase in the accuracy (in terms of the error w.r.t truth) as we increase $\rho$, we clearly observe that the number of iterations and so the computational cost of the scheme increases substantially. For this case we observe that $\rho=0.5$ provides a reasonable balance between computational cost and accuracy.
Finally, in we show the effect of the stabilization of the scheme as the noise decreases. These results corresponds to the application of the scheme with synthetic data generated from the electrode configuration described before but with different noise levels. The results from corresponds to averages, at each iteration, from 40 experiments obtained from 40 different selections of initial ensembles. As we expected, the proposed ensemble scheme inherits the regularizing properties of the LM method and produces stable computations that converge, in a stable fashion as $\eta\to 0$.
![Relative error w.r.t. truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) obtained from Algorithm \[Al1\] with (from left to right) $N_{e}=50, 60, 75, 150,250 $. These plots display the results from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles.[]{data-label="FigEIT3"}](Fig_Nen_II_1 "fig:") ![Relative error w.r.t. truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) obtained from Algorithm \[Al1\] with (from left to right) $N_{e}=50, 60, 75, 150,250 $. These plots display the results from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles.[]{data-label="FigEIT3"}](Fig_Nen_II_2 "fig:") ![Relative error w.r.t. truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) obtained from Algorithm \[Al1\] with (from left to right) $N_{e}=50, 60, 75, 150,250 $. These plots display the results from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles.[]{data-label="FigEIT3"}](Fig_Nen_II_3 "fig:") ![Relative error w.r.t. truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) obtained from Algorithm \[Al1\] with (from left to right) $N_{e}=50, 60, 75, 150,250 $. These plots display the results from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles.[]{data-label="FigEIT3"}](Fig_Nen_II_4 "fig:") ![Relative error w.r.t. truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) obtained from Algorithm \[Al1\] with (from left to right) $N_{e}=50, 60, 75, 150,250 $. These plots display the results from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles.[]{data-label="FigEIT3"}](Fig_Nen_II_5 "fig:")\
![Relative error w.r.t. truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) obtained from Algorithm \[Al1\] with (from left to right) $N_{e}=50, 60, 75, 150,250 $. These plots display the results from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles.[]{data-label="FigEIT3"}](Fig_Nen_I_1 "fig:") ![Relative error w.r.t. truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) obtained from Algorithm \[Al1\] with (from left to right) $N_{e}=50, 60, 75, 150,250 $. These plots display the results from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles.[]{data-label="FigEIT3"}](Fig_Nen_I_2 "fig:") ![Relative error w.r.t. truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) obtained from Algorithm \[Al1\] with (from left to right) $N_{e}=50, 60, 75, 150,250 $. These plots display the results from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles.[]{data-label="FigEIT3"}](Fig_Nen_I_3 "fig:") ![Relative error w.r.t. truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) obtained from Algorithm \[Al1\] with (from left to right) $N_{e}=50, 60, 75, 150,250 $. These plots display the results from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles.[]{data-label="FigEIT3"}](Fig_Nen_I_4 "fig:") ![Relative error w.r.t. truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) obtained from Algorithm \[Al1\] with (from left to right) $N_{e}=50, 60, 75, 150,250 $. These plots display the results from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles.[]{data-label="FigEIT3"}](Fig_Nen_I_5 "fig:")
![Top: True log-conductivity. Middle and bottom: Estimates of log-conductivity obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles. The proposed method is used with $\rho=0.5$ and $N_{e}=100$. []{data-label="FigEIT4"}](True_EIT "fig:")\
![Top: True log-conductivity. Middle and bottom: Estimates of log-conductivity obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles. The proposed method is used with $\rho=0.5$ and $N_{e}=100$. []{data-label="FigEIT4"}](Perm_1 "fig:") ![Top: True log-conductivity. Middle and bottom: Estimates of log-conductivity obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles. The proposed method is used with $\rho=0.5$ and $N_{e}=100$. []{data-label="FigEIT4"}](Perm_2 "fig:") ![Top: True log-conductivity. Middle and bottom: Estimates of log-conductivity obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles. The proposed method is used with $\rho=0.5$ and $N_{e}=100$. []{data-label="FigEIT4"}](Perm_3 "fig:") ![Top: True log-conductivity. Middle and bottom: Estimates of log-conductivity obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles. The proposed method is used with $\rho=0.5$ and $N_{e}=100$. []{data-label="FigEIT4"}](Perm_4 "fig:") ![Top: True log-conductivity. Middle and bottom: Estimates of log-conductivity obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles. The proposed method is used with $\rho=0.5$ and $N_{e}=100$. []{data-label="FigEIT4"}](Perm_5 "fig:")
![Error w.r.t. truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) obtained with Algorithm \[Al1\] with (from left to right) $\rho=0.3,0.5, 0.7, 0.8 $ from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size $N_{e}=100$[]{data-label="FigEIT5"}](Fig_rhoII_0_3 "fig:") ![Error w.r.t. truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) obtained with Algorithm \[Al1\] with (from left to right) $\rho=0.3,0.5, 0.7, 0.8 $ from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size $N_{e}=100$[]{data-label="FigEIT5"}](Fig_rhoII_0_5 "fig:") ![Error w.r.t. truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) obtained with Algorithm \[Al1\] with (from left to right) $\rho=0.3,0.5, 0.7, 0.8 $ from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size $N_{e}=100$[]{data-label="FigEIT5"}](Fig_rhoII_0_7 "fig:") ![Error w.r.t. truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) obtained with Algorithm \[Al1\] with (from left to right) $\rho=0.3,0.5, 0.7, 0.8 $ from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size $N_{e}=100$[]{data-label="FigEIT5"}](Fig_rhoII_0_8 "fig:")\
![Error w.r.t. truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) obtained with Algorithm \[Al1\] with (from left to right) $\rho=0.3,0.5, 0.7, 0.8 $ from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size $N_{e}=100$[]{data-label="FigEIT5"}](Fig_rhoI_0_3 "fig:") ![Error w.r.t. truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) obtained with Algorithm \[Al1\] with (from left to right) $\rho=0.3,0.5, 0.7, 0.8 $ from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size $N_{e}=100$[]{data-label="FigEIT5"}](Fig_rhoI_0_5 "fig:") ![Error w.r.t. truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) obtained with Algorithm \[Al1\] with (from left to right) $\rho=0.3,0.5, 0.7, 0.8 $ from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size $N_{e}=100$[]{data-label="FigEIT5"}](Fig_rhoI_0_7 "fig:") ![Error w.r.t. truth (top) and log - data misfit (bottom) obtained with Algorithm \[Al1\] with (from left to right) $\rho=0.3,0.5, 0.7, 0.8 $ from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size $N_{e}=100$[]{data-label="FigEIT5"}](Fig_rhoI_0_8 "fig:")\
![Log data misfit (right) and error w.r.t truth (left) from the average over 40 experiments where Algorithm \[Al1\] was applied with different initial ensembles to synthetic data of noise levels of $1\%, 5\%, 7.5\%, 10\% 15\%$. []{data-label="FigEIT6"}](Noise_data_EIT "fig:") ![Log data misfit (right) and error w.r.t truth (left) from the average over 40 experiments where Algorithm \[Al1\] was applied with different initial ensembles to synthetic data of noise levels of $1\%, 5\%, 7.5\%, 10\% 15\%$. []{data-label="FigEIT6"}](Noise_norm_EIT "fig:")
### The selection of the initial ensemble
As we have indicated earlier, the proposed scheme is highly dependent on the selection of the initial ensemble. In the experiments from the previous subsection, we attempt to reduce such dependence by selecting the initial ensemble from the same distribution that we use to generate the truth. This selection on the initial ensemble, from Proposition \[Prp2\] ensures that the estimate from Algorithm \[Al1\] has the same regularity/spatial structure of the truth. We wish now to investigate the effect of the selection of the initial ensemble on the estimates produced by our method. We therefore require a systematic way to generate substantially different initial ensembles. This can be achieved, for example, by modifying the parameters $L$ and $\theta$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) that, in turn, control the spatial correlation and regularity of the samples that we use as members of such initial ensemble. For simplicity we focus only on the selection of $L$ and consider initial ensembles with the covariance (\[eq:cova1\]) for different choices of $L$. In we present some samples generated with several choices of $L$ (from left to right: $L=1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.06, 0.05$). Each row corresponds to a fixed set of realizations of coefficients in the KL expansion that we use to generate those Gaussian fields. We can observe visually how the spatial correlation of the samples decreases with $L$.
![Draws from a Gaussian prior of the form (\[eq:cova1\]) with (from left to right) $L=1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.06, 0.05$. Each row corresponds to a different realization of the KL coefficients in the parameterization of the Gaussian field.[]{data-label="FigEIT7"}](Perm_Prior_1_1 "fig:") ![Draws from a Gaussian prior of the form (\[eq:cova1\]) with (from left to right) $L=1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.06, 0.05$. Each row corresponds to a different realization of the KL coefficients in the parameterization of the Gaussian field.[]{data-label="FigEIT7"}](Perm_Prior_2_1 "fig:") ![Draws from a Gaussian prior of the form (\[eq:cova1\]) with (from left to right) $L=1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.06, 0.05$. Each row corresponds to a different realization of the KL coefficients in the parameterization of the Gaussian field.[]{data-label="FigEIT7"}](Perm_Prior_3_1 "fig:") ![Draws from a Gaussian prior of the form (\[eq:cova1\]) with (from left to right) $L=1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.06, 0.05$. Each row corresponds to a different realization of the KL coefficients in the parameterization of the Gaussian field.[]{data-label="FigEIT7"}](Perm_Prior_4_1 "fig:") ![Draws from a Gaussian prior of the form (\[eq:cova1\]) with (from left to right) $L=1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.06, 0.05$. Each row corresponds to a different realization of the KL coefficients in the parameterization of the Gaussian field.[]{data-label="FigEIT7"}](Perm_Prior_5_1 "fig:")\
![Draws from a Gaussian prior of the form (\[eq:cova1\]) with (from left to right) $L=1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.06, 0.05$. Each row corresponds to a different realization of the KL coefficients in the parameterization of the Gaussian field.[]{data-label="FigEIT7"}](Perm_Prior_1_2 "fig:") ![Draws from a Gaussian prior of the form (\[eq:cova1\]) with (from left to right) $L=1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.06, 0.05$. Each row corresponds to a different realization of the KL coefficients in the parameterization of the Gaussian field.[]{data-label="FigEIT7"}](Perm_Prior_2_2 "fig:") ![Draws from a Gaussian prior of the form (\[eq:cova1\]) with (from left to right) $L=1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.06, 0.05$. Each row corresponds to a different realization of the KL coefficients in the parameterization of the Gaussian field.[]{data-label="FigEIT7"}](Perm_Prior_3_2 "fig:") ![Draws from a Gaussian prior of the form (\[eq:cova1\]) with (from left to right) $L=1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.06, 0.05$. Each row corresponds to a different realization of the KL coefficients in the parameterization of the Gaussian field.[]{data-label="FigEIT7"}](Perm_Prior_4_2 "fig:") ![Draws from a Gaussian prior of the form (\[eq:cova1\]) with (from left to right) $L=1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.06, 0.05$. Each row corresponds to a different realization of the KL coefficients in the parameterization of the Gaussian field.[]{data-label="FigEIT7"}](Perm_Prior_5_2 "fig:")\
![Draws from a Gaussian prior of the form (\[eq:cova1\]) with (from left to right) $L=1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.06, 0.05$. Each row corresponds to a different realization of the KL coefficients in the parameterization of the Gaussian field.[]{data-label="FigEIT7"}](Perm_Prior_1_3 "fig:") ![Draws from a Gaussian prior of the form (\[eq:cova1\]) with (from left to right) $L=1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.06, 0.05$. Each row corresponds to a different realization of the KL coefficients in the parameterization of the Gaussian field.[]{data-label="FigEIT7"}](Perm_Prior_2_3 "fig:") ![Draws from a Gaussian prior of the form (\[eq:cova1\]) with (from left to right) $L=1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.06, 0.05$. Each row corresponds to a different realization of the KL coefficients in the parameterization of the Gaussian field.[]{data-label="FigEIT7"}](Perm_Prior_3_3 "fig:") ![Draws from a Gaussian prior of the form (\[eq:cova1\]) with (from left to right) $L=1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.06, 0.05$. Each row corresponds to a different realization of the KL coefficients in the parameterization of the Gaussian field.[]{data-label="FigEIT7"}](Perm_Prior_4_3 "fig:") ![Draws from a Gaussian prior of the form (\[eq:cova1\]) with (from left to right) $L=1, 0.2, 0.1, 0.06, 0.05$. Each row corresponds to a different realization of the KL coefficients in the parameterization of the Gaussian field.[]{data-label="FigEIT7"}](Perm_Prior_5_3 "fig:")
We apply Algorithm \[Al1\] for the solution of the EIT problem with an ensemble of size $N_{e}=100$ generated from the Gaussian measure described earlier with different choices of parameter $L$. For each value of $L$, we report the results from 40 experiments corresponding to different initial ensembles (i.e. different draws from the Gaussian measure). displays the resulting log-data misfit (bottom) and error w.r.t truth (top) . The selection of the initial ensemble based on $L$ has a significant effect on the performance of the method. We note that the accuracy degrades as we decrease the correlation length. For the largest correlation length considered here ($L=1$) we note that after a few iterations, before the data misfit reaches the value $\eta/\rho$, the relative error shows a slight increase which results in large fluctuations of the data misfit. As we decrease the correlation length the relative error is stabilized and the data misfit reduced. However, we note that the accuracy decreases as we use initial ensembles generated with members that have smaller correlation lengths ($L<0.1$). Indeed, for $L=0.05$, the relative error with respect to the truth increases before the data misfit drops below $\eta/\rho$,. It is thus clear that the selection of the initial ensemble (in this case based on $L$) affects the regularizing properties of the scheme.
In we display estimates (i.e. ensemble mean $\overline{u}_{n}$) of the log-conductivity obtained from one of the the previous experiments for the different choices of $L$. More concretely, these are the estimates obtained with different initial ensemble corresponding to different choices of $L$ but generated with the same realization of KL coefficients. From the invariance subspace property of the proposed scheme, it comes as no surprise that an initial ensemble of elements that have very small spatial correlation cannot possibly produce an estimate that characterizes the truth. Indeed, the inclusions of high conductivity from the truth have a diameter of approximately 0.3 which can be better identified when the initial ensemble is generated from smooth fields with a similar spatial correlation. Similar dependence on correlation lengths were obtained in the Bayesian level-set approach of [@Level_set_US]. While prior knowledge of the truth can be certainly used for the construction of the initial ensemble, further research should address the potential identification of parameters that determine the regularity of the initial ensemble that better characterize the truth.
![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles generated from samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. ](FigL_II_1 "fig:") ![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles generated from samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. ](FigL_II_2 "fig:") ![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles generated from samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. ](FigL_II_3 "fig:") ![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles generated from samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. ](FigL_II_4 "fig:") ![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles generated from samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. ](FigL_II_5 "fig:")\
![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles generated from samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. ](FigL_I_1 "fig:") ![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles generated from samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. ](FigL_I_2 "fig:") ![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles generated from samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. ](FigL_I_3 "fig:") ![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles generated from samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. ](FigL_I_4 "fig:") ![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles generated from samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. ](FigL_I_5 "fig:")
\[FigEIT8\]
![Top: Estimates of level-set obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles with samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.05$. Bottom: True conductivity. []{data-label="FigEIT9"}](Perm_1_10 "fig:") ![Top: Estimates of level-set obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles with samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.05$. Bottom: True conductivity. []{data-label="FigEIT9"}](Perm_2_10 "fig:") ![Top: Estimates of level-set obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles with samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.05$. Bottom: True conductivity. []{data-label="FigEIT9"}](Perm_3_10 "fig:") ![Top: Estimates of level-set obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles with samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.05$. Bottom: True conductivity. []{data-label="FigEIT9"}](Perm_4_10 "fig:") ![Top: Estimates of level-set obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles with samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.05$. Bottom: True conductivity. []{data-label="FigEIT9"}](Perm_5_10 "fig:")\
![Top: Estimates of level-set obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles with samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.05$. Bottom: True conductivity. []{data-label="FigEIT9"}](True_EIT "fig:")
Applications to geometric inverse problems {#Sec:Applications}
==========================================
The numerical investigations of the preceding sections establishes that the proposed ensemble Kalman method, with a sufficiently large ensemble size, inherits the regularizing properties of the regularizing LM approach of [@Hanke]. Thus, our scheme can be potentially applied to produce stable and accurate estimates of PDE-constrained inverse problems. Moreover, those estimates can be computed at a reasonable computational cost without the need of the derivative of the forward map. In this section, we show the potential application of the proposed method to solve identification problems where the computation of such derivative can be very cumbersome. In concrete, in this section we investigate the application of the proposed regularizing ensemble Kalman method for the solution of shape identification problems.
We are interested in the identification of an unknown region $\Omega$ within $D$, the spatial domain of definition of the PDE under consideration, whose boundary $\partial \Omega$ defines a sharp discontinuity of an unknown parameter in the PDE model. That is the case, for example, in subsurface flow applications where the conductivity of the aquifer/reservoir may take substantially different (by several orders of magnitude) values on facies characterized with different geologies. While the nominal values on such geologic facies may be known a priori, the interface between geologic facies is usually unknown.
A common approach to parameterize an unknown interface (or shape) is to use an implicitly parameterization in terms of level-sets [@Osher]. In other words, we may assume that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{level}
\Omega = \{x\in D|~u(x)\leq 0\}\end{aligned}$$ where here $u$ denotes the level-set function. The zero level-set provides the unknown interface which is now parameterized by a function $u$ and thus the identification can be posed within a functional-analytical framework. Level-set-based methods for shape identification problems have been extensively applied in the literature [@BurgerSurvey; @BurgerGB; @Iglesias3; @Santosa]. However, to our best of knowledge, most of these approaches use a variational framework for solving shape-based least-squares problems which, in turn, requires computation of the shape derivatives of the forward map. In addition, these standard variational formulations require the solution of the level-set equation to evolve the shape so that it minimizes the, possibly regularized, squared data misfit. This approach often leads to computations of flat level-set functions that need to be redefined. In this section we show that the proposed ensemble Kalman method can be used to approximate the solution to identification problems without using neither the shape derivative of forward maps nor the level-set equation. More precisely, we apply the proposed iterative ensemble Kalman method for the solution of identification problems where the interface is parameterized by (\[level\]). The update formulate (\[eq:m16\]) with the controlled/regularized selection of $\alpha$ induces the motion of the shape. Moreover, we propose to apply the Kalman method with a selection of the initial ensemble of level-sets that consist of samples from Gaussian measures $N(0,C)$ which a covariance that enforces some smoothness of the level-set function and could potentially incorporate some intrinsic correlation length. Nonetheless, this probabilistic approach for the generation of the initial ensemble is conducted artificially for the sake of the implementation. However, it has been recently shown [@Level_set_US] that there is zero probability of generating samples (and thus initial ensembles) corresponding to flat level-set functions. This, combined with the invariance subspace property of the proposed method, ensures that our estimates do not become flat thus overcoming the common issue of the flattening of the level-set function typical of standard level-set approaches.
Estimation of geologic facies {#geo_facies}
-----------------------------
We are interested in the identification of geologic facies in the test model described in section \[test\]. More precisely we want to estimate the region of high conductivity $\Omega$ (represented by (\[level\])) in an aquifer $D$. For this example we prescribe a true conductivity $K^{\dagger}$ displayed in Figure \[Fig\_gw1\] (middle). This true conductivity simulates a typical layered structure in the geologic properties of an aquifer. We use $K^{\dagger}$ in (\[eq:a1\])-(\[eq:a3\]) to generate synthetic data that we wish to invert in order to identify the true conductivity. The measurement configuration is displayed in (right). As before, inverse crimes are avoided by using a finer grid for the generation of the truth than the one used for the initial ensemble and so for the inversion.
Our goal is now to apply the proposed ensemble Kalman method on the variable $u$ corresponding to the level-set function that parametrizes $\kappa$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{103}
\kappa(u)= \kappa_{i}\chi_{u\leq 0 }+\kappa_{e}\chi_{u>0},\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi_{A}$ denotes the characteristic function of region $A$ and $\kappa_{i}$ and $\kappa_{e}$ are the positive constants that define the high and low conductivity values of the true conductivity (left). We assume these two constants are known; the unknown is the interface between the regions of different conductivity.
As described earlier we prescribe an artificial Gaussian measure from which we generate members of an initial ensemble of level-set functions. More concretely we consider samples from $N(0,C)$ with $$\label{eq:cova3}
C =\omega (-\Delta)^{-\theta}$$ where $\Delta$ is the Laplacian operator, $\omega$ is a scaling constant and $\theta$ controls the regularity. In contrast to (\[eq:cova1\]), the previous expressions defines a covariance with an intrinsic fixed correlation length that we are not able to vary. In Figure \[Fig\_gw2\] (top row) we show some samples from the prior distribution and in Figure \[Fig\_gw2\] (bottom row) we show the corresponding conductivities obtained from (\[103\]).
![Left: True hydraulic conductivity. Middle: true hydraulic head. Right: Measurement locations. []{data-label="Fig_gw1"}](True_LS_GW "fig:") ![Left: True hydraulic conductivity. Middle: true hydraulic head. Right: Measurement locations. []{data-label="Fig_gw1"}](Truep_LS_GW "fig:") ![Left: True hydraulic conductivity. Middle: true hydraulic head. Right: Measurement locations. []{data-label="Fig_gw1"}](Well_Loc "fig:")
![Top: Different realizations from level-set functions sampled of $N(0,C)$ with $C$ from (\[eq:cova3\]). Bottom: Conductivities computed from these sample level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])).[]{data-label="Fig_gw2"}](PriorL "fig:") ![Top: Different realizations from level-set functions sampled of $N(0,C)$ with $C$ from (\[eq:cova3\]). Bottom: Conductivities computed from these sample level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])).[]{data-label="Fig_gw2"}](PriorK "fig:")\
We apply the regularizing ensemble Kalman method proposed with different ensemble sizes $(N_{e}=75, 100,150,250,350)$ and with a fixed parameter $\rho=0.7$. As before, we consider 40 experiments with different initial ensembles and the corresponding log-data misfit and error with respect to the truth are displayed in Figure \[Fig\_gw3\]. Although we are applying the ensemble algorithm to the estimation of the level-set function $u$, we consider the relative error with respect to the truth of the corresponding conductivity given by (\[103\]). Note that a large ensemble is needed in order to obtain stable computations in the scheme until the data misfit reaches the value $\eta/\rho$ that we use to stop the algorithm. This value is indicated with the dotted horizontal line in the bottom of Figure \[Fig\_gw3\]. For sufficiently large ensemble size ($N_{e}>150$), on average both data misfit and error decrease. Stable computations are obtained when the algorithm is stopped via (\[eq:m15\]) with $\tau \approx 1/\rho$. In the top and middle rows of we display estimates of the level-set function and the corresponding conductivity obtained with Algorithm \[Al1\] (for $N_{e}=150$) from five experiments with different initial ensemble sizes (with initial ensemble generated from the same Gaussian measure). The visual agreement between the estimates of conductivity and truth ( bottom) is remarkable.
![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size (from left to right) $N){e}=75, 100,150, 250, 350$. []{data-label="Fig_gw3"}](FigII_75_0_7level "fig:") ![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size (from left to right) $N){e}=75, 100,150, 250, 350$. []{data-label="Fig_gw3"}](FigII_100_0_7level "fig:") ![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size (from left to right) $N){e}=75, 100,150, 250, 350$. []{data-label="Fig_gw3"}](FigII_150_0_7level "fig:") ![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size (from left to right) $N){e}=75, 100,150, 250, 350$. []{data-label="Fig_gw3"}](FigII_250_0_7level "fig:") ![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size (from left to right) $N){e}=75, 100,150, 250, 350$. []{data-label="Fig_gw3"}](FigII_350_0_7level "fig:")\
![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size (from left to right) $N){e}=75, 100,150, 250, 350$. []{data-label="Fig_gw3"}](FigI_75_0_7level "fig:") ![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size (from left to right) $N){e}=75, 100,150, 250, 350$. []{data-label="Fig_gw3"}](FigI_100_0_7level "fig:") ![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size (from left to right) $N){e}=75, 100,150, 250, 350$. []{data-label="Fig_gw3"}](FigI_150_0_7level "fig:") ![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size (from left to right) $N){e}=75, 100,150, 250, 350$. []{data-label="Fig_gw3"}](FigI_250_0_7level "fig:") ![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles of size (from left to right) $N){e}=75, 100,150, 250, 350$. []{data-label="Fig_gw3"}](FigI_350_0_7level "fig:")
![Top: Estimates of level-set obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles with samples of $N(0,C)$ with $C$ from (\[eq:cova2\]). Middle: Conductivities computed from these estimated level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])). Bottom: True hydraulic conductivity. []{data-label="Fig_gw4"}](PostL "fig:")\
![Top: Estimates of level-set obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles with samples of $N(0,C)$ with $C$ from (\[eq:cova2\]). Middle: Conductivities computed from these estimated level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])). Bottom: True hydraulic conductivity. []{data-label="Fig_gw4"}](PostK "fig:")\
![Top: Estimates of level-set obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles with samples of $N(0,C)$ with $C$ from (\[eq:cova2\]). Middle: Conductivities computed from these estimated level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])). Bottom: True hydraulic conductivity. []{data-label="Fig_gw4"}](True_LS_GW)
EIT. Sharp interfaces.
----------------------
In this subsection we consider again the EIT problem but assume that we are now interested in recovering a conductivity with sharp discontinuities. Let us then consider the conductivity and the electrode configuration displayed in (left). We use this field as the true conductivity that we aim at estimating with the ensemble Kalman method by using the level-set parametrization of expression (\[103\]). Synthetic data are generated (and avoiding inverse crimes) as described in subsection \[num\_EIT\]. Some true voltages are displayed in (middle and right panels). Level-set approaches for shape identification in EIT problems have been studied, for example, in [@LS_EIT1; @LS_EIT2]. However, these approaches are variational and use a level-set equation for the evolution of the shape.
![Top-left: true conductivity. Top-middle and top-right: two of the 15 voltage patterns generated with the true conductivity. []{data-label="Fig_L_EIT0"}](True_LS_EIT "fig:") ![Top-left: true conductivity. Top-middle and top-right: two of the 15 voltage patterns generated with the true conductivity. []{data-label="Fig_L_EIT0"}](True_vol1_LS "fig:") ![Top-left: true conductivity. Top-middle and top-right: two of the 15 voltage patterns generated with the true conductivity. []{data-label="Fig_L_EIT0"}](True_vol2_LS "fig:")
As in the preceding subsection, we postulate an artificial Gaussian measure $N(0,C)$ that we use to generate an initial ensemble. We consider again $C$ described by (\[eq:cova1\]). However, note that for this subsection, such Gaussian is used to generate the ensemble of level-set function rather than conductivities. Nonetheless, as in the experiments of subsection \[num\_EIT\], we expect the parameter $L$ to have an influence on the initial ensemble and this the estimate of the level-set and the associated conductivity obtained with (\[103\]). In we present some samples of the level-set function (top) and the corresponding conductivity (bottom) obtained with different values of $L$ ($L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$) but with the same set of KL coefficients. We clearly observe that the correlation length of the level-set is reflected in the spatial correlation of the interface between the regions of different conductivities. In we show estimates of level-set function (top) and conductivities (bottom) obtained, by means of Algorithm \[Al1\], with an initial ensemble of $N_{e}=200$ elements generated from the Gaussian distribution described above with the aforementioned values of $L$. We clearly observe that there is an optimal choice of $L$ which yields estimates that visually agree better with the truth displayed in (bottom). In this case, $0.06\leq L\leq 0.1$ provides (on average) the lowest error w.r.t.truth. In we show the relative error (top) and the log-data misfit (bottom) from different experiments corresponding to multiple initial ensembles generated with the Gaussian $N(0,C)$ for the aforementioned choices of $L$. For larger correlation lengths $L\ge 0.2$ the data misfit displays larger fluctuations that seem to arise from the appearance of high conductivity close to the electrodes. In addition, very small values of $L$ yields conductivities where the interface between different values has short correlation length. In the current framework, knowledge of the optimal correlation length can be used for the generation of initial ensemble. However, for more general/realistic cases where such parameter is unknown, the estimation of $L$ should be conducted within the method; this is beyond the scope of the present manuscript.
![Top: Level-set functions sampled of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$ (these samples have the same realization of KL coefficients). Bottom: Conductivities computed from these sample level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])).[]{data-label="Fig_L_EIT1"}](PriorL_1_9 "fig:") ![Top: Level-set functions sampled of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$ (these samples have the same realization of KL coefficients). Bottom: Conductivities computed from these sample level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])).[]{data-label="Fig_L_EIT1"}](PriorL_2_9 "fig:") ![Top: Level-set functions sampled of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$ (these samples have the same realization of KL coefficients). Bottom: Conductivities computed from these sample level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])).[]{data-label="Fig_L_EIT1"}](PriorL_3_9 "fig:") ![Top: Level-set functions sampled of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$ (these samples have the same realization of KL coefficients). Bottom: Conductivities computed from these sample level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])).[]{data-label="Fig_L_EIT1"}](PriorL_4_9 "fig:") ![Top: Level-set functions sampled of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$ (these samples have the same realization of KL coefficients). Bottom: Conductivities computed from these sample level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])).[]{data-label="Fig_L_EIT1"}](PriorL_5_9 "fig:")\
![Top: Level-set functions sampled of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$ (these samples have the same realization of KL coefficients). Bottom: Conductivities computed from these sample level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])).[]{data-label="Fig_L_EIT1"}](PriorPerm_1_9 "fig:") ![Top: Level-set functions sampled of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$ (these samples have the same realization of KL coefficients). Bottom: Conductivities computed from these sample level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])).[]{data-label="Fig_L_EIT1"}](PriorPerm_2_9 "fig:") ![Top: Level-set functions sampled of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$ (these samples have the same realization of KL coefficients). Bottom: Conductivities computed from these sample level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])).[]{data-label="Fig_L_EIT1"}](PriorPerm_3_9 "fig:") ![Top: Level-set functions sampled of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$ (these samples have the same realization of KL coefficients). Bottom: Conductivities computed from these sample level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])).[]{data-label="Fig_L_EIT1"}](PriorPerm_4_9 "fig:") ![Top: Level-set functions sampled of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$ (these samples have the same realization of KL coefficients). Bottom: Conductivities computed from these sample level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])).[]{data-label="Fig_L_EIT1"}](PriorPerm_5_9 "fig:")
![Top: Estimates of level-set obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles with samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. Middle: Conductivities computed from these estimated level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])). Bottom: True conductivity. []{data-label="Fig_L_EIT2"}](PosL_1_28 "fig:") ![Top: Estimates of level-set obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles with samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. Middle: Conductivities computed from these estimated level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])). Bottom: True conductivity. []{data-label="Fig_L_EIT2"}](PosL_2_28 "fig:") ![Top: Estimates of level-set obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles with samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. Middle: Conductivities computed from these estimated level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])). Bottom: True conductivity. []{data-label="Fig_L_EIT2"}](PosL_3_28 "fig:") ![Top: Estimates of level-set obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles with samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. Middle: Conductivities computed from these estimated level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])). Bottom: True conductivity. []{data-label="Fig_L_EIT2"}](PosL_4_28 "fig:") ![Top: Estimates of level-set obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles with samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. Middle: Conductivities computed from these estimated level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])). Bottom: True conductivity. []{data-label="Fig_L_EIT2"}](PosL_5_28 "fig:")\
![Top: Estimates of level-set obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles with samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. Middle: Conductivities computed from these estimated level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])). Bottom: True conductivity. []{data-label="Fig_L_EIT2"}](Perm_1_28 "fig:") ![Top: Estimates of level-set obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles with samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. Middle: Conductivities computed from these estimated level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])). Bottom: True conductivity. []{data-label="Fig_L_EIT2"}](Perm_2_28 "fig:") ![Top: Estimates of level-set obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles with samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. Middle: Conductivities computed from these estimated level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])). Bottom: True conductivity. []{data-label="Fig_L_EIT2"}](Perm_3_28 "fig:") ![Top: Estimates of level-set obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles with samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. Middle: Conductivities computed from these estimated level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])). Bottom: True conductivity. []{data-label="Fig_L_EIT2"}](Perm_4_28 "fig:") ![Top: Estimates of level-set obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles with samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. Middle: Conductivities computed from these estimated level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])). Bottom: True conductivity. []{data-label="Fig_L_EIT2"}](Perm_5_28 "fig:")\
![Top: Estimates of level-set obtained from 5 experiments with different initial ensembles with samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. Middle: Conductivities computed from these estimated level-set functions (by means of (\[103\])). Bottom: True conductivity. []{data-label="Fig_L_EIT2"}](True_LS_EIT "fig:")
![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles generated from samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. []{data-label="Fig_L_EIT3"}](FigL_II_1 "fig:") ![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles generated from samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. []{data-label="Fig_L_EIT3"}](FigL_II_2 "fig:") ![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles generated from samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. []{data-label="Fig_L_EIT3"}](FigL_II_3 "fig:") ![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles generated from samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. []{data-label="Fig_L_EIT3"}](FigL_II_4 "fig:") ![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles generated from samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. []{data-label="Fig_L_EIT3"}](FigL_II_5 "fig:")\
![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles generated from samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. []{data-label="Fig_L_EIT3"}](FigL_I_1 "fig:") ![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles generated from samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. []{data-label="Fig_L_EIT3"}](FigL_I_2 "fig:") ![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles generated from samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. []{data-label="Fig_L_EIT3"}](FigL_I_3 "fig:") ![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles generated from samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. []{data-label="Fig_L_EIT3"}](FigL_I_4 "fig:") ![Error with respect to the truth (top) and log data misfit (bottom) from 40 experiments with different initial ensembles generated from samples of $N(0,C)$ with values of $L$ in (\[eq:cova1\]) (from left to right) $L=0.2, 0.1, 0.06,0.04, 0.03$. []{data-label="Fig_L_EIT3"}](FigL_I_5 "fig:")
Conclusions {#Conclusions}
===========
Our numerical investigation indicates that for sufficiently large ensemble size, the proposed regularizing ensemble Kalman method inherits the regularizing properties of the LM scheme [@Hanke]. In other words, when $N_{e}$ is large enough, we observe that the proposed selection of the regularization parameter and early termination of the scheme prevent the lack of stability typical of unregularized schemes. Fortunately, the aforementioned size needed for stability is reasonable and often used in standard ensemble implementations for large-scale applications. For the Darcy problem, for example, we found that with $N_{e}=150$ stable and reasonably accurate estimates can be obtained, in average, within 12 iterations of the scheme when $\rho=0.7$ (and with $M=100$ measurements). The computational cost for computing these estimates is 1800 forward model simulations which is comparable with other gradient-based techniques where also dozens of iterations are need for the convergence, but at each iteration, the explicit computation of the Fréchet derivative (if possible at all) has often the cost of $M$ linearized forward model simulations (recall $M$ is the total number of measurements). From the results of the preceding section we can clearly appreciate that the computational cost and accuracy of the proposed method with large enough $N_{e}$ is very competitive with variational iterative regularization methods. However, as we have consistently reiterated throughout this manuscript, the main advantage of the proposed method is that no derivatives of the forward map are needed for the proposed ensemble regularizing scheme.
For the EIT problem, we found that a reasonable ensemble size $N_{e}=100$ is sufficient for the method to display stability in the case of 16 electrodes considered in the subsection \[EIT\] and for wide class of tunable parameters. However, we observe that the selection of the initial ensemble is crucial for the stability and accuracy of the proposed scheme. In concrete, there is a range for the optimal selection of the spatial correlation length of the members of the initial ensemble. As we expected, good approximations of the truth are obtained if the samples that we use for the generation of the initial ensemble have a correlation length similar to the one of the true conductivity. While prior knowledge of the regularity and spatial features from the truth could be incorporated for the selection of the initial ensemble, we recognize that in more general cases such information may not be available. Further research should address the estimation of the parameters that control the regularity/spatial features of the initial ensemble.
The numerical experiments from the preceding section show that the proposed method is computationally flexible and suitable for a wide class of parameterizations of PDE parameters. We demonstrated that the regularizing ensemble Kalman method can be successfully used for the identification of shapes where the geometry is parameterized with a level-set function. The advantage of having a regularized ensemble method has been showcased with the examples of where we observe that, with a reasonable ensemble size, the proposed method provides stable computations of the unknown regions of high conductivity. The regularization properties and our selection of the initial ensemble generated from a Gaussian distribution is key for developing a robust level-set scheme that avoids solving the level-set equation for the evolution of the shape; our scheme induces the motion of the shape in a controlled fashion.
Standard ensemble Kalman methods have been numerously applied for solving identification problems where the forward map arises from a large-scale forward model. However, these standard implementations are often unstable in particular when small ensemble sizes (like the ones used here) are used. We have shown that the proposed regularizing ensemble method, when the ensemble size is large enough, not only addresses the ill-poseness proper of the inverse problem but also the one associated to the small size effect. There is a broad class of ensemble methods where the Fréchet derivative of the forward map is approximated with an ensemble [@EmeRey]. While most of these methods have been developed to address concrete applications in a statistical setting, they could be potentially applied for the solution of generic parameter identification problems if these methods are empowered with the regularization/stabilization needed to compute the solution of such inverse problems. This manuscript offers numerical evidence that importing ideas from iterative regularization methods can potentially use with ensemble methods to stabilize/regularize the computations of inverse estimates.\
[**Acknowledgments**]{} The author would like to thank Andrew Stuart for his helpful comments on the manuscript. The author also wishes to thank Matthew Dunlop for his help with using EIDORS.
Appendix
========
Proof of Lemma \[lema:Rep1\]
----------------------------
Note that if $X$ is a finite dimensional, $DG(u_{n})$, $D^{\ast}G(u_{n})$ and $C$ in (\[eq:m2\]) are matrices. Moreover, since in this case $C$ is invertible (recall $C$ is positive definite) simple matrix algebra can be applied to show the desired equivalence [@Tarantola]. When $X$ is an infinite-dimensional space the argument for matrices can no longer be applied. In this case, however, we can use a representer-based argument. First we note that, since $Y=\mathbb{R}^{M}$, $DG(u_{n}):X\to Y$ has the form $DG(u_{n})v=[DG_{1}(u_{n})v,\dots ,D_{M}G(u_{n})v]$ with $D_{j}G(u_{n}):X\to \mathbb{R}$ for all $j\in \{1,\dots,M\}$. Moreover, we note that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ape1}
wDG_{m}(u_{n})v = \langle v,D_{m}G^{*}(u_{n})w\rangle_{X}\end{aligned}$$ for all $w\in \mathbb{R}$ and $v\in X$. Therefore, $$\langle w,DG(u_{n})v \rangle_{\mathbb{R}^{M}} = \sum_{m=1}^{M}w_{m}D_{m}G(u_{n})v = \Big\langle v, \sum_{m=1}^{M}D_{m}G^{*}(u_{n})w_{m}\Big\rangle_{X}$$ and so $DG^{\ast}(u_{n})w\equiv \sum_{m=1}^{M}D_{m}G^{*}(u_{n})w_{m}$ for all $w\in \mathbb{R}^{M}$. Let us denote $\{e_{i}\}_{i=1}^{M}$ the canonical basis in $\mathbb{R}^{M}$. Note that $$\begin{aligned}
DG(u_{n})\,C\,DG^{*}(u_{n})e_{i}=DG(u_{n})\,C\,DG_{i}^{*}(u_{n})1\nonumber\\
=[D_{1}G(u_{n})\,C\,DG_{i}^{*}(u_{n})1,\dots ,D_{M}G(u_{n})\,C\,DG_{i}^{*}(u_{n})1] \end{aligned}$$ and so $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ape2}
e_{j}^{T}DG(u_{n})\,C\,DG^{*}(u_{n})e_{i}=D_{j}G(u_{n})\,C\,D_{i}G^{*}(u_{n})\end{aligned}$$ Let $r_{m}\in X$ be the unique “representer” such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rep}
D_{m}G(u_{n})v =\langle C^{-1/2}r _{m},C^{-1/2}v\rangle_{X}\end{aligned}$$ for all $v\in X$. On the other hand, from (\[eq:ape1\]) we have $D_{m}G(u_{n})v = \langle v,DG_{m}^{*}(u_{n})1\rangle_{X}$ for all $m\in \{1,\dots,M\}$, then $C^{-1}r_{m}= DG_{m}^{*}(u_{n})1$ and so, formally, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ape3}
r_{m}=CDG_{m}^{*}(u_{n})1\end{aligned}$$ We may now consider the following representation in terms of representers $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ape4}
v=\sum_{m=1}^{M}\beta_{m}r_{m} +b\end{aligned}$$ where $b\perp r_{j}$ in $X$ for all $j\in \{1,\dots,M\}$ (i.e. $\langle C^{-1/2} r _{m},C^{-1/2}b\rangle_{X}$). From (\[eq:ape3\]) and (\[eq:ape4\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ape5}
\fl DG(u_{n})v=\sum_{m=1}^{M}\beta_{m}DG(u_{n})r_{m} +DG(u_{n})b=\sum_{j=1}^{M}\beta_{m}DG(u_{n}) CD_{m}^{*}G(u_{n})1 +DG(u_{n})b\end{aligned}$$ Note that $D_{m}G(u_{n})b=\langle C^{-1/2}r_{m},C^{-1/2}b\rangle_{X} =0$. Therefore, we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ape6}
DG(u_{n})v=\sum_{j=1}^{M}\beta_{m}DG(u_{n}) C D_{m}G^{*}(u_{n})1= DG(u_{n}) C DG^{*}(u_{n})\beta\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta=(\beta_{1},\dots, \beta_{M})$. Similarly, from (\[eq:ape2\])- (\[eq:ape4\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ape7}
\fl \vert\vert C^{-1/2}v\vert\vert_{X}^2=\sum_{jm}\beta_{j}
\beta_{m}\langle C^{-1/2} r_{m},C^{-1/2} r_{j}\rangle_{X} + \langle C^{-1/2} b,C^{-1/2}b\rangle_{X}\nonumber\\
\fl =\sum_{jm}\beta_{j}
\beta_{m}D_{m}G(u_{n})r_{j}+\vert\vert C^{-1/2}b \vert\vert_{X}^2 =\beta^{T}DG(u_{n}) C DG^{*}(u_{n})\beta+\vert\vert C^{-1/2}b \vert\vert_{X}^2 \end{aligned}$$ Combining (\[eq:ape6\]) and (\[eq:ape7\]) we write $$\begin{aligned}
\fl J(v)\equiv \vert\vert \Gamma^{-1/2}(y^{\eta}-G(u_{n}))-DG(u_{n})v\vert\vert_{Y}^2+\alpha\vert\vert C^{-1/2} v\vert\vert_{X}^{2}\end{aligned}$$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ape7B}
\fl J_{LM}(\beta,b)\equiv \vert\vert \Gamma^{-\frac{1}{2}}(y-G(u_{n})-DG(u_{n}) C DG^{*}(u_{n})\beta)\vert\vert^2\nonumber\\ +\alpha \beta^{T}DG(u_{n}) C DG^{*}(u_{n})\beta+\alpha \vert\vert C^{-1/2}b \vert\vert_{X}^2 \end{aligned}$$ From the linearly independece of $\{D_{m}G(u_{n})\}_{m=1}^{M}$, it is not difficult to see that the matrix $DG(u_{n}) C DG^{*}(u_{n})$ is invertible. Then, from standard arguments it follows that the unique minimizer of (\[eq:ape7B\]) in $\mathbb{R}^{M}\times (\textrm{span}\{r_{m}\}_{m=1}^{M})^{\perp}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ape8}
\beta= [DG(u_{n}) C DG^{*}(u_{n}) + \alpha \Gamma ]^{-1}( y-G(u_{n})),\qquad b=0\end{aligned}$$ Expression (\[eq:m6\]) then follows from writing $u_{n+1}-u_{n}=v$ and using (\[eq:ape3\])-(\[eq:ape4\]) and (\[eq:ape8\]). $\Box$
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'A. C. Gupta$^{1,2,3}$, & U. C. Joshi$^2$'
date: 'Received; Accepted'
title: 'Intra-night Optical Variability of Luminous Radio Quiet QSOs'
---
Introduction
============
There is a general consensus on the dichotomy of quasar population: radio-loud (R $>$ 10) and radio-quiet (R $<$ 10) (where R is the ratio of radio (6 cm) to the optical (440 nm) flux densities) (Kellerman et al. 1989). It is found that $\sim$ 10$-$15 % of the quasars are in the radio-loud category. There is an additional distinction between radio-loud and radio-quiet AGNs: radio-loud sources occur in elliptical galaxies and radio-quiet are found to reside in galaxies dominated by disk.
Flux variability is a common property of AGNs. Blazars, in particular, show variation in the complete electromagnetic spectrum on all time scales ranging from minutes to years (e.g. Miller et al. 1989; Quinn et al. 1996; Heidt & Wagner 1996; Catanese et al. 1997; Lamer & Wagner 1998; Fan & Lin 1999; Kataoka et al. 1999; Peng et al. 2000; Petry et al. 2000; Ghosh et al. 2000; Pursimo et al. 2000; Fan et al. 2002; Gupta et al. 2002, 2004; Gupta & Joshi 2005; Sagar et al. 2004; Villata et al. 2004 and references therein).
Variability time scales can broadly be divided into three classes: (i) flux variability in few minutes to few hours is generally known as micro-variability or intra-night variability or intra-day variability; (ii) time scales ranging from days to weeks can be classified as short term variability; (iii) and the time scale ranging from months to years can be called as long term variability.
The first report of micro-variability in AGNs can be found in Mathews & Sandage (1963), who observed a 0.04 mag change in 15 minutes in 3C48. Subsequent to this there are several reports on the detection of rapid flux variations in optical region in AGNs (Mathews & Sandage 1963; Oke 1967; Racine 1970; Angione 1971; Bertaud et al. 1973; Miller 1980). However, these results were not taken seriously as such small amplitude variations might be due to instrumental errors. First convincing case for optical micro-variability is reported for BL Lacertae using CCD detector by Miller et al. (1989). Since then extensive observations using CCD have led to unambiguous confirmation of optical micro-variability for a large number of blazars (e.g. Miller et al. 1989; Carini et al. 1990; Carini & Miller 1992; Heidt & Wagner 1996; Noble et al. 1997; Ghosh et al. 2000; Romero et al. 2002; Sagar et al. 2004; Gupta & Joshi 2005 and references therein). All blazars which exhibit micro-variations are found to be radio-loud sources and it is believed that relativistic jet dominate their emission (Bregmann 1992). Presently, it is accepted that not only the blazars but many other radio-loud quasars exhibit intra-night variations (Jang & Miller 1995, 1997; Wagner & Witzel 1995; de Diego et al. 1998; Romero et al. 1999; Stalin et al. 2004, 2005 and references therein). However, detection of intra-night variations in radio-quiet AGNs has been elusive and little is known about their intra-night variability. In recent past there have been attempts by several groups around the globe to find the intra-night variability in different sub-classes of radio-quiet AGNs (Jang & Miller 1995, 1997; Anupama & Chokshi 1998; de Diego et al. 1998; Romero et al. 1999; Petrucci et al. 1999; Gopal-Krishna et al. 2000, 2003; Stalin et al. 2004, 2005). In most of the cases, the reports on micro-variability are not overwhelmingly convincing, though in a few RQQSOs intra-night peak-to-peak variation of $\sim$ 1% is reported (Gopal-Krishna et al. 2003; Stalin et al. 2004, 2005). The results reported by various groups have in fact created some confusion on the intra-night variability in radio-quiet AGNs.
One of the important motivation to study variability in AGNs is to know the physical scales of the emitting regions. As it is quite difficult to resolve the nuclei of AGNs with the present day technology, a reasonable way to investigate the structure and physical conditions near the nucleus is to study micro-variations of flux and degree of polarization. It is believed that radio-quiet AGNs either do not have relativistic jet (Antonucci et al. 1990) or harbor very weak jet (Miller et al. 1993; Kellermann et al. 1994) and hence the effect of jet is expected to be negligible. The presence of micro-variability in radio-quiet AGNs is, therefore, attributed to the disturbances on the accretion disk (e.g. hot spots or flaring). For radio-loud AGNs, both the shocked jet and disturbances on accretion disk may be responsible for micro-variability. Therefore comparison of micro-variations between radio-quiet and radio-loud AGNs could constrain some of the existing models. Micro-variability may be observed as discrete events or as part of a longer duration variation. The importance of micro-variability resides in the fact that, if it is intrinsic to the source, it provides limits on the size of the emitting regions, providing a powerful tool to investigate both the physical structure of the central regions of AGNs and the processes responsible for the production of the extreme luminosities observed for these objects. The detection of micro-variability on a time scale of hours in radio-quiet AGNs is considered to be a powerful discriminator between accretion disk and relativistic jet models of these sources.
In the present study a sample of seven bright RQQSOs and one bright LDQ have been considered for the study of micro-variations. Observations were carried out during the period January$-$April, 2000 (nine observing nights) and the results are reported in this paper.
The paper is structured as follows: section 2 presents the details about target selection criterion, in section 3 we report observation and data reduction techniques, in section 4 results of the present work and statistical analysis of the previous work are presented and in section 5 conclusions are given.
Target Selection Criterion
==========================
[cccccccccc]{}\
IAU Name$^{*}$ & Other Name & $\alpha_{2000.0}$ & $\delta_{2000.0}$ & z & V & M$_{V}$ & Date of & Data & Duration\
& & & & & & & Observations & Points & (hours)\
& & & & & & & dd.mm.yyyy & &\
0748$+$291 & QJ 0751$+$2919 & 07 51 12.3 & $+$29 19 38 & 0.912 & 16.14 & $-$27.9 & 13. 01. 2000 & 42 & 8.0\
0945$+$438 & US 995 & 09 48 59.4 & $+$43 35 18 & 0.226 & 16.28 & $-$24.5 & 26. 02. 2000 & 26 & 5.5\
1017$+$280 & Ton 34 & 10 19 56.6 & $+$27 44 02 & 1.918 & 15.69 & $-$29.8 & 14. 01. 2000 & 39 & 6.5\
1017$+$280 & Ton 34 & 10 19 56.6 & $+$27 44 02 & 1.918 & 15.69 & $-$29.8 & 27. 02. 2000 & 55 & 6.1\
1029$+$329 & CSO 50 & 10 32 06.0 & $+$32 40 21 & 0.560 & 16.00 & $-$26.7 & 05. 04. 2000 & 61 & 6.0\
1101$+$319 & Ton 52 & 11 04 07.0 & $+$31 41 11 & 0.440 & 17.30 & $-$24.9 & 04. 04. 2000 & 47 & 6.4\
1103$-$006 & PKS 1103$-$006 & 11 06 31.8 & $-$00 52 53 & 0.426 & 16.46 & $-$25.7 & 06. 04. 2000 & 48 & 5.7\
1225$+$317 & b2 1225+317 & 12 28 24.8 & $+$31 28 38 & 2.219 & 15.87 & $-$30.0 & 07. 04. 2000 & 54 & 6.2\
1252$+$020 & q 1252+020 & 12 55 19.7 & $+$01 44 12 & 0.345 & 17.30 & $-$24.4 & 09. 03. 2000 & 25 & 3.7\
$^{*}$ based on coordinates defined for 1950.0 epoch
The radio quiet QSOs and LDQ for the present study were selected from the lists of V$\acute e$ron-Cetty & V$\acute e$ron (2001). Detailed information of the seven RQQSOs and one LDQ and their dates of observations are listed in Table 1. Hubble constant H$_{0}$ = 50 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ and q$_{0} =$ 0.5 are assumed for determining M$_{V}$.
Simultaneous observation of the target source and a few comparison stars and the sky background allow to remove variations which may be due to fluctuations in either atmospheric transparency or extinction. Therefore, RQQSOs and LDQ were selected for observation in such a way as to have at least two comparison stars in the field of view of the camera with brightness comparable to the target source.
Carini et al. (1991) investigated whether a conspicuous galaxy component produce variations due to fluctuations in atmospheric seeing or transparency which are not intrinsic to the source. They showed that even for sources with significant underlying galaxy components, any spurious variations introduced by fluctuations in atmospheric seeing or transparency are typically smaller than the observational uncertainties. To further reduce this effect, we have selected sources which are optically bright (brighter than M$_{V} < -$24.4 mag) so that the fluctuations due to the underlying galaxy are minimal. The modest optical luminosities (M$_{V} > -$24.4 mag) lie close to the critical value below which the sources become like those of Seyfert galaxies (Miller et al. 1990). At these lower levels of AGN to galactic light ratios, false indications of variability produced by seeing variations that include different amounts of host galactic light within the photometric aperture, become very probable (Cellone et al. 2000).
In our sample all the sources are brighter than M$_{V} \leq -$24.4 (vide. Table 1) thus minimizing the seeing effects. The host galaxy is expected to contribute less than 10% to the total flux of the luminous RQQSOs or the LDQ. The host galaxy is also expected to be encompassed within the aperture used for photometry.
Observations and Data Reductions
================================
CCD photometric monitoring of seven RQQSOs and one LDQ were carried out in Johnson V-passband using a thinned back illuminated Tektronix 1K $\times$ 1K CCD detector at f/13 Cassegrain focus of 1.2 meter Gurushikhar Telescope, Mount Abu, India. To improve signal to noise ratio (S/N), on CCD chip binning (2 $\times$ 2) was done while reading out the array. One super pixel projected on the sky corresponds to 0.634 arcsec in both the dimensions. Entire CCD chip covers $\sim$ 5.4 $\times$ 5.4 arcmin$^{2}$ of the sky. Read out noise and gain of the CCD detector were 4 electrons and 10 electrons/ADU respectively. Throughout the observing run, typical average seeing (FWHM of stellar image) was $\sim$ 1.5 arcsec ranging between 1.2 to 1.8 arcsec. Several bias frames were taken intermittently in each observing night and sky flats in V-passband were taken during the twilight hours.
Image processing or initial processing (bias subtraction, flat-fielding and cosmic rays removal), photometric reduction or processing (getting instrumental magnitudes of stars and target RQQSOs or LDQ in the image frames) were done at Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India and at Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Allahabad, India using IBM $-$ 6000 RISC workstations and Pentium III computers.
[ccccccc]{}\
QSO & Star 1 & & Star 2 & & Star 3 &\
& $\Delta$r$\arcsec$ & PA$^{0}$ & $\Delta$r$\arcsec$ & PA$^{0}$ & $\Delta$r$\arcsec$ & PA$^{0}$\
0748$+$291 & 128 & 352 & 93 & 332 &&\
0945$+$438 & 15 & 340 & 95 & 220 &&\
1017$+$280 & 208 & 38 & 107 & 311 & 135 & 78\
1029$+$329 & 162 & 263 & 246 & 153 & &\
1101$+$319 & 167 & 169 & 201 & 20 &&\
1103$-$006 & 283 & 236 & 37 & 16 &&\
1225$+$317 & 142 & 242 & 196 & 334 &&\
1252$+$020 & 301 & 229 & 223 & 161 &&\
Standard routines in the IRAF package were used for the initial processing of the images. Median bias frames and flat-field images were constructed for each night which were used for bias and flat field correction. Instrumental magnitude of RQQSOs, LDQ and comparison stars in the RQQSOs and LDQ fields were determined by using DAOPHOT II software (Stetson 1987, 1992) and concentric aperture photometric technique. Aperture photometry was done with several concentric aperture radii: 3.5, 5.0, 7.0, 9.5 and 12.0 pixels. Though the data reduced with different aperture radii are found to be in good agreement, aperture radius of 7 pixels gives the best S/N and therefore the photometric magnitudes reported here are based on that aperture radius. Stars in different frames of same source were matched by using DAOMATCH routine in DAOPHOT II package. The differential magnitudes were calculated for pairs of stars on the frame. Two comparison stars (non variable during our observing run) were used to generate the differential light curves of RQQSOs and LDQ. The positions of the comparison stars in RQQSOs and LDQ fields are listed in Table 2.
Simultaneous observations of the variable source and a few comparison stars and the sky background allow to remove variations which may be due to fluctuations in either the atmospheric transparency or the extinction. One may also find the gradual variation in differential magnitude as function of zenith distance if the colour of the target source and the comparison stars differ very much. The data reported here were obtained during the good photometric quality nights and also it was insured that the zenith angle for observations do not exceed 60. This reduces the colour dependence of differential magnitude on zenith angle. Carini et al. (1992) examined the plots of differential magnitude between comparison stars of different colours versus airmass, and found that over a large range of airmass, neither the overall photometric accuracy was affected significantly by the large colour difference in the sets of comparison stars, nor did it introduce systematic variations not intrinsic to the source. Also a closer look at the data do not indicate any signature of colour dependence with zenith distance.
Results
=======
Differential Light Curves (DLCs)
--------------------------------
DLCs of seven RQQSOs and one LDQ which were observed during nine nights in the V passband are plotted in Figure 1$-$9. In the following, we discuss the criteria to test the existence of variability. We also mention here that the individual bias corrected and flat fielded images of targets were examined carefully to see if there was any background variation after initial processing of the images and image frames which showed gradual variation (say more than 2% end to end) in CCD response were rejected. Lastly it is most important that the DLCs of any target should show good correlation so that there be no doubt on the variability of the source.
Variability Detection Criterion
-------------------------------
We have followed the method outlined by Howell et al. (1988) to detect objectively the presence or absence of variability at a particular confidence level (say $3\sigma$ or above). In the present study, for analysis of each source, two comparison stars (s1 and s2) were used and DLCs were generated. We estimate rms error by fitting a straight line to the DLC of comparison stars (comparison star - check star) (s1-s2) using the least square fit and estimate the deviation of the data points from the fitted straight line. The mean value of the standard deviation has been used as the measure of the observational error. The formal error for each data point are substantially smaller than the standard deviation ($\sigma$) of the comparison - check star data and therefore is much more generous estimate of the true observational error than the formal errors (photon noise) detected by photometry software DAOPHOT II. In general the luminosity of the comparison stars is different than the target source. The value of the standard deviation estimated as above was scaled to the $\sigma^2_{v-s}$ by using the equation (4) of Howell et al. (1988). The value of $\Gamma^{2}$ was calculated using equation (13) in Howell et al. (1988) which is used to scale the $\sigma^{2}_{s1-s2}$ to get $\sigma^{2}_{v-s}$. The scaled value of $\sigma^2_{v-s}$ was then used to assess the confidence level of variability.
Notes on different sources:
---------------------------
[**0748+294 (QJ 0751+2991)**]{}\
\
This RQQSO, reported as the brightest new QSO in the first bright QSO survey (Gregg et al. 1996), was monitored on the night of February 14, 1999 in the optical R band by Gopal-Krishna et al. (2000) to search for micro-variability. In the seven hours of continuous monitoring of the source, they have reported spikes (excursion of just one point) at two occasions and suggested the possible existence of micro-variability in the source. Observations of this source in six nights with average monitoring ($\sim$ 6.5 hours per night) in R passband is again reported by Stalin et al. (2004) and they did not find micro-variability in this source but spike of $\sim$ 2% brightness excursion was seen on one occasion. However, Stalin et al. (2004) monitored this source for more than three years (December 14, 1998 to December 25, 2001) and on the basis of the data they have reported the existence of long term variation in the source.
![ The $V$ band light curve of 0748+294 on the night of January 13, 2000.[]{data-label="fig"}](2370fig1.ps){width="4.3in" height="3.4in"}
We observed this source continuously for about eight hours (UT 15.669 to 23.336 hr) during the night of January 13, 2000; data sampling being about 5 points per hour and integration time for each frame being 500 sec. DLCs were obtained with respect to two comparison stars, both the comparison stars being brighter than the source. Both the DLCs (QSO - star1 and QSO - star2) for the source 0748+291 are plotted in Fig. 1 which clearly indicate brightness variation of about 4% during the time UT 18.553 - 22.569 hr. As is clear from Fig. 1, the DLC for the comparison stars (star1 - star2) is quite steady whereas the DLCs for the source show appreciable variation during the period. To quantify the degree of variation, we estimated the variance from the DLC for the comparison stars assuming that the stars remained steady during the observing run. A straight line was fitted to the data ($\Delta$ mag against UT) and the deviations are estimated from the mean line. The rms noise (standard deviation) is estimated at 0.004 mag. This is scaled to the DLC of the (source - comparison) using the method stated above in section 4.2 and the rms noise $\sigma$ is estimated at 0.005 mag. During the period UT 18.553 - 22.569 hr, rms variation of qso-comparisons are respectively 0.014 and 0.013 for qso - s1 and qso - s2. Thus the variance for DLCs of qso is more than 6 $\sigma$. This indicates detection of genuine micro variation in the source. If we consider peak-to-peak variation ($\approx$ 0.05 mag) in the DLC of qso - star1, the variation is at a level of 10 $\sigma$, which further support the existence of micro-variability in the source.\
[**0945+438 (US 995)**]{}\
\
Huang et al. (1990) studied the variability of this source using the data taken from Palomar plates for the period 1978 to 1981 ($\sim$ 3.5 year) and did not find any variability in the source. This source was also observed in near-infrared pass-bands (JHK$^{'}$) during the period February 10, 1996 and December 27, 1997 by Enya et al. (2002) and they have reported the existence of long term variation which they were interested in. Search for micro-variability in this source in optical bands was done by different groups e.g. de Diego et al. (1998) in two nights, Stalin et al. (2004) in three nights, Stalin et al. (2005) in one night. de Diego et al. (1998) have reported the existence of micro-variability in the source but on other hand Stalin et al. (2004, 2005) did not find any evidence of micro-variability. However, the existence of long term variation in the source has been reported by Stalin et al. (2004), the source has dimmed about 0.07 mag during February 26, 2000 and January 23, 2001.
![The $V$ band light curve of 0945+438 on the night of February 26, 2000.[]{data-label="fig"}](2370fig2.ps){width="4.3in" height="3.4in"}
We observed this source for more than 5 hours during (UT 15.125 - 20.458 hour) on the night of February 26, 2000. Integration time for each frame was 300 seconds. The DLCs are shown in Fig. 2. There is a break in observations during 18.9 - 20.2 hours UT due to some problem in the control system of the telescope. DLC of comparison stars gives $\sigma$ at 0.011 and scaled value is 0.010. Standard variation of qso-comparisons are respectively 0.011 and 0.018 for qso - s1 and qso - s2, and hence the mean variance is less than 2 $\sigma$. The data appear a bit noisy. Hence, the source has not shown any significant variation during the night.\
[**1017+280 (Ton34)**]{}\
Stalin et al. (2004) have monitored this source to look for the existence of micro-variability and their observations in three nights in R-band did not show any clear evidence of micro-variability.
![ The $V$ band light curve of 1017+280 on the night of January 14, 2000.[]{data-label="fig"}](2370fig3.ps){width="4.3in" height="3.4in"}
![ The $V$ band light curve of 1017+280 on the night of February 27, 2000.[]{data-label="fig"}](2370fig4.ps){width="4.3in" height="3.4in"}
We observed this source on two nights, January 14 and February 27, 2000, for continuous 6.5 and 6.0 hours respectively. On January 14, 2000 integration time for each image frame was 400 seconds whereas it was 300 seconds for the observing run on February 27, 2000. The DLCs are plotted in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. During the night of January 14, DLC of the comparisons is not stable during the period UT 18.003 - 21.586 hr, but later on it is relatively stable. Hence, we consider only the data during the period of UT 21.886 - 24.503 hr for further discussion. The standard deviation of comparison stars is estimated at 0.006 mag, scaled value of $\sigma$ for DLCs of the source is 0.008. The standard deviation for DLCs of qso - s1 and qso - s2 are respectively 0.019 and 0.018. The mean variance for the DLCs of the source is more than 5 $\sigma$. This indicates that the source is showing variability during the specific period of the night.
In the night of February 27, 2000, DLC of comparisons is quite stable the $\sigma$ value is estimated at $\sim$ 0.007, and scaled value for source DLC is 0.010. The standard variations for DLCs of qso are 0.011 and 0.011. Hence the variance is less than 2 $\sigma$. Therefore, no variation is detected during the night.\
[**1029+329 (CSO 50)**]{}\
\
This source was observed earlier by other groups in six nights (Gopal-Krishna et al. 2003; Stalin et al. 2004, 2005) and the existence of micro-variability has been reported in two nights out of the six nights. However, no significant long term variation in the span of two years are reported.
![ The $V$ band light curve of 1029+329 on the night of April 05, 2000.[]{data-label="fig"}](2370fig5.ps){width="4.3in" height="3.4in"}
We observed this source continuously for about 6 hours on the night of April 05, 2000. The integration time for each image frame was 300 sec. The DLCs are plotted in Fig. 5. The $\sigma$ value for the DLC of the comparisons is estimated $\sim$ 0.011 which gets scaled to the same value as $\Gamma$ is close to 1; $\sigma$ values for qso - s1 and qso - s2 are respectively 0.017 and 0.018. As the observed variance for the source is close to 2 $\sigma$. Hence, no micro variability is detected.\
[**1101+319 (Ton 52)**]{}\
\
Stalin et al. (2004) observed this source in four nights for searching micro-variability and have reported the existence of micro-variability in one night, long term variation is also seen in the source.
![ The $V$ band light curve of 1101+319 on the night of April 04, 2000.[]{data-label="fig"}](2370fig6.ps){width="4.3in" height="3.4in"}
We also observed this source for about 6 hours on the night of April 04, 2000. Integration time for each image frame was 300 sec. The DLCs are plotted in Fig. 6. From the plot it appears that the quality of data is relatively poor and data are a bit noisy. The scaled $\sigma$ value of the comparison stars is estimated at 0.013. The $\sigma$ values for DLCs of qso are respectively 0.019 and 0.020 for qso - s1 and qso - s2. The variance for the DLCs of qso is close to 2 $\sigma$, indicating the non existence of micro-variability in the source.\
[**1103-006 (PKS 1103-006)**]{}\
This is the only lobe dominated quasar in our sample. The source was observed by Enya et al. (2002) in near infrared pass-bands JHK$^{'}$ for searching long term variability. Observations were made during the period February 12, 1996 and January 05, 1998. The source was found showing variation on long term. This source was also observed by Stalin et al. (2004) during the period March 17, 1999 to March 22, 2002 (six nights) in optical region and have reported clear evidence of micro-variability in one night and also reported significant variation in long term.
We observed this source for about 5.5 hours on the night of April 06, 2000. Integration time for each image frame was 300 sec. The DLCs are plotted in Figure 7. Scaled value of $\sigma$ from the DLC of comparison stars is estimated $\sim$ 0.015. From the DLCs of the source, the standard deviations are 0.026 and 0.020 respectively for DLCs qso - s1 and qso - s2. Thus the variance for the source is about 3 time the variance of the standards, indicating the possible existence of intra-night variation.
![ The $V$ band light curve of 1103-006 on the night of April 06, 2000.[]{data-label="fig"}](2370fig7.ps){width="4.3in" height="3.4in"}
[**1225+317 (b2 1225+317)**]{}\
![ The $V$ band light curve of 1225+317 on the night of April 07, 2000.[]{data-label="fig"}](2370fig8.ps){width="4.3in" height="3.4in"}
There has been no systematic attempt earlier to study this source for micro-variability. We monitored this source for about six hours (UT 15.669 to 23.480 hr) during the night of April 07, 2000. Integration time for each image frame was 300 sec. DLCs are plotted in Fig. 8. The $\sigma$ value based on DLC of comparison stars is estimated at 0.011 which scales to 0.008 for source DLCs. DLCs for the source show standard deviation 0.016 and 0.012 for qso - s1 and qso - s2 respectively. The variance for the DLC of qso is thus close to 3 times the $\sigma$ value, indicating the possible existence of micro variation. During the period UT 22.175 - 22.575 hr DLCs of qso - s1 and qso - s2 show brightness variation 0.081 mag and 0.094 mag respectively which is close to 10 $\sigma$ level. Confirmation of such events require further monitoring of the source with larger S/N.\
[**1252+020 (q 1252+020)**]{}\
This source was observed for five nights during March 22, 1999 to March 18, 2002 by Stalin et al. (2004). Source has shown micro-variability in two nights and significant long term variability is also reported.
This source was observed by us for about 3.5 hours in the night of March 09, 2000. The DLCs are plotted in Fig. 9. The standard deviation based on DLC of comparison stars scaled to source DLC is estimated at 0.014. Standard deviations for the DLCs of qso are respectively 0.014 and 0.014 for qso-s1 and qso-s2, indicating the absence of micro variation in the source.
![ The $V$ band light curve of 1252+020 on the night of March 09, 2000.[]{data-label="fig"}](2370fig9.ps){width="4.3in" height="3.4in"}
Statistical Analysis of Intra-night Optical Variability of Different Classes of AGNs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### Radio-Quiet AGNs
[ccccc]{}\
No. of LCs & & Radio Quiet AGNs & & Ref.\
& duration $\leq$ 3h & 3h $<$ duration $\geq$ 6h & duration $>$ 6h &\
27 & 0(0,0,0) & 26(22,2,2) & 1(1,0,0) & 1\
2 & 2(0,0,2) & 0(0,0,0) & 0(0,0,0) & 2\
10 & 0(0,0,0) & 3(3,0,0) & 7(6,1,0) & 3\
23 & 8(8,0,0) & 15(15,0,0) & 0(0,0,0) & 4\
55 & 23(15,7,1) & 19(11,8,0) & 13(7,6,0) & 5\
29 & 0(0,0,0) & 13(11,0,2) & 16(13,0,3) & 6, 7\
20 & 6(4,0,2) & 8(5,0,3) & 6(5,0,1) & 8\
8 & 0(0,0,0) & 2(2,0,0) & 6(3,1,2) & 9\
174 & 39(27,7,5) & 86(69,10,7) & 49(36,8,6) & [**Total**]{}\
[**Ref.**]{} (1) Jang & Miller (1997); (2) Anupama & Chokshi (1998); (3) Romero et al. (1999); (4) Petrucci et al. (1999); (5) Gopal-Krishna et al. (2000); (6) Gopal-Krishna et al. (2003); (7) Stalin et al. (2004); (8) Stalin et al. (2005); (9) present study
During the last decade several groups have done extensive search for finding micro-variability in different subclasses of radio-quiet AGNs. The results based on the study made by various researchers is described briefly in the following.
A sample of 19 radio-quiet AGNs was studied by Jang & Miller (1995, 1997) for searching micro-variability. They presented DLCs for RQQSOs Ton 951 and Ton 1057 which show up to $\sim 8\%$ variation on time scale of an hour or so. However, both these sources are of the modest luminosity (M$_B > -24.3$) and at these lower level of luminosity, false indications of variability, due to varying seeing, cannot be ruled out (Cellone et al. 2000). Jang & Miller (1995, 1997) have reported 16% (3/19) sources showing micro-variability. Their statistical analysis show the existence of variability at confidence level of 99%.
![Histogram of observing runs on radio-quiet AGNs. NV, PV and V denote the numbers of events the sources were detected: non variable, possible variable and variable respectively.[]{data-label="fig"}](2370fig10.ps){width="4.0in" height="4.0in"}
de Diego et al. (1998) monitored a sample of 34 sources, equally distributed between radio-quiet and core dominated radio-loud QSOs. They observed pair of objects from both the categories having reasonably matched redshifts and luminosities. Based on the variability behavior, they claim that there is no difference in radio-loud and radio-quiet QSOs. However, their data is rather scanty as each source was monitored only a few times per night and there was no attempt to systematically monitor sources continuously for a few hours (say for about three hours or more). So, the data lacks the continuity of a lengthy data trains. We have not considered these results in the statistical analysis in the present paper.
Rabbette et al. (1998) failed to detect intra-night variability in a sample of 23 high-luminosity RQQSOs. Their detection threshold was $\sim$ 0.1 mag. Their data lacked the continuity of a lengthy data trains and not used for statistical analysis in the present paper.
Search for rapid optical variability in two broad-absorption line QSOs (BALQSOs) was conducted by Anupama & Chokshi (1998) and they have reported detection of significant variation in both the QSOs.
Romero et al. (1999) observed a sample of 23 southern AGNs in which eight were RQQSOs and rest were belonging to the different subclasses of radio-loud AGNs. In their analysis, they used the scatter in the weighted average of six comparison stars for estimating photometric errors. None of their eight RQQSOs showed indications strong enough to support the existence of of intra-night variability.
A micro-variability study of 22 Seyfert 1 galaxies (relatively weak, radio-quiet AGNs) have been done by Petrucci et al. (1999). Their error estimation method is different from Romero et al. (1999). They took the weighted average of three or more comparison stars to define a virtual standard star and used structure function analysis to look for micro-variability in these sources. However, they did not find micro-variability in any source in their sample.
Gopal-Krishna et al. (2000) reported the results on micro-variability in a sample of 16 RQQSOs. They found 31% (5/16) to be probable or very probable micro-variable, 31% (5/16) RQQSOs showing spikes in their DLCs and the rest 38% (6/16) sources being non variable.
Recently 49 intra-night variability light curves were presented for 19 RQQSOs by Gopal-Krishna et al. (2003) and Stalin et al. (2004, 2005). They found peak-to-peak micro-variation of $\sim$ 1% in 11 light curves of 8 RQQSOs. 11 RQQSOs have not shown any intra-night variations.
To study the occurrence of micro-variability in radio-quite AGNs and their statistical behavior, we compiled the data on variability of different subclasses of radio-quiet AGNs from the literature, thus enlarging the data base. The statistics is expected to be more robust. The data are listed in Table 3 and the statistics in the form of histogram is plotted in Fig. 10. We find nearly $\sim$ 10 % radio-quiet AGNs show intra-night variations.
### Radio-Loud AGNs (Non Blazars)
[ccccc]{}\
No. of LCs & & Radio Loud AGNs & & Ref.\
& & (excluding Blazars) & &\
& duration $\leq$ 3h & 3h $<$ duration $\geq$ 6h & duration $>$ 6h &\
19 & 1(0,0,1) & 17(5,1,11) & 1(1,0,0) & 1, 2\
7 & 0(0,0,0) & 7(4,0,3) & 0(0,0,0) & 3\
33 & 2(1,0,1) & 10(6,0,4) & 21(14,0,7) & 4\
15 & 0(0,0,0) & 4(3,0,1) & 11(8,1,2) & 5\
33 & 1(1,0,0) & 14(12,2,0) & 18(13,0,5) & 6\
8 & 0(0,0,0) & 5(2,0,3) & 3(0,0,3) & 7\
115 & 4(2,0,2) & 57(32,3,22) & 54(36,1,17) & [**Total**]{}\
\(1) Jang & Miller (1995); (2) Jang & Miller (1997); (3) Romero et al. (1999); (4) Romero et al. (2002); (5) Sagar et al. (2004); (6) Stalin et al. (2004); (7) Stalin et al. (2005)
Study of micro-variability in optical wavebands of the radio-loud AGNs excluding blazars was carried out by several groups. First systematic search for optical micro-variations in radio-loud QSOs was carried out by Jang & Miller (1995, 1997). They monitored 11 radio-loud QSOs in 20 nights and found 10 sources showing variation in the flux at least in one night.
Romero et al. (1999) monitored a sample of 5 radio-loud QSOs in 7 nights. and found 3 radio-loud QSOs showing flux variation of $\sim$ 2.2 to 8% within a single night. The other 2 radio-loud QSOs have not shown any significant variations during the observing run of 4 nights.
![Histogram of observing runs on radio-loud AGNs (non blazars). NV, PV and V denote the numbers of events the sources were detected: non variable, possible variable and variable respectively.[]{data-label="fig"}](2370fig11.ps){width="4.0in" height="4.0in"}
Romero et al. (2002) have reported observations of 16 EGRET radio-loud quasars (non blazars) in 33 nights during the period 1997 to 2000. Intra-night variations were reported for 12 nights in 7 radio-loud quasars. 9 radio-loud quasars have not shown any intra-night variations.
In a recent paper, Sagar et al. (2004) have reported observations of 5 core dominated QSOs (CDQs) in 15 nights in R-band. They found one source showing variation in one night and another source showed variation in all the three nights when observations were made. Rest three sources have not displayed any intra-night variations in the observations of nine nights.
In another set of recent papers, Stalin et al. (2004, 2005) have reported optical monitoring of 5 radio-loud AGNs in 40 nights and have reported intra-night variations only in 11 nights and one source has shown a possible intra-night variation on one night.
To investigate the general statistical behavior of micro-variability of radio-loud AGNs (excluding blazars), we compiled the data on variability (based on various monitoring program to study micro-variability) from literature which is listed in Table 4. The data are plotted in the form of histogram in Fig. 11. We find that nearly $\sim$ 35-40 % radio-loud AGNs (non-blazars) show intra-night variations.
### Radio-Loud AGNs (Blazars)
[ccccc]{}\
No. of LCs & & Radio Loud AGNs & & Ref.\
& & (Blazars) & &\
& duration $\leq$ 3h & 3h $<$ duration $\geq$ 6h & duration $>$ 6h &\
2 & 0(0,0,0) & 2(0,0,2) & 0(0,0,0) & 1\
4 & 0(0,0,0) & 4(0,0,4) & 0(0,0,0) & 2\
9 & 8(6,0,2) & 1(0,0,1) & 0(0,0,0) & 3\
32 & 13(3,0,10) & 17(6,0,11) & 2(1,0,1) & 4\
4 & 0(0,0,0) & 0(0,0,0) & 4(0,0,4) & 5\
9 & 5(0,0,5) & 3(1,1,1) & 1(1,0,0) & 6\
24 & 2(1,0,1) & 6(2,0,4) & 16(3,0,13) & 7\
25 & 0(0,0,0) & 11(7,0,4) & 14(1,0,13) & 8\
4 & 0(0,0,0) & 2(0,0,2) & 2(1,0,1) & 9\
113 & 28(10,0,18) & 46(16,1,29) & 39(7,0,32) & [**Total**]{}\
\(1) Miller et al. (1989); (2) Carini et al. (1990); (3) Carini et al. (1991); (4) Carini et al. (1992); (5) Carini & Miller (1992); (6) Ghosh et al. (2001); (7) Romero et al. (2002); (8) Sagar et al. (2004); (9) Stalin et al. (2005)
Study of optical micro-variability of radio-loud AGNs (blazars) was done by several groups. The pioneer work in blazars optical intra-night variability is by Miller et al. (1989), Carini (1990), Carini et al. (1990, 1991, 1992) and Carini & Miller (1992). First clear evidence of optical intra-night variability in BL Lacertae was reported by Miller et al. (1989). Carini et al. (1990) have observed blazar OQ 530 in 4 nights (April 1-4, 1988), the source has shown micro-variability in all the four nights. Carini et al. (1991) observed the blazar AP Librae in nine nights during March - May 1989. In three nights intra-night variability were seen. Carini & Miller (1992) observed the blazar PKS 2155-304 for continuous 4 nights (Sept. 25-28, 1988), and the micro-variability is seen on all these four nights. Carini et al. (1992) observed blazars OJ 287 and BL Lacertae for eighteen and fourteen nights respectively during (Nov. 1986 - March 1989). Out of 32 nights observations micro-variability is reported for 18 nights. Carini (1990), based on the study of a sample of 20 blazars, reported that the probability of seeing a significant micro-variability exceeds 80% if a source is monitored continuously for more than 8 hours.
![Histogram of observing runs on radio-loud AGNs(blazars). NV, PV and V denote the numbers of events the sources were detected: non variable, possible variable and variable respectively.[]{data-label="fig"}](2370fig12.ps){width="4.0in" height="4.0in"}
Heidt & Wagner (1996) studied optical intra-night variability in a sample of 34 radio-selected BL Lac objects from 1 Jy catalog. Observations were carried out during June 1990 to September 1993; each blazar was observed in seven continuous nights, 3 times in each night with time interval of 2 hours. In 28 out of 34 BL Lac objects (82%) intra-night variability was detected and 75% of the variable BL Lacs changed significantly in time scale $<$ 6 hours. As this data lacks continuity of lengthy data trains, we have not considered these results in the statistical analysis in the present paper.
About 140 intra-night light curves of a large sample of blazars were generated in series of papers by Chinese group (ref. Bai et al. 1998, 1999; Dai et al. 2001; Xie et al. 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004; Fan et al. 2001, 2004; Qian & Tao 2004). Observations were made in more than two visual pass-bands and in a particular night two or more blazars were observed. All the blazars in the sample have shown micro-variations in several nights. The data in these papers also lacks continuity of lengthy trains and hence not considered for further discussion and the statistical analysis in the present paper.
Ghosh et al.(2001) have made observations on five blazars in seven nights during November 05, 1997 $-$ December 29, 1998. Micro-variations were seen in four blazars.
Romero et al.(2002) have reported observations of 4 EGRET blazars in 24 nights during the period 1997 to 2000. Intra-night variations were reported for 18 nights in 3 blazars. One blazar was observed in 2 nights but has not shown any intra-night variations.
Sagar et al. (2004) and Stalin et al. (2005) have recently done an extensive search for intra-night optical variability in blazars. They have observed nine BL Lac objects in 35 nights. All the sources have shown intra-night variations at least in one night observations. Out of 35 nights observations, intra-night variations are seen in 20 nights.
We compiled the data from the literature on micro-variability of blazars (based on monitoring of radio-loud AGNs (blazars)) to study the statistics. The data are listed in Table 5 and presented in the form of histogram in Fig. 12. The data indicate that the events of occurrence of micro-variation in blazars in time scale of less than 6 hour are $\sim$ 60-65 %. If the blazar is observed for more than 6 hour then the possibility of intra-night variability detection is about 80-85 %.
Conclusions
===========
The new observations of RQQSOs reported here indicate clear evidence of the existence of optical intra-night variability in the luminous RQQSOs. The compiled data of all classes of AGNs, divided in three subgroups, show the presence of intra-night variability in all the subclasses of AGNs.
The popular model to explain micro-variations is shock-in-jet model (e.g. Blandford & Konigl 1979; Scheuer & Readhead 1979; Marsher 1980; Hughes et al. 1985; Marsher 1992; Marscher & Gear 1985; Valtaoja et al. 1988; and Qian et al. 1991). An important signature of the relativistic particle jets ejected by black holes is that their light is seen to fluctuate even on the time scale of less than an hour. This model is rather well accepted to explain micro-variability in radio-loud AGNs. The clear evidence of micro-variations in RQQSOs reported in the paper can be explained in all likelihood, relativistic particle jets are even ejected by the central engine of RQQSOs. However, probably most jets are quenched at the incipient stage itself, due to severe inverse-Compton losses inflicted by the intense photon field in the vicinity of the black hole. Thus, it appears to be no fundamental difference in the central engines of radio-quiet and radio-loud AGNs.
Micro-variability reported here in the RQQSOs can also be supported by an alternative standard model having numerous flares or hot spots on the accretion disk surrounding the central engine which can produce the micro-variations in quasars (e.g. Wiita et al. 1991, 1992; Chakrabarti & Wiita 1993; Mangalam & Wiita 1993).
From the compiled catalog of micro-variations studies of radio-quiet and radio-loud AGNs, we find that both the classes of AGNs have shown micro-variations. Frequency of occurrence of micro-variations is least in radio-quiet AGNs, highest in blazars and radio-loud AGNs (excluding blazars) fall between these two extreme classes. Radio-quiet AGNs exhibit micro-variations with maximum amplitude of about 10% or less whereas radio-loud AGNs (excluding blazars) show micro-variations with amplitude of variation reaching to 50% of the normal flux level with the frequency of occurrence being more than radio-quiet AGNs. On the other hand blazars show the extreme micro-variations with maximum amplitude of variation reaching to $\sim$ 100% of the normal flux level. Genearlly $\approx$ 10 % and 35-40 % radio-quiet AGNs and radio-loud AGNs (non-blazars) have shown intra-night variations respectively. Any blazar, if observed continuously for less than 6 hours and more than 6 hours, the chances of seeing micro-variations are $\approx$ 60-65 % and 80-85 % respectively.
These results indicate that the energy generation mechanism and the environment around the central engine in different classes of AGNs may be similar, if not identical. The standard models which explain the micro-variability in radio-loud AGNs viz. shock-in-jet models and accretion disk based models can also explain the micro-variability behavior of RQQSOs.
We thank the anonymous referee for his/her constructive critical comments that helped to improve this paper. We are thankful to Profs. J. H. Fan and J. S. Bagla for reading the manuscript and making useful suggestions. The research work at the Physical Research Laboratory is funded by the Department of Space, Government of India. Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India supported the research work at the Harish-Chandra Research Institute and at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. IRAF is distributed by NOAO, USA.
Angione, R. J. 1971, [AJ]{}, 76, 25
Antonucci, R., Barvainis, R., & Alloin, D. 1990, [ApJ]{}, 353, 416
Anupama, G. C. & Chokshi, A. 1998, [ApJ]{}, 494, L147
Bai, J. M., Xie, G. Z., Li, K. H., et al. 1998, [A&AS]{}, 132, 83
Bai, J. M., Xie, G. Z., Li, K. H., et al. 1999, [A&AS]{}, 136, 455
Bertaud, C., Wlerick, G., Veron, P., et al. 1973, [A&A]{}, 24, 357
Blandford, R. D. & K$\ddot{o}$nigl, A. 1979, [ApJ]{}, 232, 34
Bregman, J. N., 1992, in Variability of Active Galactic Nuclei, edited by H. R. Miller and P. J. Wiita (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), p1
Carini, M. T. 1990, PhD Thesis, Georgia State University
Carini, M. T., Miller, H. R. 1992, [ApJ]{}, 385, 146
Carini, M. T., Miller, H. R., & Goodrich, B. D. 1990, [AJ]{}, 100, 347
Carini, M. T., Miller, H. R., & Goodrich, B. D. 1992, [AJ]{}, 104, 15
Carini, M. T., Miller, H. R., Noble, J. C. & Sadun, A. C. 1991, [AJ]{}, 101, 1196
Catanese, M., Bradbury, S. M., Breslin, A. C., et al. 1997, [ApJ]{}, 487, L43
Cellone, S. A., Romero, G. E. & Combi, J. A. 2000, [AJ]{}, 119, 1534
Chakrabati, S. K. & Wiita, P. J. 1993, [ApJ]{}, 411, 602
Dai, B. Z., Xie, G. Z., Li, K. H., et al. 2001, [AJ]{}, 122, 2901
de Diego, J. A., Dultzin-Hacyan, D., Ramirez, A. & Benitez, E. 1998, [ApJ]{}, 500, 69
Enya, K., Yoshii, Y., Kobayashi, Y., et al. 2002, [ApJS]{}, 141, 31
Fan, J. H. & Lin, R. G. 1999, [ApJS]{}, 121, 131
Fan, J. H., Qian, B. C. & Tao, J. 2001, [A&A]{}, 369, 758
Fan, J. H. et al. 2002, [A&A]{}, 381, 1
Fan, J. H. Kurtanidze, O. M., Nikolashvili, M. G., et al. 2004, [ChA&A]{}, 4, 133
Ghosh, K. K., Ramsey, B. D., Sadun, A. C. & Soundararajaperumal 2000, [ApJS]{}, 127, 11
Ghosh, K. K., Kim, C., Ramsey, B. D. & Soundararajaperumal 2001, [JKAS]{}, 34, 9
Gopal-Krishna, Gupta, A. C., Sagar, R., et al. 2000, [MNRAS]{}, 314, 815
Gopal-Krishna, Stalin, C. S., Sagar, R. & Wiita, P. J. 2003, [ApJ]{}, 586, L25
Gregg, M. D., Becker, R. H., White, R. L., et al. 1996, [AJ]{}, 112, 407
Gupta, A. C., Joshi, U. C., Fan, J. H. 2002, [Ap&SS]{}, 282, 655
Gupta, A. C. & Joshi, U. C. 2005, [New Astronomy]{} (submitted)
Gupta, A. C., Banerjee, D. P. K., Ashok, N. M. & Joshi, U. C. 2004, [A&A]{}, 422, 505
Jang, M. & Miller, H. R. 1995, [ApJ]{}, 452, 582
Jang, M. & Miller, H. R. 1997, [AJ]{}, 114, 565
Heidt, J. & Wagner, S. J. 1996, [A&A]{}, 305, 42
Howell, S. B., Warnock, A III & Mitchell, K. J. 1988, [AJ]{}, 95, 247
Huang, K-L., Mitchell, K. J. & Usher, P. D. 1990, [ApJ]{}, 362, 33
Hughes, P.A., Aller, H.D., & Aller, M.F. 1985, [ApJ]{}, 342, 660
Kataoka, J., Mattox, J. R., Quinn, J., et al. 1999, [ApJ]{}, 514, 138
Kellermann, K. I., Sramek, R. A., Schmidt, M., et al. 1994, [AJ]{}, 108, 1163
Lamer, G. & Wagner, S. J. 1998, [A&A]{}, 331, L13
Mangalam, A.V. & Wiita, P.J. 1993, [ApJ]{}, 406, 420
Marscher, A. P. 1980, [ApJ]{}, 239, 296
Marscher, A. P. 1992, in Physics of Active Galactic Nuclei, edited by W. J. Duschl and S. J. Wagner (Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag), p510
Marscher, A.P. & Gear, W.K. 1985, [ApJ]{}, 298, 114
Matthews, T. A. & Sandage, A. R. 1963, [ApJ]{}, 138, 30
Miller, H. R. 1980, [AJ]{}, 85, 99
Miller, H. R., Carini, M. T. & Goodrich, B. D. 1989, [Nature]{}, 337, 627
Miller, P., Rawlings, S. & Saunders, R. 1993, [MNRAS]{}, 263, 425
Miller, L., Peacock, J. A. & Mead, A. R. G. 1990, [MNRAS]{}, 244, 207
Noble, J. C., Carini, M. T., Miller, H. R. & Goodrich, B. D. 1997, [AJ]{}, 113, 1995
Oke, J. B. 1967, ApJ, 147, 901
Peng, B., Kraus, A., Krichbaum, T. P., et al. 2000, [A&A]{}, 353, 937
Petry, D., B$\ddot{o}$ttcher, Connaughton, V., et al. 2000, [ApJ]{}, 536, 742
Petrucci, P. O., Chelli, A., Henri, G., et al. 1999, [A&A]{}, 342, 687
Pursimo, T., Takalo, L. O., Sillanp$\ddot{a}\ddot{a}$, A., et al. 2000, [A&AS]{}, 146, 141
Qian, B, C. & Tao, J. 2004, [PASP]{}, 116, 161
Qian, S. J., Quirrenbach, A., Witzel, A., et al. 1991, [A&A]{}, 241, 15
Quinn, J., Akerlof, C. W., Biller, S., et al. 1996, [ApJ]{}, 456, L83
Rabbette, M., McBreen, B., Smith, N. & Steel, S. 1998, [A&AS]{}, 129, 445
Racine, R. 1970, [ApJ]{}, 159, L99
Romero, G. E., Cellone, S. A. & Combi, J. A. 1999, [A&AS]{}, 135, 477
Romero, G. E., Cellone, S. A., Combi, J. A. & Andruchow, I. 2002, [A&A]{}, 390, 431
Sagar, R., Stalin, C. S., Gopal-Krishna & Wiita, P. J. 2004, [MNRAS]{}, 348, 176
Scheuer, P. A. G. & Readhead, A. C. S. 1979, [Nature]{}, 277, 182
Stalin, C. S., Gopal-Krishna, Sagar, R. & Wiita, P. J. 2004, [MNRAS]{}, 350, 175
Stalin, C. S., Gupta, A. C., Gopal-Krishna, Wiita, P. J. & Sagar, R. 2005, [MNRAS]{}, 356, 607
Stetson, P. B. 1987, [PASP]{}, 99, 191
Stetson, P. B. 1992, in C. J. Butler and I. Elliot (eds.), IAU Col. 136 on Stellar Photometry $-$ current techniques and future developments, p. 291
V$\acute e$ron-Cetty, M.-P., V$\acute e$ron, P. 2001, 374, 92
Valtaoja, E., Haarala, S., Lehto, H., et al. 1988, [A&A]{}, 203, 1
Villata, M., Raiteri, C. M., Kurtanidze, O. M., et al. 2004, [A&A]{}, 421, 103
Wagner, S. J. & Witzel, A. 1995, [ARA&]{}, 33, 163
Wiita, P.J., Miller, H.R., Carini, M.T. & Rosen, A. 1991, in Structure and Emission Properties of Accretion Disks, IAU Colloquium No. 129, edited by J.P. Lasota et al. (Editions Frontiers, Gif-sur-Yvette), p.557
Wiita, P.J., Miller H.R., Gupta, N., & Chakrabarti, S.K. 1992, in Variability of Blazars, edited by E. Valtaoja, and M. Valtonen (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), p.311
Xie, G. Z., Li, K. H., Zhang, X., et al. 1999, [ApJ]{}, 522, 846
Xie, G. Z., Li, K. H., Bai, J. M., et al. 2001, [ApJ]{}, 548, 200
Xie, G. Z., Zhou, S. B., Dai, B. Z., et al. 2002, [MNRAS]{}, 329, 689
Xie, G. Z., Zhou, S. B., Li, K. H., et al. 2004, [MNRAS]{}, 348, 831
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study a liquid quantum droplets in a mixture of two-component Bose-Einstein condensates under a variable confinement introduced along one or two spatial dimensions. Despite the atom-atom scattering has a three-dimensional character, discreetness of the available modes in the reduced dimension(s) strongly influences the zero-point energy – the Lee-Huang-Yang term. In a weakly interaction limit, it is the leading correction to the mean-field energy at the crossover from three to two dimensions, or from three to one dimension. We analyze the properties of the droplets at the dimensional crossovers, and provide the demanding conditions for accessing quasi-low dimensions. We predict new kinds of droplets which are formed only due to the quantum fluctuations when the mean-field interaction vanishes. Our results pave the way for exploring new states of quantum matter, and are important for experiments with liquid quantum droplets in reduced dimensions.'
author:
- 'Pawe[ł]{} Zin$\,^{1,2}$, Maciej Pylak$\,^{2,3}$, Tomasz Wasak$\,^{2}$, Mariusz Gajda$\,^{3}$ and Zbigniew Idziaszek$\,^2$'
title: 'Quantum Bose-Bose droplets at a dimensional crossover'
---
*Introduction.*—Mixtures of two atomic Bose-Einstein condensates are the systems with a diverse spectrum of physical properties. The inter- and intra-species interaction strengths, $g_{11}, g_{22}$, and $g_{12}$, respectively, are the key parameters defining their behavior. The energy density functional of a uniform mixture in the mean field approximation is a quadratic form [@stringari]: $$\label{MF}
\epsilon_\mathrm{MF} =\frac12 g_{11} n_1^2 + \frac12 g_{22} n_2^2 + g_{12} n_1 n_2,$$ where $n_1$ and $n_2$ are densities of the species. The mixtures can be miscible if $|g_{12}| < \sqrt{g_{11}g_{22}}$, or immiscible if interspecies repulsion dominates, $g_{12}> \sqrt{g_{11}g_{22}}$. On the contrary, if inter-species attraction is strongly attractive, $g_{12} < - \sqrt{g_{11}g_{22}}$, a mixture collapses. Typically, miscible mixtures have to be kept in external traps since, if left alone, they expand to minimize their energy.
The mean-field description overlooks existence of ultra-dilute quantum droplets — the exotic phases of the self-bound incompressible system of a two component Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs), stabilized by quantum fluctuations [@Petrov15], and with densities orders of magnitude smaller than of ordinary liquids.
In a weakly interacting regime, the energy related to the quantum fluctuations is small, and, for a single-component BEC, is known as the Lee-Huang-Yang (LHY) correction to the ground state energy of the system [@Lee57]: $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_\mathrm{LHY} = \frac{128}{30\sqrt{\pi}}\, gn^2 \sqrt{na^3},\end{aligned}$$ where $n$ is the density, the coupling strenght $g=4 \pi \hbar^2 a/m$, $a$ is the positive $s$-wave scattering length, and $m$ is the atomic mass. The correction $\epsilon_\mathrm{LHY}$ originates from a zero-point energy of the vacuum of Bogoliubov’s quasiparticles. Since it depends on a higher power of the density, as compared to the leading mean-field terms, its contribution to the energy is negligible in most circumstances. However, for the Bose-Bose mixture, at the edge of the stability, close to the collapse threshold, the mean-field energy vanishes, and the quantum fluctuations start to dominate. As predicted in [@Petrov15], these fluctuations contribute additional energy, called the LHY correction [@Larsen63; @Sacha08; @Petrov15], and stabilize the system and lead to the formation of quantum droplets.
Quantum droplets were first observed in Dysprosium and Erbium BECs [@Kadau16; @Ferrier16a; @Ferrier16b; @Schmitt16; @Chomaz16], in which the dipole-dipole interactions between atoms is significant. This anisotropic interaction, depending on the relative position of atoms and the orientation of their magnetic dipole moments, can be attractive or repulsive. The competition of attraction and repulsion, similarly to the two-component mixtures, might bring the system to the stability edge, making it vulnerable to quantum fluctuations. The original scenario from Ref. [@Petrov15], was realized in the recent experiments with two-component Potassium BECs [@Cabrera17; @Fattori17; @Cheiney18].
Quantum droplets can also exists in low-dimensional systems [@Petrov16]. Due to the expected reduction of three-body losses, these droplets are of a great experimental interest. Such low-dimensional systems can be created by employing tight confinements in one or two spatial directions. However, tight externals potentials significantly modify the excitation spectrum, and, in particular, the zero-point energy of the quasi-particles. Therefore, quantum droplets in reduced dimensions possess different properties then those in three-dimensional (3D) space both for BEC mixtures [@Petrov16] and for dipolar BECs [@Mishra16].
In experiments, the quasi-two-dimensional (quasi-2D) or quasi-one-dimensional (quasi-1D) regimes are obtained by a tight confinement introduced by external potential in one or two directions. The potential introduces an additional linear length scale $L$ of the tight confinement. This scale sets a lower limit on the excitation momentum to $ \sim \hbar/L$ and minimal excitation energy $\varepsilon_0 = (\hbar^2/2m)(2\pi/L)^2$ in the confined direction(s). If both thermal energy $k_BT$ as well as characteristic interaction energy $\sim g_{11}n_1+g_{22}n_2$, are too small to allow for excitation in the tight direction(s), i.e. $\varepsilon_0 \gg k_BT$, and $\varepsilon_0 \gg g_{11}n_1,g_{22}n_2$, i.e., $\varepsilon_0$ is the largest energy scale of the problem, then from a point of view of kinematics the system is low-dimensional.
As shown in [@Petrov16], the low-dimensional liquids are even more exotic then their 3D analogue. Three-dimensional droplets are formed when the mean-field approach predicts a collapse of the system, i.e., interspecies attraction is sufficiently strong. However, in lower dimensions, the two- and one-dimensional droplets can be formed in an overall repulsive system, which liquefies while squeezed, and does not need any trapping potential in the not confined direction(s) anymore.
In our paper, we study the formation of droplets at the dimensional crossover from 3D to quasi-2D, and 3D to quasi-1D. In this regime, which was not previously explored in the literature, we find new kind of stable droplets which are formed only due to quantum fluctuations, when the mean-field interaction vanishes. Our results are also important for experiments for which the access to quasi-1D or quasi-2D regimes is demanding. Since such experiments are always performed in 3D under conditions of tight confinement the kinematics may be low-dimensional to a large extent. The elimination of excitations, however, in the confined direction(s) is not complete, and the proper description requires inclusion of corrections. In particular, we show that the access to quasi-1D is significantly more demanding than to quasi-2D, therefore, our results are especially important for these experiments since in most circumstances only the crossover is accessible.
The conditions of the dimensional crossover may be reached by varying the trap geometries of the Bose-Bose mixture. Both strongly prolate and oblate shapes of BECs can be formed, and excitation energies in confined and extended direction(s) can be separated energetically, with a limited number of modes in confined direction(s) occupied at low temperatures in the weakly interacting limit. Such systems, with significantly varying spatial extensions in different directions, are in the region of dimensional crossover.
*Lee-Huang-Yang energy of a mixture in a box.*—The system we study is a two component mixture of interacting ultracold Bose gases in the ground state. The mean-field energy density is given by Eq. (\[MF\]). Following the analysis presented in [@Petrov15], we consider the case when both intraspecies interactions are repulsive, $g_{11}>0$, $g_{22}>0$, ($g_{11} \approx g_{22}$), while interspecies interaction is attractive, $g_{12}<0$. We also assume that the system is close to the region of collapse, and, thus, the parameter $\delta g = g_{12} + \sqrt{g_{11}g_{22}}$ is small, i.e., $|\delta g| \ll g_{11},g_{22}$. The diagonal form of the mean-field energy density reads: $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_\mathrm{MF} = \lambda_-n_-^2 + \lambda_+n_+^2.\,\end{aligned}$$ where the coefficients $\lambda_+ \simeq ({g_{11}+g_{22}})/2$, and $\lambda_- \simeq \delta g \sqrt{g_{11}g_{22}}/(g_{11}+g_{22})$. In our regime $|\lambda_-| \ll
\lambda_+$, and thus the density $n_- = (n_1 \sqrt{g_{22}} + n_2 \sqrt{g_{11}})/(\sqrt{g_{11} + g_{22}})$ corresponds to a soft mode, while $n_+ = (n_1 \sqrt{g_{11}} -
n_2 \sqrt{g_{22}})/(\sqrt{g_{11} + g_{22}})$, is the density of a hard mode. Deviation of the latter from zero is energetically very costly, so we assume that in the ground state the hard-mode density effectively vanishes, $n_+ = 0$. Consequently, the densities of both species are proportional to the density of the soft mode: $$\begin{aligned}
n_- = n_1 \sqrt{(g_{11}+g_{22})/g_{22}} = n_2 \sqrt{(g_{11}+g_{22})/g_{11}}. \end{aligned}$$ To further specify our system we assume that it is confined in a box, and periodic boundary conditions are imposed. The standard LHY correction [@Petrov15] in 3D is evaluated under the assumption that all sides of the box have similar length.
To find the LHY correction for the tightly confined system we have to consider the case when a one side of the box is much smaller than the others, $L_z \ll L_x \simeq
L_y$ (3D-2D crossover), or much larger (3D-1D crossover) $L_x \simeq L_y \ll L_z $, than remaining sides. These two configurations are considered separately below. We denote the tight confinement extension by $L$ while a linear size of the box in perpendicular direction(s) by $L_{\perp}$.
At this stage, we do not assume any particular geometry yet. The LHY energy density reads: $$\label{LHY_mix}
\frac{\varepsilon_0}{L^3} e_\mathrm{LHY} = \lim_{r \rightarrow 0} \frac{\partial }{\partial r} \left( r \frac{1}{2V}\sum_{{\bf k}}e^{i{{\bf k}}{{\bf r}}}
( \varepsilon_{{\bf k}}- A_{{\bf k}}) \right),$$ where $\varepsilon_{{\bf k}}= \sqrt{E_{k}^2 + 2 E_k(g_{11}n_1+g_{22}n_2) }$ and $ A_{{\bf k}}= E_k + g_{11}n_1+g_{22}n_2$, and $E_k= (\hbar^2k^2)/2m$. We extracted the prefactor $\varepsilon_0/L^3$ to make $e_\mathrm{LHY}$ dimensionless. This form of the LHY energy results from a regularized pseudopotential [@Lee57], and it is equivalent to the formula used in Ref. [@Petrov15], where the origin of the LHY term is attributed to the zero-point energy of the Bogoliubov vacuum.
In writing Eq. (\[LHY\_mix\]), we made two approximations. First, we set $g_{12}^2 = g_{11}g_{22}$ which is consistent with the previous assumptions that the system is about to collapse. This approximation is not a very restrictive one. Second, we limit the analysis to mixtures of two species with equal masses only. Therefore, the system we consider is, for instance, a mixture of atoms in two different internal spin states [@Cabrera17; @Cheiney18; @Fattori17]. The second approximations is quite restrictive, however. We note that the LHY term is equal to the one of a single component Bose gas with effective $(gn)_\mathrm{eff} = g_{11}n_1+g_{22}n_2$.
The summation over discrete momentum states is essential to account for a tight confinement. If we substituted the summation over momenta with the integral, i.e., $1/V
\sum_{\bf k} \rightarrow \int {\rm d} {\bf k}/(2 \pi)^{3}$, we would recover the limit of an infinite box and the LHY energy of a Bose-Bose mixture in 3D space [@Petrov15].
*LHY energy at the 3D-2D crossover.*—Our main goal here is to find the LHY energy for a system confined in one spatial direction. In such a situation the $z$-axis is a tight direction, i.e., $L=L_z$. Assuming that $L_x=L_y \rightarrow \infty$, in Eq. (\[LHY\_mix\]) one has to substitute $\frac{1}{V}\sum_{{\bf k}}\rightarrow
\frac{1}{(2\pi)^2} \int {\rm d}^2 k_{\perp} \frac{1}{L} \sum_{k_z} $, and the LHY energy in quasi-2D takes the form: $$\label{LHY_2d}
e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{2d}(\xi) = \lim_{r \rightarrow 0} \frac{\partial }{\partial r} \left(\! r \frac{1}{2}\sum_{q_z} \int {\rm d}^2 q_{\perp}
\, e^{i{\bf q} {{\bf r}}} \left( \varepsilon_{\bf q} - A_{\bf q} \right) \!\right),$$ where $\xi=(g_{11} n_1 + g_{22} n_2)/\varepsilon_0$, ${\bf q} = ({\bf q}_\perp,q_z)$ and $q_z$, ${\bf q}_\perp$ are the integer dimensionless momenta: $q_z=(L/2\pi)k_z$, and ${\bf q}_\perp=(L/2\pi) {\bf k}_{\perp}$. Bogoliubov’s energies expressed in the units of $\varepsilon_0$ are: $\varepsilon_{\bf q}= \sqrt{q^4 + 2 \xi q^2}$ and $
A_{\bf q}=q^2 + \xi$. The ratio $\xi$ of the sum of mean field energies of both component to the excitation energy in the tight direction is the crucial parameter characterizing the system. We note that Eq. (\[LHY\_2d\]) applies not only to a system at 3D-2D crossover, but also in the case of strongly oblate geometry, where the characteristic spacing of kinetic momenta in the tighter direction is much larger than spacing in the perpendicular directions. Then, the densely spaced momenta in the perpendicular direction can be considered as continuous.
![ The ratio $ s^\mathrm{2d}(\xi)= e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{2d}(\xi)/e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{3d}(\xi)$ as the function of $\xi$ given by the thick black line. The additional thin meshed curve is the same ratio but using the approximate formula for $e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{2d}(\xi)$ given by Eq. (\[e2d\]). The red dashed horizontal line is the asymptotic 3D result.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}\
For small $\xi$, the result can be obtained analytically (see the Supplementary Material). The formula, derived for $\xi \ll 1$, is the following: $$\label{e2d}
e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{2d}(\xi) = \frac{\pi}{4} \xi^2 \left( \log(\xi) + \log(2\pi^2) + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\pi^2 \xi}{3} \right).$$
We compare this expansion to the direct numerical evaluation of Eq. (\[LHY\_mix\]). In Fig. \[fig1\], we plot the ratio $ s^\mathrm{2d}(\xi)=
e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{2d}(\xi)/e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{3d}(\xi)$, where the 3D LHY energy is $e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{3d}(\xi) = 16 \sqrt{2} \pi \xi^{5/2}/15$. We also plot there $s^\mathrm{2d}(\xi)$ but with $e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{2d}(\xi)$ taken from Eq. (\[e2d\]) (thin meshed curve). The approximate expression for LHY term at 3D-2D crossover almost perfectly reproduces the numerical result for $\xi < 0.3$. For larger values of $\xi$, the exact formula is in the perfect agreement with the 3D expression. The agreement between quasi-2D and 3D results for values of $\xi$ such small as $\xi=0.3$ is quite surprising because the 3D formula formally applies in the limit $\xi \gg 1$.
*Droplets at 3D-2D crossover.*—Neglecting the surface energy, which is well justified for large droplets where a bulk contribution dominates, the energy of the homogeneous droplet of volume $V$ is equal to the sum of the mean-field term, $e_\mathrm{MF}$, and LHY correction, $e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{2d}$: $$\label{Ehom}
E_\mathrm{hom} = \frac{\varepsilon_0}{L^3} \left( e_\mathrm{MF}(\xi) + e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{2d}(\xi) \right) V,$$ where $e_\mathrm{MF}(\xi) = \beta \xi^2$, and $\beta = \varepsilon_0 L^3 \delta g/\sqrt{g_{11}g_{22}} (\sqrt{g_{11}} +\sqrt{g_{22}})^2$ .
The droplet is stable in an empty space if its pressure vanishes, $ p= -({\rm d}/{\rm d}V) E_\mathrm{hom} =0 $. Note, that $\xi$ is proportional to the density, i.e., ${\rm d}\xi/{\rm d}V = - \xi/V$. The condition for the equilibrium density of droplets takes the form: $$\label{pzero}
\left(\xi \frac{ \partial}{\partial \xi} -1 \right) \left( e_\mathrm{MF}(\xi) + e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{2d}(\xi)\right ) = 0.$$
We now focus on the quasi-2D regime in which $e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{2d}(\xi)$ is given by Eq. (\[e2d\]) with the last term neglected. Assuming for simplicity $g_{11}=g_{22} = 4\pi \hbar^2 a/m$, which implies $n_1=n_2 =n$, the solution of Eq. (\[pzero\]) yields: $$\label{x0}
\xi_0 = \frac{1}{2\pi^2} e^{ -\frac{3}{2} - \frac{ L \delta a}{2 a^2}},$$ where we used $\delta g = 4 \pi \hbar^2 \delta a/m$. The above result leads to the following droplet density: $$\label{n2d}
n=\frac{e^{-3/2}}{8 \pi} \frac{1}{a L^2} e^{-\frac{L\delta a}{2a^2}}.$$
To find the conditions for a quasi-2D system, we compare the droplet density obtained with Eq. (\[e2d\]) to the one given by Eq. (\[n2d\]). We find that for $\xi
\lesssim 0.03$, the relative difference between the two results is smaller than $20\%$. We assume this condition defines the quasi-2D regime. Therefore, to have a quasi-2D system we need to have $\xi_0 \lesssim 0.03$ , and, from Eq. (\[x0\]), we find that $$\label{criterion}
\frac{\delta a}{a} > - 4 \frac{a}{L} ,$$ According to Eq. (\[criterion\]), $\delta a$ can have arbitrary sign. Therefore, we arrive at the conclusion that droplets can be formed for the system with mean-field energy corresponding to repulsive, weakly attractive, or even effectively vanishing interactions. The last possibility was not discussed in the literature so far. It is a droplet which is formed only due to quantum fluctuations.
Finally, let us compare our results for quasi-2D regime with the results from Ref. [@Petrov16] for strictly 2D systems. In the latter case, the LHY energy and droplet densities are expressed in terms of 2D scattering length. Here, we consider the case $a \ll L$, i.e., the scattering has a 3D character. To compare the results, we have to express the 2D scattering length, $a_\mathrm{2d}$, by the 3D one in the case of the box geometry analyzed in our paper. The scattering process in quasi-2D, when the confinement in a tight direction is provided by a box of length $L$, is expressed by [@Zin18]: $$\label{a2d3d}
a_\mathrm{2d} = 2L e^{ - \gamma - \frac{L}{2a} }.$$ An analogous formula, in a situation when the tight confinement is provided by a harmonic potential, is given in [@shlyapnikov]. Inserting the above relation into equations for 2D LHY energy density and droplet density of [@Petrov16] we recover our results, given by Eqs. (\[Ehom\]) and (\[x0\]), together with Eq. (\[e2d\]) with the last term neglected. This agreement provides an important and independent test of our approach.
*LHY energy at the 3D-1D crossover.*—We now focus on the 3D-1D crossover regime where the LHY energy is: $$\label{LHY_1d}
e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{1d}(\xi) \!=\! \lim_{r \rightarrow 0} \frac{\partial }{\partial r} \left(\! r \frac{1}{2}\sum_{q_x,q_y} \int {\rm d} q_z
\, e^{i{\bf q} {{\bf r}}} \left( \varepsilon_{\bf q} \!-\! A_{\bf q} \right) \!\right),$$ where $q_{x,y}$ are integers, $q_{x,y}=(L_{\perp}/2\pi)k_{x,y}$, and $q_z$ is a real-valued dimensionless momentum, $q_z=(L/2\pi) k_z$. The Bogoliubov’s energies expressed in the units of $\varepsilon_0$ have the same form as in the 3D-2D system. Similarly as before, we took $L_{\perp} \rightarrow \infty$, and, thus, we substituted: $\frac{1}{V}\sum_{{\bf k}}\rightarrow \frac{1}{2\pi} \int d k \frac{1}{L^2} \sum_{k_x,k_y} $. For small $\xi$, we obtain (see the Supplementary Material) $$\label{e1d}
e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{1d} = - \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3} \xi^{3/2} + c_2 \xi^2 + c_3 \xi^3,$$ where $c_2 = \frac{1}{4} \left( \int {\rm d} {\bf n} \, 1/n^2 - \sum_{n_y,n_z \neq 0} \int {\rm d} n_x 1/n^2 \right)
\simeq 3.06$ and $c_3 = \frac{\pi}{8} \sum_{n_x,n_y \neq 0} (n_x^2+n_y^2)^{-3/2} \simeq 3.55 $.
In Fig. \[fig2\], we plot the ratio $ s^\mathrm{1d}(\xi)= e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{1d}(\xi)/e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{3d}(\xi)$. As before, the analytic approximate expression for the 3D-1D LHY term almost perfectly matches the full numerical result for $\xi < 0.3$. For larger values of $\xi$, the exact formula is close to the 3D expression.
![The ratio $ s^\mathrm{1d}(\xi)= e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{1d}(\xi)/e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{3d}(\xi)$ as the function of $\xi$ given by the thick black line. The additional thin meshed curve is the same ratio but using the approximate formula for $e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{1d}(\xi)$ given by Eq. (\[e1d\]).[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
*Droplets at 3D-1D crossover.*— We now analyze the quasi-1D regime defined in the limit $\xi \ll 1$. Including only the first term of Eq. (\[e1d\]), we find from Eq. (\[pzero\]) that at the equilibrium $\xi_0 = (2/9)\beta^2 = (128/9\pi^2)a^4/(\delta a^2 L^2)$. The corresponding droplet density is $$\label{xi01}
n = \frac{32 }{9\pi } \frac{a^3}{\delta a^2 L^4},$$ where we assumed for simplicity $g_{11}=g_{22}= 4\pi \hbar^2 a/m$. To find the condition for the validity of this formula, we compare it with the density of the droplet using the full $e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{1d}(\xi)$ from Eq. (\[e1d\]). The relative density differs from the one given by Eq. (\[xi01\]) by $20\%$ for $\xi$ approximately equal to $0.0004$. Thus, for $\xi \lesssim 0.0004$, the formula for the density of the quasi-1D droplet is valid. However such small value of $\xi$ is probably out reach for current experiments. As in the 2D-3D crossover we also find here droplets which exist for $\beta =0$. Using Eqs. (\[pzero\]) and (\[e1d\]) we find their density corresponds to $\xi_0 \simeq 0.15$ which places such droplet far away from the quasi-1D regime and of course far away from the 3D system where such droplet cannot exist.
We now compare our predictions to the 1D results obtained in [@Petrov16]. To this end, we have to express the 3D interaction parameter by the 1D coupling, $g_\mathrm{1d}$. From Ref. [@olshanii], we infer that, for $a/L \ll 1$, the $g_\mathrm{1d}$ can be obtained by averaging the 3D interaction over the density profile in the tight directions, yielding $g_\mathrm{1d} = g/L^2 $. Using this relation, we obtain that in the quasi-1D regime the energy and equilibrium densities of the droplet have the same form as given in [@Petrov16; @dopiska1].
*Validity of the approach.*—We now briefly discuss the validity of our results. The Bogoliubov approach is valid as long as the LHY energy correction $\frac{\varepsilon_0}{L^3} e_\mathrm{LHY} $ is much smaller than the characteristic mean-field energy density $gn^2$ (for simplicity we take $g_{11}=g_{22}=g$). This condition reads $\frac{\pi L}{2 a} \xi^2 \gg |e_\mathrm{LHY}|$. For both situations analyzed in our paper, $e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{1d,2d}$ is practically equal to $e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{3d}$ for $\xi > 0.3$. Then, the condition is equivalent to the 3D condition, namely, $na^3 = \xi \frac{a^2}{L^2} \ll 1 $ , which we assume. For smaller values of $\xi$, we can use analytical formulas given in Eqs. (\[e2d\]) and (\[e1d\]), which lead to the condition $ |\log(\xi)| \ll \frac{2L}{a} $ in the 3D-2D and $\sqrt{\xi} \gg \frac{a}{L}$ in the 3D-1D case.
*Conclusions.*—We analyzed the so far unexplored formation of quantum droplets in the Bose-Bose mixtures at dimensional crossover from 3D to 2D or 1D. Under the assumption, that the scattering processes are 3D, which happens when the spatial extent of a tight confinement $L$ is much larger than a 3D scattering length $a$, we have found expressions for the beyond-mean field correction to the system energy. These corrections generalize the Lee-Huang-Yang term as obtained for the 3D BEC. We show how this energy smoothly changes as a function of the parameter $\xi=(g_{11} n_1 + g_{22} n_2)/\varepsilon_0$.
The analysis of 3D-2D and 3D-1D crossovers revealed that the quasi-2D and quasi-1D regimes are accessed for values of $\xi\lesssim0.03$ and $\xi \lesssim 0.0004$, respectively, which are much smaller than expected. The naive prediction suggesting that for $\xi < 1 $, the excitations in the confined directions are practically frozen, and the system should be quasi-low-dimensional, does not work. Counter-intuitively, we find that for $\xi > 0.3$ the LHY correction is practically equal to the one obtained in the 3D case.
Our results provide the working parameters for the planned experiments, which aim at exploring low-dimensional formation of droplets in Bose-Bose mixtures. The quasi-2D regime, as compared to quasi-1D, is accessible for a broader range of $\xi$, i.e., for $\xi \lesssim 0.03$, which is, however, still experimentally demanding. The quasi-1D regime is attained for a much smaller range of $\xi$, i.e., $\xi\lesssim0.0004$, which poses a severe experimental constraint. However, our work reveals that yet unexplored 3D-1D crossover supports exotic droplets, different from both 3D and quasi-1D case, and formed only due to quantum fluctuations. Such droplets also exist at the border of the quasi-2D regime. The results we present pave the way for exploring new states of matter in low-dimensional systems, in which quantum fluctuations play the prominent role.
P.Z. and Z.I. acknowledge the support from the Polish National Science Center Grant No. 2015/17/B/ST2/00592. M.P. and T.W. were supported by the Polish National Science Center Grant No. 2014/14/M/ST2/00015. M.G. acknowledges support from the (Polish) National Science Center Grant UMO-2017/25/B/ST2/01943 and from the EU Horizon 2020-FET QUIC 641122.
[99]{}
L. Pitaevskii, S. Stringari, “*Bose-Einstein condensation and superfluidity*”, Oxford University Press, 2016.
D. S. Petrov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{}, 155302 (2015).
T. D. Lee, K. Huang, and C.N. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 1135 (1957).
D. M. Larsen, Ann. Phys. (Berlin) [**24**]{}, 89 (1963).
B. Oleś and K. Sacha, J. Phys. A [**41**]{}, 145005 (2008).
H. Kadau, M. Schmitt, M. Wenzel, C. Wink, T. Maier, I. Ferrier-Barbut, and T. Pfau, Nature [**530**]{}, 194 (2016).
I. Ferrier-Barbut, H. Kadau, M. Schmitt, M. Wenzel, and T. Pfau, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, 215301 (2016).
I. Ferrier-Barbut, M. Schmitt, M. Wenzel, H. Kadau, and T. Pfau, J. Phys. B [**49**]{}, 214004 (2016).
M. Schmitt, M. Wenzel, B. Böttcher, I. Ferrier-Barbut, and T. Pfau, Nature [**539**]{}, 259 (2016).
L. Chomaz, S. Baier, D. Petter, M. J. Mark, F. Wächtler, L. Santos, and F. Ferlaino, Phys. Rev. X [**6**]{}, 041039 (2016).
C. R. Cabrera, L. Tanzi, J. Sanz, B. Naylor, P. Thomas, P. Cheiney, and L. Tarruell, Science [**359**]{}, 301-304 (2018).
P. Cheiney, C.R. Cabrera, J. Sanz, B. Naylor, L. Tanzi, and L. Tarruell, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**120**]{}, 135301 (2018).
G. Semeghini, G. Ferioli, L. Masi, C. Mazzinghi, L. Wolswijk, F. Minardi, M. Modugno, G. Modugno, M. Inguscio, M. Fattori, arXiv:1710.10890 (2017).
D. S. Petrov and G. Astrakharchik, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**117**]{}, 100401 (2016).
C. Mishra, D. Edler, F. Wächtler, R. Nath, S. Sinha, and L. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**119**]{}, 050403 (2017).
P. Ziń, unpublished.
D. S. Petrov and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. A [**64**]{}, 012706 (2001).
M. Olshanii, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 938 (1998)
The coupling constant $g_{1d}$ is related to $g$ by $g_{1d} \simeq g(1+C a/L)$, where $C$ is a constant of the order of unity. It turns out that the correction to the energy density, given by the $g C a/L$ term in the coupling constant, is negligible in the limit $\xi \ll 1$.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
=====================
In this Supplemental Material we discuss the details of the derivation of Eqs. (7) and (15) from the main paper. We show how to properly handle the sums and integrals in the Lee-Huang-Yang energy in order to arrive at a correct finite result.
Crossover from 3D to quasi-2D {#crossover-from-3d-to-quasi-2d .unnumbered}
-----------------------------
We start from the main equation for the Lee-Huang-Yang energy, i.e., Eq. (6) from the main. We thus have: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{row1}
&& - \frac{2}{\xi^2} e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{2d}(\xi)
\\ \nonumber
&& = \frac{\partial }{\partial r} \left (r
\sum_{q_z} \int \mbox{d}^2 q_\perp \frac{1}{\sqrt{q^2(q^2+2\xi)} + q^2+\xi} e^{i{\bf q} {{\bf r}}} \right)\!\Bigg|_{r=0}. \end{aligned}$$ Now, we expand the right hand side in the power series in $\xi$, and we find $$\begin{aligned}
&& \sum_{q_z} \int \mbox{d}^2 q_\perp \frac{1}{\sqrt{q^2(q^2+2\xi)} + q^2+\xi} e^{i{\bf q} {{\bf r}}}
\\
&& \simeq \int \mbox{d}^2 q_\perp \frac{1}{\sqrt{q_\perp^2(q_\perp^2+2\xi)} + q_\perp^2+\xi} e^{i{\bf q} {\bf r}}
\\
&&
+ \sum_{q_z \neq 0} \int \mbox{d}^2 q_\perp \, \frac{1}{2q^2} e^{i{\bf q} {{\bf r}}}
- \xi \sum_{q_z \neq 0} \int \mbox{d}^2 q_\perp \, \frac{1}{2q^4} e^{i{\bf q} {{\bf r}}}.\end{aligned}$$
As we show in details below, in the limit $r\to 0$, we find that the first two terms are of the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&& \int \mbox{d}^2 q_\perp \frac{e^{i{\bf q} {\bf r}} }{\sqrt{q_\perp^2(q_\perp^2+2\xi)} + q_\perp^2+\xi}
+ \sum_{q_z \neq 0} \int \mbox{d}^2 q_\perp \, \frac{ e^{i{\bf q} {{\bf r}}}}{2q^2}
\\ \nonumber
\\ \label{row2}
&& =
\frac{\pi^2}{r} - \frac{\pi}{2} \left( \log \xi + \frac{1}{2} + \log(2\pi^2) \right),\end{aligned}$$ whereas the third term is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{q_z \neq 0} \int \mbox{d}^2 q_\perp \, \frac{ e^{i{\bf q} {{\bf r}}}}{2q^4}
\simeq \sum_{q_z \neq 0} \int \mbox{d}^2 q_\perp \, \frac{1}{2q^4}
= \sum_{n_z > 0} \frac{\pi}{n_z^2}= \frac{\pi^3}{6}.\end{aligned}$$ Inserting these expressions into Eq. (\[row1\]), we find $$\begin{aligned}
e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{2d}(\xi) = \frac{\pi}{4} \xi^2 \left( \log \xi + \frac{1}{2} + \log(2\pi^2) + \frac{\pi^2}{3} \xi \right),\end{aligned}$$ which is Eq. (7) of the main paper.
Now, we show in details how to derive Eq. (\[row2\]). In order to simplify the calculation, we take $z=0$ in the vector ${{\bf r}}=(x,y,z)$, which gives $r = \sqrt{x^2+y^2}$.
We rewrite the first term from the left-hand side of Eq.(\[row2\]) in cylindrical coordinates: $$\begin{aligned}
&& \int \mbox{d}^2 q_\perp \frac{e^{i{\bf q} {\bf r}} }{\sqrt{q_\perp^2(q_\perp^2+2\xi)} + q_\perp^2+\xi}
\\
&& = 2\pi \int_0^\infty q_\perp \mbox{d} q_\perp \, \frac{J_0(q_\perp r)}{\sqrt{q_\perp^2(q_\perp^2+2\xi)} +q_\perp^2+\xi}.\end{aligned}$$ The change of variable into $n = q_\perp r$ yields: $$\begin{aligned}
&&
= 2\pi \int_0^\infty n \mbox{d} n J_0(n) \frac{1}{\sqrt{n^2(n^2+2\xi r^2)} + n^2+\xi r^2}
\\
&& \simeq 2\pi \int_0^{n_0} n \mbox{d} n \frac{1}{\sqrt{n^2(n^2+2\xi r^2)} + n^2+\xi r^2}
\\
&&\quad + 2\pi \int_{n_0}^\infty \mbox{d} n \, \frac{J_0(n)}{2n}. \end{aligned}$$ Here, we approximated $J_0(n)\approx 1$ in the first integral on right-hand side, and neglected $\xi r^2$ terms in the denominator in the second integral since the main contribution comes from large $n$. These approximations are valid as long as $n_0 \ll 1$. In these limit, the integrals can be evaluated: $$\int_0^{n_0} n \mbox{d} n \frac{ 2\pi}{\sqrt{n^2(n^2+2\xi r^2)} + n^2+\xi r^2} \simeq \frac{\pi}{2} \log \left(\frac{2n_0^2}{\xi r^2} \right) - \frac{\pi}{4}$$ and $$2\pi \int_{n_0}^\infty \mbox{d} n \frac{J_0(n)}{2n} \simeq -\pi \left( \log(n_0) - \log(2) + \gamma \right),$$ where $\gamma$ denotes the Euler’s constant. As a result, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&& \int \mbox{d}^2 q_\perp \frac{e^{i{\bf q} {\bf r}} }{\sqrt{q_\perp^2(q_\perp^2+2\xi)} + q_\perp^2+\xi}
\\ \label{w1}
&& = \frac{3\pi}{2} \log(2) - \pi\gamma - \frac{\pi}{2} \log(\xi r^2) - \frac{\pi}{4}.\end{aligned}$$
Let us now analyze the second integral in Eq. (\[row2\]): $$\begin{aligned}
&& \sum_{q_z \neq 0} \int \mbox{d}^2 q_\perp \, \frac{ e^{i{\bf q} {{\bf r}}}}{2q^2}
= \pi \sum_{q_z \neq 0} \int_0^\infty q_\perp \mbox{d}q_\perp \, \frac{J_0(q_\perp r)}{q_\perp^2+q_z^2}
\\
&&
= \pi \int_0^\infty q_\perp \mbox{d}q_\perp \, J_0(q_\perp r) \frac{\pi q_\perp \coth(q_\perp \pi) -1 }{q_\perp^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Now, we change the variables into $n = q_\perp r$, and take $\epsilon$ as the lower limit of the integral. The right-hand side is: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\pi}{r}\int_{\epsilon }^\infty \mbox{d} n \, J_0(n)\coth \left( \frac{n \pi}{r} \right)
- \int_{\epsilon }^\infty \mbox{d} n \, \frac{J_0(n)}{n}.\end{aligned}$$ Now, the second term in this expression is: $$\begin{aligned}
- \int_{\epsilon }^\infty \mbox{d} n \, \frac{J_0(n)}{n} \simeq \log(\epsilon/2) + \gamma,\end{aligned}$$ whereas the first gives: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{\pi}{r}\int_{\epsilon }^\infty \mbox{d} n \, J_0(n) \coth \left( \frac{n \pi}{r} \right)
\simeq \frac{\pi}{r}\int_{\epsilon }^{n_0} \mbox{d} n \, \coth \left( \frac{n \pi}{r} \right)
\\
&&
+ \frac{\pi}{r} \int_{n_0}^\infty \mbox{d} n \, J_0(n)
\simeq \log \left( \frac{r}{2\pi \epsilon} \right) + \frac{\pi n_0}{r} + \frac{\pi}{r}(1-n_0),
\end{aligned}$$ where $ \epsilon \ll n_0 \ll 1$ and $n_0 \gg r$. Finally, from these results altogether, we obtain $$\label{w2}
\sum_{q_z \neq 0} \int \mbox{d}^2 q_\perp \, \frac{ e^{i{\bf q} {{\bf r}}}}{2q^2} = \frac{\pi^2}{r} + \pi \log \left( \frac{r}{4\pi} \right) + \pi \gamma.$$ Therefore, the sum of the expressions from Eqs. (\[w1\]) and (\[w2\]) recovers Eq. (\[row2\]).
Crossover from 3D to quasi-1D {#crossover-from-3d-to-quasi-1d .unnumbered}
-----------------------------
From Eq. (14) of the main paper, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{row21}
&& - \frac{2}{\xi^2} e_\mathrm{LHY}^\mathrm{1d}(\xi)
\\ \nonumber
&& = \frac{\partial }{\partial r} \left (r
\sum_{q_x,q_y} \int \mbox{d} q_z \frac{1}{\sqrt{q^2(q^2+2\xi)} + q^2+\xi} e^{i{\bf q} {{\bf r}}} \right). \end{aligned}$$ As before, we this expression in powers of $\xi$, and we get: $$\begin{aligned}
&& \sum_{q_x,q_y} \int \mbox{d} q_z \frac{e^{i{\bf q} {{\bf r}}} }{\sqrt{q^2(q^2+2\xi)} + q^2+\xi}
\\
&& \simeq \int \mbox{d} q_z \frac{ e^{i{\bf q} {\bf r}} }{\sqrt{q_z^2(q_z^2+2\xi)} + q_z^2+\xi}
\\
&&
+ \sum_{q_x,q_y}{}\!' \int \mbox{d} q_z \, \frac{ e^{i{\bf q} {{\bf r}}}}{2q^2}
- \xi \sum_{q_x,q_y}{}\!' \int \mbox{d} q_z \, \frac{ e^{i{\bf q} {{\bf r}}}}{2q^4},\end{aligned}$$ where $\sum_{q_x,q_y}'$ denotes the sum without the $q_x=q_y=0$ term. In the limit $r\to 0$, the first term is: $$\begin{aligned}
&& \int \mbox{d} q_z \frac{ e^{i{\bf q} {\bf r}}}{\sqrt{q_z^2(q_z^2+2\xi)} + q_z^2+\xi}
\\
&& \simeq \int \mbox{d} q_z \frac{1}{\sqrt{q_z^2(q_z^2+2\xi)} + q_z^2+\xi}
= \frac{4\sqrt{2}}{3 \sqrt{\xi}},\end{aligned}$$ the second term is: $$\begin{aligned}
&& \sum_{q_x,q_y}{}\!' \int \mbox{d} q_z \, \frac{ e^{i{\bf q} {{\bf r}}} }{2q^4}
\simeq \sum_{q_x,q_y}{}\!' \int \mbox{d} q_z \, \frac{ 1 }{2q^4}
\\
&& = \frac{\pi}{4} \sum_{q_x,q_y}{}\!' \frac{1}{(q_x^2+q_y^2)^{3/2}} = 2c_3,\end{aligned}$$ and the third is: $$\label{c2}
\sum_{q_x,q_y}{}\!' \int \mbox{d} q_z \, \frac{ e^{i{\bf q} {{\bf r}}}}{2q^2}
\simeq \frac{\pi^2}{r} - 2c_2,$$ where $c_2$ is a constant given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
-\frac{4}{\pi}c_2 &=& \lim_{q_c \rightarrow \infty} \left( \sum_{|q_x|,|q_y| \leq q_c}{}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!'\quad \frac{1}{\sqrt{q_x^2+q_y^2}} \right.
\\
& &
\left.
- \int_{-q_c-1/2}^{q_c+1/2}
\mbox{d}q_x \int_{-q_c-1/2}^{q_c+1/2} \mbox{d}q_y \, \frac{1}{\sqrt{q_x^2+q_y^2}} \right)\label{c22}.\end{aligned}$$ In these expression, the sum $\sum'$ means that we exclude the term with $q_x=q_y=0$. Collecting the terms altogether, we recover Eq. (15) of the main paper.
Below, we show in details how to derive Eqs. (\[c2\]) and (\[c22\]). To start, we assume ${{\bf r}}= (r,0,0)$ for simplicity, and, then, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{q_x,q_y}{}\!' \int \mbox{d} q_z \, \frac{ e^{i q_x r}}{2q^2}
= \sum_{q_x,q_y}{}\!' \frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{q_x^2+q_y^2}} e^{ -r\sqrt{q_x^2+q_y^2} }.\end{aligned}$$ In the limit $r \to 0$, the exponent is important for ensuring the convergence for large $\sqrt{q_x^2+q_y^2}$. Therefore, to proceed, we divide the region of summation into two parts $A$ and $B$: $A$ is the square region in which $|q_x|,|q_y| \leq q_c$, and $B$ is the rest. In the region $A$, we neglect the exponent, whereas in region $B$ we approximate the sum by the integral. As a result, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{q_x,q_y}{'} \frac{1}{\sqrt{q_x^2+q_y^2}} e^{ -r\sqrt{q_x^2+q_y^2}} \\
&& \simeq \sum_{|q_x|,|q_y| \leq q_c}\!\!\!\!\!\!{'}\quad \frac{1}{\sqrt{q_x^2+q_y^2}}
+ \int_B \mbox{d} q_x \mbox{d} q_y \frac{e^{ -r\sqrt{q_x^2+q_y^2}}}{\sqrt{q_x^2+q_y^2}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\int_B$ denotes the integral over the region $B$. Now, we rewrite this integral as $\int_B = \int - \int_A$. Here, it is important to observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_A \mbox{d} q_x \mbox{d} q_y = \int_{-q_c-1/2}^{q_c+1/2} \mbox{d} q_x \int_{-q_c-1/2}^{q_c+1/2} \mbox{d} q_y.\end{aligned}$$ The shift in the boundaries by $1/2$ comes from the fact that summed element with $q_x,q_y$ is replaced in the integral by a square of unit length with $q_x,q_y$ located at the center of the square. As a result, we end up with $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{q_x,q_y}{'} \int \mbox{d} q_z \, \frac{ e^{i q_x r}}{2q^2} \simeq \int \mbox{d} {\bf q} \, \frac{ e^{i q_x r}}{2q^2}
-2c_2 = \frac{\pi^2}{r} - 2c_2.\end{aligned}$$ In the above we notice that the limit of integration is $q_c+1/2$. We stress here the presence of the shift by $1/2$ in the integral’s boundaries. If the shift is neglected (as it would be done in approximated treatment) $c_2$ changes significantly, influencing the properties of the system.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Supermassive black hole binaries (BHBs) produced in galaxy mergers recoil at the time of their coalescence due to the emission of gravitational waves (GWs). We simulate the response of a thin, two–dimensional disk of collisionless particles, initially on circular orbits around a $10^6~{\rm M_\odot}$ BHB, to kicks that are either parallel or perpendicular to the initial orbital plane. Typical kick velocities ($v_{\rm kick}$) can exceed the sound speed in a circumbinary gas disk. While the inner disk is strongly bound to the recoiling binary, the outer disk is only weakly bound or unbound. This leads to differential motions in the disturbed disk that increase with radius and can become supersonic at ${\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}700$ Schwarzschild radii for $v_{\rm kick}=500~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$, implying that shocks form beyond this radius. We indeed find that kicks in the disk plane lead to immediate strong density enhancements (within weeks) in a tightly wound spiral caustic, propagating outward at the speed $\sim v_{\rm kick}$. Concentric density enhancements are also observed for kicks perpendicular to the disk, but are weaker and develop into caustics only after a long delay ($>$one year). Unless both BH spins are low or precisely aligned with the orbital angular momentum, a significant fraction (${\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}$ several %) of kicks are sufficiently large and well aligned with the orbital plane for strong shocks to be produced. The shocks could result in an afterglow whose characteristic photon energy increases with time, from the UV ($\sim 10$eV) to the soft X–ray ($\sim 100$eV) range, between one month and one year after the merger. This could help identify EM counterparts to GW sources discovered by [*LISA*]{}.
author:
- 'Zoltán Lippai, Zsolt Frei'
- Zoltán Haiman
title: Prompt Shocks in the Gas Disk Around a Recoiling Supermassive Black Hole Binary
---
Introduction
============
The recent break–through in numerical relativity has allowed a direct computation of the linear momentum flux produced during the coalescence of a BH binary (Baker et al. 2006, 2007; Campanelli et al. 2007a,b; González et al. 2007a,b; Herrmann et al. 2007a,c; Koppitz et al. 2007). The resulting final recoil depends on the masses, orbital parameters, and spins of the BHs, and in special configurations (i.e. with spins anti-aligned with each other), it can reach velocities as high as $\approx 4,000~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$ (González 2007b). Much of the recent literature focused on the astrophysical implications of high–velocity kicks, which may displace or remove supermassive BHs from galactic centers (e.g. Merritt et al. 2004; Madau & Quataert 2004; Loeb 2007), and inhibit the growth of BHs at high redshifts ($z{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}6$), where the escape velocities from low–mass galactic halos is small (${\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}100~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$; Haiman 2004, Yoo & Miralda-Escude 2004, Shapiro 2005; Volonteri & Perna 2005).
Another exciting implication of kicks is that they may help produce an electromagnetic (EM) counterpart of gravitational wave sources detected by the future [*Laser Interferometric Space Antenna*]{} ([*LISA*]{}) satellite. The discovery of such a counterpart would constitute a milestone for fundamental physics and astrophysics (e.g. Kocsis et al. 2007b). If the BHB is surrounded by a circumbinary gas disk, the disk will respond promptly (on the local orbital timescale) to such a kick. If this results in warps or shocks, the disturbed disk could produce a transient EM signature (Milosavljević & Phinney 2005). The sky localization uncertainty from the [*LISA*]{} instrument several weeks prior to merger is typically a few square degrees (Kocsis et al. 2007a; Lang & Hughes 2007), and the kick can begin building up at the end of the inspiral phase, before the final coalescence (Schnittman et al. 2007). This will make it possible, in many cases, to monitor a few square–degree area on the sky prior to, during, as well as immediately following the coalescence of BHs in the mass range $\sim (10^5$–$10^7)\,{\rm M_\odot}/(1+z)$ at redshifts out to $z\sim 3$, and search for a prompt transient signature associated with the kick (Kocsis et al. 2007b).
In the context of producing a prompt EM counterpart, we expect that the [*direction*]{}, in addition to the magnitude of the kick, will be important. Naively, one expects that a kick within the plane of any circumbinary disk will be more likely to cause density enhancements and “light up” the disk than a kick perpendicular to it. The kick direction can be clearly important on larger scales, as well, and affect phenomena that would occur on long timescales ($\gg$ years) after the merger. For example, the angle relative to a large–scale galactic disk can determine whether a kicked BHB ends up outside the galaxy or not, and perhaps also whether shocks are produced when a BHB plunges into such a large–scale disk. While these issues merit investigation, in this [*Letter*]{} we focus on the smaller scales and shorter timescales (${\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}$ months) that are relevant to prompt [*LISA*]{} counterparts.
Schnittman & Buonanno (2007; hereafter SB07) used the “effective one–body approach” and derived a scaling formula that yields the recoil velocity vector for arbitrary mass ratios and spin vectors. While their results have not been tested for generic spins, they agree well (to within 20-30%) with numerical results in those special configurations where they were tested (including numerical calculations for configurations with the spins parallel or at intermediate angles with respect to the orbital plane; see Campanelli et al. 2007a,b, González et al. 2007a; Herrmann et al. 2007b, Tichy & Marronetti 2007).
In this [*Letter*]{}, we investigate the response of a circumbinary disk to the kick, by following the perturbed, Keplerian orbits of collisionless massless test particles around the recoiling BHB. The purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate that prompt shocks or strong density enhancements are likely to arise when the kick is aligned with the plane of the circumbinary disk, whereas they may be less likely for highly inclined kicks. We will then use the formula of SB07 for the dependence of the kick speed and direction on the mass ratio and spins of the BHs, to argue that a significant fraction (${\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}$ few %) of kicks may be both sufficiently large and well aligned with the orbital plane for strong shocks to be produced within a few weeks after coalescence.
Circumbinary Disks
==================
We begin with the assumption that the kicked BHB is surrounded by a rotationally supported, geometrically thin gaseous circumbinary disk. The idealized case of a smooth axisymmetric accretion disk, aligned with the binary’s orbital plane (Bardeen & Peterson 1975), with a simple vertical structure can be described by its density and temperature profiles ($\rho(r)$, $T(r)$), as well as the scale height $H(r)$. This minimal information is needed (i) to compute the angle extended by the disk as viewed from the center, and (ii) to examine whether the kick is supersonic ($v_{\rm kick} > c_s$; a necessary condition for shocks to occur). In addition, we need to know the overall disk size (necessary to assess what fraction of the disk gas remains bound to the recoiling BHB), and whether the disk mass is comparable to the BHB mass (necessary to assess whether the BHB is slowed down by the disk).
Unfortunately, fully self-consistent and stable accretion disk models around supermassive BHs are both difficult to produce, and require many ad–hoc assumptions (see, e.g., the review by Blaes 2007 for a list). While variants of the parametric so–called $\alpha$–disk models (Shakura & Sunyaev 1973) have been successfully calibrated against observations of stellar–mass objects, observations of active galactic nuclei (AGN) have not led to similarly robust constraints on disk models around supermassive BHs. Nevertheless, several authors have discussed the possible behavior of a circumbinary $\alpha$–disk [e.g. @an02; @mp05; @dot06]. A key quantity is the critical orbital semi–major axis $a_{\rm crit}$ at which the time–scale for the decay of the orbit due to gravitational radiation becomes shorter than the time–scale for viscous evolution (Begelman et al. 1980). Once the binary separation shrinks below this value at $t_{\rm crit}$, the gas outside will not evolve significantly before the BHs coalesce. Most of the “kick” momentum is accumulated during the final stages of coalescence, on a rapid time–scale [@sb07], hence a snapshot of the disk at $t_{\rm crit}$ outside $\sim a_{\rm crit}$ should still describe the disk around the kicked binary. Prior to $t_{\rm crit}$, the torques from the binary may create a central cavity nearly devoid of gas within the radius $r_{\rm cavity}\sim 2a_{\rm crit}$ [for a nearly equal–mass binary, e.g. @al94; @mm06], or a narrower gap around the orbit of the lower–mass BH in the case of unequal masses $q \equiv M_1/M_2 \ll 1$ [e.g. @an02]. In the latter case, the lower–mass hole will “usher” the gas inward as its orbit decays, so by the time of coalescence, this gas may accrete onto the more massive BH, again leaving a nearly empty central cavity of radius $a_{\rm crit}$.
In the inner regions of a disk around a supermassive BH, the dominant vertical support is expected to be radiation pressure (as opposed to gas pressure), and electron scattering dominates the opacity over absorption [e.g. @st83 p. 440]. @mp05 presented an explicit model for a circumbinary disk with a central cavity, for the case of a nearly equal-mass binary at $t_{\rm crit}$. They find, under the above conditions for the inner disk ($r_{\rm cavity} = 2a_{\rm
crit}$), $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
r_{\rm cavity} = 117 r_{\rm S}
\alpha_{-1}^{-0.34}
(\eta_{-1}/\dot{m})^{0.24}
M_6^{0.08}
[4q/(1+q)^2]^{0.42},\end{aligned}$$ where $M_6$ denotes the total BHB mass $M_1+M_2$ in units of $10^6{\rm
M_\odot}$, $r_{\rm S}=2GM/c^2$ is the Schwarzschild radius, $0.1\alpha_{-1}$ is the effective $\alpha$–parameter relating the kinematic viscosity to the gas (not total) pressure, $\dot{m}$ is the mass accretion rate at $r_{\rm cavity}$ in units of the Eddington rate $\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$ (i.e. the accretion rate that would produce the Eddington luminosity with the radiative efficiency $0.1\eta_{-1}$), and $q=M_1/M_2\leq 1$ is the mass ratio (note that we neglect here the dependence on additional dimensionless coefficients of order unity).
The thickness of the disk at its inner edge $r_{\rm cavity}$ is given by $$\frac{h}{r} = 0.46
M_6^{-0.12}
[4q/(1+q)^2]^{-1.84}
\alpha_{-1}^{0.76}
(\dot{m}/\eta_{-1})^{2.43}$$ and the mid–plane gas temperature is $$T = 1.7\times 10^6
M_6^{-0.28}
[4q/(1+q)^2]^{-0.49}
\alpha_{-1}^{0.19}
(\dot{m}/\eta_{-1})^{0.86}\, {\rm K}.$$
The ratio of radiation and gas pressure is given by $$\beta \equiv \frac{P_{\rm rad}}{P_{\rm gas}} = 2600
M_6^{-0.04}
[4q/(1+q)^2]^{-1.84}
\alpha_{-1}^{1.67}
(\dot{m}/\eta_{-1})^{4.25}.$$
Note that the disk is marginally thin at $r_{\rm cavity}$. The expected radial profile of such a disk outside $r_{\rm cavity}$ was discussed by @gt04. In the stable case considered by @mp05, when the viscosity is proportional to the gas (rather than the total) pressure, the mid–plane temperature and density, and surface density vary with radius as $T\propto r^{-9/10}$, $\rho\propto
r^{-3/5}$, and $\Sigma\propto r^{-3/5}$. The ratio of gas/total pressure varies as $\beta\equiv P_{\rm gas}/P_{\rm tot}\propto
r^{21/10}$ (in the limit of $\beta\ll 1$). Inside the transition radius where $\beta\approx 1$, $$r_{\rm tr}\approx 1.9\times 10^3
M_6^{2/21}
\alpha_{\rm tot,-1}^{2/21}
(\dot{m}/\eta_{-1})^{16/21}
r_{\rm S},$$ the scale height $h$ is constant, or $h/r\propto 1/r$ (here $\alpha_{\rm tot,-1}$ relates the kinematic viscosity to the total pressure). This further assumes that the disk is optically thick. Beyond $r_{\rm tr}$, gas pressure becomes dominant for vertical support, and the scale–height begins to rise as $h\propto r^{21/20}$. Somewhat farther out, beyond $\sim 10,000 r_{\rm S}$ (for $M_6\sim
1$), the disk will become self–gravitating and subject to Toomre–instability. There are both theoretical and observational reasons to suspect that disks in real AGN extend to larger radii (Goodman 2003; Blaes 2007). However, note that the orbital time–scale at this radius is $\approx$2 years, so that in the context of prompt [*LISA*]{} counterparts, we are not interested in radii outside this annulus.
To summarize, based on the above, we adopt the following simplified picture for the disk around a fiducial $M_1+M_2=10^6~{\rm M_\odot}$ binary. The disk has an inner edge at $100 r_{\rm S}$ (inside which it is empty) and an outer edge at $10,000 r_{\rm S}$ (outside which there may still be gas, but it evolves slowly and we do not follow it). The scale–height and temperature at the inner edge is $h/r=0.46$ and $T=1.7\times10^6$K, respectively. The scale–height remains constant with radius out to $2,000 r_{\rm S}$, beyond which it increases nearly linearly ($h\propto r^{21/20}$). The temperature varies with radius as $T\propto r^{-9/10}$.
The important features of such a disk (as well as other proposed variants of $\alpha$-disks) are the following: (i) orbital motions in thin disks are supersonic (Pringle 1981), so that the gas is susceptible to shocks if disturbed; (ii) at the relevant radii outside $100r_{\rm S}$ the viscous time–scale is long, so that the orbits are near Keplerian; (iii) gas near the inner edge of disk is tightly bound to the kicked BHB ($v_{\rm orbit}\sim 3\times 10^4$ km/s), but the outer edge ($v_{\rm orbit}\sim 3\times 10^3$ km/s) can be marginally bound, or even unbound, for large kicks (the approximate condition for being bound is $v_{\rm orbit}{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}2.4 v_{\rm kick}$), and (iv) the total disk mass within $10,000 r_{\rm S}$ is much less than the BHB mass, which justifies ignoring the inertia of the gas bound to the BHB.
The Response of the Disk to Kicks
=================================
For a quantitative assessment of the disk’s response to the kick, we employ the following approximation: the disk particles are assumed to be massless, collisionless, and initially on co-planar, circular orbits. The kick simply adds the velocity $\vec{v}_{\rm kick}$ to the instantaneous orbital velocity of each particle (in the inertial frame centered on the BHB). We used $N=10^6$ particles, distributed randomly and uniformly along the two–dimensional surface of the disk. The kick velocity was varied between $500~{\rm km~s^{-1}} < v_{\rm
kick} < 4,000~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$, and directed either perpendicular or parallel to the initial disk plane.
Figure \[fig:spirals\] shows, as an example, a face–on view of the surface density of the disk $90$ days after a kick with $v_{\rm kick}
= 500~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$ in the plane of the disk ($i_{\rm
kick}=0^\circ$). The sharp, tightly wound spiral features clearly seen in the figure trace the locus of points where particles cross each other, corresponding formally to a density caustic. The spiral caustic first forms at $\sim 30$days, and then propagates outward at a speed of $\approx 500~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$. This behavior can be roughly understood as follows: at a given radius $r_c$, the caustic forms at the time $t_{\rm c}$ when the radial epicyclic motions from two neighboring annuli, separated by the epicyclic amplitude $\sim (v_{\rm
kick}/v_{\rm orbit}) r_c$, overlap (this predicts $r_c\sim t_{\rm c}
v_{\rm kick}$). We also found that as $v_{\rm kick}$ is increased, the spiral caustics spread farther out. Eventually, for kicks strong enough so that a significant fraction of the disk is unbound, the caustics loose their coherent spiral patterns, and develop complex two–dimensional shapes.
Figure \[fig:sombrero\] shows a side view of the 3D particle density one week after a kick with the velocity $v_{\rm kick} = 500~{\rm
km~s^{-1}}$ perpendicular to the disk ($i_{\rm kick}=90^\circ$). The density profile in this case remains azimuthally symmetric, but still develops concentric rings of density fluctuations. The important difference from the parallel kick case is that the density enhancements are much weaker (at the ten percent level). By examining the time–evolving radial cross–sections, we have verified that sharp density enhancements, i.e. true caustics caused by the orbit–crossing of particles, first appear only after one year, and involve a smaller fraction of the disk particles.
More generally, kicks can be expected to occur in a direction intermediate between the two extremes shown in Figs. \[fig:spirals\] and \[fig:sombrero\]. Following a kick at an arbitrary inclination angle, each particle still remains on a Kepler orbit. Each new orbit will follow an ellipse in a plane that is tilted by an angle of order between $\pm v_{\rm kick}/v_{\rm orbit}$ about the axis connecting the instantaneous position of the particle with the central BHB. Hence, after an orbital time, the particles of the disk will be smeared vertically, effectively thickening the original disk. The two–dimensional simulations we performed do not conclusive tell us a critical kick inclination angle for prompt density caustics to be produced – this would require three–dimensional simulations, following the orbits of particles in a 3D disk of finite thickness. However, since the prompt, strong density enhancements appear to develop in the plane of the kick, near the inner edge of the disk, one may conjecture that this critical inclination angle is given roughly by $i_{\rm kick}{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}\arctan(h/r)$ (with $h/r=0.46$ evaluated at $r_{\rm cavity}$).
In Figure \[fig:angles\], we show the distribution of kick angles, taken from SB07, assuming that both spins are randomly oriented. We require further that the component of $v_{\rm kick}$ within the orbital plane exceed $3-500~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$ ($\approx 3-5\times$ the sound speed; see justification in § \[sec:discuss\] below). A strong kick within the orbital plane is produced if the spins are large and parallel to the angular momentum, but anti–aligned with each other.
The main conclusion to draw from Figure \[fig:angles\] is that caustic–producing kicks are not rare – in the cases shown in the panels, they occur at least a few percent of the cases. This conclusion remains true unless (i) the spins of the BHs is significantly below the maximal Kerr value ($a{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}0.9$), or (ii) the spins are significantly aligned with each other. The latter may be expected if the spin of both BHs results from accretion from the same disk [@brm07].
The criteria defined above for producing caustics may turn out very conservative. For example, prompt caustics could develop when particles from different layers of the disk cross along their orbits. A plausible weaker criterion for shocks is that the kick–induced tilts of the orbits do not thicken the disk beyond its original scale–height. Apart from trigonometric factors of order unity that describe its azimuthal dependence, the tilt angle is given by $i_{\rm
tilt} \sim (v_{\rm kick}/v_{\rm orbit}) i_{\rm kick}$; requiring only $i_{\rm tilt} {\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}\arctan(h/r)$, or $i_{\rm kick} {\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}(v_{\rm
orbit}/v_{\rm kick})\arctan(h/r)$, density caustics could arise even for nearly perpendicular kicks. In follow–up work, we will employ three–dimensional simulations, to clarify the relevant caustic formation criterion.
Discussion {#sec:discuss}
==========
The main result of this [*Letter*]{} is that strong density enhancements can form promptly after a supersonic kick in the plane of the circumbinary disk, within a few weeks of the coalescence of a $\sim 10^6~{\rm M_\odot}$ BHB. Because the disk is cold, and caustics (Fig. \[fig:spirals\]) are formed when particles first cross each other along their orbits, this implies that corresponding shocks could occur in a gas disk. For hydrodynamical shocks to occur within a finite–pressure gas, the relative motions $v_{\rm c}$ between the neighboring particles that produce the caustic must exceed the sound speed. At the outermost radius where the disk is marginally bound to the BHB, one expects $v_{\rm c}\sim v_{\rm kick} \sim v_{\rm
orbit}$; relative motions will be slower further inside. The relative speed should roughly correspond to covering the epicyclic amplitude $\sim (v_{\rm kick}/v_{\rm orbit}) r_c$ in the caustic–formation time $t_{\rm c}\sim r_c/v_{\rm kick}$, yielding $v_c\sim v_{\rm
kick}^2/v_{\rm orbit}$. For $v_{\rm kick}= 500 {\rm km~s^{-1}}$, this predicts $v_{\rm c} \sim 25 {\rm km~s^{-1}} (r/1000r_{\rm S})^{1/2}$; we have verified in our simulations that particles cross the caustics with speeds at about $\sim 30\%$ above this predicted value. Compared with the sound speed $c_s\approx 25 {\rm km~s^{-1}} (r/1000r_{\rm
S})^{-9/20}$, this suggests that the density waves produced by the kick in the gas beyond $\sim 700r_{\rm S}$ will indeed steepen into shocks. We also found that the inclination of the kick may be important in determining the strength and timing of such shocks – perpendicular kicks would only produce weaker density enhancements, at least until a delay of about a year. A non–negligible fraction (${\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
\raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}$ several %) of kicks could, however, be sufficiently large and well aligned with the orbital plane for shocks to be produced within a few weeks after coalescence.
The nature of the emission resulting from the shocks or density enhancements will have to be addressed in future work, by computing the heating rate at the spiral shocks, and modeling the overall disk structure and vertical radiation transport. However, the disk’s luminosity resulting from the kick, $L_{\rm kick}$ could be a non–negligible fraction of the BHB’s Eddington luminosity, and therefore potentially observable (Kocsis et al. 2007b). If $M_{\rm
shock}=f_{\rm shock}(M_1+M_2)$ is the mass of the shocked gas that is heated to temperatures corresponding to $v_{\rm shock}$, and $t_{\rm
shock}$ is the time–scale on which the corresponding thermal energy is converted to photons, then $L_{\rm kick} \approx (1/2) M_{\rm
shock} v_{\rm shock}^2 / t_{\rm shock}$, and $L_{\rm kick}/L_{\rm Edd}
\approx 0.1 (f_{\rm shock}/10^{-5}) (v_{\rm shock}/500~{\rm
km~s^{-1}})^2 (t_{\rm shock}/{\rm 1 month})^{-1}$. We may also speculate on the spectral evolution of the “kick after–glow”. Assuming $M_{\rm shock} \propto \Sigma r dr \propto r
^{19/10}$ (with $\Sigma \propto r^{-3/5}$ and $dr\propto r^{1/2}$, the epicyclic amplitude), and $v_{\rm shock} \approx v_c$, we find $L_{\rm
kick} \propto r^{24/10}$. This suggests that the luminosity may be dominated by the outermost shocked shells. The spectrum will then peak at the characteristic photon energy corresponding to $k T_{\rm
shock}\propto v_{\rm c}^2 \propto v_{\rm orbit}^{-2} \propto r$. The shocks could therefore result in an afterglow, starting from $r_{\rm
cavity}/v_{\rm kick}\sim 30$ days, first peaking in the UV band ($\sim
10$eV), and then hardening to the soft X–ray ($\sim 100$eV) range after one year. The detection of such an afterglow would help identify EM counterparts to GW sources discovered by [*LISA*]{}.
Our results need to be verified in three–dimensional simulations that resolve the orbits within a finite disk thickness. A realistic disk model, incorporating gas dynamics, is needed to study the correspondence between collisionless caustics and gaseous shocks. Finally, the SB07 formula needs to be confirmed for generic spin configurations. Nevertheless, our results do suggest that kicks due to gravitational waves may produce a prompt EM signal.
We thank A. Buonanno, M. Milosavljević, K. Menou, and B. Kocsis for useful discussions, and M. Milosavljević for suggesting the arguments based on epicycles. This work was supported by the Polányi Program of the Hungarian National Office for Research and Technology (NKTH) and by NASA grant NNG04GI88G (to ZH).
[10]{}
Armitage, P. J., & Natarajan, P. 2002, , 567, L9
Artymowicz, P., & Lubow, S. H. 1994, ApJ, 421, 651
Baker, J. G., Centrella, J., Choi, D.-I., Koppitz, M., van Meter, J. R., & Miller, M. C. 2006, ApJ, 653, L93
Baker, J. G., Boggs, W. D., Centrella, J., Kelly, B. J., McWilliams, S. T., Miller, M. C., & van Meter, J. R. 2007, ApJ, 668, 1140
Bardeen, J. M., & Peterson, J. A. 1975, ApJ, 195, L65
Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1980, Nature, 287, 307
Blaes, O. 2007, in “The Central Engine of Active Galactic Nuclei”, ed. L. C. Ho and J.-M. Wang, (San Francisco: ASP), e-print astro-ph/0703589
Bogdanović, T., Reynolds, C. S., & Miller, M. C. 2007, , 661, L147
Campanelli, M., Lousto, C. O., Zlochower, Y., & Merritt, D. 2007a, ApJ, 659, L5
—— 2007b, Phys. Rev. Lett, 98, 231102
Dotti, M., Salvaterra, R., Sesana, A., Colpi, M., & Haardt, F. 2006, , 372, 869
González, J. A., Sperhake, U., Brügmann, B., Hannam, M. D., & Husa, S. 2007a, Phys. Rev. Lett., 98, 091101
González, J. A., Hannam, M. D., Sperhake, U., Brügmann, B., & Husa, S. 2007b, Phys. Rev. Lett, 98, 231101
Goodman, J. & Tan, J. C. 2004, ApJ, 608, 108
Herrmann, F., Hinder, I., Shoemaker, D., Laguna, P., & Matzner, R. A. 2007a, ApJ, 661, 430
—— 2007b, Phys. Rev. D, 76, 084032
Herrmann, F., Hinder, I., Shoemaker, D., & Laguna, P. 2007c, Class. Quant. Gr., 24, 33
Kocsis, B., Haiman, Z., Menou, K., & Frei, Z. 2007a, , 76, 022003
Kocsis, B., Haiman, Z., & Menou 2007b, ApJ, submitted, e-print arXiv:0712.1144
Koppitz, M., Pollney, D., Reisswig, C., Rezzolla, L., Thornburg, J., Diener, P., & Schnetter, E. 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 041102
Lang, R. N., & Hughes, S. A. 2007, ApJ, submitted, e-print arXiv:0710.3795
Loeb, A. 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 041103
MacFadyen, A., & Milosavljević, M. 2006, ApJ, in press, e-print astro-ph/0607467
Madau, P., & Quataert, E. 2004, ApJ, 606, L17
Merritt, D., Milosavljevic, M., Favata, M., Hughes, S. A., & Holz, D. E. 2004, ApJ, 607, L9
Milosavljevic, M., & Phinney, E. S. 2005, , 622, L93
Pringle, J. E. 1981, ARA&A, 19, 137
Schnittman, J. D., & Buonanno, A. 2007, , 662, L63
Schnittman, J. D., Buonanno, A., van Meter, J. R., Baker, J. G., Boggs, W. D., Centrella, J., Kelly, B. J., & McWilliams, S. T. 2007, Class. Quant. Gr., submitted, e-print arXiv:0707.0301
Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337
Shapiro, S. L. 2005, ApJ, 620, 59
Shapiro, S. L., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1983, “Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and Neutron Stars: The Physics of Compact Objects” (John Wiley & Sons: New York).
Tichy, W. & Marronetti, P. 2007, Phys. Rev. D, 76, 1502
Volonteri, M., & Perna, R. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 913
Yoo, J., & Miralda-Escudé, J. 2004, ApJ, 614, L25
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study reconfiguration problems for cliques in a graph, which determine whether there exists a sequence of cliques that transforms a given clique into another one in a step-by-step fashion. As one step of a transformation, we consider three different types of rules, which are defined and studied in reconfiguration problems for independent sets. We first prove that all the three rules are equivalent in cliques. We then show that the problems are PSPACE-complete for perfect graphs, while we give polynomial-time algorithms for several classes of graphs, such as even-hole-free graphs and cographs. In particular, the shortest variant, which computes the shortest length of a desired sequence, can be solved in polynomial time for chordal graphs, bipartite graphs, planar graphs, and bounded treewidth graphs.'
author:
- Takehiro Ito
- Hirotaka Ono
- Yota Otachi
title: Reconfiguration of Cliques in a Graph
---
![A sequence $\langle {C}_{{0}}, {C}_1, \ldots, {C}_6 \rangle$ of cliques in the same graph, where the vertices in cliques are depicted by large (blue) circles (tokens).[]{data-label="fig:example"}](fig/example.eps){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Introduction
============
Recently, [*reconfiguration problems*]{} attract attention in the field of theoretical computer science. The problem arises when we wish to find a step-by-step transformation between two feasible solutions of a problem such that all intermediate results are also feasible and each step abides by a fixed reconfiguration rule (i.e., an adjacency relation defined on feasible solutions of the original problem). This kind of reconfiguration problem has been studied extensively for several well-known problems, including [satisfiability]{} [@Kolaitis], [independent set]{} [@Bon14; @HearnDemaine2005; @IDHPSUU; @KaminskiMM12; @Wro14], [vertex cover]{} [@INZ14; @MNR14], [clique]{}, [matching]{} [@IDHPSUU], [vertex-coloring]{} [@BC09], and so on. (See also a recent survey [@van13].)
It is well known that independent sets, vertex covers and cliques are related with each other. Indeed, the well-known reductions for NP-completeness proofs are essentially the same for the three problems [@GJ79]. Despite reconfiguration problems for independent sets and vertex covers are two of the most well studied problems, we have only a few known results for reconfiguration problems for cliques (as we will explain later). In this paper, we thus investigate the complexity status of reconfiguration problems for cliques systematically, and show that the problems can be solved in polynomial time for a variety of graph classes, in contrast to independent sets and vertex covers.
Our problems and three rules
----------------------------
Recall that a [*clique*]{} of a graph $G = (V,E)$ is a vertex subset of $G$ in which every two vertices are adjacent. (Figure \[fig:example\] depicts seven different cliques in the same graph.) Suppose that we are given two cliques ${C}_{{0}}$ and ${C}_{{r}}$ of $G$, and imagine that a token is placed on each vertex in ${C}_{{0}}$. Then, we are asked to transform ${C}_{{0}}$ into ${C}_{{r}}$ by abiding a prescribed reconfiguration rule on cliques. In this paper, we define three different reconfiguration rules on cliques, which were originally defined as the reconfiguration rules on independents sets [@KaminskiMM12], as follows:
[\*]{}[ by 5pt ]{}
[*Token Addition and Removal*]{} (${\mathsf{TAR}}$ rule): We can either add or remove a single token at a time if it results in a clique of size at least a given threshold $k \ge 0$. For example, in the sequence $\langle {C}_{{0}}, {C}_1, \ldots, {C}_6 \rangle$ in \[fig:example\], every two consecutive cliques follow the ${\mathsf{TAR}}$ rule for the threshold $k = 2$. In order to emphasize the threshold $k$, we sometimes call this rule the ${\mathsf{TAR}(k)}$ rule.
[*Token Jumping*]{} (${\mathsf{TJ}}$ rule): A single token in a clique ${C}$ can “jump” to any vertex in $V \setminus {C}$ if it results in a clique. For example, consider the sequence $\langle {C}_{{0}}, {C}_2, {C}_4, {C}_6 \rangle$ in \[fig:example\], then two consecutive cliques ${C}_{2i}$ and ${C}_{2i+2}$ follow the ${\mathsf{TJ}}$ rule for each $i \in \{0,1,2\}$.
[*Token Sliding*]{} (${\mathsf{TS}}$ rule): We can slide a single token on a vertex $v$ in a clique ${C}$ to another vertex $w$ in $V \setminus {C}$ if it results in a clique and there is an edge $vw$ in $G$. For example, consider the sequence $\langle {C}_2, {C}_4 \rangle$ in \[fig:example\], then two consecutive cliques ${C}_{2}$ and ${C}_{4}$ follow the ${\mathsf{TS}}$ rule, because $v$ and $w$ are adjacent.
A sequence $\langle {C}_{{0}}, {C}_1, \ldots, {C}_{\ell} \rangle$ of cliques of a graph $G$ is called a [*reconfiguration sequence*]{} between two cliques ${C}_{{0}}$ and ${C}_{\ell}$ under ${\mathsf{TAR}(k)}$ (or ${\mathsf{TJ}}$, ${\mathsf{TS}}$) if two consecutive cliques ${C}_{i-1}$ and ${C}_i$ follow the ${\mathsf{TAR}(k)}$ (resp., ${\mathsf{TJ}}$, ${\mathsf{TS}}$) rule for all $i \in \{1, 2, \ldots, \ell\}$. The *length* of a reconfiguration sequence is defined to be the number of cliques in the sequence minus one, that is, the length of $\langle {C}_{{0}}, {C}_1, \ldots, {C}_{\ell} \rangle$ is $\ell$.
Given two cliques ${C}_{{0}}$ and ${C}_{{r}}$ of a graph $G$ (and an integer $k \ge 0$ for ${\mathsf{TAR}}$), <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">clique reconfiguration</span> under ${\mathsf{TAR}}$ (or ${\mathsf{TJ}}$, ${\mathsf{TS}}$) is to determine whether there exists a reconfiguration sequence between ${C}_{{0}}$ and ${C}_{{r}}$ under ${\mathsf{TAR}(k)}$ (resp., ${\mathsf{TJ}}$, ${\mathsf{TS}}$). For example, consider the cliques ${C}_{{0}}$ and ${C}_{{r}} = {C}_6$ in \[fig:example\]; let $k = 2$ for ${\mathsf{TAR}}$. Then, it is a ${\mathsf{yes}}$-instance under the ${\mathsf{TAR}(2)}$ and ${\mathsf{TJ}}$ rules as illustrated in \[fig:example\], but is a ${\mathsf{no}}$-instance under the ${\mathsf{TS}}$ rule.
In this paper, we also study the shortest variant, called <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">shortest clique reconfiguration</span>, under each of the three rules which computes the shortest length of a reconfiguration sequence between two given cliques under the rule. We define the shortest length to be infinity for a ${\mathsf{no}}$-instance, and hence this variant is a generalization of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">clique reconfiguration</span>.
Known and related results
-------------------------
Ito et al. [@IDHPSUU] introduced <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">clique reconfiguration</span> under ${\mathsf{TAR}}$, and proved that it is PSPACE-complete in general. They also considered the optimization problem of computing the maximum threshold $k$ such that there is a reconfiguration sequence between two given cliques ${C}_{{0}}$ and ${C}_{{r}}$ under ${\mathsf{TAR}(k)}$. This maximization problem cannot be approximated in polynomial time within any constant factor unless ${\rm P} = {\rm NP}$ [@IDHPSUU].
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Independent set reconfiguration</span> is one of the most well-studied reconfiguration problems, defined for independent sets in a graph. Kamiński et al. [@KaminskiMM12] studied the problem under ${\mathsf{TAR}}$, ${\mathsf{TJ}}$ and ${\mathsf{TS}}$. It is well known that a clique in a graph $G$ forms an independent set in the complement $\overline{G}$ of $G$, and vice versa. Indeed, some known results for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">independent set reconfiguration</span> can be converted into ones for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">clique reconfiguration</span>. However, as far as we checked, only two results can be obtained for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">clique reconfiguration</span> by this conversion, because we take the complement of a graph. (These results will be formally discussed in Section \[subsec:independent-clique\].)
In this way, only a few results are known for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">clique reconfiguration</span>. In particular, there is almost no algorithmic result, and hence it is desired to develop efficient algorithms for the problem and its shortest variant.
Our contribution
----------------
In this paper, we embark on a systematic investigation of the computational status of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">clique reconfiguration</span> and its shortest variant. Figure \[fig:results\] summarizes our results, which can be divided into the following four parts.
[\*]{}[ by 5pt ]{}
*Rule equivalence* (Section \[sec:rules\]): We prove that all rules ${\mathsf{TAR}}$, ${\mathsf{TS}}$ and ${\mathsf{TJ}}$ are equivalent in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">clique reconfiguration</span>. Then, any complexity result under one rule can be converted into the same complexity result under the other two rules. In addition, based on the rule equivalence, we show that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">clique reconfiguration</span> under any rule is PSPACE-complete for perfect graphs, and is solvable in linear time for cographs.
*Graphs with bounded clique size* (Section \[subsec:boundedclique\]): We show that the shortest variant under any of ${\mathsf{TAR}}$, ${\mathsf{TS}}$ and ${\mathsf{TJ}}$ can be solved in polynomial time for such graphs, which include bipartite graphs, planar graphs, and bounded treewidth graphs. Interestingly, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">independent set reconfiguration</span> under any rule remains PSPACE-complete even for planar graphs [@BC09; @HearnDemaine2005] and bounded treewidth graphs [@Wro14]. Therefore, this result shows a nice difference between the reconfiguration problems for cliques and independent sets.
*Graphs with polynomially many maximal cliques* (Section \[subsec:polymany\]): We show that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">clique reconfiguration</span> under any of ${\mathsf{TAR}}$, ${\mathsf{TS}}$ and ${\mathsf{TJ}}$ can be solved in polynomial time for such graphs, which include even-hole-free graphs, graphs of bounded boxicity, and $K_{t}$-subdivision-free graphs.
*Chordal graphs* (Section \[sec:chordal\]): We give a linear-time algorithm to solve the shortest variant under any of ${\mathsf{TAR}}$, ${\mathsf{TS}}$ and ${\mathsf{TJ}}$ for chordal graphs. Note that the clique size of chordal graphs is not always bounded, and hence this result is independent from Result (2) above.
Several proofs move to appendices.
![Our results under all rules ${\mathsf{TAR}}$, ${\mathsf{TS}}$ and ${\mathsf{TJ}}$. Each arrow represents the inclusion relationship between graph classes: $A \to B$ represents that $B$ is properly included in $A$ [@BLS99]. Graph classes for which <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">shortest clique reconfiguration</span> is solvable in polynomial time are indicated by thick (red) boxes, while the ones for which <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">clique reconfiguration</span> is solvable in polynomial time are indicated by thin (blue) boxes.](fig/results.eps){width="0.9\linewidth"}
\[fig:results\]
Preliminaries
=============
In this section, we introduce some basic terms and notation.
Graph notation
--------------
In this paper, we assume without loss of generality that graphs are simple. For a graph $G$, we sometimes denote by $V(G)$ and $E(G)$ the vertex set and edge set of $G$, respectively. For a graph $G$, the *complement* $\overline{G}$ of $G$ is the graph such that $V(\overline{G}) = V(G)$ and $E(\overline{G}) = \{ vw \mid v,w \in V(G),\ vw \not\in E(G) \}$. We say that a graph class $\mathcal{G}$ (i.e., a set of graphs) is *closed under taking complements* if $\overline{G} \in \mathcal{G}$ holds for every graph $G \in \mathcal{G}$.
In this paper, we deal with several graph classes systematically, and hence we do not define those graph classes precisely; we simply give the properties used for proving our results, with appropriate references.
Definitions for [clique reconfiguration]{}
------------------------------------------
As explained in Introduction, we consider three (symmetric) adjacency relations on cliques in a graph. Let ${C}_i$ and ${C}_j$ be two cliques of a graph $G$. Then,
[a]{}
*${C}_i {\leftrightarrow}{C}_j$ under ${\mathsf{TAR}(k)}$* for a nonnegative integer $k$ if $|{C}_i| \ge k$, $|{C}_j| \ge k$, and $|{C}_i \vartriangle {C}_j| = \bigl|({C}_i \setminus {C}_j) \cup ({C}_j \setminus {C}_i) \bigr| = 1$ hold;
*${C}_i {\leftrightarrow}{C}_j$ under ${\mathsf{TJ}}$* if $|{C}_i| = |{C}_j|$, $|{C}_i \setminus {C}_j| = 1$, and $|{C}_j \setminus {C}_i| = 1$ hold; and
*${C}_i {\leftrightarrow}{C}_j$ under ${\mathsf{TS}}$* if $|{C}_i| = |{C}_j|$, ${C}_i \setminus {C}_j = \{v\}$, ${C}_j \setminus {C}_i = \{w\}$, and $vw \in E(G)$ hold.
A sequence $\langle {C}_1, {C}_2, \ldots, {C}_{\ell} \rangle$ of cliques of $G$ is called a [*reconfiguration sequence*]{} between two cliques ${C}_1$ and ${C}_{\ell}$ under ${\mathsf{TAR}(k)}$ (or ${\mathsf{TJ}}$, ${\mathsf{TS}}$) if ${C}_{i-1} {\leftrightarrow}{C}_i$ holds under ${\mathsf{TAR}(k)}$ (resp., ${\mathsf{TJ}}$, ${\mathsf{TS}}$) for all $i \in \{2, 3, \ldots, \ell\}$. A reconfiguration sequence under ${\mathsf{TAR}(k)}$ (or ${\mathsf{TJ}}$, ${\mathsf{TS}}$) is simply called a *${\mathsf{TAR}(k)}$-sequence* (resp., *${\mathsf{TJ}}$-sequence*, *${\mathsf{TS}}$-sequence*). We write ${C}_{1} {\leftrightsquigarrow}{C}_{\ell}$ under ${\mathsf{TAR}(k)}$ (or ${\mathsf{TJ}}$, ${\mathsf{TS}}$) if there exists a ${\mathsf{TAR}(k)}$-sequence (resp., ${\mathsf{TJ}}$-sequence, ${\mathsf{TS}}$-sequence) between ${C}_1$ and ${C}_{\ell}$. Note that each clique in any ${\mathsf{TAR}(k)}$-sequence is of size at least $k$, while all cliques in any ${\mathsf{TJ}}$-sequence or ${\mathsf{TS}}$-sequence have the same size. In addition, a reconfiguration sequence under any rule is [*reversible*]{}, that is, ${C}_{1} {\leftrightsquigarrow}{C}_{\ell}$ if and only if ${C}_{\ell} {\leftrightsquigarrow}{C}_{1}$.
Let $k$ be a nonnegative integer, and let ${C}$ and ${C}^\prime$ be two cliques of a graph $G$. Then, we define ${\mathsf{TAR}({C},{C}^\prime,k)}$, as follows: $${\mathsf{TAR}({C},{C}^\prime,k)} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{\mathsf{yes}}& ~~~\mbox{if ${C}{\leftrightsquigarrow}{C}^\prime$ under ${\mathsf{TAR}(k)}$}; \\
{\mathsf{no}}& ~~~\mbox{otherwise}.
\end{array} \right.$$ Given two cliques ${C}_{{0}}$ and ${C}_{{r}}$ of a graph $G$ and a nonnegative integer $k$, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">clique reconfiguration</span> under ${\mathsf{TAR}}$ is to compute ${\mathsf{TAR}({C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)}$. By the definition, ${\mathsf{TAR}({C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)} = {\mathsf{no}}$ if $|{C}_{{0}}| < k$ or $|{C}_{{r}}| <k$ hold, and hence we may assume without loss of generality that both $|{C}_{{0}}| \ge k$ and $|{C}_{{r}}| \ge k$ hold; we call such an instance simply a ${\mathsf{TAR}}$-instance, and denote it by $(G, {C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}}, k)$.
For two cliques ${C}$ and ${C}^\prime$ of a graph $G$, we similarly define ${\mathsf{TJ}({C},{C}^\prime)}$ and ${\mathsf{TS}({C},{C}^\prime)}$. Given two cliques ${C}_{{0}}$ and ${C}_{{r}}$ of $G$, we similarly define <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">clique reconfiguration</span> under ${\mathsf{TJ}}$ and ${\mathsf{TS}}$, and denote their instance by $(G, {C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}})$. Then, we can assume that $|{C}_{{0}}| = |{C}_{{r}}|$ holds in a ${\mathsf{TJ}}$- or a ${\mathsf{TS}}$-instance $(G, {C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}})$.
Given a ${\mathsf{TAR}}$-instance $(G, {C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}}, k)$, let $\mathcal{C} = \langle {C}_{{0}}, {C}_1, \ldots, {C}_{\ell} \rangle$ be a ${\mathsf{TAR}(k)}$-sequence in $G$ between ${C}_{{0}}$ and ${C}_{{r}} = {C}_{\ell}$. Then, the *length* of $\mathcal{C}$ is defined to be the number of cliques in $\mathcal{C}$ minus one, that is, the length of $\mathcal{C}$ is $\ell$. We denote by ${\mathsf{dist_{TAR}}(G,{C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)}$ the minimum length of a ${\mathsf{TAR}(k)}$-sequence in $G$ between ${C}_{{0}}$ and ${C}_{{r}}$; we let ${\mathsf{dist_{TAR}}(G,{C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)} = +\infty$ if there is no ${\mathsf{TAR}(k)}$-sequence in $G$ between ${C}_{{0}}$ and ${C}_{{r}}$. The shortest variant, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">shortest clique reconfiguration</span>, under ${\mathsf{TAR}}$ is to compute ${\mathsf{dist_{TAR}}(G,{C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)}$. Similarly, we define ${\mathsf{dist_{TJ}}(G,{C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}})}$ and ${\mathsf{dist_{TS}}(G,{C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}})}$ for a ${\mathsf{TJ}}$- and a ${\mathsf{TS}}$-instance $(G, {C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}})$, respectively. Then, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">shortest clique reconfiguration</span> under ${\mathsf{TJ}}$ or ${\mathsf{TS}}$ is defined similarly. We sometimes drop $G$ and simply write ${\mathsf{dist_{TAR}}({C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)}$, ${\mathsf{dist_{TJ}}({C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}})}$ and ${\mathsf{dist_{TS}}({C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}})}$ if it is clear from context.
We note that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">clique reconfiguration</span> under any rule is a decision problem asking for the existence of a reconfiguration sequence, and its shortest variant asks for simply computing the shortest length of a reconfiguration sequence. Therefore, the problems do not ask for an actual reconfiguration sequence. However, our algorithms proposed in this paper can be easily modified so that they indeed find a reconfiguration sequence.
Rule Equivalence and Complexity {#sec:rules}
===============================
In this section, we first prove that all three rules ${\mathsf{TAR}}$, ${\mathsf{TS}}$ and ${\mathsf{TJ}}$ are equivalent in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">clique reconfiguration</span>. We then discuss some complexity results that can be obtained from known results for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">independent set reconfiguration</span>.
Equivalence of ${\mathsf{TS}}$ and ${\mathsf{TAR}}$ rules
---------------------------------------------------------
${\mathsf{TS}}$ and ${\mathsf{TAR}}$ rules are equivalent, as in the following sense.
\[the:TS=TAR\] ${\mathsf{TS}}$ and ${\mathsf{TAR}}$ rules are equivalent in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">clique reconfiguration</span>, as follows[:]{}
[aaa]{}
for any ${\mathsf{TS}}$-instance $(G, {C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}})$, a ${\mathsf{TAR}}$-instance $(G, {C}_{{0}}^\prime, {C}_{{r}}^\prime, k^\prime)$ can be constructed in linear time such that ${\mathsf{TS}({C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}})} = {\mathsf{TAR}({C}_{{0}}^\prime,{C}_{{r}}^\prime,k^\prime)}$ and ${\mathsf{dist_{TS}}({C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}})} = {\mathsf{dist_{TAR}}({C}_{{0}}^\prime,{C}_{{r}}^\prime,k^\prime)} /2$[;]{} and
for any ${\mathsf{TAR}}$-instance $(G, {C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}},k)$, a ${\mathsf{TS}}$-instance $(G, {C}_{{0}}^\prime, {C}_{{r}}^\prime)$ can be constructed in linear time such that ${\mathsf{TAR}({C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)} = {\mathsf{TS}({C}_{{0}}^\prime,{C}_{{r}}^\prime)}$.
By Theorem \[the:TS=TAR\](a), note that the reduction from ${\mathsf{TS}}$ to ${\mathsf{TAR}}$ preserves the shortest length of reconfiguration sequences. [*Proof of Theorem [\[the:TS=TAR\](]{}a[)]{}.*]{} Let $(G, {C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}})$ be a ${\mathsf{TS}}$-instance with $|{C}_{{0}}| = |{C}_{{r}}| = k$. Then, as the corresponding ${\mathsf{TAR}}$-instance $(G, {C}_{{0}}^\prime, {C}_{{r}}^\prime, k^\prime)$, we let ${C}_{{0}}^\prime = {C}_{{0}}$, ${C}_{{r}}^\prime = {C}_{{r}}$ and $k^\prime = k$; this ${\mathsf{TAR}}$-instance can be clearly constructed in linear time. We thus prove the following lemma, as a proof of Theorem \[the:TS=TAR\](a).
\[lem:TS->TAR\] Let $G$ be a graph, and let ${C}_{{0}}$ and ${C}_{{r}}$ be any pair of cliques of $G$ such that $|{C}_{{0}}| = |{C}_{{r}}| = k$. Then, ${\mathsf{TS}({C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}})} = {\mathsf{TAR}({C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)}$ and ${\mathsf{dist_{TS}}({C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}})} = {\mathsf{dist_{TAR}}({C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)} /2$.
[*Proof of Theorem [\[the:TS=TAR\](]{}b[)]{}.*]{} Let $(G, {C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}}, k)$ be a ${\mathsf{TAR}}$-instance; note that $|{C}_{{0}}| \neq |{C}_{{r}}|$ may hold, and both $|{C}_{{0}}| \ge k$ and $|{C}_{{r}}| \ge k$ hold. Then, as the corresponding ${\mathsf{TS}}$-instance $(G, {C}_{{0}}^\prime, {C}_{{r}}^\prime)$, let ${C}_{{0}}^\prime \subseteq {C}_{{0}}$ and ${C}_{{r}}^\prime \subseteq {C}_{{r}}$ be arbitrary subsets of size exactly $k$; this ${\mathsf{TS}}$-instance can be clearly constructed in linear time. We thus prove the following lemma, as a proof of Theorem \[the:TS=TAR\](b).
\[lem:TS=TARb\] Let $(G, {C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}}, k)$ be a ${\mathsf{TAR}}$-instance, and let ${C}_{{0}}^\prime \subseteq {C}_{{0}}$ and ${C}_{{r}}^\prime \subseteq {C}_{{r}}$ be arbitrary subsets of size exactly $k$. Then, ${\mathsf{TAR}({C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)} = {\mathsf{TS}({C}_{{0}}^\prime,{C}_{{r}}^\prime)}$.
Equivalence of ${\mathsf{TJ}}$ and ${\mathsf{TAR}}$ rules
---------------------------------------------------------
${\mathsf{TJ}}$ and ${\mathsf{TAR}}$ rules are equivalent, as in the following sense.
\[the:TJ=TAR\] ${\mathsf{TJ}}$ and ${\mathsf{TAR}}$ rules are equivalent in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">clique reconfiguration</span>, as follows[:]{}
[aaa]{}
for any ${\mathsf{TJ}}$-instance $(G, {C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}})$, a ${\mathsf{TAR}}$-instance $(G, {C}_{{0}}^\prime, {C}_{{r}}^\prime, k^\prime)$ can be constructed in linear time such that ${\mathsf{TJ}({C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}})} = {\mathsf{TAR}({C}_{{0}}^\prime,{C}_{{r}}^\prime,k^\prime)}$ and ${\mathsf{dist_{TJ}}({C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}})} = {\mathsf{dist_{TAR}}({C}_{{0}}^\prime,{C}_{{r}}^\prime,k^\prime)} /2$[;]{} and
for any ${\mathsf{TAR}}$-instance $(G, {C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}},k)$, a ${\mathsf{TJ}}$-instance $(G, {C}_{{0}}^\prime, {C}_{{r}}^\prime)$ can be constructed in linear time such that ${\mathsf{TAR}({C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)} = {\mathsf{TJ}({C}_{{0}}^\prime,{C}_{{r}}^\prime)}$.
By Theorem \[the:TJ=TAR\](a), note that the reduction from ${\mathsf{TJ}}$ to ${\mathsf{TAR}}$ preserves the shortest length of reconfiguration sequences.
[*Proof of Theorem [\[the:TJ=TAR\](]{}a[)]{}.*]{} Let $(G, {C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}})$ be a ${\mathsf{TJ}}$-instance with $|{C}_{{0}}| = |{C}_{{r}}| = k$. Then, as the corresponding ${\mathsf{TAR}}$-instance $(G, {C}_{{0}}^\prime, {C}_{{r}}^\prime, k^\prime)$, we let ${C}_{{0}}^\prime = {C}_{{0}}$, ${C}_{{r}}^\prime = {C}_{{r}}$ and $k^\prime = k-1$; this ${\mathsf{TAR}}$-instance can be clearly constructed in linear time. We thus prove the following lemma, as a proof of Theorem \[the:TJ=TAR\](a).
\[lem:TJ->TAR\] Let $G$ be a graph, and let ${C}_{{0}}$ and ${C}_{{r}}$ be any pair of cliques of $G$ such that $|{C}_{{0}}| = |{C}_{{r}}| = k$. Then, ${\mathsf{TJ}({C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}})} = {\mathsf{TAR}({C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k-1)}$ and ${\mathsf{dist_{TJ}}({C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}})} = {\mathsf{dist_{TAR}}({C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k-1)} /2$.
[*Proof of Theorem [\[the:TJ=TAR\](]{}b[)]{}.*]{} Let $(G, {C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}}, k)$ be a ${\mathsf{TAR}}$-instance; $|{C}_{{0}}| \neq |{C}_{{r}}|$ may hold, and both $|{C}_{{0}}| \ge k$ and $|{C}_{{r}}| \ge k$ hold. We first give the following lemma.
Let $(G, {C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}}, k)$ be a ${\mathsf{TAR}}$-instance such that ${C}_{{0}} \neq {C}_{{r}}$. Suppose that there exists an index $j \in \{{0}, {r}\}$ such that $|{C}_j| =k$ and ${C}_j$ is a maximal clique in $G$. Then, ${\mathsf{TAR}({C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)} = {\mathsf{no}}$.
Since ${C}_j$ is maximal, there is no clique in $G$ which can be obtained by adding a vertex to ${C}_j$. Furthermore, since $|{C}_j| = k$, we cannot delete any vertex from ${C}_j$ to keep the threshold $k$. Thus, there is no clique $C$ in $G$ such that ${C}_j {\leftrightarrow}C$ under ${\mathsf{TAR}(k)}$. Since ${C}_{{0}} \neq {C}_{{r}}$, we have ${\mathsf{TAR}({C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)} = {\mathsf{no}}$.
We thus assume without loss of generality that none of ${C}_{{0}}$ and ${C}_{{r}}$ is a maximal clique in $G$ of size $k$; note that the maximality of a clique can be determined in linear time. Then, we construct the corresponding ${\mathsf{TJ}}$-instance $(G, {C}_{{0}}^\prime, {C}_{{r}}^\prime)$, as in the following two cases () and ():
[aaa]{}
for each $j \in \{{0}, {r}\}$ such that $|{C}_j| \ge k+1$, let ${C}_j^\prime \subseteq {C}_j$ be an arbitrary subset of size exactly $k+1$; and
for each $j \in \{{0}, {r}\}$ such that $|{C}_j| = k$, let ${C}_j^\prime \supset {C}_j$ be an arbitrary superset of size exactly $k+1$.
This ${\mathsf{TJ}}$-instance can be clearly constructed in linear time. We thus prove the following lemma, as a proof of Theorem \[the:TJ=TAR\](b).
\[lem:TJ=TARb\] Let $(G, {C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}}, k)$ be a ${\mathsf{TAR}}$-instance, and let $(G, {C}_{{0}}^\prime, {C}_{{r}}^\prime)$ be the corresponding ${\mathsf{TJ}}$-instance constructed above. Then, ${\mathsf{TAR}({C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)} = {\mathsf{TJ}({C}_{{0}}^\prime,{C}_{{r}}^\prime)}$.
Results obtained from [independent set reconfiguration]{} {#subsec:independent-clique}
---------------------------------------------------------
We here show two complexity results for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">clique reconfiguration</span>, which can be obtained from known results for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">independent set reconfiguration</span>.
Consider a vertex subset ${C}$ of a graph $G$. Then, ${C}$ forms a clique in $G$ if and only if ${C}$ forms an independent set in the complement $\overline{G}$ of $G$. Therefore, the following lemma clearly holds.
\[lem:clique-independent\] Let $G$ be a graph, and let ${C}_{j}$ be a clique of $G$ for each $j \in \{0, 1, \ldots, \ell\}$. Then, $\langle {C}_{0}, {C}_{1}, \ldots, {C}_{\ell} \rangle$ is a ${\mathsf{TAR}(k)}$-sequence of cliques in $G$ if and only if $\langle {C}_{0}, {C}_{1}, \allowbreak \ldots, {C}_{\ell} \rangle$ is a ${\mathsf{TAR}(k)}$-sequence of independent sets in the complement $\overline{G}$ of $G$.
By Lemma \[lem:clique-independent\] we can convert a complexity result for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">independent set reconfiguration</span> under ${\mathsf{TAR}}$ for a graph class $\mathcal{G}$ into one for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">clique reconfiguration</span> under ${\mathsf{TAR}}$ for $\mathcal{G}$ if the graph class $\mathcal{G}$ is closed under taking complements. Note that, by Theorems \[the:TS=TAR\] and \[the:TJ=TAR\], any complexity result under one rule can be converted into the same complexity result under the other two rules.
\[pro:perfect\] <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Clique reconfiguration</span> is PSPACE-complete for perfect graphs under all rules ${\mathsf{TAR}}$, ${\mathsf{TS}}$ and ${\mathsf{TJ}}$.
\[pro:cograph\] <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Clique reconfiguration</span> can be solved in linear time for cographs under all rules ${\mathsf{TAR}}$, ${\mathsf{TS}}$ and ${\mathsf{TJ}}$.
Polynomial-Time Algorithms {#sec:polytime}
==========================
In this section, we show that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">clique reconfiguration</span> is solvable in polynomial time for several graph classes. We deal with two types of graph classes, that is, graphs of bounded clique size (in Section \[subsec:boundedclique\]) and graphs having polynomially many maximal cliques (in Section \[subsec:polymany\]).
Graphs of bounded clique size {#subsec:boundedclique}
-----------------------------
In this subsection, we show that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">shortest clique reconfiguration</span> can be solved in polynomial time for graphs of bounded clique size; as we will explain later, such graphs include bipartite graphs, planar graphs, and graphs of bounded treewidth. For a graph $G$, we denote by $\omega(G)$ the size of a maximum clique in $G$. Then, we have the following theorem.
\[the:boundedclique\] Let $G$ be a graph with $n$ vertices such that $\omega(G) \le w$ for a positive integer $w$. Then, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">shortest clique reconfiguration</span> under any of ${\mathsf{TAR}}$, ${\mathsf{TS}}$ and ${\mathsf{TJ}}$ can be solved in time $O(w^2 n^{w})$ for $G$.
It is well known that $\omega(G) \le 4$ for any planar graph $G$, and $\omega(G^\prime) \le 2$ for any bipartite graph $G^\prime$. We thus have the following corollary.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Shortest clique reconfiguration</span> under ${\mathsf{TAR}}$, ${\mathsf{TS}}$ and ${\mathsf{TJ}}$ can be solved in polynomial time for planar graphs and bipartite graphs.
By the definition of treewidth [@BodlaenderDDFLP13], we have $\omega(G) \le t+1$ for any graph $G$ whose treewidth can be bounded by a positive integer $t$. By Theorem \[the:boundedclique\] this observation gives an $O \bigl(t^2 n^{t+1} \bigr)$-time algorithm for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">shortest clique reconfiguration</span>. However, for this case, we can obtain a faster fixed-parameter algorithm, where the parameter is the treewidth $t$, as follows.
\[pro:treewidth\] Let $G$ be a graph with $n$ vertices whose treewidth is bounded by a positive integer $t$. Then, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">shortest clique reconfiguration</span> under any of ${\mathsf{TAR}}$, ${\mathsf{TS}}$ and ${\mathsf{TJ}}$ can be solved for $G$ in time $O(c^{t} n)$, where $c$ is some constant.
Proposition \[pro:treewidth\] implies that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">shortest clique reconfiguration</span> under any of ${\mathsf{TAR}}$, ${\mathsf{TS}}$ and ${\mathsf{TJ}}$ can be solved in time $O(c^{w} n)$ for chordal graphs $G$ when parameterized by the size $w$ of a maximum clique in $G$, where $n$ is the number of vertices in $G$ and $c$ is some constant; because the treewidth of a chordal graph $G$ can be bounded by the size of a maximum clique in $G$ minus one [@RS86]. However, we give a linear-time algorithm to solve the shortest variant under any rule for chordal graphs in Section \[sec:chordal\].
Graphs with polynomially many maximal cliques {#subsec:polymany}
---------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we consider the class of graphs having polynomially many maximal cliques, which properly contains the class of graphs with bounded clique size (in Section \[subsec:boundedclique\]). Note that, even if a graph $G$ has a polynomial number of maximal cliques, $G$ may have a super-polynomial number of cliques.
\[the:poly-many-maxcliques\] Let $G$ be a graph with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges, and let ${\mathcal{M}(G)}$ be the set of all maximal cliques in $G$. Then, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">clique reconfiguration</span> under any of ${\mathsf{TAR}}$, ${\mathsf{TS}}$ and ${\mathsf{TJ}}$ can be solved for $G$ in time $O \bigl(m n \lvert \mathcal{M}(G) \rvert + n \lvert \mathcal{M}(G) \rvert^{2} \bigr)$.
Before proving Theorem \[the:poly-many-maxcliques\], we give the following corollary.
\[cor:maximal\] <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Clique reconfiguration</span> under ${\mathsf{TAR}}$, ${\mathsf{TS}}$ and ${\mathsf{TJ}}$ can be solved in polynomial time for even-hole-free graphs, graphs of bounded boxicity, and $K_{t}$-subdivision-free graphs.
By Theorem \[the:poly-many-maxcliques\] it suffices to show that the claimed graphs have polynomially many maximal cliques. Polynomial bounds on the number of maximal cliques are shown for even-hole-free graphs in [@SilvaV07], for graphs of bounded boxicity in [@Spinrad03], and for $K_{t}$-subdivision-free graphs in [@LeeO14].
In this subsection, we prove Theorem \[the:poly-many-maxcliques\]. However, by Theorems \[the:TS=TAR\](a) and \[the:TJ=TAR\](a) it suffices to give such an algorithm only for the ${\mathsf{TAR}}$ rule.
Let $(G, {C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}}, k)$ be any ${\mathsf{TAR}}$-instance. Then, we define the *$k$-intersection maximal-clique graph* of $G$, denoted by ${\mathsf{MC}_{k}(G)}$, as follows:
[aaa]{}
each node in ${\mathsf{MC}_{k}(G)}$ corresponds to a clique in ${\mathcal{M}(G)}$; and
two nodes in ${\mathsf{MC}_{k}(G)}$ are joined by an edge if and only if $|M \cap M^\prime| \ge k$ holds for the corresponding two maximal cliques $M$ and $M^\prime$ in ${\mathcal{M}(G)}$.
Note that any maximal clique in ${\mathcal{M}(G)}$ of size less than $k$ is contained in ${\mathsf{MC}_{k}(G)}$ as an isolated node. We now give the key lemma to prove Theorem \[the:poly-many-maxcliques\].
\[lem:clique-path\] Let $G$ be a graph, and let ${C}$ and ${C}^\prime$ be any pair of cliques in $G$ such that $|{C}| \ge k$ and $|{C}^\prime| \ge k$. Let $M \supseteq {C}$ and $M^\prime \supseteq {C}^\prime$ be arbitrary maximal cliques in ${\mathcal{M}(G)}$. Then, ${C}{\leftrightsquigarrow}{C}^\prime$ under ${\mathsf{TAR}(k)}$ if and only if ${\mathsf{MC}_{k}(G)}$ contains a path between the two nodes corresponding to $M$ and $M^\prime$.
[**Proof of Theorem \[the:poly-many-maxcliques\].**]{}
For any graph $G$ with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges, Tsukiyama et al. [@TsukiyamaIAS77] proved that the set ${\mathcal{M}(G)}$ can be computed in time $O \bigl(m n \lvert {\mathcal{M}(G)} \rvert \bigr)$. Thus, we can construct ${\mathsf{MC}_{k}(G)}$ in time $O \bigl(m n \lvert {\mathcal{M}(G)} \rvert + n \lvert {\mathcal{M}(G)} \rvert^{2} \bigr)$. By the breadth-first search on ${\mathsf{MC}_{k}(G)}$ which starts from an arbitrary maximal clique (node) $M \supseteq {C}_{{0}}$, we can check in time $O \bigl(\lvert {\mathcal{M}(G)} \rvert^{2} \bigr)$ whether ${\mathsf{MC}_{k}(G)}$ has a path to a maximal clique $M^\prime \supseteq {C}_{{r}}$. Then, the theorem follows from Lemma \[lem:clique-path\].
Linear-Time Algorithm for Chordal Graphs {#sec:chordal}
========================================
Since any chordal graph is even-hole free, by Corollary \[cor:maximal\] <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">clique reconfiguration</span> is solvable in polynomial time for chordal graphs. Furthermore, we have discussed in Section \[subsec:boundedclique\] that the shortest variant is fixed-parameter tractable for chordal graphs when parameterized by the size of a maximum clique in a graph. However, we give the following theorem in this section.
\[the:chordal\] <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Shortest clique reconfiguration</span> under any of ${\mathsf{TAR}}$, ${\mathsf{TS}}$ and ${\mathsf{TJ}}$ can be solved in linear time for chordal graphs.
In this section, we prove Theorem \[the:chordal\]. By Theorems \[the:TS=TAR\](a) and \[the:TJ=TAR\](a) it suffices to give a linear-time algorithm for a ${\mathsf{TAR}}$-instance; recall that the reduction from ${\mathsf{TS}}$/${\mathsf{TJ}}$ to ${\mathsf{TAR}}$ preserves the shortest length of reconfiguration sequences.
Our algorithm consists of two phases. The first is a linear-time reduction from a given ${\mathsf{TAR}}$-instance $(G, {C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}}, k)$ for a chordal graph $G$ to a ${\mathsf{TAR}}$-instance $({H}, {C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}}, k)$ for an interval graph ${H}$ such that ${\mathsf{dist_{TAR}}({H},{C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)} = {\mathsf{dist_{TAR}}(G,{C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)}$. The second is a linear-time algorithm for interval graphs.
[**Definitions of chordal graphs and interval graphs.**]{} A graph is a *chordal graph* if every induced cycle is of length three. Recall that ${\mathcal{M}(G)}$ is the set of all maximal cliques in a graph $G$, and we denote by ${\mathcal{M}(G; v)}$ the set of all maximal cliques in $G$ that contain a vertex $v \in V(G)$. A tree $\mathcal{T}$ is a *clique tree* of a graph $G$ if it satisfies the following conditions:
[aa]{}
each node in $\mathcal{T}$ corresponds to a maximal clique in $\mathcal{M}(G)$; and
for each $v \in V(G)$, the subgraph of $\mathcal{T}$ induced by ${\mathcal{M}(G; v)}$ is connected.
It is known that a graph is a chordal graph if and only if it has a clique tree [@Gavril74]. A clique tree of a chordal graph can be computed in linear time (see [@Spinrad03 §15.1]).
A graph is an *interval graph* if it can be represented as the intersection graph of intervals on the real line. A *clique path* is a clique tree which is a path. It is known that a graph is an interval graph if and only if it has a clique path [@FulkersonG65; @GilmoreH64].
Linear-time reduction from chordal graphs to interval graphs
------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we describe the first phase of our algorithm.
Let $(G, {C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}}, k)$ be any ${\mathsf{TAR}}$-instance for a chordal graph $G$, and let $\mathcal{T}$ be a clique tree of $G$. Then, we find an arbitrary pair of maximal cliques $M_{{0}}$ and $M_{t}$ in $G$ (i.e., two nodes in $\mathcal{T}$) such that ${C}_{{0}} \subseteq M_{{0}}$ and ${C}_{{r}} \subseteq M_{t}$. Let $(M_{{0}}, M_1, \ldots, M_t)$ be the unique path in $\mathcal{T}$ from $M_{{0}}$ to $M_t$. We define a graph ${H^\prime}$ as the subgraph of $G$ induced by the maximal cliques $M_{{0}}, M_1, \ldots, M_t$. Note that ${H^\prime}$ is an interval graph, because $(M_{{0}}, M_1, \ldots, M_t)$ forms a clique path.
The following lemma implies that the interval graph ${H^\prime}$ has a ${\mathsf{TAR}(k)}$-sequence $\langle {C}_{0}, {C}_1, \ldots, {C}_{\ell^\prime} \rangle$ such that $\ell^\prime = {\mathsf{dist_{TAR}}(G,{C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)}$, and hence yields that ${\mathsf{dist_{TAR}}({H^\prime},{C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)} = {\mathsf{dist_{TAR}}(G,{C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)}$ holds.
\[lem:consecutive-cliques\] Let $(G, {C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}}, k)$ be a ${\mathsf{TAR}}$-instance for a chordal graph $G$, and let $\mathcal{T}$ be a clique tree of $G$. Suppose that $\langle {C}_{{0}}, {C}_1, \ldots, {C}_{\ell} \rangle$ is a shortest ${\mathsf{TAR}(k)}$-sequence in $G$ from ${C}_{{0}}$ to ${C}_{\ell} = {C}_{{r}}$. Let $(M_{0}, M_1, \dots M_{t})$ be the path in $\mathcal{T}$ from $M_{0}$ to $M_{t}$ for any pair of maximal cliques $M_{0} \supseteq {C}_0$ and $M_{t} \supseteq {C}_{{r}}$. Then, there is a monotonically increasing function $f \colon \{0,1,\dots,\ell\} \to \{0, 1,\dots, t\}$ such that $C_{i} \subseteq M_{f(i)}$ for each $i \in \{0,1,\ldots,\ell\}$.
Although Lemma \[lem:consecutive-cliques\] implies that ${\mathsf{dist_{TAR}}({H^\prime},{C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)} = {\mathsf{dist_{TAR}}(G,{C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)}$ holds for the interval graph ${H^\prime}$, it seems difficult to find two maximal cliques $M_{0} \supseteq {C}_0$ and $M_{t} \supseteq {C}_{{r}}$ (and hence construct ${H^\prime}$ from $G$) in linear time. However, by a small trick, we can construct an interval graph ${H}$ in linear time such that ${\mathsf{dist_{TAR}}({H},{C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)} = {\mathsf{dist_{TAR}}(G,{C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)}$, as follows.
\[lem:chordal->interval\] Given a ${\mathsf{TAR}}$-instance $(G, {C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}}, k)$ for a chordal graph $G$, one can obtain a subgraph ${H}$ of $G$ in linear time such that ${H}$ is an interval graph, ${C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}} \subseteq V({H})$ and ${\mathsf{dist_{TAR}}({H},{C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)} = {\mathsf{dist_{TAR}}(G,{C}_{{0}},{C}_{{r}},k)}$.
Linear-time algorithm for interval graphs {#subsec:interval}
-----------------------------------------
In this subsection, we describe the second phase of our algorithm. Let ${{H}}$ be a given interval graph, and we assume that its clique path $\mathcal{P}$ has $V(\mathcal{P}) = {\mathcal{M}({{H}})} = \{M_{0}, M_{1}, \ldots, M_{t}\}$ and $E(\mathcal{P}) = \{\{M_{i}, M_{i+1}\} \mid 0 \le i < t\}$. Note that we can assume that $t \ge 1$, that is, ${{H}}$ has at least two maximal cliques; otherwise we can easily solve the problem in linear time (as in Lemma \[lem:tar-dist-in-a-clique\] in Appendix \[app:oneclique\]). For a vertex $v$ in ${{H}}$, let $l_{v} = \min\{i \mid v \in M_{i}\}$ and $r_{v} = \max\{i \mid v \in M_{i}\}$; the indices $l_v$ and $r_v$ are called the *$l$-value* and *$r$-value* of $v$, respectively. Note that $v \in M_{i}$ if and only if $l_{v} \le i \le r_{v}$. For an interval graph ${{H}}$, such a clique path $\mathcal{P}$ and the indices $l_{v}$ and $r_{v}$ for all vertices $v \in V({{H}})$ can be computed in linear time [@UeharaU07].
Let $({{H}}, {C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}}, k)$ be a ${\mathsf{TAR}}$-instance. We assume that ${C}_{{0}} \subseteq M_{0}$, ${C}_{{0}} \not\subseteq M_{1}$ and ${C}_{{r}} \subseteq M_{t}$; otherwise, we can remove the maximal cliques $M_{i}$ with $i < \min\{r_{v} \mid v \in {C}_{{0}} \}$ and $i > \max\{l_{v} \mid v \in {C}_{{r}} \}$ in linear time. Our algorithm greedily constructs a shortest ${\mathsf{TAR}(k)}$-sequence from ${C}_{{0}}$ to ${C}_{{r}}$, as follows:
[aaa]{}
if ${C}_{{0}} \not\subseteq {C}_{{r}}$ and $|{C}_{{0}}| \ge k+1$, then remove a vertex with the minimum $r$-value in ${C}_{{0}} \setminus {C}_{{r}}$ from ${C}_{{0}}$;
otherwise add a vertex in $({C}_{{r}} \setminus {C}_{{0}}) \cap M_{0}$ if any; if no such vertex exists, add a vertex with the maximum $r$-value in $M_{0} \setminus {C}_{{0}}$.
We regard the clique obtained by the operations above as ${C}_{{0}}$; if necessary, we shift the indices of $M_i$ so that ${C}_{{0}} \subseteq M_{0}$ and ${C}_{{0}} \not\subseteq M_{1}$ hold; and repeat. If ${C}_{{0}} \neq {C}_{{r}}$ and none of the operations above is possible, we can conclude that $({{H}}, {C}_{{0}}, {C}_{{r}}, k)$ is a ${\mathsf{no}}$-instance. The correctness proof of this greedy algorithm and the estimation of its running time can be found in Appendix \[app:interval-algo\].
This completes the proof of Theorem \[the:chordal\].
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we have systematically shown that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">clique reconfiguration</span> and its shortest variant can be solved in polynomial time for several graph classes. As far as we know, this is the first example of a reconfiguration problem such that it is PSPACE-complete in general, but is solvable in polynomial time for such a variety of graph classes.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
This work is partially supported by MEXT/JSPS KAKENHI 25106504 and 25330003 (T. Ito), 25104521, 26540005 and 26540005 (H. Ono), and 24106004 and 25730003 (Y. Otachi).
[99]{}
Bodlaender, H.L., Drange, P.G., Dregi, M.S., Fomin, F.V., Lokshtanov, D., Pilipczuk, M.: An $O(c^k n)$ $5$-approximation algorithm for treewidth. Proc. of FOCS 2013, pp. 499–508 (2013)
Bonsma, P., Cereceda, L.: Finding paths between graph colourings: PSPACE-completeness and superpolynomial distances. Theoretical Computer Science 410, pp. 5215–5226 (2009)
Bonsma, P.: Independent set reconfiguration in cographs. Proc. of WG 2014, LNCS 8747, pp. 105–116 (2014)
Brandstädt, A., Le, V.B., Spinrad, J.P.: Graph Classes: A Survey, SIAM (1999)
da Silva, M.V.G., Vu${\rm \check{s}}$ković, K.: Triangulated neighborhoods in even-hole-free graphs. , 307:1065–1073, 2007.
Fulkerson, D.R., Gross., O.A.: Incidence matrices and interval graphs. Pacific J. Mathematics 15, pp. 835–855 (1965)
Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of [NP]{}-Completeness. Freeman, San Francisco (1979)
Gavril, F.: The intersection graphs of subtrees in trees are exactly the chordal graphs. J. Combinatorial Theory, Series B 16, pp. 47–56 (1974)
Gilmore, P.C., Hoffman, A.J.: A characterization of comparability graphs and of interval graphs. Canadian J. Mathematics 16, pp. 539–548 (1964)
Gopalan, P., Kolaitis, P.G., Maneva, E.N., Papadimitriou, C.H.: The connectivity of Boolean satisfiability: computational and structural dichotomies. SIAM J. Computing 38, pp. 2330–2355 (2009)
Hearn, R.A., Demaine, E.D.: PSPACE-completeness of sliding-block puzzles and other problems through the nondeterministic constraint logic model of computation. Theoretical Computer Science 343, pp. 72–96 (2005)
Ito, T., Demaine, E.D., Harvey, N.J.A., Papadimitriou, C.H., Sideri, M., Uehara, R., Uno, Y.: On the complexity of reconfiguration problems. Theoretical Computer Science 412, pp. 1054–1065 (2011)
Ito, T., Nooka, H., Zhou, X.: Reconfiguration of vertex covers in a graph. To appear in Proc. of IWOCA 2014.
Kamiński, M., Medvedev, P., Milani${\rm \check{c}}$, M.: Complexity of independent set reconfigurability problems. Theoretical Computer Science 439, pp. 9–15 (2012)
Lee, C., Oum, S.: Number of cliques in graphs with forbidden subdivision. [arXiv:1407.7707]{} (2014)
Mouawad, A.E., Nishimura, N., Raman, V.: Vertex cover reconfiguration and beyond. Proc. of ISAAC 2014, LNCS 8889, pp. 452–463 (2014)
Robertson, N., Seymour, P.D.: Graph minors. II. Algorithmic aspects of tree-width. J. Algorithms 7, pp. 309–322 (1986)
Spinrad, J.P.: Efficient Graph Representations. American Mathematical Society (2003)
Tsukiyama, S., Ide, M., Ariyoshi, H., Shirakawa, I.: A new algorithm for generating all the maximal independent sets. SIAM J. Computing 6, pp. 505–517 (1977)
Uehara, R., Uno, Y.: On computing longest paths in small graph classes. International J. Foundations of Computer Science 18, pp. 911–930 (2007)
van den Heuvel, J.: The complexity of change. Surveys in Combinatorics 2013, London Mathematical Society Lecture Notes Series 409 (2013).
Wrochna, M.: Reconfiguration in bounded bandwidth and treedepth. [arXiv:1405.0847]{} (2014)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In the framework of a toy model which possesses the main features of QCD in the high energy limit, we conduct a numerical study of scattering amplitudes constructed from parton splittings and projectile-target multiple interactions, in a way that unitarizes the amplitudes without however explicit saturation in the wavefunction of the incoming states. This calculation is performed in two different ways. One of these formulations, the closest to field theory, involves the numerical resummation of a factorially divergent series, for which we develop appropriate numerical tools. We accurately compare the properties of the resulting amplitudes with what would be expected if saturation were explicitly included in the evolution of the states. We observe that the amplitudes have similar properties in a small but finite range of rapidity in the beginning of the evolution, as expected. Some of the features of reaction-diffusion processes are already present in that range, even when saturation is left out of the model.'
author:
- 'S. Munier'
- 'F. Schwennsen'
title: 'Resummation of projectile-target multiple scatterings and parton saturation'
---
Introduction
============
Saturation of parton densities is a phenomenon that is expected to occur in the scattering of very fast hadrons [@GLR; @MQ]. It is the statement that the number of partons per unit of transverse phase space in the Fock states of the incoming hadrons does not grow exponentially forever with energy (or rapidity), as would come out of a naive solution of linear evolution equations: The growth gets softer at very high energies, in such a way that the unitarity of the probabilities of scattering be preserved.
However, it seems very difficult to get saturation from a field-theoretical calculation. So far, the problem has not even been formulated properly in QCD, for it is already very challenging to identify the graphs that should be taken into account. Equations such as the Balitsky equation [@Balitsky:1995ub] (which is in fact a hierarchy of equations) have been written down, but they do not exhibit saturation in an obvious way (if at all), and they are anyway extremely difficult to solve.
Despite these fundamental difficulties, new quantitative results could be obtained for QCD amplitudes in the saturation regime over the last few years [@Mueller:2004sea; @IMM]. In short, they rely on an analogy with reaction-diffusion processes [@IMM] but not on the computation of definite Feynman graphs. The obtained results do not depend on the way how partons saturate, but they seem to require that there be such saturation phenomena. So saturation was assumed rather than found in these approaches. The matching of this statistical picture with field-theory calculations has been attempted [@Iancu:2004iy], and has led to the statement that the Balitsky-Jalilian Marian-Iancu-McLerran-Weigert-Leonidov-Kovner (B-JIMWLK) equations [@Balitsky:1995ub; @JIMWLK; @Weigert:2005us] were incomplete, and that they had to be supplemented with new terms. The problem was identified as follows: The Balitsky equations only contain splittings of partons, while mergings are needed in order to achieve saturation. The hope that merging rates could be obtained by boosting splitting vertices was turned down by the finding that this procedure would lead to negative probabilities [@MSW; @IST], which is at least inconvenient in practice [@MMX], if not completely meaningless.
In this paper, we go back to the original formulation of saturation by Mueller in the context of the color dipole model [@M1; @M2; @M3], which was in fact based on the assumption that saturation of the parton densities is equivalent to unitarization of the scattering amplitudes through multiple exchanges between linearly-evolved Fock states of the incoming particles (if the rapidity is not too high). Analytical calculations have been achieved within similar approximations (see Refs. [@Levin1; @Levin2] for recent progress), but the result looks always complicated in QCD and thus difficult to play with and to interpret. Numerical studies were conducted by Salam [@S1; @S_MC; @MS], but at that time, there was no good theoretical understanding of the properties that scattering amplitudes should exhibit at high energy. In the light of our present knowledge of saturation, that enables us to characterize saturation by analyzing the properties of some traveling waves, we evaluate numerically, on toy models, how good this procedure is when only splittings and multiple exchanges are allowed. Another important highlight of the present work is that we are able to resum numerically the asymptotic series that can be constructed out of an expansion in the number of rescatterings, and which has the structure of the proper field-theoretical series of successive Pomeron exchanges.
Our study assumes the following standard picture of scattering in the QCD parton model (see Fig. \[fig:scat\]): An asymptotic hadron, made of valence partons, evolves into a set of quarks and gluons spread in impact parameter space, when its rapidity is increased. The rules of splitting (and recombination when nonlinear effects are taken into account in the evolution) of the partons are fixed by the QCD Lagrangian. Two such hadrons interact with each other by exchanging, with probability of the order of $\alpha^2$ ($\alpha$ is the strong coupling constant), one or several gluons between the partons of similar sizes and impact parameters that are present in the wavefunctions of the two hadrons at the time of the interaction.
0.1
The outline goes as follows. In the next section (Sec. \[sec2\]), we introduce a model for partonic state evolution under splittings only. Sec. \[sec3\] is devoted to the formulation of the unitary scattering amplitudes built from these states, that we compare to cases in which saturation is included explicitly in the evolution. The numerical study of the many variants of the toy model, in different frames and within different unitarization schemes, is the object of Sec. \[sec4\]. In Sec. \[sec5\] we present an alternative calculation, based on the numerical resummation of the asymptotic series in the number of Pomerons that are exchanged. We state our conclusions and some prospects in the last section.
\[sec2\]Toy model for linear parton evolution
=============================================
\[sec2A\]Construction of the model
----------------------------------
Focussing on one particular impact parameter, one may reduce the QCD problem to one transverse dimension only. It is very important to keep the dynamics in the transverse space if one wants the model to be representative of some of the physics of QCD. However, we do not aim at incorporating all aspects of QCD: We need a simple model, that is easy to formulate in a way which can be implemented in the form of a Monte-Carlo event generator. Let us assume that there be only one type of object in the theory, which could be gluons or, more accurately, color dipoles, and that the latter may be fully characterized by a single “space” variable, which represents for example their size in the transverse plane. There is in addition an evolution variable: the rapidity. So far, we have in fact just idealized the color dipole model [@M1].
To further simplify the model, we discretize it both in space and in rapidity. The evolution rule is the following: When the rapidity $y$ is increased by one unit, a particle at position $i$ on the lattice may be replaced, with probability $\frac12$, by two offspring at respective positions $i+j$ and $i-j$. For the distribution of $j$, we choose: $$\text{Proba}(j)=\left(1-\frac{1}{e}\right)e^{-j}.
\label{probaj}$$ This rule obviously leads to an exponential increase of the number of objects on each site, which can eventually break the unitarity constraints. Nevertheless, we do not a priori specify a saturation mechanism at this level: Several options of implementing unitarity of the scattering amplitudes will be examined in the next section, and saturation, in the sense that the number of particles is prevented from exhibiting an exponential growth forever, will only be one of them.
Note that the choice of discrete transverse space and especially discrete $y$ is not very natural for a model that is meant to mimic QCD, in particular since discretizing $y$ obviously breaks boost invariance (which makes sure that the rapidity evolution can be shared arbitrarily between the two incoming hadrons without affecting the observables). However, this choice is dictated by technical reasons: We will need to be able to generate millions of events within some reasonable computer time.
Let us define the generating function for the probability of the different configurations as $$Z(y,\{x_k\})=\sum_{\{n_k\}} \left(\prod_k x_k^{n_k}\right) P(y,\{n_k\}),$$ where $P(y,\{n_k\})$ is the probability of having $\cdots n_1,\cdots,n_k,\cdots$ particles on sites $\cdots 1,\cdots,k,\cdots$ at rapidity $y$. This function contains all information about the statistics of the particle numbers on all sites. For example, the correlator of the number of particles on sites 1 and 2 is obtained by taking two derivatives: $$\left.\frac{\partial Z}{\partial x_1 \partial x_2}
\right|_{x_k=1}=\langle n_1 n_2\rangle.$$ The generating function $Z$ obeys the evolution equation $$\begin{gathered}
Z(y+1,\{x_k\})=\frac12 Z(y,\{x_k\})\\
+\frac12\left(1-\frac{1}{e}\right)
\sum_{j=0}^\infty e^{-j} Z(y,\{x_{k-j}\})Z(y,\{x_{k+j}\}).
\label{generating}\end{gathered}$$ This equation is easily derived by considering the very first step in rapidity and with the help of the probability distribution (\[probaj\]). This is actually a version of what we call in QCD the Balitsky-Kovchegov (BK) equation [@Balitsky:1995ub; @K1; @K2] associated to this simplified model. The physical $S$-matrix element in this framework, $S_\text{BK}(y,i)$, is a particular value of $Z$, obtained from the above equation by setting $x_{k\ne i}=1$ and $x_i=e^{-\alpha^2}$. The nonlinearity in Eq. (\[generating\]) makes sure that $S$ be unitary. We will define the scattering amplitudes properly only in Sec. \[sec3\], but before, we may summarize the main known properties of $S_\text{BK}$ seen as a solution of Eq. (\[generating\]).
\[sec2B\]Basic properties of $S_\text{BK}$
------------------------------------------
We know that $S_\text{BK}$ has the form of a wave front that travels towards larger values of $|i|$ under rapidity evolution. Its known properties are very well documented, and we refer the reader to the original papers in QCD [@MP1; @MP2; @MP3] (see also Ref. [@MT] for the pioneering calculations, but without the connection to traveling waves) or to reviews in mathematical physics [@VS] for the details. Traveling waves have a phenomenological signature in high-energy scattering, called “geometric scaling” and found in deep-inelastic scattering data [@SGBK]. We give here the technical features of our particular model without much justification.
When $i$ and $y$ are large, $$S_\text{BK}(y,i)\sim 1-e^{-\gamma_0(i-{\cal I}_y)},
\label{formSBK}$$ where ${\cal I}_y$ is the position of the wave front at rapidity $y$. In the context of QCD, ${\cal I}_y$ would be the logarithm of the squared saturation scale.
As well-known, $\gamma_0$ and ${\cal I}_y$ are determined from an analysis of the linearized equation (\[generating\]). We insert Eq. (\[formSBK\]) into Eq. (\[generating\]), and after linearization and some easy algebra, we arrive at the expression for the velocity $V$ of a front of the form (\[formSBK\]) with decay rate $\gamma$: $$V={\cal I}_{y+1}-{\cal I}_y=\frac{\chi(\gamma)}{\gamma},$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\chi(\gamma)=
\ln\bigg[
\frac12+\frac12\left(1-\frac{1}{e}\right)\times\\
\times\left(\frac{1}{1-e^{\gamma-1}}+\frac{1}{1-e^{-\gamma-1}}\right)
\bigg]\end{gathered}$$ is the characteristic function of the evolution kernel in Eq. (\[generating\]). The relevant value of $\gamma$ at large rapidity is the one that minimizes $V(\gamma)$. This minimization gives $$\gamma_0=0.607187\cdots\ ,\ \
V_0=1.02935\cdots$$ which are the decay rate and the velocity of the front at infinite rapidity. The asymptotics is approached as[^1] $$V(y)=V_0-\frac{3}{2\gamma_0}\frac{1}{y}
+\frac{3}{2\gamma_0^2}\sqrt{\frac{2\pi}
{\chi^{\prime\prime}(\gamma_0)}}\frac{1}{y^{3/2}}+\cdots
\label{Vy}$$ where the dots stand for subleading terms whose analytical expression is not yet known.
Starting from an initial condition of the form $$S(y=0,i)=1+(e^{-\alpha^2}-1)\delta_{0,i},$$ that is to say, $$\begin{split}
&P(y=0,n_{k\ne 0}=0\ \text{and}\ n_{k=0}=1)=1,\\
&P(y=0,\text{all other config.})=0,
\end{split}$$ a front is formed (i.e. blackness is reached; $S(y,0)\ll 1$) after a rapidity of the order of $$y_F=\frac{1}{\chi(0)}\ln \frac{1}{\alpha^2},
\label{yF}$$ and it relaxes to its asymptotic shape up to a resolution[^2] $\alpha^2$ after an evolution over $$y_R=\frac{1}{2\gamma_0^2\chi^{\prime\prime}(\gamma_0)}
\ln^2\frac{1}{\alpha^2}
\label{yR}$$ units of rapidity.
\[sec3\] Unitary scattering amplitudes
======================================
\[sec3A\]Formulation of scattering
----------------------------------
We consider the Fock state of a particle initially at position 0 after a rapidity evolution $y$. Through the evolution, one eventually gets a system of $\{n_j\}$ particles. The probability that this system does not interact with a target consisting in a single particle at position $i$ simply reads $$e^{-\alpha^2 n_i}.$$ This, of course, is also what we shall call the $S$-matrix element for forward elastic scattering. With a target that consists in a set of $\{m_j\}$ particles on the sites indexed by $j$, the probability that there be no interaction reads $$\prod_j e^{-\alpha^2 n_j m_j}.$$ We have just assumed the complete independence of the individual scatterings, and that each of them occurs with probability $\alpha^2$ if the objects in presence have the same position on the lattice, and with probability 0 if this is not the case. Note that there is here a difference with the QCD dipole model since there, the interaction consists in at most one gluon exchange between each pair of dipoles, whereas with our choice any number of exchanges may occur.
Let us consider two particles, initially at respective sites $0$ and $i$, which evolve into systems of $n_j(y)$ and $m_{j}(y)$ particles respectively on site $j$ after a boost at rapidity $y$. In the Mueller approach [@M2; @M3], the $S$-matrix for the scattering of these objects is defined, for low rapidities, as $$S(y,i)=\left\langle\prod_j e^{-\alpha^2 n_j(\sigma y) m_{j}
((1-\sigma)y)}
\right\rangle
\label{mueller}$$ where the average is taken over the realizations of the two systems. The $i$ index is implicit in the r.h.s.: It is related to the initial condition that leads, after evolution, to the system $\{m_j\}$. $\sigma$ ranges between 0 and 1 and defines the share of the rapidity between the two systems. When $\sigma=0$ (or 1: the target and the projectile may be exchanged, hence there is a symmetry $\sigma\rightarrow 1-\sigma$ after the average over the realizations), the scattering occurs in the lab frame. In this case, the above formula gives the solution to the Balitsky-Kovchegov equation if the states evolve linearly: $S=S_\text{BK}$, where $S_\text{BK}$ was discussed in Sec. \[sec2B\]. When $\sigma=\frac12$ instead, it means that the scattering takes place in the center-of-mass frame.
By definition, $S$ is unitary, whether or not there is a limit on the growth of the number of partons that interact. So a priori there is no violation of unitarity, and saturation is not necessary to prevent $S$ from becoming negative. However, we know that the discussion is more subtle, and that the $S$-matrix defined like that violates boost invariance [@Mueller:2004sea]. Nevertheless, for small enough values of $y$, there should be no need to put saturation effects in the evolution of the states.
Let us discuss quantitatively the expected range in which saturation effects may be left out. In these considerations, we follow the discussion given by Mueller [@M2]. To simplify, let us first go to the center-of-mass frame, that is, we set $\sigma=\frac12$. Imagine that we start from a situation in which both objects are at rest. When the two systems are gradually boosted in opposite directions in order to increase the center-of-mass energy of their eventual scattering, the probability of a high number of partons in each of them increases. At some point, when the unitarity limit is reached (as soon as the total rapidity is larger than $y_F$), the probability that there be two or more interactions between them becomes of order 1, while each of the Fock states remains relatively dilute (they contain only typically $1/\alpha$ particles each), in such a way that one can still consider their evolution as linear. Actually, because the systems share half of the rapidity, they become subject to nonlinear effects (in the form of internal rescatterings, for instance, or recombinations) at rapidity $2\times y_F$. So this sets the limit beyond which multiple interactions between linearly-evolving Fock states are no longer sufficient to fully describe the scattering. The extension to an arbitrary value of $\sigma$ is straightforward, and we get the limit $$y<\frac{y_F}{\max(\sigma,1-\sigma)}.$$ The center-of-mass frame ($\sigma=\frac12$) is naturally the most favorable case, with the highest limit on $y$, while in the lab frame, the wavefunction evolution can be linear only until blackness of the scattering amplitude is reached.
\[sec3B\]Saturation
-------------------
So far, we have considered Fock-state evolution through splittings only (Sec. \[sec2\]). A unitary $S$-matrix was constructed from multiple scatterings in the center-of-mass frame with linearly-evolving states (Sec. \[sec3A\]). However, we know that theoretically, this procedure has a limited validity, that we have estimated as $y<2y_F$. In order to compare the results for scattering obtained in that framework to what would be obtained in the case of saturated states, we need to introduce a saturation mechanism.
We can imagine different ways of enforcing saturation. The simplest way consists in forbidding new splittings to a site on which the number of particles has reached the value $1/\alpha^2$. We will call this method “veto”. The resulting model is close to other models that have been studied before, e.g. in Ref. [@EGBM].
However, in order to get an approximately boost-invariant $S$-matrix[^3], one needs instead to replace the splitting probability $\frac12$ at site $i$ by $\frac12 e^{-\alpha^2 n_i}$, in such a way that for small $n_i$ compared to $1/\alpha^2$, the splitting probability tends to the free splitting rate $\frac12$, and for large $n_i$, splittings are frozen. This prescription was proposed by Mueller and Salam [@MS] long ago and revisited more recently [@ISAST]. We will check numerically the approximate boost invariance. This method will be called “saturation”. It is this one that makes sense in a field-theory framework where of course observables have to be independent of the frame in which the scattering is observed. Note that with this choice for the saturation mechanism, the resulting model is close to the one that was extensively studied in Ref. [@ISAST], except for the discretized rapidity.
To our knowledge, the uniqueness of the prescription that leads to boost-invariant saturation has not been formally proven in models with spatial dimensions such as the one that we are building. It is also not known whether the prescription could be slightly modified in a way that approximately preserves boost invariance, the characteristics of the amplitude being at the same time significantly changed.
Finally, we note that the consequences of boost invariance (or rather of “projectile-target duality”) has been thoroughly investigated very recently, also at a quite formal and rigorous level [@KL1; @KL2]: The transformation that corresponds to exchanging the scattering particles was translated into an operation on the effective action of the corresponding model. So we could check the (approximate) boost invariance of our model with the technology developed in Refs. [@K1; @K2]. (We have not done so: We shall check boost invariance later on, but only numerically).
\[sec3C\]Expected properties of the $S$-matrix
----------------------------------------------
If the partonic evolution is linear (i.e. without saturation effects), and if the scattering takes place in the lab frame, then $S=S_\text{BK}$, and $S$ exhibits the properties listed in Sec. \[sec2B\].
We also know that, whatever the saturation mechanism is, as soon as the growth of the number of partons on each site is limited once it approaches $1/\alpha^2$, then the traveling wave solution for $S$ is modified [@BD; @MS; @BDMM; @Panja]. Essentially, its asymptotic velocity is corrected as follows [@BD; @BDMM]: $$V=V_0-\frac{\pi^2\gamma_0\chi^{\prime\prime}(\gamma_0)}
{2 (\ln(1/\alpha^2)+3\ln\ln(1/\alpha^2))^2}+\cdots
\label{velocity}$$ This equation contains the first term of an asymptotic expansion when $\ln(1/\alpha^2)\gg 1$ (It is actually valid up to ${\cal O}(\ln\ln (1/\alpha^2)/\ln^3(1/\alpha^2)$). We do not intend to go to extremely small values of $\alpha$, thus the exact value of these asymptotics will not be probed. What is interesting and universal however is that $V$ is less than $V_0$.
We will be able to extract more information from our Monte-Carlo, that we can compare with non-trivial and characteristic predictions made for reaction-diffusion systems. In particular, since the whole scattering process is stochastic, there is a dispersion in the position of the front between different events. It reads [@BDMM] $$\langle {\cal I}_y^2\rangle -\langle {\cal I}_y\rangle^2=
\frac{\pi^4\chi^{\prime\prime}(\gamma_0)}{3\ln^3(1/\alpha^2)}
y+\cdots
\label{variance}$$ While again the exact value will not be probed for it is too much asymptotic, the characteristic feature of the variance of the position of the front is that it scales linearly with $y$. We recall that this linearly growing variance is at the origin of the phenomenon of “diffusive scaling” in the observable amplitude, which breaks geometric scaling predicted that comes out of the solution to the BK equation.
As for the case when evolution does not include a saturation mechanism in the Fock states, it is difficult to figure out a priori what is going to happen. We will find out in the next section by performing numerical simulations of the different variants of the model.
\[sec4\]Numerical study of the toy model
========================================
We have implemented the model defined in Secs. \[sec2\] and \[sec3\] in the form of a Monte-Carlo event generator. There was no major difficulty to be overcome: The techniques that we have used are standard and the code can easily be reproduced by the reader.
The evolution starts with one particle on a given site in each of the two systems. We evolve one or the other systems by steps of one unit in $y$. We measure the position of the traveling wave front by searching, at each rapidity $y$, the rightmost site $i_F$ for which $S(y,i_F)<0.5$. We then define the front position ${\cal I}_y$ from a linear interpolation between $i_F$ and $i_F+1$.
Let us move on to the results.
$S$-matrix
----------
We compute the $S$-matrix in 3 different variants of the model: bare multiple scatterings in the lab frame (which is the BK assumption; $\sigma=0$), the same but in the center-of-mass frame (which is Mueller’s unitarization procedure; $\sigma=\frac12$) and multiple scatterings off boost-invariant saturated wave functions in the center-of-mass frame ($S$ should be boost invariant in this case: We will check it later).
Tuning the frame in the Monte-Carlo is technically easy: It is enough to share the rapidity evolution of the projectile and of the target proportionally to $\sigma$.
The results are presented in Fig. \[fig:s\_20\]. We see that rapidity evolution starts with the blackening of the central region around $i\sim 0$. At $y\sim 15-20$ two traveling waves form, and propagate symmetrically towards larger (resp. smaller) values of $i$. In the following, our comments will always refer to the traveling wave that propagates along the positive $i$ axis.
We see that the fastest wave is observed in the BK model, while the saturation model gives rise to the slowest one. We also observe that all waves get slanted during their propagation, except in the BK model. This is “diffusive scaling”, while the BK solutions exhibit geometric scaling.
In the next paragraphs, we go deeper into the analysis of this calculation by focussing on the statistics of the position of the front: Its mean velocity and its variance, for the different variants of the model.
BK equation
-----------
We go to the lab frame, that is, we put all the rapidity evolution in one of the objects, while the other one is at rest. Multiple scatterings off a system that does not saturate gives a $S$-matrix that solves the BK equation,[^4] and hence that has the form of a traveling wave whose characteristics are given in Sec. \[sec2B\]. The velocity of the front is presented in Fig. \[fig:bk\] for $1/\alpha^2=20$. In order to interpret the results, it is useful to compute the numerical values of $y_F$ and $y_R$ in Eq. (\[yF\]) and (\[yR\]): $$y_F\simeq 7.4,\ y_R\simeq 2.2\ \ \text{for}\
1/\alpha^2=20.$$ We see in Fig. \[fig:bk\] that first the velocity is 0, which corresponds to the phase in which the parton numbers are building up through a linear evolution. (The linear phase is named in QCD after Balitsky, Fadin, Kuraev and Lipatov (BFKL) [@BFKL]). Later, after about 10 units of rapidity (which is the order of magnitude of $y_F$), a sharp peak appears and decays over a few units of $y$. This peak may be interpreted as follows: In the initial stage of the evolution, when the front is building up, its shape is steeper than the asymptotic shape (\[formSBK\]) in the region where the position is measured ($S\sim 0.5$), and hence its velocity is larger than $V_0$. Then, the front relaxes to its asymptotic shape in that region, which takes of the order of $y_R$ steps of rapidity. In the final stage, for $y\gg 10$, the asymptotic velocity is approached in an algebraic way, in good agreement with the theoretical expectations of Eq. (\[Vy\]).
Front velocity in different models
----------------------------------
We want to compare bare unitarization through multiple scatterings in different frames to the variant of the model in which saturation is included in a boost-invariant way. The front velocity for different schemes and $1/\alpha^2$ set to 20 is shown in Fig. \[fig:v20\_1\].
Bare multiple scatterings lead to a dip around $y\sim 20$ whose depth is maximum for $\sigma=\frac12$. At large $y$, the velocity $V_0$ is reached algebraically, whatever the frame is. At any finite $y$, this model gives rise to different front solutions in different frames: Boost invariance is manifestly badly broken.
Solutions with saturation in the evolution look like expected: The velocity rapidly reaches a plateau, with a value that is lower than that of the asymptotic BK velocity. Theoretically, this should happen after typically $y_F+y_R$ units of rapidity. For low values of $1/\alpha^2$, the formula giving $y_R$ is expected to need large corrections, and so the numerical value of $y_R$ is not trustable. The value of the asymptotic velocity is equal in all frames, and except for the lab frame, all curves superimpose reasonably well during the whole rapidity evolution. We deduce that boost invariance is quite well preserved with our saturation solution, although not perfectly. We attribute the lack of complete superposition of the curves to the explicit breaking of boost-invariance due to our discretization in rapidity.
The same comments are true for larger values of $1/\alpha^2$, see Fig. \[fig:v2000\_1\] and \[fig:v200000\_1\]. It is useful to compute $y_F$ and $y_R$ also in that case: $$\begin{split}
y_F\simeq 18.7,\ y_R\simeq 17.0\ \ &\text{for}\ 1/\alpha^2=2\times 10^3,\\
y_F\simeq 30.1,\ y_R\simeq 43.9 \ \ &\text{for}\ 1/\alpha^2=2\times 10^5.
\end{split}
\label{valuesyFyR}$$ We check that a non-zero velocity appears for $y>y_F$. Actually, $y_F$ given in (\[valuesyFyR\]) systematically underestimates the actual value of the rapidity at which a front is formed.
So far, we see in Fig. \[fig:v20\_1\],\[fig:v2000\_1\],\[fig:v200000\_1\] that the characteristics of the front agree in the different models formulated in the center-of-mass frame only in a very small interval of rapidity, roughly consistent with the theoretical estimate $y<2y_F$. Except for large values of $1/\alpha^2$, the front velocity in the boost-invariant scheme is not reached by bare multiple scatterings in the center-of-mass frame.
It is instructive to also study the variance of the position of the front in the different variants of the model: We analyze this quantity in the next paragraph.
Variance of the front position
------------------------------
We now turn to commenting on the variance of the position of the front. This is shown in Figs. \[fig:v20\_2\],\[fig:v2000\_2\],\[fig:v200000\_2\] for different values of $1/\alpha^2$.
First, we notice a sharp difference between saturation and bare multiple scatterings. The saturation scheme leads to linearly increasing fluctuations as soon as the front is formed, in qualitative agreement with Eq. (\[variance\]). By contrast, the bare multiple-scattering schemes lead to fluctuations that slow down with $y$. However, there is a range in rapidity in which the variances agree in the different models and in all frames, except for the lab frame which has systematically less fluctuations. The agreement is particularly striking at large $1/\alpha^2$. The range in which the models match can be estimated as $y<2 y_F$ for the center-of-mass frame, if $y_F$ is taken to the rapidity at which the front is effectively formed (around the local maximum in the variance) rather than the numerical estimate done before.
The fact that the calculations in the lab frame lead to different front velocities and quite different fluctuations should maybe not come as a surprise, since the way in which we treat this frame is very special: Indeed, we do not allow at all fluctuations in one of the incoming objects, which is quite unphysical (quantum objects should be allowed to fluctuate even if they have a vanishing rapidity), and which is likely to reduce the event-by-event fluctuations that are observed in the scattering of the objects.
As was recalled in Sec. \[sec3C\], the linear growth of the variance of the front position is characteristic of reaction-diffusion processes, and is very well seen in the model with saturation, already for moderately small rapidities. The fact that this linear behavior is reproduced by multiple scatterings in the center-of-mass frame (see especially Fig. \[fig:v2000\_2\]) over some finite range of validity may be some evidence in favor of the reaction-diffusion interpretation of high energy scattering. But admittedly, this linear behavior is seen in a very small range for small $1/\alpha^2$. On the other hand, for large $1/\alpha^2$, $y_R>y_F$ and thus the front has not properly relaxed before genuine saturation effects should be taken taken into account, for $y\sim 2y_F$. As a matter of fact, we see that in the range in which the models agree in the case $1/\alpha^2=2\times 10^5$, the asymptotic slope of the variance has not been reached yet. So except for a model in which $y_R\ll y_F$ and $y_F\gg 1$, which are two conditions that are difficult to realize in actual models, it is very difficult to make convincing statements on the ability of bare multiple scatterings to mimic a reaction-diffusion process.
So far, we have considered boost-invariant saturation only. Boost invariance is a basic requirement for the model to be consistent with field theory. We wish however to compare to a non boost-invariant scheme.
Other (non boost-invariant) saturation scheme
---------------------------------------------
We adopt the alternative scheme of saturation which consists in vetoing further particle splittings to a site as soon as the number of particles on this very site has reached the value $1/\alpha^2$ (see Sec. \[sec3B\]). The small-$\alpha$ asymptotics of the statistics of the front position should be insensitive to the exact way how saturation occurs. However, subleading effects at finite $\alpha$ have no reason to be identical.
We see indeed in Fig. \[fig:veto2000\_1\] that the asymptotic velocity is higher for this scheme than for boost-invariant saturation. Moreover, multiple-scattering unitarization leads to a velocity that, at low $y$, is closer to the one obtained from the veto procedure.
However, if one observes the variance of the position of the front (Fig. \[fig:veto2000\_2\]), one sees that the large-$y$ slope is quite different between the veto scheme and the boost-invariant scheme. Around $y\sim 50$, it is clear that the unitarization scheme is much closer to boost-invariant saturation. On the other hand, the large-$y$ slope of the variance in the boost-invariant scheme looks like the continuation of the slope in the domain in which they agree.
In this sense, boost-invariant saturation is the natural continuation of the multiple-scattering unitarization procedure, since it “knows” about the fluctuations of saturated Fock states at large values of the rapidity. The whole difficulty would be to find how, in practice, to perform this continuation.
\[sec5\] Alternative calculation: Resummation of asymptotic series
==================================================================
Pomeron-loop expansion
----------------------
In the framework of the approximations of high-energy scattering that we are considering (multiple scatterings of unsaturated Fock states in the center-of-mass frame), the scattering cross section may be computed from Eq. (\[mueller\]). That expression may also be further expanded in powers of $\alpha^2$. We get the following series: $$S(y,i)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty
\frac{(-\alpha^2)^k}{k!}
\left\langle
\left[\sum_j n_j(y/2) m_{j}(y/2)\right]^k
\right\rangle.
\label{Sasymptotic}$$ $k$ is the number of Pomerons exchanged between the target and the projectile: $k=1$ is the tree-level (BFKL) term, $k=2$ is a one-loop contribution, and so on.
The series that has been obtained is actually a divergent series: The term of order $k$ behaves like $k!$ because essentially, $\langle n^k\rangle\sim k!$. The problem is now the following: Assuming that we know the first terms in this divergent series, can we get an estimate of the fully resummed series?
Overview of the resummation method
----------------------------------
We have to perform an infinite sum, where only a fixed number of terms is known. There are different possibilities to estimate the limit of this sum based on these restricted pieces of information. Depending on the asymptotic behavior of the partial sums, literally summing the first elements of a series in many cases is too slow or even does not converge, as in our case. In physics, the best known techniques to deal with divergent series are Borel summation [@Borel:1899] and Padé approximation [@Pade:1892].
On the other hand, there exists nowadays an enormous number of non-linear sequence transformations which can accelerate the convergence of convergent series and which have also shown to be very efficient in summing divergent series. Particularly suited is a class of such transformations introduced by Levin [@Levin:1973]. For an introduction to the topic we refer the reader to Ref. [@Homeier:2000; @Caliceti:2007ra] and references therein. Here we just sketch the main formulae.
Consider the partial sums $ s_n $ with limit (or “antilimit”, which is how the resummed value of a formally divergent sum is called) $s$ and remainder $R_n$: $$s_n = \sum_{i=0}^n a_i = s + R_n .
\label{eq:sum-sum}$$ The aim now is to find a new sequence of partial sums $s'_n$ such that $R'_n/R_n \to 0$ for $n\to\infty$. An important building block of a specific sequence transformation is a [*remainder estimate*]{} $\omega_n$ which should reflect the behavior of the exact remainder. Since the remainder estimate only describes the leading behavior of the exact remainder, we write $$R_n = \mu_n \omega_n ,
\label{eq:sum-remainder}$$ where $\mu_n$ is of the order of 1 and converges to some (unknown) number. The second specific ingredient is a set of functions $\psi_i(n)$ on which the $\mu_n$ are decomposed. For the original Levin-transformation [@Levin:1973] the set $\psi_i(n)=(n+\beta)^{-i}$ was chosen, where $\beta$ is an arbitrary real positive parameter which in general is set to 1 (We will however choose a different value of $\beta$ in our application of the method). We write $$\label{eq:sum-mu}
\mu_n \sim \sum_i^\infty c_i \psi_i(n) \quad n\to\infty.$$ Of course, the coefficients $c_i$ are unknown, but if we truncate the sum in Eq. , we can interpret Eq. as a model sequence $$\label{eq:sum-model}
\sigma_m = \sigma + \omega_m\sum_{i=0}^{k-1} c_i\psi_i(m) .$$ Inserting the values of the partial sums at hand for $\sigma_m$, we have for $m\in \{0,1,\ldots,k\}$ a system of linear equations which can be solved exactly for $\sigma$ by Cramer’s rule. By a recursive approach one can deduce a compact expression for $\sigma$ which circumvents the evaluation of large determinants: $$\label{eq:sum-masterformula}
\sigma = \frac{\sum_{i=0}^{k-1} \lambda^{(k-1)}_{0,i}
\frac{s_{i}}{\omega_{i}}}{\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}
\lambda^{(k-1)}_{0,i} \frac{1}{\omega_{i}}} ,$$ where the coefficients $\lambda^{(k)}_{n,i}$ have to be calculated for a given set of functions $\psi_i(n)$ and are independent of the concrete remainder estimate. At this general level, rigorous mathematical statements about the convergence are hardly possible, but for well-posed expansions as they appear in physical problems $\sigma$ converges to $s$ when $k\to\infty$ [@Weniger:1989].
For the remainder estimate, Levin introduced three variants (see Tab. \[tab:sum-remainder\]). The $t$-variant is adapted for the case of linear convergence, while the $u$- and $v$-variants shall be also usable for logarithmic convergence. The $d$-variant has been proposed in Ref. [@Smith:1979] especially for alternating logarithmically convergent series. The $c$-variant has been designed for the same purpose [@Caliceti:2007ra]. All of them have been used for the summation of divergent sums as well. In face of these preliminary considerations, there is no strict rule which remainder estimate one has to use. For our problem, it turned out that variants $c$ and $d$ are less successful to the other ones, where $u$ and $v$ give the most stable results.
Levin-type $t$ $u$ $v$ $d$ $c$
------------ ------- ---------------- ---------------------------------- ----------- ------------------------------
$\omega_n$ $a_n$ $(n+\beta)a_n$ $\frac{a_na_{n+1}}{a_n-a_{n+1}}$ $a_{n+1}$ $\frac{a_na_{n+2}}{a_{n+1}}$
: Remainder estimates for different sequence transformations.[]{data-label="tab:sum-remainder"}
The convergence significantly improves if one compiles inverse factorials (or more accurately Pochhammer symbols) instead of inverse powers to the function set $\psi_i(n)$ leading to the Weniger $\mathcal{S}$- or $\mathcal{M}$-transformations [@Weniger:1989]. The explicit expressions for the functions $\psi_i(n)$ and the coefficients $\lambda^{(k)}_{n,i}$ used in Eq. are given in Tab. \[tab:sum-lambda\]. They can be combined with the same remainder estimates and are then labeled (analog to Levin-transforms, see Tab. \[tab:sum-remainder\]) $\tau$, $y$, $\phi$, $\delta$, $\chi$ for the $\mathcal{S}$-transformations, and $T$, $Y$, $\Phi$, $\Delta$, $X$ for the $\mathcal{M}$-transformations. While the $\mathcal{M}$-transformations are of no use for us, as long as we stay with $\beta=1$, the $\mathcal{S}$-transformations provide good results with the same ranking concerning the remainder estimates, i.e. the most stable results are obtained using the $\phi$-transformation. But the remainder estimate is not pure trial-and-error. From the knowledge about our sum it is clear that the remainder estimate $t$ correctly describes the behavior of the sum.
What goes wrong? Usually these sequence transformations are used when the available elements are known with high precision. By contrast, we calculate our elements by a Monte Carlo simulation in which the higher moments are afflicted by larger relative statistical error than the smaller ones. Moreover, these higher moments cause a statistical error by their mere size compared to the other moments when implemented on a computer with limited precision. The sequence transformations discussed so far emphasize these larger moments assuming that they are already closer to the limit. If we refrain from a too large impact of these larger moments, we can shift to a more balanced combination of the moments by increasing $\beta$ in the coefficients $\lambda^{(k)}_{n,i}$. In the limit $\beta\to\infty$ one would obtain a symmetric weighting of large and small moments $\lambda^{(k)}_{n,i}=(-1)^i \binom{k}{i}$, known as the Drummond-transformation [@Drummond:1972; @Weniger:1989].
type $\psi_i(n)$ $\lambda^{(k)}_{n,i}$
----------------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Levin $\frac{1}{(n+\beta)^{i}}$ $(-1)^i \binom{k}{i} \frac{(n+\beta+i)^{k-1}}{(n+\beta+k)^{k-1}}$
Weniger $\mathcal{S}$ $\frac{1}{(n+\beta)_i}$ $(-1)^i \binom{k}{i} \frac{(n+\beta+i)_{k-1}}{(n+\beta+k)_{k-1}}$
Weniger $\mathcal{M}$ $\frac{1}{(-n-\beta)_i}$ $(-1)^i \binom{k}{i} \frac{(-n-\beta-i)_{k-1}}{(-n-\beta-k)_{k-1}}$
: $\lambda$-coefficients for different sequence transformations.[]{data-label="tab:sum-lambda"}
Finally we use the remainder estimate of the Weniger $\tau$-variant with $\beta=100$.
Beside these Levin-type transformation there exist also many other schemes which are less generally applicable. They cannot be written in the form of Eq. but are given by a recursive definition. From these we also tried the $\epsilon$ algorithm [@Wynn:1956] and thereby Shanks transformation [@Shanks:1955], the Aitken $\Delta^2$ process [@Aitken:1926] in its iterated form [@Wimp:1981; @Weniger:1989], the $_p\bf{J}$ transformation [@Homeier:1995], Brezinski’s $\theta$ algorithm [@Brezinski:1971] and its iterated formulation [@Weniger:1989].
Numerical implementation and results
------------------------------------
We wish to apply the resummation methods described above to the computation of $S$ in Eq. (\[Sasymptotic\]).
We need to compute numerically the first few terms of the series (\[Sasymptotic\]). These are actually proportional to the moments of the one-Pomeron exchange amplitude, which reads $$\alpha^2 \sum_j n_j(y/2) m_{j}(y/2),
\label{1pom}$$ where $\{n_j\}$ and $\{m_j\}$ are realizations of systems of particles (linearly) evolved by the Monte Carlo algorithm described above.
The numerical implementation of this calculation is straightforward. For each event, the one-Pomeron amplitude is evaluated for all values of $i$ and $y$. Then, its $k$-th power is computed, and the average over events is performed. We then apply the resummation methods described above to get the result for $S$.
While for the calculations of Sec. \[sec4\] one million of events were enough, here, we need hundreds of millions of them. Indeed, it turns out that statistical errors are large for higher moments of Eq. (\[1pom\]).
In practice, we generate $5\times 10^8$ events. We consider the resummation of $k=5,6\cdots$ terms, up to 30, for different values of $\alpha^2$. We consider that this is the present technical frontier, since a few months of calculation were already needed to achieve this number of events.
The result of the resummation for $S$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:S\] for 3 different rapidities and for different number of terms $k$, as a function of the site index. First of all, we see a good convergence of $S$ when the number of terms that are taken into account increases. Second, we see that for $y=15$ and $y=25$, $S$ obtained from this resummation looks exactly like the one obtained from multiple scatterings in the center-of-mass frame. We see that for $y=50$ instead, the result of the resummation does not coincide with any of the previous calculations.
In order to have a more synthetic estimate of the quality of the resummation, we can compute the velocity of the front and compare it to the calculations in Sec. \[sec4\]. We see in Fig. \[fig:v20\] that all calculations match for low $y$. When more terms are taken into account (larger value of $k$), the domain in which the statistical and asymptotic series calculations agree extends towards larger values of $k$. For $k=30$, the agreement is very good up to values of $y$ of the order of 25.
To gain confidence in the stability of our resummation, we can compare two out of the many resummation methods described in the previous section in Fig. \[fig:v20comp\]. We see a very good agreement for all $k$. We conclude that the discrepancy at large $k$ with the calculation of Sec. \[sec4\] is not due to a failure of the resummation method, but rather to a lack of the relevant information, which would be contained in higher-order terms $k>30$. We would also like to show a method which does not converge very well: Therefore, we do the same but setting the parameter $\beta$ to 10 (instead of the higher value 100 that we have chosen so far). We see in Fig. \[fig:v20autre\] that the resummation for high values of $k$ does not give a meaningful result. More statistics would however help (more events generated, that is, a better accuracy in all terms). For yet lower values of $\beta$, such as $\beta=1$, the result would even be worse.
Finally, we set $1/\alpha^2=2000$, and we see again the same features, and in particular a good agreement with the calculations of Sec. \[sec4\], this time up to $y\sim 35$ (see Fig. \[fig:v2000\]).
Note that we have limited our study to the front velocity averaged over events, in the statistical language of Sec. \[sec3\]. The variance of the position of the front would require a special calculation, that we have not done.
Conclusion and outlook
======================
The goal of this paper was twofold. First, to test the original unitarization procedure through multiple scatterings, without explicit saturation, proposed by Mueller in the context of the color dipole model, in the light of the new understanding of unitarization gained from the analogy with reaction-diffusion systems. Second, to try and reproduce these results from an expansion in the number of Pomerons that are exchanged.
We have shown empirically that the original formulation of unitarization by Mueller is successful within the (limited) range of validity that had been assigned to it. The traveling waves exhibit a front velocity that is inferior to the one that would be expected for a system with no saturation mechanism at all, and the event-by-event dispersion in the position of the front grows linearly with the rapidity, as expected for reaction-diffusion systems.
We have resummed the multiple scatterings in two ways. The one that was used for example by Salam in his Monte-Carlo, which consists in averaging over events the scattering matrix, and another one which relies on an expansion of the $S$-matrix in powers of $\alpha^2$. A priori, it was not completely obvious that these two ways of computing the unitarized dipole-dipole scattering cross section would lead to the same result for the $S$-matrix, since one sums the defining series in a very different order in both cases. But the fact that we eventually get the same answer is reasonable.
The resummation tools that we have set up and tested in the simple toy model studied here will be useful in the future. Indeed, if we were able to compute order by order the unitarity corrections, either in this toy model or in full QCD [@B1992; @BE], we would be confronted to the task of summing the resulting series, which has the structure of the one that we have studied. In general, there is no reason why there should be a simple formulation like Eq. (\[mueller\]) for scattering amplitudes, and field theory would naturally lead to an asymptotic series in powers of $\alpha^2$. We see that for moderately small rapidities and $\alpha$, resumming the asymptotic series numerically is doable, although very difficult due to the large number of events that one has to generate in order to achieve a sufficient accuracy.
In our next publication, we intend to systematically study the corrections to the Mueller formulation of unitarization, in the framework of our toy model. We are curious to find out whether boost-invariant saturation may be obtained through splittings in the Fock states and scatterings only, that is, without any explicit reference to a saturation mechanism in the formulation of the model. This is of course a crucial question for QCD, since saturation seems so difficult to formulate in a practical way.
Another prospect would be to find an analytical expression for $S$ within the Mueller formulation of unitarization: Since the result contains information on saturation, an analytical expression would help. But this would require the knowledge of all moments of the particle numbers, which are given by the solution of the equivalent of the Balitsky hierarchy. Even within simple models, such an achievement does not seem to be at hand yet.
We thank Dr. U. Jentschura for helpful discussions about resummation techniques. Our work is partially supported by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (France), contract No ANR-06-JCJC-0084-02.
[10]{}
L. V. Gribov, E. M. Levin and M. G. Ryskin, Phys. Rept. [**100**]{}, 1 (1983). A. H. Mueller and J. w. Qiu, Nucl. Phys. B [**268**]{}, 427 (1986). I. Balitsky, Nucl. Phys. B [**463**]{}, 99 (1996). A. H. Mueller and A. I. Shoshi, Nucl. Phys. B [**692**]{}, 175 (2004). E. Iancu, A. H. Mueller and S. Munier, Phys. Lett. B [**606**]{}, 342 (2005). E. Iancu and D. N. Triantafyllopoulos, Nucl. Phys. A [**756**]{}, 419 (2005). J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, A. Leonidov and H. Weigert, Nucl. Phys. B [**504**]{}, 415 (1997); Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 014014 (1999); E. Iancu, A. Leonidov and L. D. McLerran, Phys. Lett. B [**510**]{}, 133 (2001); Nucl. Phys. A [**692**]{}, 583 (2001); H. Weigert, Nucl. Phys. A [**703**]{} (2002) 823. For a review and more references, see H. Weigert, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**55**]{}, 461 (2005). A. H. Mueller, A. I. Shoshi and S. M. H. Wong, Nucl. Phys. B [**715**]{}, 440 (2005). E. Iancu, G. Soyez and D. N. Triantafyllopoulos, Nucl. Phys. A [**768**]{}, 194 (2006).
A. H. Mueller, S. Munier, B.-W. Xiao (2007), unpublished.
A. H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B [**415**]{}, 373 (1994). A. H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B [**437**]{}, 107 (1995). A. H. Mueller and B. Patel, Nucl. Phys. B [**425**]{}, 471 (1994).
M. Kozlov, E. Levin and A. Prygarin, Nucl. Phys. A [**792**]{}, 122 (2007). E. Levin, J. Miller and A. Prygarin, arXiv:0706.2944 \[hep-ph\]. G. P. Salam, Nucl. Phys. B [**461**]{}, 512 (1996). G. P. Salam, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**105**]{}, 62 (1997). A. H. Mueller and G. P. Salam, Nucl. Phys. B [**475**]{}, 293 (1996).
Y. V. Kovchegov, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 034008 (1999). Y. V. Kovchegov, Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{}, 074018 (2000). S. Munier and R. Peschanski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 232001 (2003). S. Munier and R. Peschanski, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 034008 (2004). S. Munier and R. Peschanski, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 077503 (2004). A. H. Mueller and D. N. Triantafyllopoulos, Nucl. Phys. B [**640**]{}, 331 (2002). W. Van Saarloos, Phys. Rep. [**386**]{}, 29 (2003).
A. M. Staśto, K. J. Golec-Biernat and J. Kwiecinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 596 (2001). R. Enberg, K. J. Golec-Biernat and S. Munier, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 074021 (2005). E. Iancu, J. T. de Santana Amaral, G. Soyez and D. N. Triantafyllopoulos, Nucl. Phys. A [**786**]{}, 131 (2007).
A. Kovner and M. Lublinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 181603 (2005). A. Kovner and M. Lublinsky, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 074023 (2005). E. Brunet, B. Derrida, Phys. Rev. E [**56**]{}, 2597 (1997).
E. Brunet, B. Derrida, A. H. Mueller and S. Munier, Phys. Rev. E [**73**]{}, 056126 (2006). D. Panja; Phys. Rep. [**393**]{}, 87 (2004).
N. Armesto and M. A. Braun, Eur. Phys. J. C [**20**]{}, 517 (2001). K. J. Golec-Biernat, L. Motyka and A. M. Staśto, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 074037 (2002). L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**23**]{}, 338 (1976); E. A. Kuraev, L. N. Lipatov, and V. S. Fadin, Sov. Phys. JETP [**45**]{}, 199 (1977); I. I. Balitsky and L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**28**]{}, 822 (1978). E. Borel, Annales scientifiques de l’[É]{}cole Normale Sup[é]{}rieure [**16**]{}, 9 (1899).
H. Pad[é]{}, Annales scientifiques de l’[É]{}cole Normale Sup[é]{}rieure [**9**]{}, 1 (1892).
David Levin, Comput. Math. B [**3**]{}, 371 (1973).
Herbert H. H. Homeier, (2000) \[arXiv:math/0005209\].
E. Caliceti, M. Meyer-Hermann, P. Ribeca, A. Surzhykov, and U. D. Jentschura, Phys. Rep. [**446**]{}, 1 (2007). E.J. Weniger, Compu. Phys. Rep. [**10**]{}, 189 (1989). David A. Smith and William F. Ford, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. [**16**]{}, 223 (1979).
J.E. Drummond, Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. [**6**]{}, 69 (1972).
P. Wynn, Math. tables Aids Comput. [**10**]{}, 91 (1956).
D. Shanks, J. Math. and Phys. (Cambridge, Mass.) [**34**]{}, 1 (1955).
A.C. Aitken, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh [**46**]{}, 289 (1926).
J. Wimp, [*Sequence transformations and their applications*]{}, Mathematics in Science and Engineering, vol. 154, Academic Press (1981).
Herbert H. H. Homeier, Numer. Math. [**71(3)**]{}, 275 (1995).
C. Brezinki, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S[é]{}r. A-B [**273**]{}, 727 (1971).
J. Bartels, Phys. Lett. B [**298**]{}, 204 (1993). J. Bartels and C. Ewerz, JHEP [**9909**]{}, 026 (1999).
[^1]: The first term $V_0$ was already discussed by Gribov, Levin and Ryskin in QCD in the 80’s [@GLR]. The second term was around in statistical physics since some time, see Ref. [@VS], but was rediscovered independently by Mueller and Triantafyllopoulos in QCD [@MT]. The third term was computed more recently [@VS], and adapted to QCD in Ref. [@MP3].
[^2]: We mean that the front is in its asymptotic shape (\[formSBK\]) for $S<1-\alpha^2$. Indeed, the asymptotic shape sets in first in the vicinity of the black region, and subsequently diffuses upwards. If one is not able to resolve details of size greater than $\alpha^2$, then it is enough that $S$ look asymptotic in the above region. This distinction is relevant when one goes beyond the BK equation and one takes into account the fluctuations, and $y_R$ is then a physical relaxation “time”.
[^3]: Since rapidity is discrete in this model, we can only have approximate boost invariance. We will observe the consequences of this incomplete realization of the symmetry in our numerical results.
[^4]: Several groups have solved the exact BK equation numerically in QCD, see for example [@AB; @GBMS; @EGBM]. A good code ([BKsolver]{}) is publicly available at [http://www.isv.uu.se/\~enberg/BK/]{}.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We give characterizations, for various fragments of geometric logic, of the class of theories classified by a locally connected (resp. connected and locally connected, atomic, compact, presheaf) topos, and exploit the existence of multiple sites of definition for a given topos to establish some properties of quotients of theories of presheaf type.'
author:
- |
[Olivia Caramello]{}\
[DPMMS, University of Cambridge,]{}\
[Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WB, UK]{}\
[[email protected]]{}
date: 'July 14, 2009'
title: 'One topos, many sites'
---
\#1[\#1 JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJune JulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember]{}
\#1
=10000 =10000 =0 50 .2em [\#1]{}
\[section\]
\[theorem\][Proposition]{}
\[theorem\][Scholium]{}
\[theorem\][Lemma]{}
\[theorem\][Corollary]{}
\[theorem\][Conjecture]{}
\[theorem\][Remark]{}
\[theorem\][Remarks]{}
\[theorem\][Definition]{}
\[theorem\][Example]{}
\[theorem\][Examples]{}
‘="4268 ‘="5269 ‘=“313A =”603B =“313E =”313C
Introduction
============
Given the fact that Grothendieck toposes are ‘the same thing as’ Morita-equivalence classes of geometric theories, it is naturally of interest to investigate how classical topos-theoretic properties of toposes translate into logical properties of the theories they classify.
Characterizations of the class of geometric theories classified by a Boolean (resp. De Morgan) topos have been provided in [@OC3]. In the third section of this paper, we provide syntactic characterizations, for various fragments of geometric logic, of the class of theories classified by a locally connected (resp. connected and locally connected, atomic, compact, presheaf) topos. Also, we establish criteria for a geometric theory over a given signature to be cartesian (resp. regular, coherent).
In the last section, given a quotient ${\mathbb T}'$ of a theory of presheaf type $\mathbb T$ correponding to a Grothendieck topology $J$ on the opposite of the category of finitely presentable $\mathbb T$-models as in [@OC6], we discuss how ‘geometrical’ properties of $J$ translate into syntactic properties of ${\mathbb T}'$. In this context, we also show that, given a theory of presheaf type $\mathbb T$, the category of finitely presentable models of $\mathbb T$ is equivalent to a full subcategory of the syntactic category of $\mathbb T$.
Our technique to establish these latter results is to transfer topos-theoret-\
ic invariants (i.e. properties of objects of toposes which are stable under topos-theoretic equivalence) from one site of definition of a given topos to another.
The terminology used in the paper is borrowed from [@El] and [@El2], if not otherwise stated. Our notion of site is that that of a small Grothendieck site; anyway, all the results on sites established in the paper can be (trivially) extended to essentially small sites of the form $({\cal C}, J)$ where $\cal C$ is an essentially small category.
Some geometric invariants
=========================
Let us start with some general facts about dense subcategories. We recall from [@El2] the following definition.
Let $({\cal C}, J)$ be a site. We say a subcategory $\cal D$ of $\cal C$ is $J$-dense if
\(i) every object $c$ of $\cal C$ has a covering sieve $R \in J(c)$ generated by morphisms whose domains are in $\cal D$; and
\(ii) for any morphism $f:c \to d$ in $\cal C$ with $d\in {\cal D}$, there is a covering sieve $R \in J(c)$ generated by morphisms $g: b \to c$ for which the composite $f\circ g$ is in $\cal D$.
Let us denote by $\mathfrak{Groth}({\cal C})$ the Heyting algebra of Grothendieck topologies on a category $\cal C$ (cfr. [@OC6]). Given a subcategory ${\cal C}'$ of $\cal C$, we denote by $\mathfrak{Groth}_{{\cal C}'}({\cal C})$ the subset of $\mathfrak{Groth}({\cal C})$ formed by the Grothendieck topologies $J$ on $\cal C$ such that ${\cal C}'$ is $J$-dense.
There is an obvious notion of intersection of subcategories; specifically, given a collection $\{{\cal C}_{i} \textrm{ | } i\in I\}$ of subcategories of a category $\cal C$, we can define their intersection ${\cal C}'$ by putting $ob({{\cal C}'})=\mathbin{\mathop{\textrm{\huge $\cap$}}\limits_{i\in I}} ob({\cal C}_{i})$ and $arr({{\cal C}'})=\mathbin{\mathop{\textrm{\huge $\cap$}}\limits_{i\in I}} arr({\cal C}_{i})$ i.e. given an arrow $f:a\to b$ in $\cal C$, $f$ belongs to $arr({{\cal C}'})$ if and only if it belongs to $arr({{\cal C}_{i}})$ for every $i\in I$. It is immediate to see that ${\cal C}'$ is a subcategory of $\cal C$.
We note that, for any Grothendieck topology $J$ on $\cal C$, any finite intersection of subcategories of $\cal C$ which are $J$-dense is again $J$-dense; indeed, this easily follows from the fact that a finite intersection of $J$-covering sieves is again $J$-covering.
The following result provides a couple of useful facts about dense subcategories.
\[Onetoposmany\_denseness\] Let $\cal C$ be a category. Then
\(i) $\mathfrak{Groth}_{{\cal C}'}({\cal C})$ is closed in $\mathfrak{Groth}({\cal C})$ under arbitrary (non-empty) intersections (i.e. meets in $\mathfrak{Groth}({\cal C})$) and under taking larger topologies, and hence it is an Heyting algebra inheriting the Heyting operations from $\mathfrak{Groth}({\cal C})$ whose maximal element is the maximal Grothendieck topology on $\cal C$ and minimal element is the intersection of all the topologies in $\mathfrak{Groth}_{{\cal C}'}({\cal C})$;
\(ii) Let ${\cal C}'$ and ${\cal C}''$ subcategories of $\cal C$ such that ${\cal C}'$ is a subcategory of ${\cal C}''$. Then ${\cal C}'$ is $J$-dense if and only if ${\cal C}'$ is $J|_{{\cal C}''}$-dense (as a subcategory of ${\cal C}''$) and ${\cal C}''$ is $J$-dense.
\(i) The first assertion is obvious while the second easily follows from the fact that arbitrary (non-empty) unions of $J$-covering sieves are $J$-covering.
\(ii) Suppose that ${\cal C}'$ is $J$-dense. Then, by part (i) of the proposition, ${\cal C}''$ is $J$-dense, and it is immediate to see that ${\cal C}'$ is $J|_{{\cal C}''}$-dense (as a subcategory of ${\cal C}''$). The converse follows from the fact that ‘composition’ of $J$-covering sieves (in the sense of Definition 2.3 [@OC6]) is $J$-covering.
We note that a small full subcategory of a Grothendieck topos $\cal E$ is $J_{\cal E}$-dense, where $J_{\cal E}$ is the canonical Grothendieck topology on $\cal E$, if and only if it is a separating set for $\cal E$.
Let us also recall the following notions.
Let $\cal E$ be a Grothendieck topos and $A$ an object of $\cal E$. Then
\(i) $A$ is said to be an atom if the only subobjects of $A$ in $\cal E$ are the identity on $A$ and the zero subobject, and they are distinct from each other;
\(ii) $A$ is said to be indecomposable if does not admit any non-trivial coproduct decompositions;
\(iii) $A$ is said to be irreducible if it is $J_{\cal E}$-irreducible, where $J_{\cal E}$ is the canonical topology on $\cal E$; in other words, if any sieve in $\cal E$ containing a small epimorphic family contains the identity on $A$;
\(iv) $A$ is said to be compact if every small covering family $\{A_{i} \to A \textrm{ | } i\in I \}$ contains a finite covering subfamily;
\(v) $A$ is said to be coherent if it is compact and, whenever we are given a morphism $f:B\to A$ with $B$ compact, the domain of the kernel-pair of $f$ is compact;
\(vi) $A$ is said to be supercompact if every small covering family $\{A_{i}\to A \textrm{ | } i\in I \}$ contains a cover;
\(vii) $A$ is said to be regular if it is supercompact and, whenever we are given a morphism $f:B\to A$ with $B$ supercompact, the domain of the kernel-pair of $f$ is supercompact.
Recall that an object in a locally connected topos is indecomposable if and only if it is connected (cfr. the discussion after the proof of Lemma C3.3.6 [@El2]).
\[Onetoposmany\_Rem\] *It readily follows from the definitions that every coherent (resp. regular) object is compact (resp. supercompact), every atom is an indecomposable object, every irreducible object is supercompact, every supercompact object is indecomposable.*
Let us recall from [@El2] the following terminology.
A site $({\cal C}, J)$ is said to be locally connected if every $J$-covering sieve is connected i.e. for any $R\in J(c)$, $R$ is connected as a full subcategory of ${\cal C}\slash c$.
A site $({\cal C}, J)$ is said to be atomic if $\cal C$ satisfies the right Ore condition and $J$ is the atomic topology on $\cal C$.
Given a site $({\cal C}, J)$,
\(i) we say an object $c$ of $\cal C$ is $J$-irreducible if the only $J$-covering sieve on $c$ is the maximal sieve $M(c)$;
\(ii) we say $J$ is rigid if, for every $c\in {\cal C}$, the family of all morphisms from $J$-irreducible objects to $c$ generates a $J$-covering sieve. The site $({\cal C}, J)$ is said to be rigid if $J$ is rigid as a Grothendieck topology on $\cal C$.
We will say that a site $({\cal C}, J)$ is coherent (resp. regular) if $\cal C$ is cartesian and $J$ is a finite-type Grothendieck topology on $\cal C$ (resp. a Grothendieck topology $J$ such that every $J$-covering sieve is generated by a single arrow).
Given a site $({\cal C}, J)$, we denote by $l^{\cal C}_{J}:{\cal C}\to {{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}, J)$ the composite of the Yoneda embedding ${\cal C}\to [{\cal C}^{\textrm{op}}, {{\bf Set }}]$ with the associated sheaf functor $a_{J}:[{\cal C}^{\textrm{op}}, {{\bf Set }}] \to {{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}, J)$. We have the following result.
\[Onetoposmany\_identif\] Let $({\cal C}, J)$ be a site. Then
\(i) if $({\cal C}, J)$ is locally connected then for each $c\in {\cal C}$, $l^{\cal C}_{J}(c)$ is an indecomposable (equivalently, connected) object in ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}, J)$;
\(ii) if $({\cal C}, J)$ is atomic then for each $c\in {\cal C}$, $l^{\cal C}_{J}(c)$ is an atom in ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}, J)$;
\(iii) if $({\cal C}, J)$ is rigid then for each $c\in {\cal C}$ such that $c$ is $J$-irreducible, $l^{\cal C}_{J}(c)$ is an indecomposable projective (equivalently, an irreducible object) of ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}, J)$;
\(iv) if $({\cal C}, J)$ is coherent (resp. regular) then for each $c\in {\cal C}$, $l^{\cal C}_{J}(c)$ is a coherent (resp. regular) object of ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}, J)$.
\(i) and (ii) were proved in [@OC5].
To prove (iii), we note that if $({\cal C}, J)$ is rigid then the Comparison Lemma yields ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}, J) \simeq [{\cal D}^{\textrm{op}}, {{\bf Set }}]$ where $\cal D$ is the full subcategory of $\cal C$ on the $J$-irreducible objects (cfr. the discussion after Definition C2.2.18 [@El2]) and, under this equivalence, for each $c\in {\cal D}$, $l^{\cal C}_{J}(d)$ corresponds to the representable $y(d):{\cal D}^{{^{\rm op}}}\to {{\bf Set }}$. Now, it is well-known that all the representables on ${\cal D}$ are indecomposable projective objects in $[{\cal D}^{\textrm{op}}, {{\bf Set }}]$, from which our thesis follows.
Part (iv) was proved in [@El2] (cfr. Theorem D3.3.7 and Remark D3.3.10).
We note that if $\cal E$ is equivalent to a presheaf topos then any object of $\cal E$ is irreducible if and only if it is indecomposable and projective. Indeed, by the argument in the proof of Lemma C2.2.20 [@El2], any indecomposable projective object in $\cal E$ is irreducible. Conversely, if $\cal G$ is the full subcategory of $\cal E$ on the irreducible objects then, by Lemma C2.2.20, $\cal G$ is essentially small and $({\cal G}, J_{\cal E}|_{\cal G})$ is a rigid site; moreover, by the Comparison Lemma ${\cal E}\simeq {{\bf Sh}}({\cal G}, J_{\cal E}|_{\cal G})$ and hence Proposition \[Onetoposmany\_identif\](iii) implies our thesis.
Let us recall from [@El2] (C2.3.2(c)) that, for any essentially small site $({\cal C}, J)$, a sieve $R$ on $l^{\cal C}_{J}(c)$ in ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}, J)$ is epimorphic iff the sieve $\{f:d\to c \textrm{ | } l^{\cal C}_{J}(f)\in R \}$ is $J$-covering in $\cal C$. This fact enables us to express properties of objects of the form $l^{\cal C}_{J}(c)$ like compactness, supercompactness or irreducibility in terms of properties of $J$-covering sieves on $c$, as follows (point (i) of the following proposition was proved in [@El2] as Lemma D3.3.4).
\[Onetoposmany\_express\] Let $({\cal C}, J)$ be a site. Then, with the notation above, we have:
\(i) $l^{\cal C}_{J}(c)$ is compact if and only if every $J$-covering sieve on $c$ contains a finite family of arrows which generates a $J$-covering sieve;
\(ii) $l^{\cal C}_{J}(c)$ is supercompact if and only if every $J$-covering sieve on $c$ contains a single arrow which generates a $J$-covering sieve;
\(iii) $l^{\cal C}_{J}(c)$ is irreducible if and only if every $J$-covering sieve on $c$ is maximal i.e. $c$ is $J$-irreducible;
It turns out that one can rephrase many interesting properties of Grothen-\
dieck toposes in terms of the existence of separating sets for them with particular properties. For example, it is well-known (cfr. Lemma C2.2.20 [@El2]) that a Grothendieck topos is equivalent to a presheaf topos if and only if it has a separating set of indecomposable projective objects; moreover, we have the following characterizations.
\[Onetoposmany\_car\] Let $\cal E$ be a Grothendieck topos. Then
\(i) $\cal E$ is locally connected if and only if it has a separating set of indecomposable objects;
\(ii) $\cal E$ is connected and locally connected if and only if it has a separating set of indecomposable objects containing the terminal object of $\cal E$;
\(iii) $\cal E$ is atomic if and only if it has a separating set of atoms;
\(iv) $\cal E$ is coherent (resp. regular) if and only if it has a separating set of coherent (resp. regular) objects which is closed in $\cal E$ under finite limits.
\(i) Suppose that $\cal E$ is locally connected; then, by Theorem C3.3.10 [@El2], $\cal E$ is of the form ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}, J)$ for a locally connected small site $({\cal C}, J)$. Then the objects of the form $l^{\cal C}_{J}(c)$ for $c\in {\cal C}$ are indecomposable (by Proposition \[Onetoposmany\_identif\](i)) and hence they form a separating set for $\cal E$. Conversely, suppose that $\cal E$ has a separating set of indecomposable objects; then, by arguing as in the proof of Theorem C3.3.10 [@El2], we obtain that the full subcategory ${\cal I}$ of $\cal E$ on the indecomposable objects, equipped with the Grothendieck topology $J_{\cal E}|_{\cal I}$ on $\cal I$ induced by the canonical coverage on $\cal E$ is a locally connected site; but, by the Comparison Lemma, $\cal E$ is equivalent to ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal I}, J_{\cal E}|_{\cal I})$, so that the thesis follows from Theorem C3.3.10 [@El2].
\(ii) This follows analogously to part (i), by using the ‘connected and locally connected’ version of Theorem C3.3.10 [@El2].
\(iii) This was already proved in [@OC5] (Proposition 1.3(i)).
\(iv) One direction follows from Theorem D3.3.7 [@El2] and Remarks D3.3.9 and D3.3.10 [@El2]. Conversely, suppose that $\cal E$ has a separating set $\cal G$ of coherent (resp. regular) objects which is closed in $\cal E$ under finite limits. Then $\cal G$ is a cartesian category and, by the Comparison Lemma, $\cal E$ is equivalent to ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal G}, J_{\cal E}|_{\cal G})$; now, by Proposition \[Onetoposmany\_express\](i) (resp. Proposition \[Onetoposmany\_express\](ii)), the site $({\cal G}, J_{\cal E}|_{\cal G})$ is coherent (resp. regular), and hence, by Theorem D3.3.1 [@El2], $\cal E$ is a coherent (resp. regular) topos, as required.
*Notice that it follows from the theorem and Remark \[Onetoposmany\_Rem\] that any presheaf topos is locally connected, any regular topos is locally connected and any atomic topos is locally connected. Moreover, it is clear that if $\cal E$ is a Boolean topos then for any object $A$ of $\cal E$, $A$ is an atom if and only if it is non-zero and indecomposable, from which it follows that any Boolean locally connected topos is atomic.*
\[Onetoposmany\_converso\] *We note that the theorem implies that, given a site $({\cal C}, J)$, if all the objects of the form $l^{\cal C}_{J}(c)$ for $c\in {\cal C}$ are indecomposable objects (resp. atoms) of ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}, J)$ then the topos ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}, J)$ is locally connected (resp. atomic). Also, provided that $\cal C$ is cartesian, if all the objects of the form $l^{\cal C}_{J}(c)$ for $c\in {\cal C}$ are regular (resp. coherent) in ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}, J)$ then the topos ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}, J)$ is regular (resp. coherent). An application of this remark in the context of quotients of theories of presheaf type will be provided in section \[Onetoposmany\_last\] below.*
Syntactic criteria
==================
Let $\mathbb T$ be a cartesian (resp. regular, coherent, geometric) theory over a signature $\Sigma$. We denote by ${\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{cart}}$ (resp. ${\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{reg}}$, ${\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{coh}}$, ${\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}$) the cartesian (resp. regular, coherent, geometric) syntactic category of $\mathbb T$ and by $J^{\textrm{reg}}_{\mathbb T}$ the regular (resp. coherent, geometric) topology on ${\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{reg}}$ (resp. ${\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{coh}}$, ${\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}$). Recall from [@El2] that if $\mathbb T$ is cartesian (resp. regular, coherent, geometric) then $[{{\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{cart}}}^{\textrm{op}}, {{\bf Set }}]$ (resp. ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{reg}}, J^{\textrm{reg}}_{\mathbb T})$, ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{coh}}, J^{\textrm{coh}}_{\mathbb T})$, ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$) is a classifying topos for $\mathbb T$. Let us denote by $y^{\textrm{cart}}_{\mathbb T}:{\cal C}^{\textrm{cart}}_{\mathbb T}\to [{{\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{cart}}}^{\textrm{op}}, {{\bf Set }}]$ (resp. $y^{\textrm{reg}}_{\mathbb T}:{\cal C}^{\textrm{reg}}_{\mathbb T}\to {{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{reg}}, J^{\textrm{reg}}_{\mathbb T})$, $y^{\textrm{coh}}_{\mathbb T}:{\cal C}^{\textrm{coh}}_{\mathbb T}\to {{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{coh}}, J^{\textrm{coh}}_{\mathbb T})$, $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}:{\cal C}^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}\to {{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$) the Yoneda embeddings.
Let us introduce the following notions. Below, by a $\mathbb T$-provably functional geometric formula from $\{\vec{x}. \phi\}$ to $\{\vec{y}. \psi\}$ we mean a geometric formula $\theta(\vec{x}, \vec{y})$ such that the sequents $(\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} (\exists \vec{y})\theta)$, $(\theta \vdash_{\vec{y}, \vec{x}} \phi \wedge \psi)$ and $(\theta \wedge \theta[\vec{z}\slash \vec{y}] \vdash_{\vec{x}, \vec{y}, \vec{z}} \vec{y}=\vec{z})$ are provable in $\mathbb T$.
Let $\mathbb T$ be a geometric theory over a signature $\Sigma$ and $\phi(\vec{x})$ a geometric formula-in-context over $\Sigma$. Then
\(i) we say that $\phi(\vec{x})$ is $\mathbb T$-complete if the sequent ($\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} \bot$) is not provable in $\mathbb T$, and for every geometric formula $\phi$ in the same context either ($\chi \vdash_{\vec{x}} \bot$) or ($\chi \wedge \phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} \bot$) is provable in $\mathbb T$;
\(ii) we say that $\phi(\vec{x})$ is $\mathbb T$-indecomposable if for any family $\{\psi_{i}(\vec{x}) \textrm{ | } i\in I\}$ of geometric formulae in the same context such that for each $i$, $\psi_{i}$ $\mathbb T$-provably implies $\phi$ and for any distinct $i, j\in I$, $\psi_{i}\wedge \psi_{j} \vdash_{\vec{x}} \bot$ is provable in $\mathbb T$, we have that $\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} \mathbin{\mathop{\textrm{\huge $\vee$}}\limits_{i\in I}} \psi_{i}$ provable in $\mathbb T$ implies $\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} \psi_{i}$ provable in $\mathbb T$ for some $i\in I$;
\(iii) we say that $\phi(\vec{x})$ is $\mathbb T$-irreducible if for any family $\{\theta_{i} \textrm{ | } i\in I\}$ of $\mathbb T$-provably functional geometric formulae $\{\vec{x_{i}}, \vec{x}.\theta_{i}\}$ from $\{\vec{x_{i}}. \phi_{i}\}$ to $\{\vec{x}. \phi\}$ such that $\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} \mathbin{\mathop{\textrm{\huge $\vee$}}\limits_{i\in I}}(\exists \vec{x_{i}})\theta_{i}$ is provable in $\mathbb T$, there exist $i\in I$ and a $\mathbb T$-provably functional geometric formula $\{\vec{x}, \vec{x_{i}}. \theta'\}$ from $\{\vec{x}. \phi\}$ to $\{\vec{x_{i}}. \phi_{i}\}$ such that $\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} (\exists \vec{x_{i}})(\theta' \wedge \theta_{i})$ is provable in $\mathbb T$;
\(iv) we say that $\phi(\vec{x})$ is $\mathbb T$-compact if for any family $\{\psi_{i}(\vec{x}) \textrm{ | } i\in I\}$ of geometric formulae in the same context, $\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} \mathbin{\mathop{\textrm{\huge $\vee$}}\limits_{i\in I}} \psi_{i}$ provable in $\mathbb T$ implies $\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} \mathbin{\mathop{\textrm{\huge $\vee$}}\limits_{i\in I'}} \psi_{i}$ provable in $\mathbb T$ for some finite subset $I'$ of $I$;
\(v) we say that $\phi(\vec{x})$ is $\mathbb T$-supercompact if for any family $\{\psi_{i}(\vec{x}) \textrm{ | } i\in I\}$ of geometric formulae in the same context, $\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} \mathbin{\mathop{\textrm{\huge $\vee$}}\limits_{i\in I}} \psi_{i}$ provable in $\mathbb T$ implies $\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} \psi_{i}$ provable in $\mathbb T$ for some $i\in I$.
\[Onetoposmany\_equiv\] Let $\mathbb T$ be a geometric theory over a signature $\Sigma$ and $\phi(\vec{x})$ a geometric formula-in-context over $\Sigma$. Then
\(i) $\phi(\vec{x})$ is $\mathbb T$-complete if and only if $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}(\{\vec{x}. \phi\})$ is an atom of\
${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$;
\(ii) $\phi(\vec{x})$ is $\mathbb T$-indecomposable if and only if $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}(\{\vec{x}. \phi\})$ is an indecomposable object of ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$;
\(iii) $\phi(\vec{x})$ is $\mathbb T$-irreducible if and only if $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}(\{\vec{x}. \phi\})$ is an irreducible object of ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$;
\(iv) $\phi(\vec{x})$ is $\mathbb T$-compact if and only if $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}(\{\vec{x}. \phi\})$ is a compact object of ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$;
\(v) $\phi(\vec{x})$ is $\mathbb T$-supercompact if and only if $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}(\{\vec{x}. \phi\})$ is a supercompact object of ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$.
Parts (iii), (iv) and (v) follow immediately from Proposition \[Onetoposmany\_express\], by using Lemma D1.4.4(iv) [@El2] and the fact that cover-mono factorizations of arrow exist in ${\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}$.
Parts (i) and (ii) follow from the fact that in a topos coproducts are the same thing as disjoint unions, since $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}})$ is closed in ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$ under taking subobjects and $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}:{\cal C}^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}\to {{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$ is a full and faithful geometric functor.
Recall from [@El2] that a Grothendieck topos $\cal E$ is compact if and only if the terminal object of $\cal E$ is compact; hence, a geometric theory $\mathbb T$ over a signature $\Sigma$ is classified by a compact topos if and only if $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}(\{[]. \top\})$ is compact in ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$, if and only if for any family $\{\psi_{i} \textrm{ | } i\in I\}$ of geometric sentences, $\phi \vdash \mathbin{\mathop{\textrm{\huge $\vee$}}\limits_{i\in I}} \psi_{i}$ provable in $\mathbb T$ implies $\phi \vdash \mathbin{\mathop{\textrm{\huge $\vee$}}\limits_{i\in I'}} \psi_{i}$ provable in $\mathbb T$ for some finite subset $I'$ of $I$.
We note that any cartesian (resp. regular, coherent) theory $\mathbb T$ over a signature $\Sigma$ can be regarded as a geometric theory, and hence we have an equivalence of classifying toposes $[{{\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{cart}}}^{\textrm{op}}, {{\bf Set }}]\simeq {{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$ (resp. ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{reg}}, J^{\textrm{reg}}_{\mathbb T}) \simeq {{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$, ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{coh}}, J^{\textrm{coh}}_{\mathbb T}) \simeq {{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$); moreover, it is immediate to see that for any cartesian (resp. regular, coherent) formula $\phi(\vec{x})$ over $\Sigma$, $y^{\textrm{cart}}_{\mathbb T}(\{\vec{x}. \phi\})$ (resp. $y^{\textrm{reg}}_{\mathbb T}(\{\vec{x}. \phi\})$, $y^{\textrm{coh}}_{\mathbb T}(\{\vec{x}. \phi\})$) corresponds under the equivalence to $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}(\{\vec{x}. \phi\})$.
This remark, combined with Propositions \[Onetoposmany\_identif\] and \[Onetoposmany\_express\], leads to the following results. Below, given a geometric theory $\mathbb T$ over a signature $\Sigma$, by saying that $\mathbb T$ is equivalent to a cartesian (resp. regular, coherent) theory we mean that $\mathbb T$ can be axiomatized by cartesian (resp. regular, coherent) sequents over $\Sigma$.
\[Onetoposmany\_cartcrit\] Let $\mathbb T$ be a geometric theory over a signature $\Sigma$. Then $\mathbb T$ is equivalent to a cartesian theory if and only if for any cartesian formula $\{\vec{x}. \phi\}$ over $\Sigma$, for any family $\{\theta_{i} \textrm{ | } i\in I\}$ of $\mathbb T$-provably functional geometric formulae $\{\vec{x_{i}}, \vec{x}.\theta_{i}\}$ from $\{\vec{x_{i}}. \phi_{i}\}$ to $\{\vec{x}. \phi\}$ such that $\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} \mathbin{\mathop{\textrm{\huge $\vee$}}\limits_{i\in I}}(\exists \vec{x_{i}})\theta_{i}$ is provable in $\mathbb T$, there exist $i\in I$ and a $\mathbb T$-provably functional geometric formula $\{\vec{x}, \vec{x_{i}}. \theta'\}$ from $\{\vec{x}. \phi\}$ to $\{\vec{x_{i}}. \phi_{i}\}$ such that $\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} (\exists \vec{x_{i}})(\theta' \wedge \theta_{i})$ is provable in $\mathbb T$.
Let us suppose that $\mathbb T$ is cartesian. Then the property of $\{\vec{x}. \phi\}$ in the statement of the proposition is equivalent, by Lemma \[Onetoposmany\_equiv\](iii), to saying that $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}(\{\vec{x}. \phi\})$ is irreducible in ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$. But this condition corresponds, under the equivalence $[{{\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{cart}}}^{\textrm{op}}, {{\bf Set }}]\simeq {{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$, to saying that $y^{\textrm{cart}}_{\mathbb T}(\{\vec{x}. \phi\})$ is irreducible (equivalently, indecomposable projective) in $[{{\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{cart}}}^{\textrm{op}}, {{\bf Set }}]$, and this true (cfr. Proposition \[Onetoposmany\_identif\](iii)).
Conversely, if $\mathbb T$ is geometric and for any cartesian formula $\phi(\vec{x})$ over $\Sigma$, $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}(\{\vec{x}. \phi\})$ is irreducible in ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$ then, denoted by $\cal G$ the full subcategory of ${\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}$ on the cartesian formulae, equivalently the cartesian syntactic category ${{\cal C}_{{\mathbb T}'}^{\textrm{cart}}}$ of the cartesianization ${\mathbb T}'$ of $\mathbb T$ (i.e. the theory axiomatized by all the cartesian sequents over $\Sigma$ which are provable in $\mathbb T$), we have that $\cal G$ is $J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}$-dense (by Lemma D1.3.8 [@El2]) and $J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}|_{\cal G}$ is the trivial Grothendieck topology. Thus the Comparison Lemma yields an equivalence ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})\simeq [{{\cal C}_{{\mathbb T}'}^{\textrm{cart}}}^{\textrm{op}}, {{\bf Set }}]$. Clearly, this equivalence sends the universal model of $\mathbb T$ in ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$ to the universal model of ${\mathbb T}'$ in $[{{\cal C}_{{\mathbb T}'}^{\textrm{cart}}}^{\textrm{op}}, {{\bf Set }}]$, and hence, universal models being conservative, $\mathbb T$ and ${\mathbb T}'$ prove exactly the same geometric sequents over $\Sigma$ i.e. they are equivalent, as required.
The ‘only if’ direction in the following result extends Lemma D3.3.11 [@El2].
\[Onetoposmany\_regcrit\] Let $\mathbb T$ be a geometric theory over a signature $\Sigma$. Then $\mathbb T$ is equivalent to a regular theory if and only if for any regular formula $\{\vec{x}. \phi\}$ over $\Sigma$, for any family $\{\psi_{i}(\vec{x}) \textrm{ | } i\in I\}$ of geometric formulae in the same context, $\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} \mathbin{\mathop{\textrm{\huge $\vee$}}\limits_{i\in I}} \psi_{i}$ provable in $\mathbb T$ implies $\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} \psi_{i}$ provable in $\mathbb T$ for some $i\in I$.
This follows similarly to Theorem \[Onetoposmany\_cartcrit\] by using Lemma \[Onetoposmany\_equiv\](v) and Proposition \[Onetoposmany\_identif\](iv).
\[Onetoposmany\_cohcrit\] Let $\mathbb T$ be a geometric theory over a signature $\Sigma$. Then $\mathbb T$ is equivalent to a coherent theory if and only if for any coherent formula $\{\vec{x}. \phi\}$ over $\Sigma$, for any family $\{\psi_{i}(\vec{x}) \textrm{ | } i\in I\}$ of geometric formulae in the same context, $\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} \mathbin{\mathop{\textrm{\huge $\vee$}}\limits_{i\in I}} \psi_{i}$ provable in $\mathbb T$ implies $\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} \mathbin{\mathop{\textrm{\huge $\vee$}}\limits_{i\in I'}} \psi_{i}$ provable in $\mathbb T$ for some finite subset $I'$ of $I$.
This follows similarly to Theorem \[Onetoposmany\_cartcrit\] by using Lemma \[Onetoposmany\_equiv\](iv) and Proposition \[Onetoposmany\_identif\](iv).
Locally connected theories
--------------------------
The following result gives a syntactic characterization of the class of geometric theories classified by a locally connected (resp. connected and locally connected) topos.
\[Onetoposmany\_loccon\] Let $\mathbb T$ be a geometric theory over a signature $\Sigma$. Then $\mathbb T$ is classified by a locally connected topos (resp. connected and locally connected topos) if and only if for any geometric formula $\phi(\vec{x})$ over $\Sigma$ there exists a (unique) family $\{\psi_{i}(\vec{x}) \textrm{ | } i\in I\}$ of $\mathbb T$-indecomposable geometric formulae in the same context such that
\(i) for each $i$, $\psi_{i}$ $\mathbb T$-provably implies $\phi$,
\(ii) for any distinct $i, j\in I$, $\psi_{i}\wedge \psi_{j} \vdash_{\vec{x}} \bot$ is provable in $\mathbb T$, and
\(iii) $\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} \mathbin{\mathop{\textrm{\huge $\vee$}}\limits_{i\in I}} \psi_{i}$ is provable in $\mathbb T$\
(resp. and $\{[].\top\}$ is $\mathbb T$-indecomposable).
Let us suppose that the classifying topos ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$ of $\mathbb T$ is locally connected. Then, by Lemma D3.3.6 [@El2], given a geometric formula $\phi(\vec{x})$ over $\Sigma$, $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}(\{\vec{x}. \phi\})$ is uniquely expressible as a coproduct of indecomposable objects of ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$. Now, since $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}})$ is closed in ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$ under taking subobjects (${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$ being the $\infty$-pretopos completion of ${\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}$), we can suppose that all the subobjects of $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}(\{\vec{x}. \phi\})$ in ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$, and in particular the indecomposable objects arising in our coproduct, are of the form $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}(c)$ for some $c\in {\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}$. The condition of the criterion then follows from Lemma \[Onetoposmany\_equiv\](ii) and the fact that the functor $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}$ is geometric and full and faithful.
Conversely, if the condition of the criterion is satisfied then we have, by Lemma \[Onetoposmany\_equiv\](ii) and Proposition \[Onetoposmany\_denseness\](ii), that the objects of the form $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}(\{\vec{y}. \psi\})$ for a $\mathbb T$-indecomposable formula $\psi(\vec{y})$ form a separating set for\
${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$ made of indecomposable objects; then ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$ is locally connected by Theorem \[Onetoposmany\_car\](i).
The following result is the coherent analogue of this theorem.
Let $\mathbb T$ be a coherent theory over a signature $\Sigma$. Then $\mathbb T$ is classified by a locally connected topos (resp. connected and locally connected topos) if and only if for any coherent formula $\phi(\vec{x})$ over $\Sigma$ there exists a (unique) finite family $\{\psi_{i}(\vec{x}) \textrm{ | } i\in I\}$ of $\mathbb T$-indecomposable geometric formulae in the same context such that
\(i) for each $i$, $\psi_{i}$ $\mathbb T$-provably implies $\phi$,
\(ii) for any distinct $i, j\in I$, $\psi_{i}\wedge \psi_{j} \vdash_{\vec{x}} \bot$ is provable in $\mathbb T$, and
\(iii) $\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} \mathbin{\mathop{\textrm{\huge $\vee$}}\limits_{i\in I}} \psi_{i}$ is provable in $\mathbb T$\
(resp. and $\{[].\top\}$ is $\mathbb T$-indecomposable).
The proof proceeds analogously to the proof of Theorem \[Onetoposmany\_loccon\], by using Theorem \[Onetoposmany\_cohcrit\].
\[Onetoposmany\_weaker\] *From the proof of the theorems it is clear that, by using the notion of dense subcategory, one can obtain alternative (although equivalent) versions of the criteria. For example, a weaker (in the ‘if’ direction) version of the criterion of Theorem \[Onetoposmany\_loccon\] reads as follows: a geometric theory $\mathbb T$ is classified by a locally connected topos (resp. connected and locally connected topos) if and only if there exists a collection $\cal F$ (resp. a collection $\cal F$ containing $\{[].\top\}$) of $\mathbb T$-indecomposable geometric formulae-in-context over $\Sigma$ such that for any geometric formula $\{\vec{y}. \psi\}$ over $\Sigma$, there exist objects $\{\vec{x_{i}}. \phi_{i}\}$ in $\cal F$ as $i$ varies in $I$ and $\mathbb T$-provably functional geometric formulae $\{\vec{x_{i}}, \vec{y}.\theta_{i}\}$ from $\{\vec{x_{i}}. \phi_{i}\}$ to $\{\vec{y}. \psi\}$ such that $\psi \vdash_{\vec{y}} \mathbin{\mathop{\textrm{\huge $\vee$}}\limits_{i\in I}}(\exists \vec{x_{i}})\theta_{i}$ is provable in $\mathbb T$. Naturally, the ‘coherent’ version of this criterion also holds.*
We note that, by Theorem \[Onetoposmany\_cohcrit\], if $\mathbb T$ is coherent and $\phi(\vec{x})$ is a coherent formula over $\Sigma$ then $\phi(\vec{x})$ is $\mathbb T$-indecomposable if and only if for any finite family $\{\psi_{i}(\vec{x}) \textrm{ | } i\in I\}$ of geometric formulae in the same context such that for each $i$, $\psi_{i}$ $\mathbb T$-provably implies $\phi$ and for any distinct $i, j\in I$, $\psi_{i}\wedge \psi_{j} \vdash_{\vec{x}} \bot$ is provable in $\mathbb T$, we have that $\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} \mathbin{\mathop{\textrm{\huge $\vee$}}\limits_{i\in I}} \psi_{i}$ provable in $\mathbb T$ implies $\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} \psi_{i}$ provable in $\mathbb T$ for some $i\in I$.
Regarding regular theories, their classifying toposes are always connected and locally connected; this was already observed in [@El2], and also follows from our Remark \[Onetoposmany\_Rem\].
We have already noticed that any atomic topos $\cal E$ is locally connected; in fact, as it is observed in [@El2], the atoms of $\cal E$ are exactly the connected (equivalently, indecomposable) objects of $\cal E$. Hence, in view of Theorem \[Onetoposmany\_car\], by replacing ‘$\mathbb T$-indecomposable’ with ‘$\mathbb T$-complete’ everywhere in the criteria above, one obtains syntactic criteria for a geometric (resp. coherent) theory to be classified by an atomic topos; also, one can obtain alternative versions of these criteria in the same spirit as in Remark \[Onetoposmany\_weaker\].
Concerning atomic toposes, let us notice that if $\phi(\vec{x})$ is a $\mathbb T$-complete formula then $\phi(\vec{x})$ is $\mathbb T$-provably equivalent to a regular formula; indeed, this follows immediately from the fact that any geometric formula is provably equivalent to a disjunction of regular formulae (Lemma D1.3.8 [@El2]).
We can give the following criterion for a regular theory to be classified by an atomic topos.
Let $\mathbb T$ be a regular theory over a signature $\Sigma$. Then $\mathbb T$ is classified by an atomic topos if and only if every regular formula over $\Sigma$ is either $\mathbb T$-provably equivalent to $\bot$ or $\mathbb T$-complete.
Let $\phi(\vec{x})$ be a regular formula over $\Sigma$. If $\mathbb T$ is classified by an atomic topos then, by the discussion above, $\phi$ is expressible as a disjunction of $\mathbb T$-complete regular formulae; but this implies, by Theorem \[Onetoposmany\_regcrit\], that either $\phi$ is $\mathbb T$-provably equivalent to $\bot$ or it is $\mathbb T$-provably equivalent to one of these formulae and hence $\mathbb T$-complete.
Conversely, if every regular formula over $\Sigma$ is either $\mathbb T$-provably equivalent to $\bot$ or $\mathbb T$-complete then, by Lemma \[Onetoposmany\_equiv\] and the fact that the set of objects of the form $y^{\textrm{reg}}_{\mathbb T}(\{\vec{x}. \phi\})$ for a regular formula $\phi(\vec{x})$ over $\Sigma$ form a separating set for the classifying topos ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{reg}}, J^{\textrm{reg}}_{\mathbb T})$ of $\mathbb T$, we have that ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{reg}}, J^{\textrm{reg}}_{\mathbb T})$ of $\mathbb T$ has a separating set of atoms and hence, by Theorem \[Onetoposmany\_car\](iii), it is atomic, as required.
In passing, we note an interesting property of theories classified by atomic toposes.
Let $\mathbb T$ be a regular (resp. coherent) theory over a signature $\Sigma$ which is classified by an atomic (equivalently, Boolean) topos. Then every geometric formula over $\Sigma$ is $\mathbb T$-provably equivalent to a regular (resp. coherent) formula over $\Sigma$.
Let $\phi(\vec{x})$ be a geometric formula over $\Sigma$. Then, the classifying topos of $\mathbb T$ being Boolean, $\top \vdash_{\vec{x}} \phi(\vec{x}) \vee \neg^{\mathbb T} \phi(\vec{x})$ is provable in $\mathbb T$ (where $\neg^{\mathbb T} \phi(\vec{x})$ denotes the pseudocomplementation of $\phi(\vec{x})$ in ${{\rm Sub}}_{{\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}}(\{\vec{x}. \top\})$ as in [@OC7]). But, by Theorem \[Onetoposmany\_regcrit\], $\top(\vec{x})$ is $\mathbb T$-supercompact (resp. $\mathbb T$-compact) and, since by Lemma D1.3.8 [@El2] $\phi(\vec{x})$ is ($\mathbb T$-)provably equivalent to a disjunction of regular formulae, it thus follows that $\phi(\vec{x})$ is $\mathbb T$-provably equivalent to a single regular formula (resp. a finite disjunction of regular formulae), as required.
Theories of presheaf type
-------------------------
In this section we give a characterization of the class of geometric (resp. coherent, regular) theories classified by a presheaf topos.\
We recall that a theory classified by a presheaf topos is said to be of presheaf type.
Below, for a subcanonical site $({\cal C}, J)$, we denote by $y:{\cal C}\to {{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}, J)$ the factorization through ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}, J)\hookrightarrow [{\cal C}^{\textrm{op}}, {{\bf Set }}]$ of the Yoneda embedding.
\[Onetoposmany\_presheaf\] Let $({\cal C}, J)$ be a subcanonical site such that $y({\cal C})$ is closed in ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}, J)$ under retracts. Then ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}, J)$ is equivalent to a presheaf topos if and only if $J$ is rigid.
The ‘if’ direction follows at once from the Comparison Lemma. Let us then prove the ‘only if’ direction. If ${\cal E}={{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}, J)$ is equivalent to a presheaf topos then, by Lemma C2.2.20 [@El2], $\cal E$ has a separating set of indecomposable projective objects. Now, suppose A is an indecomposable projective in $\cal E$. Then, as it is observed in the proof of Lemma C2.2.20 [@El2], given any epimorphic family $\{f_{i}: B_{i} \to A \textrm{ | } i\in I\}$, at least one $f_{i}$ must be a split epimorphism; in particular $A$ is $J_{\cal E}$-irreducible, where $J_{\cal E}$ is the canonical coverage on $\cal E$. Hence, by taking as epimorphic family the collection of all the arrows in $\cal E$ from objects of the form $y(c)$ to $A$, we obtain that $A$ is a retract in $\cal E$ of an object of the form $y(c)$. Thus, by our hypotheses, $A$ is itself, up to isomorphism, of the form $y(c)$ for some $c\in {\cal C}$. Let us denote by ${\cal C}'$ the full subcategory of $\cal C$ on the objects $c$ such that $y(c)$ is indecomposable and projective in $\cal E$; then the objects in $y({\cal C}')$ form a separating set for $\cal E$. Thus, for any object $B$ of $\cal E$ the family of all the arrows in $\cal E$ from objects of the form $y(c)$ for $c\in {\cal C}'$ to $B$ generates a $J_{\cal E}$-covering sieve. But, $J$ being subcanonical, $J=J_{\cal E}|_{\cal C}$ (by Proposition C2.2.16 [@El2]) and hence for any object $c\in {\cal C}$ the collection of all arrows in $\cal C$ from objects of ${\cal C}'$ to $c$ is $J$-covering; so, by Proposition \[Onetoposmany\_express\](iii), $J$ is rigid.
\[Onetoposmany\_cauchy\] *We note that, under the hypotheses of the theorem, if $\cal C$ is Cauchy-complete (in particular if $\cal C$ is cartesian) then $y({\cal C})$ is closed in ${\cal E} = {{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}, J)$ under retracts. Indeed, let $i:A{\rightarrowtail}y(c)$, $r:y(c){\twoheadrightarrow}A$ be a retract of $A$ in $\cal E$ i.e. $r\circ i=1_{A}$. Then $i\circ r:y(c)\to y(c)$ is idempotent. Now, since $y$ is full and faithful, $i\circ r=y(e)$ for some idempotent $e:c\to c$ in $\cal C$. Since $\cal C$ is Cauchy complete then $e$ splits as $s\circ t$ where $t\circ s=1$. Then $y(s)$ and $y(t)$ form a retract of $A$ and hence, by the uniqueness up to isomorphism of the splitting of an idempotent in a category, it follows that $r$ is isomorphic to $y(t)$ and $i$ is isomorphic to $y(s)$, and in particular $A$ is isomorphic to $y(dom(s))$.*
By Remark \[Onetoposmany\_cauchy\], the regular (resp. coherent, geometric) syntactic sites for regular (resp. coherent, geometric) theories all satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem \[Onetoposmany\_presheaf\]. Thus we obtain the following results.
Let $\mathbb T$ be a geometric theory over a signature $\Sigma$. Then $\mathbb T$ is of presheaf type if and only if there exists a collection $\cal F$ of geometric formulae-in-context over $\Sigma$ satisfying the following properties:
\(1) for any geometric formula $\{\vec{y}. \psi\}$ over $\Sigma$, there exist objects $\{\vec{x_{i}}. \phi_{i}\}$ in $\cal F$ as $i$ varies in $I$ and $\mathbb T$-provably functional geometric formulae $\{\vec{x_{i}}, \vec{y}.\theta_{i}\}$ from $\{\vec{x_{i}}. \phi_{i}\}$ to $\{\vec{y}. \psi\}$ such that $\psi \vdash_{\vec{y}} \mathbin{\mathop{\textrm{\huge $\vee$}}\limits_{i\in I}}(\exists \vec{x_{i}})\theta_{i}$ is provable in $\mathbb T$;
\(2) for any formula $\{\vec{x}. \phi\}$ in $\cal F$, for any family $\{\theta_{i} \textrm{ | } i\in I\}$ of $\mathbb T$-provably functional geometric formulae $\{\vec{x_{i}}, \vec{x}.\theta_{i}\}$ from $\{\vec{x_{i}}. \phi_{i}\}$ to $\{\vec{x}. \phi\}$ such that $\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} \mathbin{\mathop{\textrm{\huge $\vee$}}\limits_{i\in I}}(\exists \vec{x_{i}})\theta_{i}$ is provable in $\mathbb T$, there exist $i\in I$ and a $\mathbb T$-provably functional geometric formula $\{\vec{x}, \vec{x_{i}}. \theta'\}$ from $\{\vec{x}. \phi\}$ to $\{\vec{x_{i}}. \phi_{i}\}$ such that $\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} (\exists \vec{x_{i}})(\theta' \wedge \theta_{i})$ is provable in $\mathbb T$.
Note that condition (2) in the corollary says precisely that $\{\vec{x}. \phi\}$ is $\mathbb T$-irreducible; in particular, $\{\vec{x}. \phi\}$ is $\mathbb T$-supercompact i.e. for any family $\{ \{\vec{x}.\phi_{i}\} \textrm{ | } i\in I\}$ of geometric formulae in the same context which $\mathbb T$-provably imply $\{\vec{x}. \phi\}$ and such that $\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} \mathbin{\mathop{\textrm{\huge $\vee$}}\limits_{i\in I}} \phi_{i}$ is provable in $\mathbb T$, there exists $i\in I$ such that $\phi_{i}$ and $\phi$ are $\mathbb T$-provably equivalent.
The following results are the coherent and regular analogues of this corollary.
Let $\mathbb T$ be a coherent theory over a signature $\Sigma$. Then $\mathbb T$ is of presheaf type if and only if there exists a collection $\cal F$ of coherent formulae-in-context over $\Sigma$ satisfying the following properties:
\(1) for any coherent formula $\{\vec{y}. \psi\}$ over $\Sigma$, there exists a finite number of objects $\{\vec{x_{i}}. \phi_{i}\}$ in $\cal F$ as $i$ varies in $I$ and $\mathbb T$-provably functional coherent formulae $\{\vec{x_{i}}, \vec{y}.\theta_{i}\}$ from $\{\vec{x_{i}}. \phi_{i}\}$ to $\{\vec{y}. \psi\}$ such that $\psi \vdash_{\vec{y}} \mathbin{\mathop{\textrm{\huge $\vee$}}\limits_{i\in I}}(\exists \vec{x_{i}})\theta_{i}$ is provable in $\mathbb T$;
\(2) for any formula $\{\vec{x}. \phi\}$ in $\cal F$, for any finite family $\{\theta_{i} \textrm{ | } i\in I\}$ of $\mathbb T$-provably functional coherent formulae $\{\vec{x_{i}}, \vec{x}.\theta_{i}\}$ from $\{\vec{x_{i}}. \phi_{i}\}$ to $\{\vec{x}. \phi\}$ such that $\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} \mathbin{\mathop{\textrm{\huge $\vee$}}\limits_{i\in I}}(\exists \vec{x_{i}})\theta_{i}$ is provable in $\mathbb T$, there exist $i\in I$ and a $\mathbb T$-provably functional coherent formula $\{\vec{x}, \vec{x_{i}}. \theta'\}$ from $\{\vec{x}. \phi\}$ to $\{\vec{x_{i}}. \phi_{i}\}$ such that $\phi \vdash_{\vec{x}} (\exists \vec{x_{i}})(\theta' \wedge \theta_{i})$ is provable in $\mathbb T$.
Let $\mathbb T$ be a regular theory over a signature $\Sigma$. Then $\mathbb T$ is of presheaf type if and only if there exists a collection $\cal F$ of regular formulae-in-context over $\Sigma$ satisfying the following properties:
\(1) for any regular formula $\{\vec{y}. \psi\}$ over $\Sigma$, there exists an object $\{\vec{x}. \phi\}$ in $\cal F$ and a $\mathbb T$-provably functional formula $\{\vec{x}, \vec{y}.\theta\}$ from $\{\vec{x}. \phi\}$ to $\{\vec{y}. \psi\}$ such that $\psi \vdash_{\vec{y}} (\exists \vec{x})\theta$ is provable in $\mathbb T$;
\(2) for any formula $\{\vec{y}. \psi\}$ in $\cal F$, for any $\mathbb T$-provably functional regular formulae $\{\vec{x}, \vec{y}.\theta\}$ from $\{\vec{x}. \phi\}$ to $\{\vec{y}. \psi\}$ such that $\psi \vdash_{\vec{y}} (\exists \vec{x})\theta$ is provable in $\mathbb T$, there exist a $\mathbb T$-provably functional regular formula $\{\vec{y}, \vec{x}. \theta'\}$ from $\{\vec{y}. \psi\}$ to $\{\vec{x}. \phi\}$ such that $\psi \vdash_{\vec{y}} (\exists \vec{x})(\theta' \wedge \theta_{i})$ is provable in $\mathbb T$.
Syntactic properties of quotients of theories of presheaf type {#Onetoposmany_last}
==============================================================
Let $\mathbb T$ be a theory of presheaf type over a signature $\Sigma$. Then, by choosing a canonical Morita-equivalence for $\mathbb T$ (as in [@OC7]), we have an equivalence of classifying toposes $[\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }}), {{\bf Set }}]\simeq {{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$ sending the universal model $M_{\mathbb T}$ of $\mathbb T$ in the topos $[\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }}), {{\bf Set }}]$ (as in Theorem 3.1 [@OC7]) into the universal model $U_{\mathbb T}$ of $\mathbb T$ in ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$ (as described in [@OC7]). In particular, if $M\in \textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }})$ is a $\mathbb T$-model presented by a formula $\phi(\vec{x})$ over $\Sigma$ then, denoted by $y:\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }})^{\textrm{op}} \to [\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }}), {{\bf Set }}]$ the Yoneda embedding, $y(M)$ is equal to $[[\vec{x}. \phi]]_{M_{\mathbb T}}$ and hence corresponds, under the equivalence\
$[\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }}), {{\bf Set }}]\simeq {{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$, to the functor $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}(\{\vec{x}. \phi\})=[[\vec{x}. \phi]]_{U_{\mathbb T}}$.
Now, if ${\mathbb T}'$ is a quotient of $\mathbb T$ then the subtopos of ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$ corresponding to it via Theorem 3.6 [@OC6] transfers via the equivalence\
$[\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }}), {{\bf Set }}]\simeq {{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$ to a subtopos\
${{\bf Sh}}(\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }})^{\textrm{op}}, J)\hookrightarrow [\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }}), {{\bf Set }}]$ of $[\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }}), {{\bf Set }}]$; the topology $J$ will be called the associated $\mathbb T$-topology of ${\mathbb T}'$. This gives rise to an equivalence ${{\bf Sh}}(\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }})^{\textrm{op}}, J) \simeq {{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{{\mathbb T}'}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{{\mathbb T}'})$ of classifying toposes for ${\mathbb T}'$ which sends $l^{\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }})^{\textrm{op}}}_{J}(M)$ to the functor $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{{\mathbb T}'}(\{\vec{x}. \phi\})=[[\vec{x}. \phi]]_{U_{{\mathbb T}'}}$.
The following result provides a link between ‘geometrical’ properties of $J$ and syntactic properties of ${\mathbb T}'$.
\[Onetoposmany\_sem\] Let $\mathbb T$ be a theory of presheaf type over a signature $\Sigma$, ${\mathbb T}'$ be a quotient of $\mathbb T$ with associated $\mathbb T$-topology $J$ on $\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }})^{\textrm{op}}$ and $\phi(\vec{x})$ be a geometric formula over $\Sigma$ which presents a $\mathbb T$-model $M$. Then
\(i) $\phi(\vec{x})$ is $\mathbb T$-irreducible; in particular, $\phi(\vec{x})$ is $\mathbb T$-provably equivalent to a regular formula;
\(ii) if the site $(\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }})^{\textrm{op}}, J)$ is locally connected (for example when $\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }})^{\textrm{op}}$ satisfies the right Ore condition and every $J$-covering sieve is non-empty) then $\phi(\vec{x})$ is ${\mathbb T}'$-indecomposable;
\(iii) if $(\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }})^{\textrm{op}}$ satisfies the right Ore condition and $J$ is the atomic topology on $(\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }})^{\textrm{op}}$ then $\phi(\vec{x})$ is ${\mathbb T}'$-complete;
\(iv) if every $J$-covering sieve on $M$ contains a $J$-covering sieve generated by a finite family of morphisms (resp. by a single morphism) then $\phi(\vec{x})$ is ${\mathbb T}'$-compact (resp. ${\mathbb T}'$-supercompact).
\(i) By Lemma \[Onetoposmany\_equiv\](iii), $\phi(\vec{x})$ is $\mathbb T$-irreducible if and only if $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}(\{\vec{x}. \phi\})$ is an irreducible object of ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T})$. But, by the discussion above, this is equivalent to saying that $y(M)$ is irreducible in $[\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }}), {{\bf Set }}]$, and this is is true by Proposition \[Onetoposmany\_identif\](iii). The fact that $\phi(\vec{x})$ is $\mathbb T$-provably equivalent to a regular formula then follows from Lemma D1.3.8(ii) [@El2].
\(ii) and (iii) By Lemma \[Onetoposmany\_equiv\](ii) (resp. Lemma \[Onetoposmany\_equiv\](i)), $\phi(\vec{x})$ is ${\mathbb T}'$-indecom-\
posable (resp. ${\mathbb T}'$-complete) if and only if $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{{\mathbb T}'}(\{\vec{x}. \phi\})$ is an indecomposable object (resp. an atom) of ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{{\mathbb T}'}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{{\mathbb T}'})$; but this is equivalent to saying that $l^{{\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }})}^{\textrm{op}}}_{J}(M)$ is an indecomposable object (resp. an atom) of ${{\bf Sh}}(\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }})^{\textrm{op}}, J)$, and this is true by Proposition \[Onetoposmany\_identif\](i) (resp. Proposition \[Onetoposmany\_identif\](ii)).
\(iv) By Lemma \[Onetoposmany\_equiv\](iii), $\phi(\vec{x})$ is ${\mathbb T}'$-compact (resp. ${\mathbb T}'$-supercompact) if and only if $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{{\mathbb T}'}(\{\vec{x}. \phi\})$ is a compact (resp. supercompact) object of ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{{\mathbb T}'}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{{\mathbb T}'})$; but this is equivalent to saying that $l^{{\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }})}^{\textrm{op}}}_{J}(M)$ is a compact (resp. supercompact) object of ${{\bf Sh}}(\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }})^{\textrm{op}}, J)$, and this is true by Proposition \[Onetoposmany\_express\](i) (resp. Proposition \[Onetoposmany\_express\](ii)).
*The theorem can be profitably applied in the context of cartesian theories. Indeed, if $\mathbb T$ is a cartesian theory then every cartesian formula over $\Sigma$ presents a $\mathbb T$-model so that we have an equivalence between $\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }})^{\textrm{op}}$ and the cartesian syntactic category of $\mathbb T$. Thus the theorem provides syntactic properties of cartesian formulae in particular quotients of $\mathbb T$; for example, for any such formula $\phi(\vec{x})$, part (iii) of the lemma yields that $\phi(\vec{x})$ is ${\mathbb T}'$-complete where ${\mathbb T}'$ is the Booleanization of $\mathbb T$ (as defined in [@OC3]).*
As an application of the notion of irreducible object in a topos, we can prove the following result.
\[Onetoposmany\_presheafcomplete\] Let $\mathbb T$ be a theory of presheaf type over a signature $\Sigma$. Then
\(i) Any finitely presentable $\mathbb T$-model in ${{\bf Set }}$ is presented by a $\mathbb T$-irreducible geometric formula $\phi(\vec{x})$ over $\Sigma$;
\(ii) Conversely, any $\mathbb T$-irreducible geometric formula $\phi(\vec{x})$ over $\Sigma$ presents a $\mathbb T$-model.
In particular, the category $\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }})^{\textrm{op}}$ is equivalent to the full subcategory of ${\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}$ on the $\mathbb T$-irreducible formulae.
We have already observed that we have an equivalence\
$\tau:{{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}) \simeq [\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }}), {{\bf Set }}]$ of classifying toposes for $\mathbb T$. Now, if ${\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{irr}}$ is the full subcategory of ${\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}$ on the $\mathbb T$-irreducible formulae then, by Theorem \[Onetoposmany\_presheaf\], we have that ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}) \simeq [({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{irr}})^{\textrm{op}}, {{\bf Set }}]$ via the Comparison Lemma (cfr. the proof of Theorem \[Onetoposmany\_identif\]). Now, if $\tilde{{\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{irr}}}\hookrightarrow {\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{geom}}$ is the Cauchy-completion of ${\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{irr}}$ then $[({\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{irr}})^{\textrm{op}}, {{\bf Set }}] \simeq [(\tilde{{\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{irr}}})^{\textrm{op}}, {{\bf Set }}]$ and the resulting equivalence $[\tilde{{\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{irr}}}^{\textrm{op}}, {{\bf Set }}]\simeq [\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }}), {{\bf Set }}]$ restricts to an equivalence $l:\tilde{{\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{irr}}} \simeq \textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }})$ between the subcategories of indecomposable projective objects. Now, given $\{\vec{x}.\phi\}\in \tilde{{\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{irr}}}$, $\tau$ sends the functor $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{\mathbb T}(\{\vec{x}. \phi\})=[[\vec{x}. \phi]]_{U_{\mathbb T}}$ to $y(l(\{\vec{x}. \phi\}))=[[\vec{x}. \phi]]_{M_{\mathbb T}}$, from which it follows that the model $l(\{\vec{x}. \phi\})$ is finitely presented by $\{\vec{x}. \phi\}$. Then, by Theorem \[Onetoposmany\_sem\](i), $\phi(\vec{x})$ is $\mathbb T$-irreducible. So we conclude that $\tilde{{\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{irr}}}$ is equal to ${\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{irr}}$ i.e. ${\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{irr}}$ is Cauchy complete, and hence $l$ gives an equivalence $\tilde{{\cal C}_{\mathbb T}^{\textrm{irr}}} \simeq \textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }})$. It is easy to verify that this equivalence coincide with the dualizing functor $d$ of Theorem 3.6 [@OC7].
*As an application of Theorem \[Onetoposmany\_presheafcomplete\] and Remark \[Onetoposmany\_converso\], suppose that $J$ is the associated $\mathbb T$-topology of a quotient ${\mathbb T}'$ of $\mathbb T$. Then, if for any $\mathbb T$-irreducible formula (equivalently, formula presenting a $\mathbb T$-model) $\phi(\vec{x})$, $\phi(\vec{x})$ is ${\mathbb T}'$-indecomposable (resp. ${\mathbb T}'$-complete) then the classifying topos ${{\bf Sh}}(\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }})^{\textrm{op}}, J)$ of ${\mathbb T}'$ is locally connected (resp. atomic); indeed, as observed above, $\phi(\vec{x})$ is ${\mathbb T}'$-indecomposable (resp. ${\mathbb T}'$-atomic) if and only if $y^{\textrm{geom}}_{{\mathbb T}'}(\{\vec{x}. \phi\})$ is an indecomposable object (resp. an atom) of the topos ${{\bf Sh}}({\cal C}_{{\mathbb T}'}^{\textrm{geom}}, J^{\textrm{geom}}_{{\mathbb T}'})$, if and only if $l^{{\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }})}^{\textrm{op}}}_{J}(M)$ is an indecomposable object (resp. an atom) of ${{\bf Sh}}(\textrm{f.p.} {\mathbb T}\textrm{-mod}({{\bf Set }})^{\textrm{op}}, J)$.*
[**Acknowledgements:**]{} I am grateful to my Ph.D. supervisor Peter Johnstone for useful discussions.
[10]{} O. Caramello, Universal models and definability (2009),\
*arXiv:math.CT/0906.3061*. O. Caramello, Lattices of theories (2009), *arXiv:math.CT/0905.0299*. O. Caramello, Atomic toposes and countable categoricity (2008),\
*arXiv:math.CT/0811.3547v1*. O. Caramello, De Morgan classifying toposes (2008),\
*arXiv:math.CT/0808.1519v1*. P. T. Johnstone, *Sketches of an Elephant: a topos theory compendium. Vol.1*, vol. 43 of *Oxford Logic Guides* (Oxford University Press, 2002). P. T. Johnstone, *Sketches of an Elephant: a topos theory compendium. Vol.2*, vol. 44 of *Oxford Logic Guides* (Oxford University Press, 2002). S. Mac Lane and I. Moerdijk, *Sheaves in geometry and logic: a first introduction to topos theory* (Springer-Verlag, 1992). M. Makkai and G. E. Reyes, *First order categorical logic*, Lecture Notes in Math. vol. 611 (Springer-Verlag, 1977).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Hao Tian$^{1, 2}$, Changbo Wang$^{1}$, Dinesh Manocha$^{2}$ and Xinyu Zhang$^{1}$[^1] [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'template.bib'
title: |
**Transferring Grasp Configurations using Active\
Learning and Local Replanning**
---
[^1]: $^{1}$School of Computer Science and Software Engineering, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China.
[^2]: $^{2}$Department of Computer Science and Electrical $\&$ Computer Engineering, University of Maryland at College Park, MD, USA.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we present a complete classification of all imaginary $n$-quadratic fields with class number 1.'
address: 'Amy Feaver, Department of Mathematics and Computing Science, The King’s University, 9125 50 St NW, Edmonton, AB T6B 2H3'
author:
- Amy Feaver
title: Imaginary Multiquadratic Fields of Class Number 1
---
Introduction
============
An *$n$-quadratic number field*, $n\geq0$, is any field $K$ of degree $2^n$ over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ which is formed by adjoining the square root of $m$ rational integers to ${\mathbb{Q}}$ for some $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$. That is, $K={\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{a_1},...,\sqrt{a_m})$ for $a_1,...,a_m\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. If $n\geq2$, the field is also called a *multiquadratic* number field. A multiquadratic field is said to be *imaginary* if any of the radicands $a_1,...,a_m$ are negative.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a complete list of the imaginary $n$-quadratic fields, $n\geq1$, of class number 1. We first look at the development and previous results for this problem in the cases of $n=1$ and $n=2$. We then go on to prove results for all imaginary $n$-quadratic fields with $n\geq3$.
One of the first known discussions of class numbers of number fields can be found in section V of Gauss’s book *Disquisitiones Arithmeticae* [@Gau] which was published in 1801. Using the language of quadratic forms, Gauss made several significant conjectures and proved some results about the class numbers of quadratic fields.
Gauss showed that the class number of ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{a})$, denoted $h(a)$, is equal to 1 for $a\in\{-1,-2,-3,-7,-11,-19,-43,-67,-163\}$. He conjectured that his list was complete. This conjecture was proven to be true by Stark in 1967 [@Sta67]. Gauss also conjectured that $h(a)\to\infty$ as $a\to-\infty$, and this was proven by Heilbronn in 1934 [@Hei34]. Heilbronn used an unusual technique: he first showing the conjecture holds if the generalized Riemann hypothesis (GRH) is true, and then showed it holds assuming the GRH is false.
Gauss also conjectured that there are infinitely many real quadratic fields of class number 1. This is still an open problem, though many mathematicians have published results which support this conjecture. Some of the most famous work on this problem was done by Cohen and Lenstra in 1983. These results are a series of more specific conjectures on the class numbers of quadratic fields, called the Cohen-Lenstra Heuristics, and are well supported by numerical data. In particular, they conjecture that real quadratic fields with prime discriminant have class number 1 close to 75.446% of the time. For a more in-depth discussion see chapter 5, section 10 of Cohen’s book [@Coh].
While the class numbers of real quadratic fields still remain fairly elusive, we do have the tools to study the class numbers of imaginary multiquadratic fields more easily. In 1974, Brown and Parry determined a complete list of imaginary biquadratic number fields with class number 1 [@BP74]. There are exactly 47 such fields. These are the fields ${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{a_1},\sqrt{a_2}\right)$ with the sets $\{a_1,a_2\}$ as follows
---------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------
{-1,2} {2,-3} {-3,5} {-7,5} {-11,17}
{-1,3} {2,-11} {-3,-7} {-7,-11} {-11,-19}
{-1,5} {-2,-3} {-3,-11} {-7,13} {-11,-67}
{-1,7} {-2,5} {-3,17} {-7,-19} {-11,-163}
{-1,11} {-2,-7} {-3,-19} {-7,-43} {-19,-67}
{-1,13} {-2,-11} {-3,41} {-7,61} {-19,-163}
{-1,19} {-2,-19} {-3,-43} {-7,-163} {-43,-67}
{-1,37} {-2,29} {-3,-67} {-43,-163}
{-1,43} {-2,-43} {-3,89} {-67,-163}
{-1,67} {-2,-67} {-3,-163}
{-1,163}
---------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------
Brown and Parry determined this list using techniques of Herglotz [@Her22] who gives a formula that relates the class number of a biquadratic number field to that of its quadratic subfields, along with some other parameters. This should not come as a surprise to the keen observer who has surely already noticed that many of the numbers in the table above are also radicands of quadratic fields with class number 1. This relationship between the class number of a field and its quadratic subfields is what drives the discussion in the next section.
The main result of this paper is stated and proven in Section \[main\_theorem\_section\]. Here we prove that there are no $n$-quadratic fields with $n\geq4$ that have class number 1. In the case of $n\geq5$, this result follows from a theorem of Frölich, stated as Theorem \[ramPrimes\]. Much of the machinery for the classification in the cases of $n=3$ and $n=4$ is based on Kuroda’s class number formula, which was developed by Lemmermeyer in 1994 [@Lem94]. The applications of this formula that we need for this classification are found in section \[Kuroda\_section\].
The complete list of fields of class number 1 in the $n=3$ case. These are exactly the fields ${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{a_1},\sqrt{a_2},\sqrt{a_3}\right)$ with the sets $\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}$ as follows:
--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------- ------------------
$\{-1,2,3\}$ $\{-1,3,5\}$ $\{-1,7,5\}$ $\{-2,-3,-7\}$ $\{-3,-7,5\}$
$\{-1,2,5\}$ $\{-1,3,7\}$ $\{-1,7,13\}$ $\{-2,-3,5\}$ $\{-3,-11,2\}$
$\{-1,2,11\}$ $\{-1,3,11\}$ $\{-1,7,19\}$ $\{-2,-7,5\}$ $\{-3,-11,-19\}$
$\{-1,3,19\}$ $\{-3,-11,17\}$
--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------- ------------------
.
In addition to considering the class number 1 problem, there are several other lists of quadratic and biquadratic fields of fixed class number. The problem of finding a complete list of imaginary quadratic fields ${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{-a}\right)$, $a>0$, with class number equal to a positive integer $m$ is often referred to as *Gauss’ class number $m$ problem*.
Gauss’ class number two problem was solved independently by both Baker [@Bak66], [@Bak71] and Stark [@Sta75], between 1966 and 1975. Oesterlé solved the class number 3 problem in 1983 [@Oes83]. Arno completed the classification for class number 4 in 1992 [@Arn92], and Wagner completed the class number 5, 6 and 7 classifications in 1996 [@Wag96]. Then, in 1998, Arno, Robinson and Wheeler solved Gauss’ class number $m$ problem for odd values of $m$ with $9\leq m\leq23$ [@ARW].
There are fewer such lists for imaginary biquadratic fields of fixed class number. The class number 2 problem for imaginary biquadratic fields was solved by Buell, H.C. Williams and K.S. Williams [@BWW] in 1977, and the class number 3 problem by Jung, S.W., Kwon, S.H., [@JK98] in 1998. It is worth noting that the latter result also relied heavily on the application of Kuroda’s class number formula.
$n$-quadratic number fields {#multiquad_section}
===========================
In this section, we will define objects related to $n$-quadratic number fields and discuss some of their more elementary properties.
Of course, it is redundant to adjoin more than $n$ square roots to ${\mathbb{Q}}$ when representing an $n$-quadratic field or to use radicands that are not squarefree. We will frequently use the abbreviation *sf* to refer to the squarefree part of an integer; i.e. $s.f(20) = 5$. We want to describe these fields as cleanly as possible, so we define the following terms:
Let $m,n\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ with $1\leq n\leq m$. A list of squarefree rational integers $\{a_1,...,a_m\}$ with $a_i\neq0,1$, $i\in\{1,...,m\}$ is called a *radicand list* for the $n$-quadratic field ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{a_1},...,\sqrt{a_m})$. Further, the list $\{a_1,...,a_m\}$ is called a *primitive radicand list* if $m=n$.
Note that the radicand list $\{a_1,...,a_n\}$ is primitive if and only if the following condition holds: for any proper subset $I\subset\{1,...,n\}$, and any $j\in\{1,...,n\}\setminus I$, $a_j$ is not equal to the squarefree part of the product $\prod_{i\in I}a_i$.
We will primarily use the notation of a radicand list when discussing multiquadratic fields to avoid tedium. It is further useful to write these lists in a more canonical way to use as little notation as possible. We use the following definitions and supporting lemmas:
For any rational prime $p$, a primitive radicand list $\{a_1,...,a_n\}$ of an $n$-quadratic field is said to be *$p$-headed* if $p\nmid a_i$ for any $i\in\{2,...,n\}$.
Note that a radicand list can be $p$-headed whether or not $p\mid a_1$, as long as $p$ does not divide the other radicands in the list. For example, the radicand list $\{6,3,5\}$ of a triquadratic field is 2-headed and also 101-headed. This list only cannot be described as 3-headed or 5-headed (nor 6-headed, as 6 is not prime).
\[p\_headed\_lem\] For any $n$-quadratic field $K$ and any rational prime $p$ there exists a $p$-headed radicand list $\{a_1,...,a_n\}$ for $K$.
Choose any prime $p$ and assume that $\{a_1',...,a_n'\}$ is a primitive radicand list for $K$ which is not $p$-headed. Then there exists $i>1$ such that $p\mid a_i'$; let $a_1=a_i'$. For each $j\in\{2,...,i-1,i+1,...,n\}$ define $$a_j:=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
a_j' & p\nmid a_j' \\
\frac{a_i'a_j'}{\gcd(a_i',a_j')^2} & p\mid a_j'
\end{array}\right.$$ and similarly let $$a_i:=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
a_1' & p\nmid a_1'\\
\frac{a_i'a_1'}{\gcd(a_i',a_1')^2} & p\mid a_1'
\end{array}.\right.$$ Thus we have a set $\{a_1,...,a_n\}$ such that $p\mid a_1$. Also, it is easy to see that each $a_k$, $1\leq k\leq n$ is squarefree and not equal to 1. Therefore, $\{a_1,...,a_n\}$ satisfies the conditions of a primitive set of generators and is $p$-headed.
A primitive radicand list $\{a_1,...,a_n\}$ is said to be in *standard form* if
1. it is 2-headed, and
2. for any $i,j\in\{1,...,n\}$ with $2\nmid a_ia_j$, we have that $a_i\equiv a_j\bmod 4$.
Note that if $K$ is an $n$-quadratic field then there are usually multiple radicand lists for $K$ in standard form.
For any $n$-quadratic field $K$ there exists a primitive radicand list $\{a_1,...,a_n\}$ for $K$ written in standard form.
Let $\{a_1',...,a_n'\}$ be a primitive radicand list for $K$, and, by Lemma \[p\_headed\_lem\], we may assume that this list is 2-headed. If this set is not written in standard form, then there exists an $i\in\{1,...,n\}$ such that $a_i'\equiv3\bmod4$, and there also exists a nonempty subset of $A$ of $\{a_1',...,a_n'\}$ such that $a\equiv1\bmod4$ for all $a\in A$.
For each $j\in\{1,...,n\}$ define $$a_j:=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
a_j' & a_j'\equiv2,3\pmod 4 \\
\frac{a_i'a_j'}{\gcd(a_i',a_j')^2} & a_j'\equiv1\bmod4
\end{array}.\right.$$ Then $\{a_1,...,a_n\}$ is a radicand list for $K$ in standard form.
Some examples of the above definitions are provided in the following table:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- -------------------------
4-quadratic a primitive a 3-headed a radicand list for $K$
number field $K$ radicand list for $K$ radicand list for $K$ in standard form
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{2},\sqrt{6},\sqrt{7},\sqrt{3},\sqrt{13}\right)$ $\{2,6,7,13\}$ $\{6,2,7,13\}$ $\{2,3,7,39\}$
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{-17},\sqrt{20},\sqrt{7},\sqrt{-1}\right)$ $\{-17,5,7,-1\}$ $\{-17,5,7,-1\}$ $\{-17,-5,7,-1\}$
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{-3},\sqrt{5},\sqrt{-7},\sqrt{17}\right)$ $\{-3,5,-7,17\}$ $\{-3,5,-7,17\}$ $\{-3,5,-7,17\}$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- -------------------------
In addition to using these standards when writing radicand lists, we will find that in the case of imaginary $n$-quadratic fields it may be useful to write the radicand list in another way, where each radicand is a negative integer. The existence (and a more formal description) of such a list is established below:
Let $K$ be an imaginary $n$-quadratic field. Then there exist positive squarefree integers $a_1,...,a_n$ such that $\{-a_1,...,-a_n\}$ is a primitive radicand list for $K$.
Let $\{a_1',...,a_n'\}$ be a primitive radicand list for $K$. Since $K$ is not totally real, at least one element of this radicand list must be negative. Thus, without loss of generality assume this list is ordered so that for some $i$, $1<i\leq n$ we have that $a_1',...,a_i'<0$ and $a_{i+1}',...,a_n'>0$. Let $a_j=|a_j'|$ for all $j\leq i$. Also, for $j$ satisfying $i<j\leq n$ set $a_j=|sf(a_1'a_j')|$. Then $\{-a_1,...,-a_n\}$ is a primitive radicand list for $K$ satisfying the lemma.
Subfields
---------
The Galois group of a multiquadratic field is a well-known abelian group: if $K$ is an $n$-quadratic field then the extension $K/{\mathbb{Q}}$ is Galois, with Galois group $G:=\text{Gal}(K/{\mathbb{Q}})\cong\bigoplus_{i=1}^n({\mathbb{Z}}/2{\mathbb{Z}})$. Thus, we immediately know the number of subfields of $K$, along with their degrees. At times, we can glean information about a multiquadratic field simply from its quadratic subfields. Thus we begin by observing that any $n$-quadratic field with $n\geq1$ has $2^n-1$ quadratic subfields.
To further describe these quadratic subfields, we need the following definition. Its usefulness will become clear by the lemma immediately following it.
Let $m,n\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ with $1\leq n\leq m$. A list of squarefree rational integers $\{a_1,...,a_m\}$ is called a *complete radicand list* for an $n$-quadratic field if and only if the following conditions hold:
1. $m=2^n-1$ and
2. $a_i\neq a_j$ for all $i,j\in\{1,...,m\}$ with $i\neq j$.
Note that the complete radicand list for a number field is much larger than the primitive radicand list. For example the $n$-quadratic field with primitive radicand list $\{-1,2,3,5\}$ has complete radicand list $$\{-1,-2,2,-3,3,-5,5,-6,6,-10,10,-15,15,-30,30\}.$$
If $K$ is any $n$-quadratic field, then the set of squarefree integers, $\{a_1,...,a_{2^n-1}\}$ is a complete radicand list for $K$ if and only if the fields given by ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{a_i})$, $1\leq i\leq2^n-1$, are exactly the $2^n-1$ distinct quadratic subfields of $K$.
It is easy to see that, given a primitive radicand list $\{a_1,...,a_n\}$ for an $n$-quadratic field $K$, we may construct a complete radicand list for $K$, and that the set of integers in this list is unique. The list is exactly $$\left\{sf\left(\prod_{i\in I}a_i\right)\text{ such that } \emptyset\subset I\subseteq\{1,...,n\}\right\}.$$
Now that we can determine a complete list of quadratic subfields of any $n$-quadratic field, we consider the real and imaginary subfields when negative radicands are present:
\[numberOfQuadraticSubfields\] Let $K$ be an imaginary $n$-quadratic number field with $n>1$. Then there are $2^{n-1}$ imaginary quadratic subfields and $2^{n-1}-1$ real quadratic subfields of $K$.
Since $K$ is an imaginary $n$-quadratic field there exist positive integers $a_1,...,a_n$ such that $\{-a_1,...,-a_n\}$ is a primitive radicand list for $K$.
We begin by finding an upper bound on the number of imaginary quadratic subfields of $K$: $K$ contains the $n$ imaginary quadratic fields given by ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-a_i})$, $1\leq i\leq n$. Also, if $n\geq3$, we see that $K$ will also contain the $n\choose 3$ imaginary quadratic fields given by ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-a_ia_ja_k})$, $1\leq i,j,k\leq n$, and $i,j,k$ all distinct. Similarly, any product $-\pi$ of an odd number $\ell$ of distinct $-a_i$’s will give rise to an imaginary quadratic subfield ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-\pi})$. There will be $n\choose\ell$ such subfields, and other than these constructions of imaginary quadratic subfields of $K$, other possibilities. Therefore, the number of imaginary quadratic subfields of $K$ is at most $$\#Im\leq {n\choose 1}+{n\choose 3}+{n\choose 5}+\cdots+{n\choose {2\left\lfloor \frac{n-1}{2}\right\rfloor}+1}=2^{n-1}.$$ Now let’s consider the number of real quadratic subfields of $K$. Using an argument similar to the one above, we construct all possible real quadratic fields by taking products of an even number of the $-a_i$’s, $1\leq i\leq n$. This gives an upper bound on the number of real quadratic subfields of $K$: $$\#Re\leq {n\choose 2}+{n\choose 4}+{n\choose 6}+\cdots+{n\choose {2\left\lfloor \frac{n-1}{2}\right\rfloor}}=2^{n-1}-1.$$ Thus $\#Im+\#Re\leq 2^{n-1}+2^{n-1}-1=2^n-1$. But this upper bound is equal to the total number of quadratic subfields of $K$. Therefore these upper bounds are exactly equal to the number of these fields, so the lemma is established.
Ramification of primes in $n$-quadratic fields
----------------------------------------------
In the case of quadratic fields ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{a})$, with $a\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ squarefree, we know exactly when a rational prime ramifies. For any prime $p$, if $p|a$ then $p$ ramifies and its factorization is $$p{\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{a})}=(p,\sqrt{a})^2.$$ Additionally, if $a\equiv3\bmod4$ then $2$ ramifies; $$2{\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{a})}=(2,1+\sqrt{a})^2.$$
Considering this information, one would probably conjecture correctly which rational primes ramify in an $n$-quadratic field, $n\geq2$, with primitive radicand list $\{a_1,a_2,...,a_n\}$: those primes which divide any of the radicands $a_i$, and 2 will also ramify if any of the $a_i$’s are congruent to 3 mod 4. Let’s look at why this is the case, and use our discussion to further explore important properties of the ramification of primes.
Let $\Delta_K\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ be the discriminant of a number field $K$. It is standard fact that $p\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ ramifies in ${\mathcal{O}}_K$ if and only if $p|\Delta_K$. Thus we will approach this discussion by first presenting the following theorem.
\[ [Schmal [@Sch Theorem 2.1]]{} \] Let $K$ be an $n$-quadratic field, $n\geq2$, with radicand list $\{a_1,a_2,...,a_n\}$ written in standard form. Let $\prod_{j=1}^sp_j^{m_j}$ be the prime factorization in ${\mathbb{Z}}$ of the product of the radicands, $\prod_{i=1}^na_i$. Then $$\Delta_K=(2^ep_1\cdots p_s)^{2^{n-1}},$$ where $$e= \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \text{ if }a_1\equiv1\bmod4\\
2 & \text{ if }(a_1,a_2)\equiv(2,1)\text{ or }(3,1)\bmod4 \\
3 & \text{ if }(a_1,a_2)\equiv(2,3)\bmod4\end{array}\right.$$
Therefore:
\[inertiaFields\] Let $K$ be an $n$-quadratic field with radicand list $\{a_1,a_2,...,a_n\}$ written in standard form. For any prime $p\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ the following describes the inertia field of $K$ with respect to the prime $p$ and the ramification index of $p$ in ${\mathcal{O}}_K$:
First, when $p=2$ we have:
1. If $a_1\equiv a_2\equiv\cdots\equiv a_n\equiv 1\pmod4$ then $(2)$ is unramified in ${\mathcal{O}}_K$ and the inertia field is $K$.
2. If $a_1\not\equiv1\pmod4$ and $a_i\equiv1\pmod4$, $2\leq i\leq n$, then $2{\mathcal{O}}_K$ has ramification index 2 and the inertia field is the $(n-1)$-quadratic field ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{a_2},...,\sqrt{a_n})$.
3. If $a_1\equiv2\pmod4$ and $a_i\equiv3\pmod4$, $2\leq i\leq n$, then $2{\mathcal{O}}_K$ has ramification index 4. The inertia field is the $(n-2)$-quadratic field ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{a_2a_3},...,\sqrt{a_2a_n})$.
When $p$ is an odd prime we have:
1. If $p\nmid a_i$ for all $i\in\{1,...,n\}$ then $(p)$ is unramified in ${\mathcal{O}}_K$ and the inertia field is $K$.
2. Otherwise $p{\mathcal{O}}_K$ has ramification index 2. Let $\{a_1',...,a_n'\}$ be a $p$-headed radicand list for $K$, then the $(n-1)$-quadratic field ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{a_2'},...,\sqrt{a_n'})$ is the inertia field of $K$ for $p$.
From these facts about the ramification of primes in multiquadratic fields, we get the following lemma:
\[numberOfRamifiedPrimes\] Let $K$ be an $n$-quadratic field. Then:
1. If $K$ is totally real, the number of primes ramified in $K$ is at least $n$.
2. If $K$ is imaginary, the number of primes ramified in $K$ is at least $n-1$.
First note that if we can prove (1) then (2) immediately follows. That is, if $K$ is an imaginary $n$-quadratic field, then $K$ has a real $(n-1)$-quadratic subfield. Assuming that (1) holds it follows that there are at least $n-1$ primes ramified in this subfield and thus in $K$.
Thus it only remains to prove this lemma for real $n$-quadratic fields. Let $K$ be a real $n$-quadratic field with primitive radicand list $\{a_1,...,a_n\}$, $a_i>1$ squarefree for $1\leq i\leq n$. Then it follows that every prime which divides the product $\pi_K=\prod_{i=1}^na_i$ ramifies in $K$. Therefore, it is sufficient to prove that at least $n$ primes divide the product $\pi_K$.
We will prove this by induction on $n$. First if ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{a_1})$ is a real quadratic field then clearly at least one prime divides the product $\pi_{{\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{a_1})}=a_1$. Assume that for any real $(n-1)$-quadratic field $L$, there are at least $(n-1)$ primes dividing the product of the radicands $\pi_L$. Now consider the real $n$-quadratic field $K$. Then we can clearly see that at least one prime $p$ divides the product $\pi_K$. Thus there exists a $p$-headed radicand list $\{a_1',a_2',...,a_n'\}$ such that $p|a_1'$ but $p\nmid a_i'$ for $2\leq i\leq n$. Then there is an $(n-1)$-quadratic subfield $K'$ of $K$ with radicand list $\{a_2',...,a_n'\}$. Since there are at least $n-1$ primes dividing $\pi_{K'}$ and none of these primes are equal to $p$, then there must be at least $n$ primes dividing $\pi_K$.
It is worth noting that these lower bounds on the number of ramified primes are the best possible. In the real multiquadratic case, an $n$-quadratic field with radicand list $\{2,p_1,p_2,...,p_{n-1}\}$, where $p_1,p_2,...,p_{n-1}$ are distinct odd primes, has exactly n ramified primes. If we were to add $-1$ to this list, we would have the radicand list $\{-1,2,p_1,p_2,...,p_{n-1}\}$ defining an imaginary $n+1$-quadratic field. There are still exactly $n$ ramified primes in this imaginary multiquadratic field.
\[nMinus2Field\] Let $K$ be an imaginary $n$-quadratic field with $n\geq3$. There exists an odd prime $p$ and a real $(n-2)$-quadratic subfield $k$ of $K$ such that $p$ is unramified in $k$ but is ramified in $K$.
By Lemma \[numberOfRamifiedPrimes\] there are at least $n-1$ primes which ramify in $K$. Since $n\geq3$ at least two primes ramify in $K$, and thus at least one of these primes must be odd. Choose any odd prime which ramifies in $K$ and denote it by $p$. By Corollary \[inertiaFields\] there exists an $(n-1)$-quadratic subfield $K_E$ of $K$ which is the inertia field for $p$. If $K_E$ is totally real we may choose $k$ to be any $(n-2)$-quadratic subfield of $K_E$. If $K_E$ is imaginary write $K_E={\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-a_1},...,\sqrt{-a_{n-1}})$. Then we may choose $k={\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{sf(a_1a_2)},...,\sqrt{sf(a_1a_{n-1}})\right)$.
Results for class numbers of $n$-quadratic fields {#previous_results_section}
=================================================
Class number theorems using ramified primes
-------------------------------------------
The goal of this paper is to lay out a complete list of imaginary $n$-quadratic fields of class number 1. In this section we present two theorems, one which hits this classification with a sledgehammer, eliminating all multiquadratic fields of large enough degree from the list of potential candidates (namely, $n$-quadratic fields with $n\geq6$, and some others). Other techniques will be applied later to imaginary multiquadratic fields of bounded degree. It is still useful to think about the class numbers of $n$-quadratic fields with $n\geq6$ in terms of the latter techniques, as they still give more insight into the actual value of the class number.
This sledgehammer is the following theorem, due to Frölich [@Fro]:
\[ [Frölich [@Fro Theorem 5.6]]{}\]\[ramPrimes\] Let $K$ be a real Abelian field of 2-power degree. The class number of $K$ is even whenever the number of finite rational primes that ramify in $K$ is greater than or equal to 5.
In light of this theorem, along with Corollary \[numberOfRamifiedPrimes\] we can deduce:
Let $h_K$ denote the class number of an $n$-quadratic field $K$. Then
1. if $K$ is totally real and $n\geq5$ then $2\mid h_K$ and
2. if $K$ is imaginary and $n\geq6$ then $2\mid h_K$
Mouhib studied the 2-part of the ideal class group of real 4-quadratic fields with prime radicands and came up with a related result. We will not apply this result directly in this paper, as it focuses on real multiquadratic fields rather than imaginary. However, this is interesting to any reader and relevant to those who wish to push this study further. His theorem states:
\[ [Mouhib [@Mou Main Theorem]]{} \]Let $p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4>0$ be distinct primes and $K={\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{p_1},\sqrt{p_2},\sqrt{p_3},\sqrt{p_4})$. Then the 2-class group of $K$ is trivial if and only if, after a suitable permutation of the indices, the $p_i$ have one of the following properties:
1. $p_1=2$, $p_2\equiv p_3\equiv p_4\equiv-1\pmod4$, $\left(\frac{2}{p_2}\right)=-\left(\frac{2}{p_3}\right)=-\left(\frac{2}{p_4}\right)=1$ and $\left(\frac{p_2}{p_3}\right)\left(\frac{p_2}{p_4}\right)=-1$
2. $p_1=2$, $p_2\equiv p_3\equiv p_4\equiv-1\pmod4$, $\left(\frac{2}{p_2}\right)=-1$, and
(i) $\left(\frac{p_2}{p_3}\right)=\left(\frac{p_2}{p_4}\right)=-1$ and $\left(\frac{2}{p_3}\right)\left(\frac{2}{p_4}\right)=-1$, or
(ii) $\left(\frac{2}{p_3}\right)=\left(\frac{2}{p_4}\right)=-1$ and $\left(\frac{p_2}{p_3}\right)\left(\frac{p_2}{p_4}\right)=-1$, or
(iii) $\left(\frac{p_2}{p_3}\right)\left(\frac{p_2}{p_4}\right)=\left(\frac{2}{p_3}\right)\left(\frac{2}{p_4}\right)=-1$ and $\left(\frac{p_2}{p_3}\right)\neq\left(\frac{2}{p_3}\right)$.
Kuroda’s class number formula {#Kuroda_section}
=============================
Now we must develop techniques to study the imaginary $n$-quadratic fields with $n\in\{3,4,5\}$. Lemmermeyer [@Lem94] derived the following formula, based on work previously done by Kuroda:
\[[Lemmermeyer [@Lem94 Theorem 1]]{}\]\[KCNF\] (Kuroda’s Class Number Formula) For any number field $L$ define $E(L)$ to be the unit group of ${\mathcal{O}}_L$. Let $K/k$ be a $V_4$ extension of number fields and let $k_i$, $i\in\{1,2,3\}$, be the three number fields such that $k\subsetneq k_i\subsetneq K$. Let $h_i$ denote the class number of $k_i$, $i\in\{1,2,3\}$. Then we have $$h_K=2^{d-\kappa-2-\nu}q(K/k)h_1h_2h_3/h_k^2,$$ where $q(K/k)$ is the (finite) unit index given by $q(K/k):=[E(K):E(k_1)E(k_2)E(k_3)],$ $d$ denotes the number of infinite places ramified in $K/k$, $\kappa$ is the ${\mathbb{Z}}$-rank of $E(k)$ and $$\nu = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \text{if } K=k(\sqrt{\epsilon},\sqrt{\eta}),\ \epsilon,\eta\in E(k)\\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{array} .
\right.$$ In particular,
$$h_K = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
2^{-2}q(K/{\mathbb{Q}})h_1h_2h_3 & \text{if } K \text{ is a real biquadratic field}\\
2^{-1}q(K/{\mathbb{Q}})h_1h_2h_3 & \text{if } K \text{ is an imaginary biquadratic field}
\end{array} .
\right.$$
We will apply this theorem to imaginary $n$-quadratic fields $K$ with $n\geq3$, viewed as a $V_4$ extension over a real $(n-2)$-quadratic field $k$:
$$\xymatrix{
& K={\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{-a_1},...,\sqrt{-a_n}\right) \ar@{-}[d] \ar@{-}[dr] & \\
k_1=k\left(\sqrt{-a_1}\right) \ar@{-}[ur] & k_2=k\left(\sqrt{-a_2}\right) \ar@{-}[d] & k_3=k\left(\sqrt{a_1a_2}\right) \ar@{-}[dl] \\
& k={\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{a_2a_3},\sqrt{a_2a_4},...,\sqrt{a_2a_n}\right) \ar@{-}[ul]
}$$
In this case, it is easy to see that the unit index $q(K/k)$ is finite. By Dirichlet’s unit theorem, the unit groups $E(K)$ and $E(k_3)$ have the same rank. Since these are finitely generated abelian groups with $E(k_3)\subseteq E(K)$ we clearly have that $[E(K):E(k_1)E(k_2)E(k_3)]\in{\mathbb{N}}$.
\[smallKuroda\] Let $K$ be an imaginary $n$-quadratic field with $n\geq3$. Let $k$ be any real $(n-2)$-quadratic subfield of $K$ such that there exists an odd prime which ramifies in $K/k$. Then we have the following formula for the class number $h_K$ of $K$: $$h_K=\frac12 q(K/k)h_1h_2h_3/h_k^2.$$ Here $h_k$ is the class number of $k$, $h_1,h_2,h_3$ are the class numbers of the three $(n-1)$-quadratic fields $k_1,k_2,k_3$ between $k$ and $K$, and $q(K/k)=[E(K):E(k_1)E(k_2)E(k_3)]$.
Since $K/k$ is a $V_4$ extension of number fields we may apply Kuroda’s class number formula, as defined in Theorem \[KCNF\]: $$h_K=2^{d-\kappa-2-\nu}q(K/k)h_1h_2h_3/h_k^2.$$
Since $\kappa$ is the ${\mathbb{Z}}$-rank of the unit group $E(k)$, we may apply Dirichlet’s unit theorem and find that $\kappa = 2^{n-2}-1$. Next, recall that $d$ is the number of infinite places ramified in $K/k$. Now there are $2^{n-2}$ distinct infinite places in $k$ since it is a real $(n-2)$-quadratic field; call these embeddings $\sigma_1,...,\sigma_n:k\hookrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$. Each $\sigma_i$, $i=1,...,2^{n-2}$ is going to extend to an embedding $\tau_i:K\hookrightarrow{\mathbb{C}}$. Now $\tau_i$ is complex embedding since $K$ is an imaginary $n$-quadratic field, so if $\tau_i$ lies over $\sigma_i$, then $\overline{\tau_i}$ also lies over $\sigma_i$. We know $\tau_i$ and $\overline{\tau_i}$ correspond to the same infinite place in $K$, so $\sigma_i$ must be ramified for all $i\in\{1,...,2^{n-2}\}$. Therefore, there are $2^{n-2}$ infinite places which ramify in $K$, forcing $d=2^{n-2}$.
Plugging these quantities into the formula we have $$h_K=\frac12 2^{-\nu} q(K/k)h_1h_2h_3/h_k^2.$$
Thus we wish to show $\nu=0$ to get the desired result. Denote by $p$ an odd prime which ramifies in $K$ but not in $k$; such a prime always exists for an appropriate choice of $k$ by Lemma \[nMinus2Field\]. There exists a $p$-headed radicand list $\{-a_1,...,-a_n\}$ for $K$, with $a_1,...,a_n$ positive.
Recall that $\nu=0$ if and only if $K$ cannot be written as $k(\sqrt{\eta},\sqrt{\epsilon})$ for $\eta,\epsilon$ in $E(k)$, the unit group of $k$. I will show $\nu=0$ by contradiction, so assume there exist units $\eta,\epsilon\in k$ such that $K=k(\sqrt{\eta},\sqrt{\epsilon})$. Then the element $\sqrt{a_1}\in K$ can be written $$\sqrt{-a_1}=w+x\sqrt{\eta}+y\sqrt{\epsilon}+z\sqrt{\epsilon\eta},\ w,x,y,z\in k.$$
However, since $\sqrt{-a_1}$ is purely imaginary and does not have a real part, we must have $w=0$. Also, without loss of generality, since at most 2 of $\sqrt{\epsilon}$, $\sqrt{\eta}$ and $\sqrt{\epsilon\eta}$ can be imaginary, assume $z\sqrt{\epsilon\eta}$ is real and thus $z=0$ as well. Therefore $$\sqrt{-a_1}=x\sqrt{\eta}+y\sqrt{\epsilon},\ x,y\in k.$$ There are two cases to consider: first, the case where both $x$ and $y$ are nonzero, and second, when exactly one of $x$ or $y$ is zero. If $x,y\neq0$, then squaring both sides gives $$-a_1=x^2\eta+y^2\epsilon+2xy\sqrt{\eta\epsilon}.$$
Now since $-a_1,x^2\eta,y^2\epsilon\in k$ and $$-a_1-x^2\eta-y^2\epsilon=2xy\sqrt{\eta\epsilon}$$ then we must have $\sqrt{\eta\epsilon}\in k$, so $$K=k(\sqrt{\eta},\sqrt{\epsilon})=k(\sqrt{\eta},\sqrt{\eta\epsilon})=k(\sqrt{\eta}).$$ Thus $K$ is a degree 2 extension of $k$; which is a contradiction, because we know $K/k$ is a $V_4$ extension.
Thus assume that exactly one of $x,y$ is zero; without loss of generality assume $y=0$. Then $\sqrt{-a_1}=x\sqrt{\epsilon}$, so $$-a_1=x^2\epsilon.$$ This implies that the ideal $(a_1)$ is equal to a square in ${\mathcal{O}}_k$ which is a contradiction since there is an odd prime $p|a_1$ which does not ramify in $k$. Thus $\nu=0$.
\[bigKuroda\] Keeping the notation above, we have $$h_K=\left(\frac12\right)^{2^{n-1}-1}QP h_3,$$ where $P$ is the product of the class numbers of all imaginary quadratic subfields of $K$ and $Q\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}$ is a product of unit indices $q(L/\ell)$ where $L/\ell$ are $V_4$ extensions with $L\subseteq K$.
Proof by induction. Base case: when $n=2$ it is easy to check that this theorem holds. Now assume that the statement holds for imaginary $(n-1)$-quadratic fields. Consider, in particular, the $(n-1)$-quadratic fields $k_1$ and $k_2$. Let $k'$ be an $(n-3)$-quadratic field such that there exists a prime $p$ which ramifies in $k$ but not in $k'$. Then $k_1/k'$ and $k_2/k'$ are $V_4$ extensions which have $k$ as a totally real intermediate field.
Then $$h(k_1)=\left(\frac12\right)^{2^{(n-1)-1}-1} Q_1 P_1 h_k,$$ $$h(k_2)=\left(\frac12\right)^{2^{(n-1)-1}-1} Q_2 P_2 h_k.$$ Here, $P_i$, $i=1,2$ is the product of the class numbers of all imaginary quadratic subfields of $k_i$. Also, $Q_i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}$, $i=1,2$ are products of unit indices $q(L/\ell)$ where $L/\ell$ are $V_4$ extensions with $L\subseteq k_i\subset k$.
Then, using the fact that $$h_K=\frac12 q(K/k)h_1h_2h_3/h_k^2,$$ and plugging in for $h_1$ and $h_2$, we find that $$\begin{aligned}
h_K &= \frac12 q(K/k) \left(\left(\frac12\right)^{2^{n-2}-1} Q_1 P_1 h_k\right)\left(\left(\frac12\right)^{2^{n-2}-1} Q_2 P_2 h_k\right) h_3/h_k^2 \\
&= \left(\frac12\right)^{1+2^{n-2}-1+2^{n-2}-1} q(K/k) Q_1 P_1 Q_2 P_2 h_3 \\
&= \left(\frac12\right)^{2^{n-1}-1} (q(K/k)Q_1Q_2) (P_1 P_2) h_3.\end{aligned}$$ Setting $Q=q(K/k)Q_1Q_2$ we have that $Q\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}$ and is a product of unit indices $q(L/\ell)$ where $L/\ell$ are $V_4$ extensions with $L\subseteq K$. Also, setting $P=P_1P_2$ we have that $P$ is a product of imaginary quadratic subfields of $K$. From Lemma \[numberOfQuadraticSubfields\] we know that $k_1$ and $k_2$ each have $2^{n-2}$ imaginary quadratic subfields and $K$ has $2^{n-1}$ imaginary quadratic subfields. Further, we see that the set of imaginary quadratic subfields of $k_1$ and $k_2$ are disjoint. This is because both of these fields are imaginary quadratic extensions of the same totally real field $k$, and thus these imaginary quadratic extensions must be distinct and not produce any of the same imaginary quadratic subfields. Thus the product $P_1 P_2$ is the product of the class numbers of $2\cdot 2^{n-2}=2^{n-1}$ distinct imaginary quadratic subfields of $K$, which is all of the imaginary quadratic subfields of $K$. Therefore $P=P_1P_2$ is the product of the class numbers of all imaginary quadratic subfields of $K$.
Though this theorem presents $Q$ as simply being a positive (rational) integer, we may look back to Kuroda’s class number formula in order to glean more information about $Q$. In reality (if you can consider number fields ‘reality’), $Q$ is a product of indices, which are all positive integers, so we may determine some of the factors of $Q$ to learn more about the class number of a field.
We now have all of the tools in place to complete our classification of the imaginary $n$-quadratic fields of class number 1!
A complete classification {#main_theorem_section}
=========================
We have previously seen complete lists of the imaginary quadratic and biquadratic fields of class number 1. These lists are restated here because it is pleasing to see the complete classification all in one place. We will see in the following theorem that there are several imaginary triquadratic fields of class number 1, and then the list stops abruptly. This is because imaginary $n$-quadratic fields with $n\geq 4$ all have class number larger than 1.
The imaginary $n$-quadratic fields with class number 1 are:
1. the nine imaginary quadratic fields ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{a})$ with $a\in\{-1,-2,-3,-7,-11,-19,-43,-67,-163\}$,
2. the 42 imaginary biquadratic fields with radicand lists given in the following table:
-------------- -------------- --------------- --------------- ----------------
$\{-1,2\}$ $\{2,-3\}$ $\{-3,5\}$ $\{-7,5\}$ $\{-11,17\}$
$\{-1,3\}$ $\{2,-11\}$ $\{-3,-7\}$ $\{-7,-11\}$ $\{-11,-19\}$
$\{-1,5\}$ $\{-2,-3\}$ $\{-3,-11\}$ $\{-7,13\}$ $\{-11,-67\}$
$\{-1,7\}$ $\{-2,5\}$ $\{-3,17\}$ $\{-7,-19\}$ $\{-11,-163\}$
$\{-1,11\}$ $\{-2,-7\}$ $\{-3,-19\}$ $\{-7,-43\}$ $\{-19,-67\}$
$\{-1,13\}$ $\{-2,-11\}$ $\{-3,41\}$ $\{-7,61\}$ $\{-19,-163\}$
$\{-1,19\}$ $\{-2,-19\}$ $\{-3,-43\}$ $\{-7,-163\}$ $\{-43,-67\}$
$\{-1,37\}$ $\{-2,29\}$ $\{-3,-67\}$ $\{-43,-163\}$
$\{-1,43\}$ $\{-2,-43\}$ $\{-3,89\}$ $\{-67,-163\}$
$\{-1,67\}$ $\{-2,-67\}$ $\{-3,-163\}$
$\{-1,163\}$
-------------- -------------- --------------- --------------- ----------------
, and
3. the 17 imaginary triquadratic fields with the radicand lists:
--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------- ------------------
$\{-1,2,3\}$ $\{-1,3,5\}$ $\{-1,7,5\}$ $\{-2,-3,-7\}$ $\{-3,-7,5\}$
$\{-1,2,5\}$ $\{-1,3,7\}$ $\{-1,7,13\}$ $\{-2,-3,5\}$ $\{-3,-11,2\}$
$\{-1,2,11\}$ $\{-1,3,11\}$ $\{-1,7,19\}$ $\{-2,-7,5\}$ $\{-3,-11,-19\}$
$\{-1,3,19\}$ $\{-3,-11,17\}$
--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------- ------------------
.
We need only to prove (3), and prove that there are no $n$-quadratic fields with $n\geq4$ that have class number 1. The remainder of this paper discusses these results.
The imaginary triquadratic fields of class number 1
---------------------------------------------------
For demonstration purposes we will compute the class number of a particular imaginary triquadratic field:
\[rad123\] The number field $K={\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-1},\sqrt{-2},\sqrt{-3})$ has class number 1.
Let $k={\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{2})$; this is a valid choice for $k$ to use with the formula given in Theorem \[smallKuroda\] since we know there exists an odd prime $p=3$ which ramifies in $K$ but not in $k$. Let $k_1={\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-1},\sqrt{2})$, $k_2={\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-3},\sqrt{2})$ and $k_3={\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{3},\sqrt{2})$. Now $P$ is the product of the class numbers of all imaginary quadratic fields of $K$: $P=h(-1)h(-2)h(-3)h(-6)=1\cdot1\cdot1\cdot2=2$, so $$h_K=\frac18QPh_3=\frac14Qh_3.$$
To compute the values for $Q$ and $h_3$ we need to understand the unit indices $q(L)$, $L\in\{K,k_1,k_2,k_3\}$. We first find the units of the quadratic subfields. The unit groups $E({\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-2}))$ and $E({\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-6}))$ are simply equal to $\{\pm1\}$. The other unit groups are: $$\begin{tabular}{rl}
$E({\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-1}))$ & $=\left\{\left(e^{\pi i/2}\right)^\ell:\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}\right\}$ \\
$E({\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-3}))$ & $=\left\{\left(e^{\pi i/3}\right)^\ell:\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}\right\}$ \\
$E({\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{2}))$ & $=\left\{\pm\left(1+\sqrt{2}\right)^\ell:\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}\right\}$ \\
$E({\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{3}))$&$=\left\{\pm\left(2+\sqrt{3}\right)^\ell:\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}\right\}$ \\
$E({\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{6}))$ &$=\left\{\pm\left(5+2\sqrt{6}\right)^\ell:\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}\right\}$
\end{tabular}$$
Now, to find $Q=q(K/k)q(k_1/{\mathbb{Q}})q(k_2/{\mathbb{Q}})$ we first note that in [@Kub] Kubota calculates $q(k_1/{\mathbb{Q}})$ and finds that it is equal to 2. To better understand this index, observe that an eighth root of unity, $e^{\pi i/4}=\frac12(\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{-2})$ is in $k_1$ but is not in any of the quadratic subfields of $k_1$. This is what gives rise to the index $q(k_1/{\mathbb{Q}})$ being equal to 2, and in fact tells us that $$E(k_1)=\left\{\left(e^{\pi i/4}\right)^{\ell_1}\left(1+\sqrt{2}\right)^{\ell_2}:\ell_1,\ell_2\in{\mathbb{Z}}\right\}.$$
Next we must compute $q(k_2/{\mathbb{Q}})$. A fundamental unit of $k_2$ is $$\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}-\frac{\sqrt{-6}}{2}+\frac{\sqrt{-3}}{2}-\frac{1}{2} = \left(\sqrt{2}-1\right)\left(\frac{1-\sqrt{-3}}{2}\right)\in E\left({\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{2})\right)E\left({\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-3})\right).$$ Also, the roots of unity of $k_2$ are exactly the same as the roots of unity in ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-3})$. Therefore, $$E(k_2)=E\left({\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{2})\right)E\left({\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-3})\right)E\left({\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-6})\right).$$ This gives us $q(k_2/{\mathbb{Q}})=1$.
At this point we have that $Q=q(K/k)q(k_1/{\mathbb{Q}})q(k_2/{\mathbb{Q}})=2q(K/k)$; it is useful to compute $h_3$ before finding $q(K/k)$.
To find $h_3$, recall that Kuroda’s class number formula states $$h_3=\frac14q(k_3/{\mathbb{Q}})h(2)h(3)h(6)=\frac14q(k_3/{\mathbb{Q}}),$$ since the quadratic subfields all have class number 1. Since $k_3$ is a real biquadratic field, we can find the unit group $E(k_3)$, using results from Kubota [@Kub]. To do this, we first take the norm of the fundamental unit of each real quadratic subfield of $k_3$:
$$\begin{aligned}
N_{{\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{2})/{\mathbb{Q}}}(1+\sqrt{2}) &= -1 \\
N_{{\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{3})/{\mathbb{Q}}}(2+\sqrt{3}) &= 1 \\
N_{{\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{6})/{\mathbb{Q}}}(5+2\sqrt{6}) &= 1 \\\end{aligned}$$
This tells us that a fundamental system of units for ${\mathcal{O}}_{k_3}$ is $$\left\{1+\sqrt{2},\sqrt{2+\sqrt{3}},\sqrt{5+2\sqrt{6}}\right\}.$$ Note that we are taking square roots of only those elements of norm 1; this rule does not apply in general, it only applies precisely because there are two fundamental units of norm 1 and one of norm -1. Further, since $k_3$ and all of its subfields are totally real, the only roots of unity contained in these fields are $\pm1$. Putting this together we have that $$E(k_3)=\left\{\pm\left(1+\sqrt{2}\right)^{\ell_1}\left(\sqrt{2+\sqrt{3}}\right)^{\ell_2}\left(\sqrt{5+2\sqrt{6}}\right)^{\ell_3}:\ell_1,\ell_2\ell_3\in{\mathbb{Z}}\right\}.$$ Therefore $q(k_3/{\mathbb{Q}})=4$, $h_3=\frac14\cdot4=1$ and $$h_K=\frac14\cdot 2q(K/k)\cdot 1 =\frac12q(K/k).$$
Since $h_K\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, $q(K/k)$ must be divisible by 2. Recall that $$q(K/k)=\left[E(K):E(k_1)E(k_2)E(k_3)\right].$$ First note that the roots of unity in $E(K)$ are equal to the roots of unity of $E(k_1)E(k_2)E(k_3)$: both of these groups contain a 24th root of unity.
By Dirichlet’s unit theorem, $E(K)$ has three fundamental units. Computing a fundamental system of units in Sage [@Sage] we find
-------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\epsilon_1$ $:=\frac12\sqrt{3} -\frac12\sqrt{-1} - \frac12\sqrt{-3} +\frac12$
$\epsilon_2$ $:= -\frac14\sqrt{-6}-\frac14\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{-1} +\frac14\sqrt{6} -\frac14\sqrt{-2}$
$\epsilon_3$ $:=\frac14\sqrt{6}-\frac14\sqrt{2}-\sqrt{-1}+\frac14\sqrt{6}-\frac34\sqrt{-2}+\frac12\sqrt{-3} -\frac12$
-------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can factor the first unit $$\epsilon_1=\frac{1-i}{\sqrt{2}}\cdot\frac{1+\sqrt{3}}{\sqrt{2}}=e^{\pi i/4}\cdot\frac{\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{6}}{2}=e^{\pi i/4}\cdot\sqrt{2+\sqrt{3}}.$$
Finding a factorization for $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$ cannot be achieved in Sage. However, dividing one by the other yields: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\epsilon_2}{\epsilon_3} &=\frac12\sqrt{-6}-\frac12\sqrt{2}-\frac12\sqrt{-3}+\frac12\\
&=\frac{-1+\sqrt{-3}}{2}\cdot (\sqrt{2}-1) \\
&=e^{2\pi i/3}\cdot (\sqrt{2}-1).\end{aligned}$$
Thus $\left\{1+\sqrt{2},\sqrt{2+\sqrt{3}},\epsilon_3\right\}$ is a fundamental system of units for $K$. As noted previously, $q(K/k)$ is divisible by 2, so the fact that $1+\sqrt{2},\sqrt{2+\sqrt{3}}$ are units of the subfield $k_3$ of $K$ implies that we must have $\epsilon_3\notin E(k_1)E(k_2)E(k_3)$. Let $E'(K)$ denote the group of units generated by the set $$\left\{e^{2\pi i/12}, 1+\sqrt{2},\sqrt{2+\sqrt{3}},\epsilon_3^2 \right\}.$$ Then $$q(K/k)=2\cdot\left[E'(K):E(k_1)E(k_2)E(k_3)\right].$$ Squaring $\epsilon_3$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_3^2 &= \frac{-1+i}{\sqrt{2}}\cdot\frac{5+4\sqrt{2}-3\sqrt{3}-2\sqrt{6}}{\sqrt{2}} \\
&= e^{3\pi i/4}\cdot\frac12\left(8+5\sqrt{2}-4\sqrt{3}-3\sqrt{6}\right).\end{aligned}$$ The latter factor is in $E(k_3)$, so the index $\left[E'(K):E(k_1)E(k_2)E(k_3)\right]$ must equal 1. Thus $q(K/k)=2$ and the class number of $K$ is $$h_K=\frac12q(K/k)=1.$$
Now let’s consider all imaginary triquadratic fields. Looking at Theorem \[bigKuroda\] it is clear that in order to have $h_K=1$ the product $QP h_3$ must equal $2^{2^{n-1}-1}=2^3$ since $n=3$. This implies that $P$, the product of all imaginary quadratic subfields of $K$, must satisfy $$P=2^t,\ t\leq 8.$$
Write a general imaginary triquadratic field $K$ as $K={\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-a_1},\sqrt{-a_2},\sqrt{-a_3})$ with $a_1,a_2,a_3\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ positive and squarefree. Let $a_4$ denote the squarefree part of the product $a_1a_2a_3$, so that the four imaginary quadratic subfields of $K$ are ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-a_i})$, $1\leq i\leq 4$. Thus we have $$h(-a_1)h(-a_2)h(-a_3)h(-a_4)=2^t,\ t\leq 8$$ which implies that $h(a_i)\leq 8$, $1\leq i\leq 4$.
We know all imaginary quadratic fields of class number 1, 2 and 4. The latter two lists are stated below. The first of these, the list of imaginary quadratic fields of class number 2, has a long history and was determined by a number of authors. There is no one paper that determines the entire list, but this determination relied primarily on several papers by Baker and Stark, whose relevant papers are referenced at the beginning of the lemma.
[@Bak66; @Bak71; @Sta67; @Sta71; @Sta72; @Sta75] The imaginary quadratic fields of class number 2 are given by ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-a})$ with $a\in\{5,6,10,13,15,22,35,37,51,58,91,115,123,187,235,267,403,427\}$.
\[ [Arno [@Arn92 Theorem 7]]{} \]The imaginary quadratic fields of class number 4 are given by ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-a})$ with $a\in\{14,17,21,30,33,34,39,42,46,55,57,70,73,78,82,85,93,97,102,130,133,142,155,177,190,\newline 193,195,203,219,253,259,291,323,355,435,483,555,595,627,667,715,723,763,795,955,1003,\newline 1027,1227,1243,1387,1411,1435,1507,1555\}$.
This is enough information to find all possible imaginary quadratic fields $K$ with $P$ equal to a power of 2 not exceeding 8. We will first address the cases where $P\in\{1,2,4\}$. We will consider $P=8$ separately as this case uses slightly different techniques.
\[P124\] Let $K$ be an imaginary triquadratic field and let $P$ denote the product of the class numbers of the imaginary quadratic subfields of $K$.
1. It is impossible to have $P=1$.
2. If $P=2$ then $K$ has radicand list $\{-1,2,3\}$ or $\{-1,2,11\}$.
3. If $P=4$ then $K$ has one of the following radicand lists:
-------------------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
$\{ -1 , 2 , 5 \}$ $\{ -1 , 3 , 11 \}$ $\{ -1 , 7 , 19 \}$ $\{ -3 , -7 , -15 \}$
$\{ -1 , 2 , 7 \}$ $\{-1 , 3 , 19 \}$ $\{-2 ,-3 ,-7 \}$ $\{ -3 , -11 , -6 \}$
$\{ -1 , 3 , 7 \}$ $\{ -1 , 7 , 5 \}$ $\{ -2 , -3 , -10 \}$ $\{ -3 , -11 , -19 \}$
$\{- 1 , 3 , 5 \}$ $\{ -1 , 7 , 13 \}$ $\{- 2 ,- 7 , -10 \}$ $\{ -3 , -11 , -51 \}$
-------------------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
.
We will continue to use the notation used directly above the statement of the lemma. Without loss of generality we can relabel the radicands $-a_i$, $1\leq i\leq4$, in any order, and each radicand will be the squarefree part of the product of the other three. Therefore, we will generally take $h(-a_1)\leq h(-a_2)\leq h(-a_3)\leq h(-a_4)$.
We first prove (1): If $P=1$ then $h(-a_1)=h(-a_2)=h(-a_3)=h(-a_4)=1$. However all quadratic ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-a})$ with class number 1 and $a>0$ square-free have $a$ either equal to 1 or a prime integer. If $a_1\neq a_2\neq a_3$ are all 1 or prime, then $a_4$, the square-free part of the product $a_1a_2a_3$ will be composite, so $h(-a_4)$ will not equal 1.
Now, consider case (2), where $P=2$. Then we must have $h(-a_1)=h(-a_2)=h(-a_3)=1$ and $h(-a_4)=2$. Examining the lists of imaginary quadratic fields with class numbers 1 and 2 we see that there are only two imaginary triquadratic fields with $h(-a_i)=1$, $1\leq i\leq3$ and $h(-a_4)=2$ are ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-1},\sqrt{-2},\sqrt{-3})$ (with $a_4=6$) and ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-1},\sqrt{-2},\sqrt{-11})$ (with $a_4=22$).
In case (3), with $P=4$ we must consider two different scenarios:
(i) $h(-a_1)=h(-a_2)=h(-a_3)=1$ and $h(-a_4)=4$ and
(ii) $h(-a_1)=h(-a_2)=1$, $h(-a_3)=h(-a_4)=2$.
For (i) we look at all combinations satisfying this condition and find 7 possible triquadratic number fields. These number fields have the following values for $a_4$; the values for $a_1,a_2,a_3$ can be recovered by factoring $a_4$: $$a_4\in\{14, 21, 33, 42, 57, 133, 627\}.$$ Case (ii) yields the remaining radicand lists listed in the statement of the lemma.
\[triquadClassNo1\] Of the eighteen imaginary triquadratic fields listed in the statement of Lemma \[P124\], seventeen have class number equal to 1. These are the fields with radicand lists given by
--------------------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
$\{-1 , 2 , 3\}$ $\{ -1 , 3 , 11 \}$ $\{ -1 , 7 , 19 \}$ $\{ -3 , -7 , -15 \}$
$\{ -1 , 2 , 5 \}$ $\{-1 , 3 , 19 \}$ $\{-2 ,-3 ,-7 \}$ $\{ -3 , -11 , -6 \}$
$\{ -1 , 2 , 11 \}$ $\{ -1 , 7 , 5 \}$ $\{ -2 , -3 , -10 \}$ $\{ -3 , -11 , -19 \}$
$\{ -1 , 3 , 7 \}$ $\{ -1 , 7 , 13 \}$ $\{- 2 ,- 7 , -10 \}$ $\{ -3 , -11 , -51 \}$
$\{- 1 , 3 , 5 \}$
--------------------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
.
This proof follows from the same methods in the proof of Example \[rad123\]. Going through all of the cases of this proof actually requires extensive calculation, and the next section of this paper is devoted to the details of these computations, for the curious reader. We also find that the other field, with radicand list $\{-1,2,7\}$, has class number equal to 2.
Let $K$ be an imaginary triquadratic field and let $P$ denote the product of the class numbers of the imaginary quadratic subfields of $K$ and $h_K$ denote the class number of $K$. If $P=8$ then $h_K\neq1$.
If $P=8$ then there are three cases to consider:
(i) $h(-a_1)=1$ and $h(-a_2)=h(-a_3)=h(-a_4)=2$,
(ii) $h(-a_1)=h(-a_2)=1$, $h(-a_3)=2$ and $h(-a_4)=4$ or
(iii) $h(-a_1)=h(-a_2)=h(-a_3)=1$ and $h(-a_4)=8$.
Note that in (i) and (ii) we have $h(-a_1)=1$ and at least one imaginary quadratic subfield of class number 2 or 4. Then any prime that the radicand $a_1$ takes on must divide one of $a_2, a_3$ or $a_4$ (and it can’t divide $a_2$ if $h(-a_2)=1$). Some of the radicands appearing in the list for imaginary quadratic fields of class number 1 do not divide any of the radicands of imaginary quadratic fields of class number 2 or 4. These are 43, 67 and 163. Thus, in these cases, the radicand of any imaginary quadratic subfields of class number 1 must be chosen from the set $\{-1,-2,-3,-7,-11,-19\}$. It is also worth noting that 19 does not divide the radicand of any imaginary quadratic field of class number 2.
Now let’s look at (i) more closely. We have already observed that $a_1$ must be chosen from the list $\{1,2,3,7,11\}$. Now $-a_2,- a_3,- a_4$ are the radicands of imaginary quadratic fields of class number 2. Again, considering prime factorizations of the radicands, in conjunction with the fact that $a_i=sf\left(\prod_{j\in\{1,2,3,4\}\setminus\{i\}}a_j\right)$ for $1\leq i\leq 4$, we find that $a_2,a_3,a_4$ must be restricted to the set $\{5,6,10,13,15,22,35,51,91,187\}$.
Considering all possible combinations, we find that the radicand lists for the imaginary triquadratic fields $K$ satisfying case (i) are given by
--------------------------------- ----------------------------------
$\{-1,-6,-10\}$ (with $a_4=15$) $\{-2,-5,-6\}$ (with $a_4=15$)
$\{-3,-5,-6\}$ (with $a_4=10$) $\{-11,-5,-10\}$ (with $a_4=22$)
--------------------------------- ----------------------------------
.
In case (ii) recall that $a_1,a_2\in\{1,2,3,7,11,19\}$. Since we have complete lists of all imaginary quadratic fields of class numbers 2 and 4 we can write a simple program to find all imaginary triquadratic fields satisfying (ii). This yields
--------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
$\{ 1 , 2 , 15 \}$ (with $a_4= 30 $) $\{ 1 , 2 , 35 \}$ (with $a_4= 70 $)
$\{ 1 , 2 , 51 \}$ (with $a_4= 102 $) $\{ 1 , 3 , 10 \}$ (with $a_4= 30 $)
$\{ 1 , 3 , 13 \}$ (with $a_4= 39 $) $\{ 1 , 7 , 6 \}$ (with $a_4= 42 $)
$\{ 1 , 7 , 10 \}$ (with $a_4= 70 $) $\{ 1 , 7 , 37 \}$ (with $a_4= 259 $)
$\{ 1 , 11 , 5 \}$ (with $a_4= 55 $) $\{ 1 , 19 , 10 \}$ (with $a_4= 190 $)
$\{ 2 , 3 , 5 \}$ (with $a_4= 30 $) $\{ 2 , 3 , 13 \}$ (with $a_4= 78 $)
$\{ 2 , 7 , 5 \}$ (with $a_4= 70 $) $\{ 2 , 19 , 5 \}$ (with $a_4= 190 $)
--------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
.
Last consider (iii). Since we do not have a complete list of the imaginary quadratic fields of class number 8, we must tackle this case by considering all possibilities with $h(-a_i)=1$, $1\leq i \leq 3$, and checking if the resulting value for $a_4$ satisfies $h(-a_4)=8$. In this case we check for $h(-a_4)=8$ computationally using Sage. This yields 8 imaginary triquadratic fields $K$ satisfying (iii):
---------------------------------- ------------------------------------
$\{-2,-3,-11\}$ (with $a_4=66$) $\{-2,-3,-43\}$ (with $a_4=258$)
$\{-1,-7,-11\}$ (with $a_4=77$) $\{-1,-7,-43\}$ (with $a_4=301$)
$\{-2,-3,-19\}$ (with $a_4=114$) $\{-2,-11,-19\}$ (with $a_4=418$)
$\{-2,-7,-11\}$ (with $a_4=154$) $\{-3,-19,-43\}$ (with $a_4=2451$)
---------------------------------- ------------------------------------
.
Now we must check whether or not any of these fields have class number 1. Since $P=8$ then for an appropriate choice of a real quadratic subfield of $K$ in each case we have that $$h_K=\frac18Pq(K/k)q(k_1/{\mathbb{Q}})q(k_2/{\mathbb{Q}})h_3=q(K/k)q(k_1/{\mathbb{Q}})q(k_2/{\mathbb{Q}})h_3.$$ Thus if, for an appropriate choice of $k$, any of the factors on the right hand side of this equation are greater than 1, we have that $h_K>1$. It turns out that this is always the case, yielding no more imaginary triquadratic fields of class number 1.
Class Numbers of $n$-quadratic Fields, $n\geq4$
-----------------------------------------------
In this section we will prove that all imaginary $n$-quadratic fields with $n\geq4$ have a non-trivial ideal class group.
First, recall from Theorem \[ramPrimes\] that if at least 5 rational primes ramify in $K$ then $2\mid h_K$. Also, Lemma \[numberOfRamifiedPrimes\] states that an imaginary $n$-quadratic field has at least $n-1$ ramified primes. From this we can immediately conclude that any $n$-quadratic field with $n\geq6$ does not have class number 1. Thus, in the remainder of this section we explore the cases of $n=4$ and $n=5$.
If $K$ is an imaginary $n$-quadratic field with $n=5$ then $K$ has class number greater than 1.
Assume, for sake of contradiction, that $K$ is a 5-quadratic field such that $h_K=1$. From Theorem \[ramPrimes\] we know $K$ must have fewer than 5 ramified primes, so its radicand list must be of the form $\{-1,-2,-p_1,-p_2,-p_3\}$ for $p_1,p_2,p_3\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ prime. Note that $-2$ must be included in this radicand list because the prime $(2)$ ramifies in ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-1})$.
Recall the formula given in Theorem \[bigKuroda\]: $$h_K=\left(\frac12\right)^{2^{5-1}-1}QP h_3=\left(\frac12\right)^{15}QPh_3$$ where $P$ is the product of the class numbers of all of the imaginary quadratic subfields of $K$.
If $h_K=1$ then this implies all imaginary quadratic subfields of $K$ must have class number which is a power of 2, and this product cannot exceed $2^{15}$. In order to bound $P$, we can consider the number of prime factors of the radicands of each of the sixteen imaginary quadratic subfields of $K$. First, we know that $h(-1)=1$. Of the remaining fields:
1. 4 have prime radicands,
2. $\binom{4}{2}=6$ have radicands which are the product of two primes and
3. the remaining 5 imaginary quadratic subfields have radicands which are the product of at least three primes.
We know that if an imaginary quadratic field has class number equal to 1 its radicand is either $-1$ or prime. We can also observe that if an imaginary quadratic field has class number 2 its radicand is the product of at most two primes. Using this information we can bound $P$: $$P\geq1\cdot1^4\cdot2^6\cdot4^5=2^{16}.$$ Thus we cannot have $h_K=1$.
If $K$ is an imaginary $n$-quadratic field with $n=4$ then $K$ has class number greater than 1.
Theorem \[bigKuroda\] implies that if $h_K=1$ we have $$1=h_K\geq \left(\frac12\right)^{7}P.$$ We know that $K$ has $2^{4-1}=8$ imaginary quadratic subfields. If more than 2 of these subfields had class number larger than 4, we would have $$1=h_K\geq\frac{8^3}{2^7}>1,$$ which would give a contradiction. Therefore, at least 6 of the 8 imaginary quadratic subfields of $K$ must have class number 1, 2 or 4; call these fields ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-a_i})$, $1\leq i\leq 6$; and write ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-a_7}),{\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-a_8})$ for the remaining two imaginary quadratic subfields.Then clearly ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-a_1a_2a_3}), {\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-a_1a_2a_4}), {\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-a_1a_2a_5})\subset K$. Since the $a_i$ are distinct, at most 2 of these fields may be equal to ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-a_7})$ or ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-a_8})$. Thus, without loss of generality, assume ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-a_1a_2a_3})\neq$ ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-a_7})$ or ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-a_8})$. Then we may define $$k_1 = {\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-a_1},\sqrt{-a_2},\sqrt{-a_3});$$ so $k_1$ is an imaginary triquadratic field with all imginary quadratic subfields having class number 1, 2 or 4. Further, at most one of $\sqrt{-a_4}$, $\sqrt{-a_5}$ may be contained in $k_1$; assume without loss of generality that $\sqrt{-a_4}\notin k_1$. Then $K=k_1(\sqrt{-a_4})$.
Therefore, a list of candidates for imaginary 4-quadratic fields $K$ with class number 1 may be constructed as follows:
1. Make a list $S$ of all imaginary triquadratic fields $k_1$ such that all imaginary quadratic subfields have class number 1, 2 or 4.
2. Make a second list, $T$, as follows: for each $k_1\in S$ and each $a$ such that $\sqrt{-a}\notin k_1$ and ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-a})$ has class number 1, 2 or 4, add $k(\sqrt{-a})$ to $T$. Remove all repeat entries from this list.
3. For each $K\in T$, we want the product $P$ of the class numbers of the imaginary quadratic subfields to not exceed $2^7$. Find a lower bound for $P$ as follows: start with $P=1$ and iterate through all imaginary quadratic subfields; if we know the class number of that subfield, multiply $P$ by that number, otherwise, multiply $P$ by 8. If the lower bound for $P$ is greater than $2^7$, discard that field from the possibility list.
Following these steps yields only four candidates for imaginary 4-quadratic fields with class number 1: ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-1},\sqrt{-2},\sqrt{-3},\sqrt{-7})$ (has class number 4), ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-1},\sqrt{-2},\sqrt{-3},\sqrt{-11})$ (has class number 4),${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-1},\sqrt{-2},\sqrt{-3},\sqrt{-5})$ (has class number 2), and ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-1},\sqrt{-2},\sqrt{-5},\sqrt{-7})$ (has class number 4).
Thus we have completed the classification of imaginary $n$-quadratic fields of class number 1!
Computations for Theorem \[triquadClassNo1\]
============================================
In this section, we look at some of the details for the computation of the class numbers of the list given in Theorem \[triquadClassNo1\]. This is done by consider the number fields stated in Lemma \[P124\], and giving the readers the tools to reproduce a proof of the class number of each field, such as the proof in Example \[rad123\]. Since the example computes the class number of field with radicand list $\{-1,-2,-3\}$ it only remains to compute the class numbers for the following imaginary triquadratic fields:
--------------------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
$\{-1 , 2 , 5\}$ $\{ -1 , 3 , 11 \}$ $\{ -1 , 7 , 19 \}$ $\{ -3 , -7 , -15 \}$
$\{ -1 , 2 , 7 \}$ $\{-1 , 3 , 19 \}$ $\{-2 ,-3 ,-7 \}$ $\{ -3 , -11 , -6 \}$
$\{ -1 , 2 , 11 \}$ $\{ -1 , 7 , 5 \}$ $\{ -2 , -3 , -10 \}$ $\{ -3 , -11 , -19 \}$
$\{ -1 , 3 , 7 \}$ $\{ -1 , 7 , 13 \}$ $\{- 2 ,- 7 , -10 \}$ $\{ -3 , -11 , -51 \}$
$\{- 1 , 3 , 5 \}$
--------------------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
.
Now, to compute the class numbers for each of these imaginary triquadratic fields $K$ we use a version of Kuroda’s class number formula: $$h_{K}=\frac18 Q P h_{3}.$$ Here $Q$ is the product of unit indices, $$Q=q(K/k)q(k_{1}/{\mathbb{Q}})q(k_{2}/{\mathbb{Q}}),$$ $P$ is the product of the class numbers of all imaginary quadratic subfields of $K$ and $h_{3}$ is the class number of a real biquadratic subfield of $K$ (which will be specified later on in this section).
Now, to each triquadratic field $K$ that we are computing the class number for, we must associate to it an appropriate choice of subfields $k_{1}$, $k_{2}$, $k_{3}$ and $k$. Recall that $k_{3}$ and $k$ must be totally real, and that there must be a rational prime $p$ that ramifies in $K$ but not in $k$. Referring to each field by its radicand list, the following table shows and appropriate choice for these values, and specifies a prime that displays this ramification property. Note that these choices of subfields could, in most cases, be chosen differently and still be useful for computing class numbers.
As there are 17 fields in question, it is helpful to index them so we can refer to the different fields throughout this section.
$i$ $K_i$ $k_i$ $k_{1,i}$ $k_{2,i}$ $k_{3,i}$ $p_i$
----- ------------------------ ---------- -------------- --------------- -------------- -------
1 $\{ -1 , 2 , 11 \}$ $\{2\}$ $\{-1 , 2\}$ $\{-11 , 2\}$ $\{11 , 2\}$ 11
2 $\{-1 , 2 , 5\}$ $\{2\}$ $\{-1 , 2\}$ $\{-5 , 2\}$ $\{5 , 2\}$ 5
3 $\{ -1 , 2 , 7 \}$ $\{2\}$ $\{-1 , 2\}$ $\{-7 , 2\}$ $\{7 , 2\}$ 7
4 $\{- 1 , 3 , 5 \}$ $\{3\}$ $\{-1 , 3\}$ $\{-5 , 3\}$ $\{5 , 3\}$ 5
5 $\{ -1 , 3 , 7 \}$ $\{3\}$ $\{-1 , 3\}$ $\{-7 , 3\}$ $\{7 , 3\}$ 7
6 $\{ -1 , 3 , 11 \}$ $\{3\}$ $\{-1 , 3\}$ $\{-11 , 3\}$ $\{11 , 3\}$ 11
7 $\{-1 , 3 , 19 \}$ $\{3\}$ $\{-1 , 3\}$ $\{-19 , 3\}$ $\{19 , 3\}$ 19
8 $\{ -1 , 7 , 5 \}$ $\{7\}$ $\{-1 , 7\}$ $\{-5 , 7\}$ $\{5 , 7\}$ 5
9 $\{ -1 , 7 , 13 \}$ $\{7\}$ $\{-1 , 7\}$ $\{-13 , 7\}$ $\{13 , 7\}$ 13
10 $\{ -1 , 7 , 19 \}$ $\{7\}$ $\{-1 , 7\}$ $\{-19 , 7\}$ $\{19 , 7\}$ 19
11 $\{-2 ,-3 ,-7 \}$ $\{6\}$ $\{-2, 6\}$ $\{-7,6\}$ $\{14, 6\}$ 7
12 $\{ -2 , -3 , -10 \}$ $\{5\}$ $\{-2, 5\}$ $\{-3, 5\}$ $\{6, 5\}$ 3
13 $\{- 2 ,- 7 , -10 \}$ $\{5\}$ $\{-2, 5\}$ $\{-7, 5\}$ $\{14, 5\}$ 7
14 $\{ -3 , -7 , -15 \}$ $\{5\}$ $\{-3, 5\}$ $\{-7, 5\}$ $\{21, 5\}$ 7
15 $\{ -3 , -11 , -6 \}$ $\{2\}$ $\{-3, 2\}$ $\{-11, 2\}$ $\{33, 2\}$ 3
16 $\{ -3 , -11 , -19 \}$ $\{33\}$ $\{-3, 33\}$ $\{-19, 33\}$ $\{57, 33\}$ 19
17 $\{ -3 , -11 , 17 \}$ $\{33\}$ $\{-3, 33\}$ $\{-51, 33\}$ $\{17, 33\}$ 17
Now we must compute the corresponding values $Q$ and $h_3$ for each of these fields $K_i$. As these values all deal with the unit indices, we need to know the unit groups of each of the quadratic subfields of these triquadratic fields. We begin with the imaginary quadratic fields, as their unit groups are finite and very straightforward:
Imaginary Quadratic Field Unit Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{-1}\right)$ $\left\{\left(e^{\pi i/2}\right)^\ell:\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}\right\}$
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{-3}\right)$ $\left\{\left(e^{\pi i/3}\right)^\ell:\ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}\right\}$
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{-a}\right),\ a\in{\mathbb{N}}, a\neq1,3, a\text{ squarefree}$ $\{\pm1\}$
We now must compute the unit group of all of the real quadratic fields that are relevant to this proof. Here we list a fundamental unit $\epsilon$ for each field, calculated using Sage. If $\epsilon$ is a fundamental unit of some real quadratic field ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{a})$ then the unit group $E({\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{a}))$ is equal to $\{\pm\epsilon^\ell : \ell\in{\mathbb{Z}}\}$.
Additionally, this list contains the norm of each fundamental unit, as this is also required in the computations of the unit indices.
Real Quadratic Field Fundamental Unit, $\epsilon$ $N(\epsilon)$
--------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{2}\right)$ $1+\sqrt{2}$ $-1$
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{3}\right)$ $2+\sqrt{3}$ 1
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{5}\right)$ $\frac12\left(1+\sqrt{5}\right)$ $-1$
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{6}\right)$ $5+2\sqrt{6}$ 1
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{7}\right)$ $8+3\sqrt{7}$ 1
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{10}\right)$ $3+\sqrt{10}$ $-1$
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{11}\right)$ $10+3\sqrt{11}$ 1
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{14}\right)$ $15+4\sqrt{14}$ 1
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{15}\right)$ $4+\sqrt{15}$ 1
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{17}\right)$ $4+\sqrt{17}$ $-1$
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{19}\right)$ $170+39\sqrt{19}$ 1
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{21}\right)$ $\frac12\left(5+\sqrt{21}\right)$ 1
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{22}\right)$ $197+42\sqrt{22}$ 1
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{30}\right)$ $11+2\sqrt{30}$ 1
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{33}\right)$ $23+4\sqrt{33}$ 1
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{35}\right)$ $6+\sqrt{35}$ 1
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{57}\right)$ $151+20\sqrt{57}$ 1
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{66}\right)$ $65+8\sqrt{66}$ 1
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{70}\right)$ $251+30\sqrt{70}$ 1
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{91}\right)$ $1574+165\sqrt{91}$ 1
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{105}\right)$ $41+4\sqrt{105}$ 1
${\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{209}\right)$ $46551+3220\sqrt{209}$ 1
Using the fundamental units and their norms, we can find the class number of each $k_{3,i}$, $1\leq i\leq 17$ using the results from Kubota’s paper [@Kub]; this paper presents many examples of computing these class numbers and covers all of the cases we are concerned with here. These class numbers can also be checked independently in Sage. Using either process to calculate the class numbers of these real biquadratic subfields, we find that the class numbers of all of the $k_{3,i}$ are equal to 1.
Also, recall that Lemma \[P124\] gives us the values of $P$ for each $K$. When $K={\mathbb{Q}}\left(\sqrt{-1},\sqrt{2},\sqrt{11}\right)$ we have that $P=2$ and, for all other triquadratic fields in the above list, $P=4$. Putting the information from this paragraph together with the last paragraph, we can reduce our formulae for the class numbers of the imaginary triquadratic fields: $$h_{K_1}=\frac14Q,\text{ and } h_{K_i}=\frac12Q\text{ for }2\leq i\leq 17.$$
Thus all that remains is computing the values of $Q$, which (unfortunately) is the most computationally heavy portion of this process. This requires computing the unit group of each of our triquadratic fields $K_i$ and the biquadratic fields $k_{1,i}$, $k_{2,i}$ and $k_{1,i}$.
$i$ $K_i$ $k_i$ $k_{1,i}$ $k_{2,i}$ $k_{3,i}$ $p_i$
----- ------------------------ ---------- -------------- --------------- -------------- -------
1 $\{ -1 , 2 , 11 \}$ $\{2\}$ $\{-1 , 2\}$ $\{-11 , 2\}$ $\{11 , 2\}$ 11
2 $\{-1 , 2 , 5\}$ $\{2\}$ $\{-1 , 2\}$ $\{-5 , 2\}$ $\{5 , 2\}$ 5
3 $\{ -1 , 2 , 7 \}$ $\{2\}$ $\{-1 , 2\}$ $\{-7 , 2\}$ $\{7 , 2\}$ 7
4 $\{- 1 , 3 , 5 \}$ $\{3\}$ $\{-1 , 3\}$ $\{-5 , 3\}$ $\{5 , 3\}$ 5
5 $\{ -1 , 3 , 7 \}$ $\{3\}$ $\{-1 , 3\}$ $\{-7 , 3\}$ $\{7 , 3\}$ 7
6 $\{ -1 , 3 , 11 \}$ $\{3\}$ $\{-1 , 3\}$ $\{-11 , 3\}$ $\{11 , 3\}$ 11
7 $\{-1 , 3 , 19 \}$ $\{3\}$ $\{-1 , 3\}$ $\{-19 , 3\}$ $\{19 , 3\}$ 19
8 $\{ -1 , 7 , 5 \}$ $\{7\}$ $\{-1 , 7\}$ $\{-5 , 7\}$ $\{5 , 7\}$ 5
9 $\{ -1 , 7 , 13 \}$ $\{7\}$ $\{-1 , 7\}$ $\{-13 , 7\}$ $\{13 , 7\}$ 13
10 $\{ -1 , 7 , 19 \}$ $\{7\}$ $\{-1 , 7\}$ $\{-19 , 7\}$ $\{19 , 7\}$ 19
11 $\{-2 ,-3 ,-7 \}$ $\{6\}$ $\{-2, 6\}$ $\{-7,6\}$ $\{14, 6\}$ 7
12 $\{ -2 , -3 , -10 \}$ $\{5\}$ $\{-2, 5\}$ $\{-3, 5\}$ $\{6, 5\}$ 3
13 $\{- 2 ,- 7 , -10 \}$ $\{5\}$ $\{-2, 5\}$ $\{-7, 5\}$ $\{14, 5\}$ 7
14 $\{ -3 , -7 , -15 \}$ $\{5\}$ $\{-3, 5\}$ $\{-7, 5\}$ $\{21, 5\}$ 7
15 $\{ -3 , -11 , -6 \}$ $\{2\}$ $\{-3, 2\}$ $\{-11, 2\}$ $\{33, 2\}$ 3
16 $\{ -3 , -11 , -19 \}$ $\{33\}$ $\{-3, 33\}$ $\{-19, 33\}$ $\{57, 33\}$ 19
17 $\{ -3 , -11 , 17 \}$ $\{33\}$ $\{-3, 33\}$ $\{-51, 33\}$ $\{17, 33\}$ 17
We can make use of the unit indices computed in Example \[rad123\]: $q({\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-1},\sqrt{-2})/{\mathbb{Q}})=2$ and $q({\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-3},\sqrt{-2})/{\mathbb{Q}})=1$.
Arno, S., [*The imaginary quadratic fields of class number 4*]{}, Acta Arith. **60** (1992) 321—334.
Arno, S., Robinson, M.L., Wheeler, F.S., [*Imaginary quadratic fields with small odd class number*]{}, Acta Arith. **83** (1998) 295—330.
Baker, A., [*A remark on the class number of quadratic fields*]{}, Bull. London Math. **94** (1966) 98—102.
Baker, A., [*Imaginary quadratic fields of class number 2*]{}, Ann. of Math. **94** (1971) 139—152.
Brown, E., Parry, C., [*The imaginary bicyclic biquadratic fields with class-number 1*]{}, J. Reine Angew **266** (1974) 118–120.
Buell, D., Williams, H., Williams, K., [*On the imaginary bicyclic biquadratic fields with class-number 2*]{}, Math. Comp. **31** (1977) 1034–1042.
Cohen, H., [*A Course in Computational Algebraic Number Theory*]{}, Springer-Verlag (1993).
Davenport, H., [*Multiplicative Number Theory*]{}, Springer (1980).
Frölich, A., [*Central Extensions, Galois Groups, and Ideal Class Groups of Number Fields*]{}, Contemporary Math. **24** (1983) 1–86.
Gauss, C. F., [*Disquisitiones Arithmeticae*]{} (1801).
Heilbronn, H., [*On the class number in imaginary quadratic fields*]{}, Quart. J. Math. Oxford **25** (1934) 150–160.
Herglotz, G., [*Über einen Dirichletschen Satz*]{}, Math. Zeitschrift **12** (1922) 255–261.
Jung, S.W., Kwon, S.H., [*Determination of all imaginary bicyclic biquadratic number fields of class number 3*]{}, Bull. Korean Math. Soc. **35** (1998) 83 – 89.
Kubota, T., [*Über den bizyklischen biquadratischen Zahlkörper*]{}, Nagoya Math. J. **10** (1955) 65–85.
Lemmermeyer, F., [*Kuroda’s class number formula*]{}, Acta Arith. **66** (1994) 245–260.
Mouhib, A., [*On the parity of the class number of multiquadratic number fields*]{}, J. Number Theory **129** (2009) 1205–1211.
Oesterlé, J., [*Nombres de classes des corps quadratiques imaginaires*]{}, Sém. Bourbaki (1983, 1984).
Ribenboim, P., [*Classical Theory of Algebraic Numbers*]{}, Springer (2001).
*[S]{}ageMath, the [S]{}age [M]{}athematics [S]{}oftware [S]{}ystem ([V]{}ersion 6.1)*, The Sage Developers, 2014, [http://www.sagemath.org]{}
Schmal, B., [*Diskriminanten, $\mathbb{Z}$-Ganzheitsbasen und relative Ganzheitsbasen bei multiquadratischen Zahlkorpern*]{}, Arch. Math. (Basel) **52** (1989) 245–257.
Stark, H.M., [*A complete determination of the complex quadratic fields of class-number 1*]{}, Michigan Math J. **14** (1967) 1–27.
Stark, H.M., [*A transcendence theorem for class-number problems I*]{}, Annals of Math. **94** (1971) 153–173.
Stark, H.M., [*A transcendence theorem for class-number problems II*]{}, Annals of Math. **96** (1972) 174–209.
Stark, H.M., [*On complex quadratic fields with class number two*]{}, Mathematics of Computation **29** (1975) 289–302.
Wagner, C., [*Class number 5,6 and 7*]{}, Mathematics of Computation **65** (1996) 785–800.
Watkins, M., [*Class numbes of imaginary quadratic fields*]{}, Mathematics of Computation **73** (2004) 907 – 938.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Jakob Gulddahl Rasmussen\
Department of Mathematical Sciences\
Aalborg University\
Denmark\
[email protected]
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: |
Lecture Notes:\
Temporal Point Processes\
and the Conditional Intensity Function
---
Introduction
============
A temporal point pattern is basically a list of times of events. Many real phenomena produce data that can be represented as a temporal point pattern; the left column of Table \[tab.examples\] shows a few examples. Common to these examples is that we do not know how many events will occur, or at what times they will occur. Usually complex mechanisms are behind these seemingly random times, for example earthquakes cause new earthquakes in the form of aftershocks. An essential tool for dealing with these mechanisms, for example in predicting future events, is a stochastic process modelling the point patterns: a [*temporal point process*]{}. The term point is used since we may think of an event as being instant and thus can represent it as a point on the time line. For the same reason the words point and event will be used interchangeably throughout this note.
Events Marks
---------------------- ------------------
Earthquakes Magnitudes
Locations
Arrivals at a server Service time
Accidents Insurance claims
Type of Injury
: Examples of events and marks.
\[tab.examples\]
Often there is more information available associated with an event. This information is known as marks. Examples are given in the right column of Table \[tab.examples\]. The marks may be of separate interest or may simply be included to make a more realistic model of the event times. For example, it is of practical relevance to know the position and magnitude of an earthquake, not just its time. At the same time, the magnitude of an earthquake also influences how many aftershocks there will be, so a model not including magnitudes as marks may not be reliable at modelling the event times either.
In this note, familiarity with the Poisson process on the line as well as basic probability theory and statistics is assumed. On the other hand, measure theory is not assumed; for a much more thorough treatment with all the measure theoretical details, see [@daley-vere-jones-03] and [@daley-vere-jones-08].
Evolutionary point processes
============================
There are many ways of treating (marked) temporal point processes. In this note we will explore one approach based on the so-called conditional intensity function. To understand what this is, we first have to understand the concept of evolutionarity.
Evolutionarity
--------------
Usually we think of time as having an [*evolutionary character*]{}: what happens now may depend on what happened in the past, but not on what is going to happen in the future. This order of time is also a natural starting point for defining practically useful temporal point processes. Roughly speaking, we can define a point process by specifying a stochastic model for the time of the next event given we know all the times of previous events. The term [*evolutionary point process*]{} is used for processes defined in this way.
The past in a point process is captured by the concept of the [ *history*]{} of the process. If we consider the time $t$, then the history ${{\cal H}}_{t-}$ is the knowledge of times of all events, say $(\ldots,t_1,t_2,\ldots,t_n)$, up to but not including time $t$; ${{\cal H}}_t$ also includes the information whether there is an event at time $t$. Note that theoretically the point process may extend infinitely far back in time, but it does not have to do this. Note also that we assume that we have a [*simple point process*]{}, i.e. a point process where no points coincide, such that the points can be strictly ordered in time.
Interevent times
----------------
When specifying a temporal point process we can use many different approaches. In this note, we start by specifying the distribution of the time lengths between subsequent events, and then in the next section we reformulate this in terms of conditional intensity functions.
The lengths of the time intervals between subsequent events are known as [*interevent times*]{}. We can define a temporal point process by specifying the distributions of these. Let $f(t_{n+1}|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})$ be the conditional density function of the time of the next event $t_{n+1}$ given the history of previous events $(\ldots,t_{n-1},t_n)$. Note that the density functions $f(t_n|\ldots,t_{n-2},t_{n-1})$ specify the distributions of all interevent times, one by one, starting in the past, and thus the distribution of all events is given by the joint density $$f(\ldots,t_1,t_2,\ldots) = \prod_n f(t_n|\ldots,t_{n-2},t_{n-1}) =
\prod_n f(t_n|{{\cal H}}_{t_{n-1}})$$ in the same manner as the joint density for a bivariate random variable factorises into $p(x,y) = p(x) p(y|x)$. Let us consider a simple example of a point process defined by specifying the density function for interevent times:
\[ex.ren\] The simplest process we can define by specifying the distribution of the interevent times is the renewal process. This process is defined by letting the interevent times be i.i.d. stochastic variables, i.e. $f(t_n|{{\cal H}}_{t_{n-1}})=g(t_n-t_{n-1})$ where $g$ is a density function for a distribution on $(0,\infty)$. An important special case of this is the homogeneous Poisson process with intensity $\lambda$, where $g$ is the density of the exponential distribution with inverse mean $\lambda$. Figure \[fig-renewal-processes\] shows simulations of three different renewal processes: one is the homogeneous Poisson process, one is more [*clustered*]{} than the Poisson process (i.e. the points tend to occur in clusters), and one is more [*regular*]{} than the Poisson process (i.e. the points tend to be more evenly spread out).
![Three simulations of renewal processes with different interevent time distributions: Gamma(0.02,0.2) (upper), Gamma(0.1,1) (middle), Gamma(2,20) (lower). Note how the upper case is clustered and the lower case is regular compared to the middle case (which is a Poisson process). Also note that all the simulations have roughly 100 points for easy comparison (they are very densely packed together for the upper case).[]{data-label="fig-renewal-processes"}](fig-renewal-processes.pdf){height="3cm"}
Conditional intensity function {#sec.cif}
------------------------------
Example \[ex.ren\] show cases where $t_n$ depends only on $t_{n-1}$. However, in general it may depend on the whole history, and it turns out that the density function of the interevent times is not the best way of specifying the general case. Instead the conditional intensity function is a more convenient and intuitive way of specifying how the present depends on the past in an evolutionary point process. Consider the conditional density $f(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})$ and its corresponding cumulative distribution function $F(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})$ for any $t>t_n$. Then the [*conditional intensity function*]{} (or hazard function) is defined by $$\label{eq.int}
\lambda^*(t) = \frac{f(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})}{1-F(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})}.$$ The conditional intensity function can be interpreted heuristically in the following way: consider an infinitisemal interval around $t$, say ${\textup{d}}t$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda^*(t){\textup{d}}t
&=& \frac{f(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n}){\textup{d}}t}{1-F(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})}\\
&=& \frac{{\mathbb{P}}(t_{n+1}\in[t,t+{\textup{d}}t]|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})}
{{\mathbb{P}}(t_{n+1}\notin(t_n,t)|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})}\\
&=& \frac{{\mathbb{P}}(t_{n+1}\in[t,t+{\textup{d}}t],t_{n+1}\notin(t_n,t)|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})}
{{\mathbb{P}}(t_{n+1}\notin(t_n,t)|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})}\\
&=& {\mathbb{P}}(t_{n+1}\in[t,t+{\textup{d}}t]|t_{n+1}\notin(t_n,t),{{\cal H}}_{t_n})\\
&=& {\mathbb{P}}(t_{n+1}\in[t,t+{\textup{d}}t]|{{\cal H}}_{t-})\\
&=& {\mathbb{E}}[N([t,t+{\textup{d}}t])|{{\cal H}}_{t-}],\end{aligned}$$ where $N(A)$ denotes the number of points falling in an interval $A$, and the last equality follows from the assumption that no points coincide, so that there is either zero or one point in an infinitisemal interval. In other words, the conditional intensity function specifies the mean number of events in a region conditional on the past. Here we use the notation $*$ from [@daley-vere-jones-03] to remind ourselves that this density is conditional on the past right up to but not including the present, rather than writing explicitly that the function depends on the history.
We consider a few examples of point processes where the conditional intensity has particular functional forms:
The (inhomogeneous) Poisson process is among other things characterised by the number of points in disjoint sets being independent. The conditional intensity function inherets this independence. The Poisson process is quite simply the point process where the conditional intensity function is independent of the past, i.e. the conditional intensity function is equal to the intensity function of the Poisson process, $\lambda^*(t) = \lambda(t)$.
\[ex.haw\] Define a point process by the conditional intensity function $$\label{eq.hawexp}
\lambda^*(t) = \mu + \alpha\sum_{t_i<t}\exp(-(t-t_i)),$$ where $\mu$ and $\alpha$ are positive parameters. Note that each time a new point arrives in this process, the conditional intensity grows by $\alpha$ and then decreases exponentially back towards $\mu$. In other words, a point increases the chance of getting other points immediately after, and thus this is model for clustered point patterns. A simulation of the process with parameters $(\mu,\alpha)
= (0.5,0.9)$ is shown in Figure \[fig-hawkes-process\] together with its conditional intensity function (in Section \[sec.sim\] we will learn how to make such a simulation). The so-called Hawkes process is a generalization of this process and has the conditional intensity function $$\lambda^*(t) = \mu(t) + \alpha\sum_{t_i<t}\gamma(t-t_i;\beta),$$ where $\mu(t)\geq0$, $\alpha>0$, and $\gamma(t;\beta)$ is a density on $(0,\infty)$ depending on some parameter $\beta$ (which may be a single value or a vector, depending on the choice of distribution). For more on the Hawkes process, see e.g. [@hawkes-71a; @hawkes-71b; @hawkes-72; @hawkes-oakes-74].
![A simulation of the Hawkes process is shown at the bottom of this plot, and the corresponding conditional intensity function is shown in the top. Note that the point pattern is clustered.[]{data-label="fig-hawkes-process"}](fig-hawkes-process.pdf){height="6cm"}
\[ex.inhib\] What do we do if we want a point process for regular point patterns? Exchanging the plus for a minus in the Hawkes process will not work, since a conditional intensity function has to be non-negative. We can instead use $$\lambda^*(t) = \exp\left(\mu t - \sum_{t_i<t}\alpha\right),$$ where $\mu$ and $\alpha$ are positive parameters. Now the intensity rises as time passes, but each time a new point appears we multiply by a constant $e^{-\alpha}<1$, and thus the chance of new points decreases immediately after a point has appeared; in other words, this is a regular point process. A simulated point pattern and the conditional intensity function is shown in Figure \[fig-selfcorr\]. This process is a special case of the so-called self-correcting process [@isham-westcott-79].
![A simulation of a self-correcting process is shown at the bottom of this plot, and the corresponding conditional intensity function is shown in the top. Note that the point pattern is regular.[]{data-label="fig-selfcorr"}](fig-selfcorr.pdf){height="6cm"}
Note that the models in examples \[ex.haw\] and \[ex.inhib\] are specified simply by choosing a particular form of the conditional intensity and interpreting this. A little creativity and common sense can be used to define many new models using the conditional intensity function. This, of course, depends on the fact that the conditional intensity function uniquely defines a point process. To prove this we first need to note that the definition of the conditional intensity function can also be reversed such that an expresion for the density or cumulative distribution function of the interevent times can be obtained:
\[prop.fstar\] The reverse relation of (\[eq.int\]) is given by $$\label{eq.fstar}
f(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})=\lambda^*(t)\exp\left(-\int_{t_{n}}^t\lambda^*(s){\textup{d}}s\right),$$ or $$\label{eq.Fstar}
F(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n}) = 1-\exp\left(-\int_{t_{n}}^t\lambda^*(s) {\textup{d}}s\right),$$ where $t_n$ is the last point before $t$.
By (\[eq.int\]), we get that $$\label{eq.l1F}
\lambda^*(t) = \frac{f(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})}{1-F(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})}
= \frac{\frac{{\textup{d}}}{{\textup{d}}t}F(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})}{1-F(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})}
= -\frac{{\textup{d}}}{{\textup{d}}t}\log(1-F(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})).$$ Integrating both sides, we get by the fundamental theorem of calculus that $$\int_{t_n}^t\lambda^*(s) {\textup{d}}s = -(\log(1-F(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})) -
\log(1-F(t_n|{{\cal H}}_{t_n}))) = -\log(1-F(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})),$$ since $F(t_n|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})=0$ (point $t_{n+1} = t_{n}$ with probability zero, since the point process is simple). Isolating $F(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})$ we get (\[eq.Fstar\]), and (\[eq.fstar\]) then follows by differentiating $F(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})$ with respect to $t$, again using the fundamental theorem of calculus.
\[prop.defuni\] A conditional intensity function $\lambda^*(t)$ uniquely defines a point process if it satisfies the following conditions for any point pattern $(\ldots,t_1,\ldots,t_n)$ and any $t>t_n$:
1. $\lambda^*(t)$ is non-negative and integrable on any interval starting at $t_n$, and
2. $\int_{t_{n}}^t\lambda^*(s){\textup{d}}s\rightarrow\infty$ for $t\rightarrow\infty$.
The distribution of the point process is well-defined, if all interevent times have well-defined densities, i.e. $f(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})$ should be a density function on $t\in[t_n,\infty)$, or equivalently $F(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})$ should be a cumulative distribution function. From the assumptions and (\[eq.Fstar\]) it follows that
- $0 \leq F(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n}) \leq 1$,
- $F(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})$ is a non-decreasing function of $t$,
- $F(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})\rightarrow1$ for $t\rightarrow\infty$,
which means that $F(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})$ is a distribution function. Uniqueness follows from Proposition \[prop.fstar\], since $F(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})$ is uniquely obtained from $\lambda^*(t)$ using (\[eq.Fstar\]).
Note that item 2. in Proposition \[prop.defuni\] implies that the point process continues forever, a property which is often not desireable for practical use - luckily we can get rid of this assumption. If we remove this, the proof still holds except that item 2. in the proof has to be removed. Now $F(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})\rightarrow p$ for some probability $p<1$, so we have to understand what it means when the cumulative distribution function for the interevent time does not tend to one when time tends to infinity. Basically this means that there is only probability $p$ of having one (or more) points in the rest of the process, and with probability $1-p$ the process terminates with no more points.
Consider a unit-rate Poisson process on $[0,1]$. This has conditional intensity function $\lambda^*(t)={\bf1}[t\in[0,1]]$. Thus starting at zero (with no points so far), we get that $$F(t|{{\cal H}}_0) = 1 - \exp\left(-\int_0^t{\bf1}[s\in[0,1]]{\textup{d}}s\right)
= 1 - \exp\left(-\min\{t,1\}\right),$$ where ${\bf1}[\cdot]$ denotes the indicator function. For $t>1$, this equals $1-\exp(-1)\approx0.63$, so there is a probability of about $0.37$ of having no points at all. If we do get a point, say $t_1$, there is an even smaller chance of getting another point in the remaining interval $(t_1,1]$. Another terminating unit-rate process could be a process that behaves like a Poisson process but stops after $n$ points. In this case $$F(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_i}) = (1 - \exp(-t)) {\bf1}[i<n].$$ Both these examples illustrate that assumption 3. in Proposition \[prop.defuni\] is not necessary to get well-defined point processes.
The marked case
---------------
The conditional intensity function also generalises to the marked case, but before we get that far it is worth reminding ourselves that the mark space $\mathbb{M}$ can be many different types of spaces, often (a subset of) $\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{N}$. We can specify the distribution of the mark $\kappa$ associated with the point $t$ by its conditional density function $f^*(\kappa|t)=f(\kappa|t,{{\cal H}}_{t-})$, i.e. this specifies the distribution of the mark $\kappa$ given $t$ and the history ${{\cal H}}_{t-}$, which now includes information of both times and marks of past events. Here the term density function is used in a broad sense: if the mark is a continuous random variable, this is the usual (conditional) density function, but if it is a discrete random variable, this is its (conditional) probability function. Note also that $f^*(\kappa|t)=f(\kappa|t,{{\cal H}}_{t_n})$ if $t_n$ is the the last point before $t$, since the additional condition that the next point is located at $t$ means that the histories ${{\cal H}}_{t-}$ and ${{\cal H}}_{t_n}$ contain the same information.
We can now define the conditional intensity function for the marked case as $$\lambda^*(t,\kappa) = \lambda^*(t) f^*(\kappa|t),$$ where $\lambda^*(t)$ is called the [*ground intensity*]{}, and is defined exactly as the conditional intensity function for the unmarked case, except that it is allowed to depend on the marks of the past events also; note the close resemblance of this formula with $p(x,y)=p(x)p(y|x)$ for the relation between the joint, marginal and conditional distributions for random variables. Thus we can rewrite this expression to $$\lambda^*(t,\kappa) = \lambda^*(t) f^*(\kappa|t) =
\frac{f(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})f^*(\kappa|t)}{1-F(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})} =
\frac{f(t,\kappa|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})}{1-F(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})},$$ where $f(t,\kappa|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})$ is the joint density of the time and the mark (again the word the density is used in a broad sense) conditional on past times and marks, and $F(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})$ is the conditional cumulative distribution function of $t$ also conditional on the past times and marks. Therefore following the same arguments as in Section \[sec.cif\], the conditional intensity function $\lambda^*(t,\kappa)$ can now be interpreted for the case of discrete marks by $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda^*(t,\kappa){\textup{d}}t = {\mathbb{E}}[N({\textup{d}}t \times \kappa)|{{\cal H}}_t],\end{aligned}$$ that is, the mean number of points in a small time interval ${\textup{d}}t$ with the mark $\kappa$. Similarly for the continuous case, $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda^*(t,\kappa){\textup{d}}t{\textup{d}}\kappa = {\mathbb{E}}[N({\textup{d}}t \times {\textup{d}}\kappa)|{{\cal H}}_t],\end{aligned}$$ that is, the mean number of points in a small time interval ${\textup{d}}t$ with the mark in a small interval ${\textup{d}}\kappa$.
We revisit the Hawkes process from Example \[ex.haw\], now with marks:
\[ex.etas\] The ETAS (epidemic type aftershock sequence) model is a particular type of marked Hawkes process for modelling earthquakes times and magnitudes. Here $\kappa_i\in[0,\infty)$ denotes the magnitude of an earthquake occurring at time $t_i$. In its simplest form the ETAS model can be defined by its ground intensity $$\lambda^*(t) = \mu +
\alpha\sum_{t_i<t}e^{\beta\kappa_i}e^{-\gamma(t-t_i)},$$ where $\alpha,\beta,\gamma>0$ are parameters, and an exponential distribution as its mark density $$f^*(\kappa|t) = \delta e^{-\delta \kappa}.$$ Equivalently we could define it by its conditional intensity function including both marks and times $$\lambda^*(t,\kappa) = \left(\mu +
\alpha\sum_{t_i<t}e^{\beta\kappa_i}e^{-\gamma(t-t_i)}\right)
\delta e^{-\delta \kappa}.$$ The idea behind using this model is that earthquakes cause aftershocks - this is reflected in the fact that every new earthquake increases the intensity by $\alpha
e^{\beta\kappa_i}$. Note that large earthquakes increase the intensity more than small earthquakes. For more on the ETAS model, see e.g. [@ogata-88; @ogata-98].
We sometimes make simplifying independence assumptions on the marks. An [*unpredictable mark*]{} is a mark that does not depend on the past (and therefore cannot be “predicted” using the information about the past, hence the term “unpredictable”). Example \[ex.etas\] has unpredictable marks, since $f^*(\kappa|t)$ does not depend on the past. An even stronger assumption is that of an [*independent mark*]{}, which means that $\kappa_i$ is independent of everything else except maybe $t_i$. Example \[ex.etas\] does not have independent marks, since the ground intensity depends on the past marks (which is just another way of saying that the marks depend on the future events).
Inference
=========
There are many possibilities for estimating the parameters in a process specified by a conditional intensity function. The likelihood function for such a process has a fairly simple expression, which usually means that maximum likelihood inference or Bayesian inference are good choices.
Likelihood function
-------------------
Assume that we have observed a point pattern $(t_1,\ldots,t_n)$ on $[0,T)$ for some given $T>0$, and if we are in the marked case, also its accompanying marks $(\kappa_1,\ldots,\kappa_n)$. Furthermore, let the [*integrated conditional intensity function*]{} (or integrated ground intensity function in the marked case) be given by $$\Lambda^*(t) = \int_0^t \lambda^*(s) {\textup{d}}s.$$ Then the likelihood function is given by the following proposition.
\[prop.lik\] Given an unmarked point pattern $(t_1,\ldots,t_n)$ on an observation interval $[0,T)$, the likelihood function is given by $$L = \left( \prod_{i=1}^n \lambda^*(t_i) \right) \exp
(-\Lambda^*(T)).$$ Given a marked point pattern $((t_1,\kappa_1),\ldots,(t_n,\kappa_n))$ on $[0,T)\times\mathbb{M}$, the likelihood function is given by $$L = \left( \prod_{i=1}^n \lambda^*(t_i,\kappa_i) \right) \exp
(-\Lambda^*(T)).$$
The likelihood function is the joint density function of all the points in the observed point pattern $(t_1,\ldots,t_n)\in [0,T)$, and can therefore be factorised into all the conditional densities of each points given all points before it. This yields $$\begin{aligned}
L = f(t_1|{{\cal H}}_0) f(t_2|{{\cal H}}_{t_1}) \cdots f(t_n|{{\cal H}}_{t_{n-1}})
(1-F(T|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})),
\end{aligned}$$ where the last term $(1-F(T|{{\cal H}}_{t_n}))$ appears since the unobserved point $t_{n+1}$ must appear after the end of the observation interval, and the term ${{\cal H}}_0$ contains the information that there are no events before time 0. Using (\[eq.int\]) and (\[eq.fstar\]), we get that $$\begin{aligned}
L &=& \left(\prod_{i=1}^n f(t_i|{{\cal H}}_{t_{i-1}})\right)
\frac{f(T|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})}{\lambda^*(T)}\\
&=& \left(\prod_{i=1}^n \lambda^*(t_i) \exp
\left(-\int_{t_{i-1}}^{t_i} \lambda^*(s) {\textup{d}}s \right)\right)
\exp\left(-\int_{t_n}^T \lambda^*(s) {\textup{d}}s \right)\\
&=& \left(\prod_{i=1}^n\lambda^*(t_i)\right) \exp
\left(-\int_0^T \lambda^*(s) {\textup{d}}s \right),
\end{aligned}$$ where $t_0=0$. This proves the result for the unmarked case. To obtain the result for the marked case, start by the factorisation $$\begin{aligned}
L &=& f(t_1|{{\cal H}}_{t_0})f(\kappa_1|t_1,{{\cal H}}_{t_0}) \cdots
f(t_n|{{\cal H}}_{t_{n-1}})f(\kappa_n|t_n,{{\cal H}}_{t_{n-1}})
(1-F(T|{{\cal H}}_{t_n}))
\end{aligned}$$ All the terms except the conditional mark densities $f(\kappa_i|t_i,{{\cal H}}_{t_{i-1}})=f^*(\kappa_i|t_i)$ are the same as in the unmarked case, so $$\begin{aligned}
L &=& \left(\prod_{i=1}^n f^*(\kappa_i|t_i)\right)
\left(\prod_{i=1}^n\lambda^*(t_i)\right) \exp
\left(-\int_0^T \lambda^*(s) {\textup{d}}s \right) \\
&=& \left(\prod_{i=1}^n\lambda^*(t_i,\kappa_i)\right) \exp
\left(-\int_0^T \lambda^*(s) {\textup{d}}s \right),
\end{aligned}$$ which establishes the result for the marked case.
Estimation
----------
Although Proposition \[prop.lik\] gives an explicit expression for the likelihood function, it is rarely simple enough that we can find the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) analytically. One special case where we can find the MLE is the homogeneous Poisson process:
For the homogeneous Poisson process with intensity $\lambda^*(t) =
\lambda$ observed on an interval $[0,T)$ for some $T>0$, the likelihood simplifies to $$L = \lambda^n \exp(-\lambda T).$$ Differentiating this and equating to zero, we get that the MLE is given by $$\hat\lambda = \frac{n}{T}.$$ Note that this expression does not depend on the times of the points, only the total number of points. However, this is not true for other processes.
For most other point processes we will require numerical methods to obtain estimates, such as Newton-Raphson for maximizing the likelihood, or Markov chain Monte Carlo for approximating the posterior in a Bayesian approach.
Simulation {#sec.sim}
==========
Simulation turns out to be fairly easy when the conditional intensity function is specified. The conditional intensity function leads to two different approaches for simulating a point process: The inverse method and Ogata’s modified thinning algorithm. Both are generalisations of similar methods for simulation of inhomogeneous Poisson processes.
Inverse method {#sec.inv}
--------------
The basic idea in the inverse method is that we simulate a unit-rate Poisson process (this is just a series of independent exponential random variables with mean one) and transform these into the desired point process using the integrated conditional intensity function. The following proposition is the key result behind this method.
\[prop.inverse\] If $(s_i)_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}$ is a unit rate Poisson process on $\mathbb{R}$, and $t_i=\Lambda^{*-1}(s_i)$, then $(t_i)_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}$ is a point process with intensity $\lambda^*(t_i)$.
We prove this by induction, so assume that for $i\leq n$, $s_i$ follows a unit rate Poisson process, and $t_i$ follows a point process with intensity $\lambda^*$. Now consider the next point in both processes, say $S_{n+1}$ and $T_{n+1} = \Lambda^*(S_{n+1})$. Letting $S=S_{n+1}-s_n$ follow a unit rate exponential distribution which is independent of everything else, we need to prove that $T_{n+1}$ follows a point process with intensity $\lambda^*$ or equivalently has the correct distribution function $F(\cdot|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})$. Denoting the distribution function of $T_{n+1}$ by $F_{T_{n+1}}(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})$, we get that $$\begin{aligned}
F_{T_{n+1}}(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n})
&=& {\mathbb{P}}(T_{n+1} \leq t | {{\cal H}}_{t_n})\\
&=& {\mathbb{P}}(\Lambda^{*-1}(S+s_n) \leq t | {{\cal H}}_{t_n})\\
&=& {\mathbb{P}}(S \leq \Lambda^*(t)-s_n | {{\cal H}}_{t_n})\\
&=& 1 - \exp(-(\Lambda^*(t)-s_n))\\
&=& 1 - \exp(-(\Lambda^*(t)-\Lambda^*(t_n)))\\
&=& 1-\exp\left(-\int_{t_{n}}^t\lambda^*(u) {\textup{d}}u\right)\\
&=& F(t|{{\cal H}}_{t_n}),\end{aligned}$$ where we have used that $s_n=\Lambda^*(t_n)$ in the fifth equality, and (\[eq.Fstar\]) in the last one. Thus $T_{n+1}$ follows the correct distribution.
Although the point process is defined on the whole of $\mathbb{R}$ in Theorem \[prop.inverse\], this condition can be relaxed. If we instead use a Poisson process with $s_i\in[0,T]$, then we get a new point process with $t_i\in[0,\Lambda^{*-1}(T)]$, i.e. we also need to transform the final end point. This means we cannot simply simulate a Poisson process on the interval needed, since this interval changes during the transformation, so we need to simulate one exponential variable at a time, and then transform them to see if our simulation fills out the whole interval. The following algorithm does this.
\[algo.inv\][**(Simulation by inversion)**]{}
1. Set $t=0$, $t_0=0$ and $n=0$ (note that $t_0$ is not an event).
2. Repeat until $t>T$:
1. Generate $s_n\sim{\textup{Exp}}(1)$.
2. Calculate $t$, where $t = \Lambda^{*-1}(s_n)$.
3. If $t < T$, set $n=n+1$ and $t_n=t$.
3. Output is $\{t_1,\ldots,t_n\}$.
The difficult part of this algorithm is of course calculating $t$ in step 2(b) since this requires finding the inverse of the integrated conditional intensity function. Notice that since $\lambda^*$ is non-negative, we get that $\Lambda^*$ is non-decreasing. Strictly speaking, this means that $\Lambda^*$ may not even be an invertible function, since it can be constant on intervals (corresponding to $\lambda^*$ being zero in these intervals). However, any point $s_i$ from the Poisson process will hit these points with probability zero, so we never need to evaluate $\Lambda^{*-1}$, where it is not well-defined.
We revisit the special case of Hawkes process from Example \[ex.haw\] given by (\[eq.hawexp\]). For this we get the integrated conditional intensity function $$\Lambda^*(t) = \mu t + \alpha \sum_{t_i<t}
\left(1-e^{-(t-t_i)}\right).$$ Looking at the expression, it seems to be hard solve this with respect to $t$, so an analytical expression for $\Lambda^{*-1}$ is not available, meaning we will need to approximate this when we use Algorithm \[algo.inv\]. A simple way of doing this is to calculate $\tilde s_i=\Lambda^*(\tilde t_i)$ starting at very small values of $\tilde t_i$ and then increase $\tilde t_i$ until $s_i\approx\Lambda^*(\tilde t_i)$, and then use $t_i=\tilde t_i$.
The easiest way to generalise this to the marked case is to simulate the associated mark to an event $t_i$ just after we have transformed $s_i$ to $t_i$ (notice that we have all the information that this may depend on, since we have already simulated the past events and marks).
Ogata’s modified thinning algorithm
-----------------------------------
Ogata’s modified thinning algorithm [@ogata-81] is a thinning algorithm based on simulating homogeneous Poisson processes with too high intensities and then thin out the points that are too many according to the conditional intensity function. Since the conditional intensity function depends on the past, we have to do this starting in the past and follow the direction of time.
The basic idea behind the algorithm is that when we are at time $t$ we need to find out where to place the next point $t_i>t$. To do this we simulate a homogeneous Poisson process on some interval $[t,t+l(t)]$ for some chosen function $l(t)$ (this is the maximum distance we may go forward in time from $t$ and it may be infinite). This Poisson process has a chosen constant intensity on $[t,t+l(t)]$, which fulfills $$\label{eq.m}
m(t)\geq\sup_{s\in[t,t+l(t)]}\lambda^*(s).$$ Actually we only need to simulate the first point $t_i$ of this Poisson process. There are now two possibilities: If $t_i>l(t)$, then there is no point in $[t,t+l(t)]$, so we start again from $t+l(t)$, but if $t_i\leq l(t)$, there may be a point at $t_i$ in $[t,t+l(t)]$. In the latter case we need to figure out whether to keep this point or not. To get the correct intensity, we keep it with probability $\lambda^*(t_i)/m(t)$. Whether or not we keep it, we start all over at $t_i$.
\[algo.ogata\]([*Ogata’s modified thinning algorithm.*]{})
1. Set t=0 and n=0.
2. Repeat until $t>T$:
1. Compute $m(t)$ and $l(t)$.
2. Generate independent random variables $s \sim {\textup{Exp}}(m(t))$ and $U \sim \text{Unif}([0,1])$.
3. If $s>l(t)$, set $t = t+l(t)$.
4. Else if $t+s>T$ or $U>\lambda^*(t+s)/m(t)$, set $t = t+s$.
5. Otherwise, set $n = n+1$, $t_n = t+s$, $t = t+s$.
3. Output is $\{t_1,\ldots,t_n\}$.
\[prop.ogata\] The output of Algorithm \[algo.ogata\] is a realisation of a point process with conditional intensity function $\lambda^*(t)$.
It follows from independent thinning that this process has the right conditional intensity function (essentially the explanation above the algorithm is the proof).
In order to use the algorithm we need to choose the $m(t)$ and $l(t)$, and the only requirement is that the inequality (\[eq.m\]) is fulfilled at any possible step of the algorithm. Since $$\lambda^*(t) = \mu + \alpha\sum_{t_i<t}\exp(-(t-t_i)),$$ is non-increasing (except when new points appear), we can choose $m(t)=\lambda(s)$ at every starting point $s$ in the algorithm and any $t\geq s$, and $l(t)=\infty$. This choice can be used for any point process where $\lambda^*(t)$ only increases when new points arrive. So the Hawkes process can be simulated either by the inverse method or Ogata’s modified thinning algorithm (but in fact there are simpler methods for simulating the Hawkes process, see e.g. [@moller-rasmussen-05; @moller-rasmussen-06]).
It is easy to generalise the algorithm to the marked case: every time we keep a point $t_i$ in the algorithm, we should simulate its marks from the mark distribution $f^*(\kappa_i|t_i)$ (just as for the inverse method we have the required knowledge of the past when we need to simulate this).
Why simulate a point process? {#sec.whysim}
-----------------------------
Simulations of point processes are useful for many things:
[*What does a point pattern typically look like?*]{} Simulating a point process a couple of times for a given model and a given set of parameters will provide valuable information on what a typical point pattern looks. Is it clustered or regular? Is it inhomogeneous or homogeneous? Does it look anything remotely like the data you are going to spend the next week fitting the model to?
[*Prediction:*]{} Given an observed past, what does the future hold? The specification of the conditional intensity function means that it is easy to include the already observed past, and then simulate the future.
[*Model checking:*]{} Prediction can also be used for model checking if we only use the data in the first half of the observation interval to fit a model, and then simulate predictions of the second half to see if this corresponds to the second half of the observed data. Or we can use all of the data, and compare with simulations of the whole dataset.
[*Summary statistics:*]{} Many quantities can be calculated explicitly from the conditional intensity function, such as the probability of getting no events in the next month or the mean time to the next event. However, particularly complicated summary statistics may not be available on closed form, but can instead be approximated by simulation. For example, the mean number of events in a given time interval may not be available on closed form for a complicated model, but we can then approximate it by the average number of points in a number of simulations.
Model checking
==============
In addition to the model checking approaches mentioned in Section \[sec.whysim\], there is a particular kind of model checking associated with the conditional intensity function known as residual analysis.
Residual analysis
-----------------
Residual analysis [@ogata-88] is a type of model checking for point processes specified by a conditional intensity function. It is based on the reverse transformation than the one used in Proposition \[prop.inverse\].
\[prop.resid\] If $(t_i)_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}$ is a point process with intensity $\lambda^*(t_i)$, and $s_i=\Lambda^{*}(t_i)$, then $(s_i)_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}$ is a unit rate Poisson process.
This is proved in a similar manner as Proposition \[prop.inverse\].
Thus if a point pattern is a realization of a point process with conditional intensity function $\lambda^*$, then the integrated conditional intensity function will transform the pattern into a realization of a unit rate Poisson process. In practice this means that if we have modelled an observed point pattern with a point process, and the type of point process is well-chosen, then the transformed pattern should closely resemble a unit-rate Poisson process. In other words, the model checking boils down to checking whether the interevent times are independent exponential variables with mean one.
If the model does not fit, residual analysis may provide important information on how it does not fit. For example, if the data contains an unrealistically large gap for the model between $t_i$ and $t_{i+1}$, then the transformed data will contain a large gap between $s_i$ and $s_{i+1}$, i.e. $s_{i+1}-s_i$ will be to large to realistically come from a unit rate exponential distribution. A bit of creativity in analysing the residuals can give us all kinds of information about the original point pattern.
Concluding remarks
==================
We have now seen that the conditional intensity function is a valuable tool for point process modelling, and can be used at all stages of data analysis:
- Preliminary analysis (simulation of potential models)
- Model specification and interpretation.
- Parameter estimation (maximum likelihood or Bayesian estimation).
- Model checking (residual analysis or simulation based approaches).
- Prediction.
However, we should note that basing parameter estimation and model checking on the same functions of the data is usually considered bad practice. For example, if we fit a model using maximum likelihood estimation, we have essentially fitted the conditional intensity function as well as we can, and it should not come as a surprise if the residuals fit rather well, since they are also based on the conditional intensity function. Here it would be more appropriate to base the model checking on other aspects of the model (such as the summary statistics given for example in [@moller-waagepetersen-04]), which may not be caught so well by the conditional intensity function.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We propose a statistical method for decomposition of contributions to iron production from various sources: supernovae Type II and the subpopulations of supernovae Type Ia – prompt (their progenitors are short-lived stars of ages less then $\sim$100 Myr) and tardy (whose progenitors are long-lived stars of ages $>$100 Myr). To do that, we develop a theory of oxygen and iron synthesis which takes into account the influence of spiral arms on amount of the above elements synthesized by both the supernovae Type II and prompt supernovae Ia. In the framework of the theory we processed statistically the new more precise observational data on Cepheids abundances, which, as it is well known, demonstrate nontrivial radial distributions of oxygen and iron in the Galactic disc with bends in the gradients. In our opinion, such fine structure in the distribution of the elements along the Galactic disc enables to decompose unambiguously the amount of iron into 3 components produced by the above 3 sources of it. Besides, by means of our statistical methods we solve this task without of any preliminary suppositions about the ratio among the portions of iron synthesized by the above sources.
The total mass supplied to the Galactic disc during its life by all Types of SNe happens to be $\sim (4.0 \pm 0.4)\cdot 10^7$ M$_{\odot}$, the mass of iron occurs in the present ISM is $\sim (1.20 \pm 0.05)\cdot 10^7$ M$_{\odot}$, i.e., about 2/3 of iron is contained in stars and stellar remnants.
The relative portion of iron synthesized by tardy supernovae Ia for the life-time of the Galaxy is $\sim$35 per cent (in the present ISM this portion is $\sim$50 per cent). Correspondingly, the total portion of iron supplied to the disc by supernovae Type II and prompt supernovae Ia is $\sim$65 per cent (in the present ISM this portion is $\sim$50 per cent). The above result slightly depends on the adopted mass of oxygen and iron synthesized during one explosion of supernovae and the shape (bimodal or smooth) of the so-called Delay Time Distribution function.
The portions of iron mass distributed between the short-lived supernovae are usually as follows: depending on the ejected masses of oxygen or iron during one supernovae Type II event the relative portion of iron, supplied to the Galactic disc for its age, varies in the range 12 - 32 per cent (in the present ISM 9-25 per cent); the portion supplied by prompt supernovae Ia to the Galactic disc is 33 - 53 per cent (in ISM 26 - 42 per cent).
Our method also confirm that the bend in the observed slope of oxygen radial distribution and the minimum in \[O/Fe\] at $\sim$7 kpc form in the vicinity of location of the corotation resonance.
date: 'Accepted 2011 xxxx. Received 2011 xxxx; in original form 2011 xxxx'
title: Galactic restrictions on iron production by various Types of supernovae
---
\[firstpage\]
Galaxy: fundamental parameters – Galaxy: abundances – ISM: abundances – galaxies: spiral – galaxies: star formation – ([*stars:*]{}) supernovae general.
Introduction
============
In the present paper, we extend the statistical method, proposed by Acharova et al. (2011) for analysis of the radial distribution of oxygen in the Galaxy Milky Way, to explain the nontrivial distribution of iron along the Galactic disc, revealed in a series papers by Andrievsky et al. (2002 a,b,c) and Luck et al. (2003; 2006; 2011). This problem is of great importance not only for the chemical evolution of the Galactic disc and the history of star formation, but also for the search of independent restrictions on the models of supernovae, especially SNe Type Ia (SNe Ia) whose outstanding role in discovery of accelerated expansion of the Universe is well known (Riess et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al. 1999).
According to the cited papers of Andrievsky, Luck and their collaborators the spectroscopic study of heavy element abundances in Cepheids demonstrate that, in the Milky Way, the radial distributions both oxygen and iron are to be described by a multi-slope function rather than by a linear one. For instance, the distribution of oxygen along the Galactic disc is characterized by a steep gradient in the inner part of the disc for Galactocentric radii 5 $\le r \le$ 7 kpc and a plateau-like distribution for $r >$ 7 kpc and up to 10 kpc (for the solar Galactocentric distance $r_0$ the value 7.9 kpc is adopted), so that at $r \sim$ 7 kpc there is an inflection in the slope of the distribution.
This fine structure of the radial distribution of oxygen was first explained by Acharova et al. (2005 a,b). For this, they took into account the influence of spiral arms since oxygen is mainly synthesized during explosions of SNe Type II (SNe II) which are strongly concentrated in spiral arms. As it was shown in the last papers the combined effect of the corotation resonance and turbulent diffusion results in formation of the radial distribution of oxygen in the Galactic disc with the bend in the slope.
But some time ago it was difficult to explain the similar behavior of iron along the Galactic radius by means of the same mechanism since it is generally agreed that $\sim$ 70 % of iron is synthesized during SNe Ia explosions and only $\sim$ 30 % is produced by SNe II (Matteucci 2004). The point is that the progenitors of SNe Ia were thought to be of ages of the order of several billion years. Before outbursts, after such a long period of time they have to be dispersed over a very large portion of the Galactic disc (Mishurov & Acharova 2011). Hence, if all precursors of SNe Ia would be old stars, they did not keep in their memory that they were born in spiral arms. So, we could not expect any noticeable influence of spiral arms on the radial distribution of iron unless to increase significantly the output of iron per one SNe II event which would entail serious consequences in the theory of pre SNe II evolution.
The opportunity to solve simultaneously the problem of formation of the above fine structure in the radial distribution both oxygen and iron was offered when it has become evident that there exist two subpopulations of SNe Ia precursors – short-lived and long-lived. They were called ‘prompt’ and ‘tardy’, respectively (see, e.g., Mannucci et al. 2005; 2006; Aubourg et al. 2008; Brandt et al. 2010; Maoz et al. 2011; Li et al. 2011). Acharova et al. (2010) incorporated the results of Mannucci et al. (2006) and Matteucci et al. (2006) in their theory and explained the formation of the above fine structure of iron radial distribution in the Galactic disc. Besides, the discovery of the 2 subpopulations of SNe Ia enables to understand their concentration in spiral arms first revealed by Bartunov et al. (1994). [^1]
Nevertheless, several questions arise. First, to decompose the contributions of the above 3 sources to iron synthesis, Acharova et al. (2010) assume that SNe II and the two subpopulations of SNe Ia supply to the present ISM approximately equal portions of iron. In a certain sense, it is a rather arbitrary supposition. However, the extension of the statistical method proposed by Acharova et al. (2011) enables to estimate the contributions to iron production from various Types of SNe independently of any preliminary suppositions. Second, the estimations for ages of prompt progenitors of SNe Ia (denote them as SNe Ia-P) vary from $\sim$ 100 Myr and up to $\sim$ 400 Myr or even more, depending on used methods of data processing and observational material. Can the radial distribution of iron along the Galactic disc apply restriction on the age of SNe Ia-P precursors? Third, for the so-called ‘DTD’ (Delay Time Distribution) function [^2] were proposed two different approximations: a bimodal-like (e.g., Mannucci et al. 2006; Matteucci et al., 2006) and smooth one peaked at early times (e.g., Maoz et al. 2010). How do such different representations for DTD function result in metallicity distribution along the Galactic disc and the amount of iron synthesized by various Types of SNe? The answer this question, perhaps, will impose additional constraints on the models of SNe Ia which have not been fully built, as yet.
At the time, the discussed discovery poses a problem for cosmology, as well. Indeed, if the population of SNe Ia is inhomogeneous, can we consider them as standard candles (Maeda et al. 2010)? In any case to reach the necessary accuracy for constraining dark energy, one has to take into account some corrections which may depend on various parameters (Aubourg et al. 2008). So, any additional constraints on metallicity production by various types of heavy elements sources may occur to be very useful.
It is also important to notice that, in the present paper, we use new much more precise determinations of oxygen and iron abundances in Cepheids.
Basic ideas and equations
=========================
[*Equations for the formation of the fine structure of oxygen and iron radial distribution along the Galactic disc*]{}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The chemical evolution of the Galactic disc is governed by the following equations:
$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\mu}_O&=&\int\limits_{m_L}^{m_U}{(m-m_w)\,Z_O(t-\tau_m)\psi(t-\tau_m)\phi (m)\,dm}\nonumber\\
&&\nonumber\\
&&+E_O^{\rm II} + fZ_{Of} - Z_O\psi\nonumber\\
&&\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial {}}{\partial r}\left(r\mu_O u\right)
+\frac {1}{r}\frac {\partial {}}{\partial r}
\left(r\mu_g D\frac {\partial Z_O}{\partial r}\right),
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\mu}_{Fe}&=&\int\limits_{m_L}^{m_U}{(m-m_w)\,Z_{Fe}(t-\tau_m)\psi(t-\tau_m)\phi (m)\,dm} \nonumber\\
&&+E_{Fe}^{\rm Ia-P}+ E_{Fe}^{\rm Ia-T}+E_{Fe}^{\rm II} + fZ_{Fef} -
Z_{Fe}\psi\nonumber\\
&& \nonumber\\
&&-\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial {}}{\partial r}\left(r\mu_{Fe} u\right)
+\frac {1}{r}\frac {\partial {}}{\partial r}\left
(r\mu_g D\frac {\partial Z_{Fe}}{\partial r}\right),
\end{aligned}$$
where $\mu_O$ and $\mu_{Fe}$ are the surface mass densities for oxygen and iron, respectively, $\mu_g$ is the gaseous density, $Z_i=\mu_i/\mu_g$ is the fraction of the $i$th element (oxygen or iron) in ISM, $Z_{Of}$ and $Z_{Fef}$ are the oxygen and iron abundances in the infall gas (for the both elements we adopt $Z_{if} = 0.02Z_{i\odot}$: our experiments with various abundances of the infall gas from $Z_{if}=0.02\,Z_{i\odot}$ to $0.1\,Z_{i\odot}$ show that the final abundances weakly depend on the exact value of $Z_{if}$ if it is less than $0.1\,Z_{i\odot}$, see also Lacey & Fall 1985. Below we demonstrate the results for $Z_{if} = 0.02Z_{i\odot}$ which is slightly less than the mean content of heavy elements in halo stars, $\sim0.03\,Z_{i\odot}$, Prantzos 2008),
$$\psi=\nu\mu_g^{1.5}$$
is the star formation rate (SFR), $\nu$ is a normalizing coefficient, $\phi(m)$ is Salpeter’s initial mass function with the exponent of - 2.35 (stellar masses $m$ are in solar units), $E^{\rm II}_i$ are the rates of the $i$th element synthesis by SNe II, $E^{Ia-P}_{Fe}$ and $E^{Ia-T}_{Fe}$ are the rates of iron synthesis by prompt and tardy SNe Ia, respectively, [^3] $f$ is the infall rate of the intergalactic gas on to the Galactic disc $$f=A\exp(-\frac{r}{r_d}-\frac{t}{t_f}),$$ $r_d = 3.5$ kpc is the radial scale, $t_f$ is a typical time-scale of gas fall on to the Galactic disc, or in other words, the time-scale of the Galactic disc formation, $u$ is the microscopic radial gas velocity (radial inflow) within the Galactic disc, $t$ is time (in Gyr), $\tau_m$ is the life-time of a star of mass $m$ on the main sequence: $\log(\tau_m)=0.9-3.8\log(m)+\log^{2}(m)$, $m_L=0.1$, $m_U$ is the upper stellar mass (usually we adopt $m_U$ = 70, see below), $m_w$ is the mass of stellar remnants (white dwarfs, neutron stars, black holes: for $m \le 10$ the mass of a remnant is $m_w = 0.65m^{0.333}$; in the range $10 < m < 30$ $m_w = 1.4$; if $30 \le m < m_U$ the remnant is a black hole with $m_w = 10$; finally for $m \ge m_U$ the stars are black holes right away from their birth and they are removed from the nucleosynthesis and returning the mass to ISM). The last terms on the right-hand sides of Eqs. (1,2) describe the turbulent diffusion of heavy elements with the diffusion coefficient $D$. To estimate the coefficient we model the turbulent ISM by a system of clouds and use the gas kinetic approach (for details see Mishurov et al. 2002; Acharova et al. 2010).
The enrichment rates $E_i^{\rm II}$ of the ISM by the $i$th heavy element due to SNe II explosions are described by the same expressions: $$E_i^{\rm II}=\eta P_i^{\rm II} R^{\rm II},$$ where $P_i^{\rm II}$ is the mean mass (in solar units) of ejected oxygen or iron per one SN II explosion, $$R^{\rm II}(r,t)=0.9975\int\limits_{8}^{m_U}{\psi(r,\,t-\tau_m)\phi (m)\,dm},$$ is the rate of SNeII events.
The factor $\eta$ was introduced in order to take into account the influence of spiral arms. Following the idea, first proposed by Oort (1974) and used by Portinari & Chiosi (1999) and Wyse & Silk (1989), we write
$$\eta=\beta |\Omega(r)-\Omega_P|\Theta,$$
where $\Omega(r)$ is the angular rotation velocity of the galactic disc, $\Omega_P$ is the rotation velocity of the wave pattern responsible for the spiral arms, $\Theta$ is a cutoff factor ($\Theta=1$ in the wave zone, i.e. between the inner and outer Lindblad resonances, and $\Theta=0$ beyond them), $\beta$ is a normalizing coefficient which we call as the constant for the rate of oxygen synthesis (for details see Mishurov et al. 2002; Acharova et al. 2005; 2010; 2011).
Let us now turn to the synthesis of iron. In equation (2) the rates of enrichment of the Galaxy by iron due to SNe Ia-P and SNe Ia-T events are explicitly separated ($E_{Fe}^{\rm Ia-P}$ and $E_{Fe}^{\rm Ia-T}$, respectively). Being young objects, SNe Ia-P are believed to be concentrated in spiral arms. Hence, in addition to SNe II, they represent a complementary channel by means of which spiral arms influence the formation of multi-slope gradient of iron distribution in the disc. Therefore, by analogy with the representation for the enrichment rates due to SNe II events, $E_{Fe}^{\rm Ia-P}$ has to contain the factor $\eta$. So, the contribution of SNe Ia-P to the enrichment rate of the Galaxy by iron is governed by the following expressions: $$E_{Fe}^{\rm Ia-P}=\eta\gamma P^{\rm Ia}_{Fe} R^{\rm Ia-P},$$ where $\gamma$ is a correction factor, $P^{\rm Ia}_{Fe}$ and $R^{\rm Ia-P}$ have the same sense as the corresponding quantities for the SNe II,
$$R^{\rm Ia-P}(r,t)= 0.00711\int\limits_{\tau_8}^{\tau_S}{\psi(r,\,t-\tau)D_P(\tau)d\tau},$$
$D_P$ is the DTD function for prompt SNe Ia, $\tau_8$ is the life-time for a star of mass $m=8$.
Unlike prompt SNe Ia, SNe Ia-T do not concentrate in spiral arms since their precursors are long-lived objects. That is why the $\eta$-like factor is absent in the expression for $E_{Fe}^{\rm Ia-T}$. Therefore, the contribution to iron enrichment of the ISM by tardy SNe Ia is described by the following formula: $$E_{Fe}^{Ia-T}=\zeta P^{\rm Ia}_{Fe}R^{\rm Ia-T}.$$ Here unlike the above, $\zeta$ is a constant since this type of subpopulation of SNe Ia is not concentrated in spiral arms. So, they do not keep in their memory that they were born in spiral arms. The corresponding rate for SNe Ia- T events is represented as follows:
$$R^{\rm Ia-T}(r,t)= 0.00711\int\limits_{\tau_S}^{t}{\psi(r,\,t-\tau)D_T(\tau)d\tau},$$
where $D_T$ is the DTD function for SNe Ia-T.
Let us specify, what we mean saying prompt SNe Ia. In Mannucci et al. (2006) and Matteucci et al. (2006) model the prompt and tardy subpopulations of SNe Ia are clearly separated since their DTD function is [*bimodal*]{}: the first group of objects has the delay time $\tau < \tau_S$, the second one corresponds to $\tau > \tau_S$. The critical time which serves as the boundary between the above subpopulations, $\tau_S$, happens to be $\sim 0.1$ Gyr \[more exactly $\tau_S = 10^{7.93}$ yr $\approx 0.085$ Gyr, Matteucci et al. 2006; see equations (7,8) and figure 2 therein\].
On the other hand, the above critical time $\tau_S \sim 0.1$ Gyr can be considered as a boundary delay time which divides prompt SNe Ia from tardy ones in the case of [*smooth*]{} DTD function, proposed, e.g., by Maoz et al. (2010). Indeed, the typical time, necessary for a star to cross the interarm distance, is $\sim \pi /|\Omega - \Omega_P| \,>$ 200 Myr (in the vicinity of the [*corotation resonance*]{}, where $\Omega \to \Omega_P$, the crossing time $\to \infty$). So, we may adopt that, if the age of SNe Ia progenitor (i.e., delay time $\tau$) is less than $\tau_S \sim 0.1$ Gyr the corresponding SNe Ia are concentrated in spiral arms. In other words, the objects belong to subpopulation SN Ia-P.
The above division is very important: as it will be shown below, the multi-slope gradient of iron distribution along the Galactic disc may be explained by the influence of spiral arms only if a significant portion of SNe Ia is concentrated in spiral arms. Hence, we believe that SNe Ia-P have to be sufficiently young, no older than $\sim$100 Myr.
Below we consider two types of approximating representations for the DTD function.
1\) [*Bimodal DTD*]{} function of Matteucci et al. (2006): $\log(D_P)=1.4-50{[\log(\tau)+1.3]}^2$) for $\tau \le \tau_S$ and $\log(D_T)=-0.8-0.9{[\log(\tau)+0.3]}^2$ for $\tau > \tau_S$, $\tau_S = 0.085$ Gyr.
From the above representation it is seen that $D_P$ has a very sharp maximum at $\tau_{max} \approx 0.05$ Gyr due to the large parameter \[$=50\ln(10) \approx 115$\]. So, the main contribution to the integral for $R^{\rm Ia-P}$ brings the region of $\tau$ close to $\tau_{max}$. Hence, the integral may be estimated asymptotically by means of Laplace method.
2\) [*Smooth DTD*]{} function of Maoz et al. (2010). In this model we use a power-like DTD function ($DTD \propto \tau^{-1.2}$), proposed in the cited paper. However, we slightly modify it for small time, say, $\tau < 0.045$ Gyr assume $DTD$ to be proportional to $\exp \{-[(\tau - 0.04)/0.02]^2\}$ in order to avoid the step-like behavior of it at early times. Normalizing DTD to 1 within the time range from 20 Myr to 18 Gyr [^4] and suppose that DTD is a continuous function, finally we have: $DTD = 0.135\tau^{-1.2}$ for $\tau \ge 0.045$ Gyr and $DTD = 5.940 \exp \{-[(\tau - 0.04)/0.02]^2\}$ for $\tau < 0.045$ Gyr. In this model, as SNe Ia-P we consider the stars for which the delay time $\tau < 100$ Myr. Otherwise we refer the stars to SNe Ia-T.
As it was noticed in Introduction, Cepheids in our sample are very young: their ages usually do not exceed 100 Myr (see Table 1 in Appendix). So, they give the distribution of abundances in ISM almost at present epoch. And it is important, since the above chemical equations describe the evolution of the abundances of heavy elements in ISM. Therefore, by means of our chemical equations we have to compute the theoretical distributions of oxygen and iron for the present moment of time $t = T_D =10$ Gyr ($T_D$ is the age of the Galactic disc) and compare the theoretical distributions with the observed ones. To do that we have to transform our final $Z_i$ to metallicities: $[X_i/H]^{\rm th} = log(Z_i/Z_{i,\odot})$, where $Z_{i,\odot}$ is the abundance of oxygen or iron for the Sun. The corresponding values for $Z_{i,\odot}$ were adopted according to Asplund et al. (2009).
The fundamental feature of the above equations for the chemical evolution of the Galactic disc is that they result in formation of the nontrivial radial distribution of the elements in the Galactic disc. Indeed, from the galactic density wave theory of Lin et al. (1969) it is known that the spiral wave pattern, responsible for spiral arms, rotates as a rigid body ($\Omega_P = const$) whereas the galactic matter rotates differentially (the rotation velocity of the Galactic disc $\Omega$ is a function of the Galactocentric distance $r$; to compute the rotation curve we use CO data of Clemens 1985, adjusted them for $r_{\odot} = 7.9$ kpc, see Acharova et al. 2010). The radius $r_c$, where both the velocities coincide \[$\Omega(r_c) = \Omega_P$\], is called the [*corotation*]{} radius. From the above expression for $\eta$ it is obvious that in the vicinity of the corotation radius the enrichment of ISM by SNe II and SNe Ia-P is depressed since here the difference $|\Omega-\Omega_P| \to 0$. The combined effect of the corotation resonance and turbulent diffusion results in formation of the radial distribution of heavy elements with the slope which varies along the galactocentric radius.
For completeness we also include in our theory the radial gas inflow within the Galactic disc \[see the divergent terms in the last lines of equations (1,2)\]. For the radial velocity $u(r)$ we adopt the same model representations as in the paper by Acharova et al. (2011).
Equations (1,2) are the ones in partial derivatives. So, besides the initial conditions (at $t=0$ the initial values $\mu_i = \mu_g = 0$) we adopt the so-called natural conditions of the finiteness of the solutions at the Galactic center and at the Galactic disc end, $r_G$ (for models with radial gas inflow we locate the Galactic end at $r_G = 35$ kpc, in the case $u = 0$ the value $r_G = 25$ kpc is adopted).
Strictly speaking the full system of equations for the Galactic chemical evolution includes also the equations for the disc formation, which describe the exchange by mass among the intergalactic matter, gaseous and stellar components. However, we do not write them since they and their solutions are the same as in Acharova et al. (2011, see figure 1 therein). We only notice that according to the last paper, the short time-scale of the Galactic disc formation, $t_f \sim 2$ Gyr, fits the best both to the observations of low present rate of gas infall on to the Galactic disc, $\sim$ 0.1-0.2 M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$, and the star formation rate which is expected to be of the order of magnitude higher (Sancisi & Fraternali 2008, Bregman 2009, Robitaille & Whitney 2010). So, for the Galactic disc formation we adopt the results of Acharova and collaborators \[the values of constants $A$ and $\nu$ for various models of inflow, i.e. $u(r)$, see in Table 1 of their paper\].
[*Statistical method*]{}
------------------------
The above system of equations for chemical evolution of the Galaxy has 4 free parameters: $\beta$, $\Omega_P$, $\gamma$ and $\zeta$. To derive them we try to fit the theory to observations minimizing the merit function (or discrepancy) $\Delta$
$$\Delta^2 = \frac{1}{n-p}\sum_{i=1}^n\{(\langle[X/H]^{ \rm ob}\rangle_i - [X/H]^{ \rm th}_i)w_i\}^2$$
over the above free parameters. Here $[X/H] = log(N_X/N_H)_s - log(N_X/N_H)_{\odot}$, $N_X$ and $N_H$ are the numbers of atoms of the element $X$ and that of hydrogen in the object, respectively, the first term on the right-hand side of the last relation refers to a star, the second one - to the Sun, the superscript ‘ob’ corresponds to the observational and ‘th’ to theoretical data, the symbol $\langle ... \rangle$ means that we apply our theory to a group of stars which fall into a bin centered at the $i$th Galactocentric radius $r$, $w_i$ is the weight, $n$ is the number of bins, $p$ is the number of the sought for free parameters, the summation is taken over all $i$th bins of the Galactocentric radius where the abundances of the elements were measured.
To estimate the errors of the sought for parameters we compute the confidence (at the level 95 %) contour
$$\Delta_c^2 = \Delta_m^2 [1 + \frac{p}{n-p}F(p,n-p,0.95)],$$
where $\Delta_m$ is the minimal value for the discrepancy, $F$ is Fisher’s $F$ statistics (see Draper & Smith 1981).
Below we show that the process of the statistical treatment of observational data may be divided into two steps. Indeed, as it was noticed in Sec. 2.1 we can neglect by the contribution of SNe Ia to oxygen synthesis. Hence, the values $\Omega_P$ and $\beta$ can be derived independently of other two target parameters $\gamma$ and $\zeta$ since the last 2 quantities do not enter the corresponding equations describing oxygen production.
So, at [*Step 1*]{} we analyze the oxygen distribution to evaluate $\Omega_P$ and $\beta$. For this, we solve equations (1,3-7) for a set of $\Omega_P$ and $\beta$. After that we construct the surface $\Delta$ as a function of $\Omega_P$ and $\beta$ ($p = 2$), find out the minimum of $\Delta$ which determines the best values for the above parameters and compute the corresponding confidence contour for them.
At [*Step 2*]{} the radial distribution of iron is analyzed. Now we seek for the last 2 free parameters, $\gamma$ and $\zeta$. The idea for evaluation them is similar to the method used at the previous step, that is, we solve equations (2-11), describing iron synthesis, for a set of $\gamma$ and $\zeta$, consider $\Omega_P$ and $\beta$ as have been derived at previous step, than compute the discrepancy between the theoretical and observed distributions of iron as a function of $\gamma$ and $\zeta$, again construct the surface of $\Delta$, but now as a function of $\gamma$ and $\zeta$, look for its minimum which gives the best values for $\gamma$ and $\zeta$.
However, at this step we have to take into account that the equations, describing the synthesis of iron, contain the parameters $\Omega_P$ and $\beta$, obtained independently at the previous step. Therefore we have to take into account the influence of their errors on biases and errors in $\gamma$ and $\zeta$. For this, we propose a kind of numerical experiment (see Sec. 4).
Above we discussed the methods of estimation the statistical errors for the free parameters. But there is a source of errors which have another nature, namely: the uncertainties in oxygen and iron yields. As starting values, in our computations, we adopt the masses of oxygen and iron, ejected per one SN event, from Tsujimoto et al. (1995): $P^{\rm II}_{O} = 2.47$, $P^{\rm II}_{Fe} = 0.084$, and $P^{\rm Ia}_{Fe} = 0.613$ (following Matteucci et al. 2006, for the both SNe Ia subpopulations here we use the same ejected masses of iron). On the other hand, in literature one can find other values for the ejected masses (see, e.g., Woosley & Weaver 1995, Thielemann 1996 and others). Besides prompt and tardy SNe Ia may have different outputs of iron (Howell et al. 2009). How do the changes in the ejected masses influence the final amounts of the elements supplied by various Types of SNe to the Galactic disc?
To feel the answer this question, first, let us look at the structure of the rate for oxygen enrichment: from equation (5) it is seen that $P_O^{\rm II}$ enters the expression for $E^{\rm II}_{O}$ as a product $\beta P_{O}^{\rm II}$. Similarly, the enrichment rate by iron due to SNe II explosion is proportional to the product $\beta P_{Fe}^{\rm II}$. Hence, if we adopt another value for $P_{O}^{\rm II}$, the constant $\beta$ will change, so that the product $\beta P_{O}^{\rm II}$ to be kept the same in order the final amount of oxygen to be unalterable. But this will influence the enrichment rate by iron due to SNe II even if $P_{Fe}^{\rm II}$ is retained unchanged.
In turn, the enrichment rates for iron by SNe Ia are proportional to products $\beta \gamma P_{Fe}^{\rm Ia-P}$ for prompt and $\zeta P_{Fe}^{\rm Ia-T}$ for tardy objects \[see equations (8,10)\]. So, it is obvious, the variation in mass of oxygen (!), ejected during SNe II explosions, influences the output of iron due to SNe Ia-P, since the corresponding enrichment rates by iron for SNe II and SNe Ia-P have close functional representations along the Galactic radius. But the amount of iron supplied by SNe Ia-T does not change. In other words, in this case, we should have a redistribution of amount of iron among the 3 sources of it.
Consider the second possible case: $P_O^{\rm II}$ is equal to the starting value but $P_{Fe}^{\rm II}$ is changed. Hence, the enrichment rate $E_{Fe}^{\rm Ia-P}$ has to be inversely changed in order to compensate the variation in the rate of iron enrichment due to SNe II, but again we do not expect any significant variations in the amount of iron synthesized by SNe Ia-T.
At last, in the third case, let us consider the result if $P_{Fe}^{\rm Ia}$ for SNe Ia-P and SNe Ia-T are different, but other ejected masses are equal to the starting values. It is easy to see that the final amounts of iron supplied by all Types of SNe will not change at all. Only constants $\gamma$ and $\zeta$ will alter in order the products $\gamma P_{Fe}^{\rm Ia-P}$ and $\zeta P_{Fe}^{\rm Ia-T}$ do not change relative to the starting case.
In Sec. 4 we illustrate the discussion of this problem by some results of our numerical experiments.
After evaluation of the free parameters we compute the amount of iron synthesized by each type of its sources.
Observational data
==================
In the present paper, we use the most extensive spectroscopic (only) data on oxygen and iron abundances derived for classical 283 Cepheids (872 spectra in total). A part of the data were previously published ([@lu11] and references therein). For completeness we give the data in Table 1 (see Appendix). Below we describe briefly our methods and analysis of spectra.
Spectral material
-----------------
The spectra of additional Cepheids were obtained using the facilities of the 1.93m telescope at the Haute-Provence Observatoire (France) equipped with échelle-spectrograph ELODIE. In the region of wavelengths 4400–6800 Å the resolving power was R=42000, the signal-to-noise ratio, S/N, being about 80–130. The initial processing of the spectra (image extraction, cosmic particles removal, flatfielding, etc.) was carried out following to Katz et al. (1998). Also we use échelle-spectrograph SOPHIE at this telescope, the spectra stretch from 3870 to 6940 Åin 39 orders with resolution R=75000.
Some spectra of Cepheids were obtained with the fiber échelle-spectrograph HERMES mounted on the 1.2m Belgian telescope on La Palma. A high-resolution configuration with R= 85000 and wavelength coverage 3800–9000 Åis used. The spectra were reduced using a Python-based pipe-line, following a procedure of the order extraction, wavelength calibration using Thr-Ne-Ar arcs, division by the flat field, cosmic-ray clipping, and the order merging. For more details on the spectrograph and the pipe-line see Raskin et al. (2011).
We also made use of spectra obtained with the Ultraviolet-Visual Echelle Spectrograph (UVES) instrument at the Very Large Telescope (VLT) Unit 2 Kueyen (Bagnulo et al. 2003). All supergiants were observed in two instrumental modes, $Dichroic \,1$ and $Dichroic \,2$, in order to provide almost complete coverage of the wavelength interval 3000-10000 Å. The spectral resolution is about 80000, and for most of the spectra the typical S/N ratio is 150–200.
Further processing of the spectra (continuum level location, measurement of the equivalent widths, etc.) was performed using the software package DECH20 (Galazutdinov 1992). The equivalent widths were measured using the Gaussian fitting.
[*Atmospheric parameters*]{}
----------------------------
Effective temperatures for our program stars were established from the processed spectra using the method developed by @ko07 that is based upon $T_{\rm eff}$–line depth relations. The technique can establish $T_{\rm eff}$ with exceptional precision. It relies upon the ratio of the central depths of two lines that have very different functional dependences on $T_{\rm eff}$, and uses tens of pairs of lines for each spectrum. The method is independent of interstellar reddening, and only marginally dependent on the individual characteristics of stars, such as rotation, microturbulence, metallicity, etc.
The microturbulent velocities, $V_{\rm t}$, and surface gravities, $\log g$, were derived using a modification of the standard analysis proposed by @ka99. As described there, the microturbulence is determined from the Fe II lines rather than the Fe I lines, as in classical abundance analyses. The surface gravity is established by forcing equality between the total iron abundance obtained from both Fe I and Fe II lines. Typically with this method the iron abundance determined from Fe I lines shows a strong dependence on equivalent width (NLTE effects), so we take as the proper iron abundance the extrapolated total iron abundance at zero equivalent width.
Kurucz’s WIDTH9 code was used with an atmospheric model for each star interpolated from a grid of models calculated with a microturbulent velocity of 4 km s$^{-1}$ Kurucz (1992). At some phases Cepheids can have microturbulent velocities deviating significantly from that value; however, our previous test calculations suggest that changes in the model microturbulence over a range of several km s$^{-1}$ has an insignificant impact on the resulting element abundances. The oscillator strengths used in this and all preceding Cepheid analyses of this series are based on an inverted solar analysis.
[*Distances, masses and ages of the Cepheids*]{}
------------------------------------------------
The heliocentric distance, $d$, of a Cepheid is estimated in a usual way:
$$d = 10^{-0.2 (M_{\rm v} - <V> -5 + A_{\rm v})},$$ where $M_{\rm v}$ is the absolute magnitude, $<V>$ is the mean visual magnitude, $A_{\rm v}$ is the line of sight extinction, $A_{\rm v} = 3.23 E(B-V)$ (pulsate periods, mean visual magnitudes, colors and $E(B-V)$ values are taken from @fernie95; $M_{\rm V} - P$ relation from @fouque07 and @ko08). To transform $d$ to the galactocentric distance, $r$, of the Cepheid we use the Galactocentric solar distance $r_0 = 7.9$ kpc.
The masses and ages for our Cepheids are derived using $Period - Mass$ relation from @turner96 and $Period - Age$ relation from @Bono05. Our estimates show that the ages of the most portions of Cepheids from our sample are less than 100 Myr. Only several stars are older, but in any case their ages do not exceed 130 Myr. Hence they did not undergo significant radial scattering. So, all Cepheids demonstrate the distribution of the elements in the ISM, almost at the Galactocentric radius, where we observe them at the present moment of time.
The table with the derived abundances and other parameters for all Cepheids is given in Appendix.
Radial distributions of oxygen and iron along the Galactic disc
---------------------------------------------------------------
For modeling, we divide the galactocentric radius in bins of some width and average the abundances within the bins over the stars which have fallen to the bin. As in our previous papers, in Fig.1 we show the radial distributions of the mean abundances for oxygen, $\langle [O/H]^{ob}\rangle$, and iron, $\langle [Fe/H]^{ob}\rangle$, and their relation along the Galactic disc at step of 0.25 kpc, the bin width being equal to 0.5 kpc. Bars in the figure describe the scatter of the above mean abundances within the bin. In our statistic analysis, we adopt the weight $w_i$ \[see equation (1)\] to be inversely equal to the length of the bar in the $i$th bin.
![Radial distributions of oxygen, iron and their relation along the Galactic disc, averaged over bins of 0.5 kpc width. Bars correspond to the scatter of the mean abundance (see text for details).[]{data-label="f1"}](fig1.eps)
Let us discuss some features of the distributions in figure 1. First of all, notice that the scatter of the mean abundances happens to be much less than the one which was computed on the basis of previous observational data of Andrievsky et al. (2002 a,b,c) and Luck et al. (2003, 2006; see figure 1 in Acharova et al. 2010). Such decrease in the scatter is obviously a result of improvement of the abundances determinations and increase in number of objects. However, at large Galactocentric distances the scatter happens to be much greater than in the inner region.
Further, the radial distribution of oxygen demonstrates sufficiently sharp inflection of the slope in the distribution at $r \sim 7$ kpc. But for iron there is no such sharp bend in the gradient at the same Galactocentric distance. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the radial distribution of iron cannot be satisfactorily described by a trivial linear function.
At last, the distribution of iron is rather smooth up to $r \sim 13$ kpc. New data do not show any visible gaps or jumps for smaller radii. The increase followed by the decrease in its content between 13 and 15 kpc takes place at approximately the same distance that of for oxygen although it is not so prominent and the both radial patterns differ in details. For instance, there is no noticeable variation in iron distribution at $r \sim 10.5$ kpc where in oxygen distribution we see a rather sharp step-like decrease. In our opinion, the above peculiarities may be associated with some local effects, say, with a sudden fall of a pristine gas on to the Galactic disc at $r \sim 10-11$ kpc or due to the Magellanic Stream at $r \sim 10-15$ kpc. However, we will not try to explain them: in spite of our model is difficult from the mathematical point of view such local effects cannot be simply incorporated in our theory. That is why for the statistical analysis we restrict ourselves by the region $r \le 10$ kpc. So, the number $n$ in equations (1,2) is $n = 20$. Since at the both steps (oxygen and iron analysis) $p =2$, Fisher’s statistics $F(2,18,0.95) \approx 3.55$ (Draper & Smith 1981).
Results and discussion
======================
*[Step 1: Oxygen]{}*
--------------------
We performed calculations for the same models of the radial gas inflow \[i.e., for the dependences of $u(r)$ of Acharova et al. (2011)\] and the ejected mass of oxygen, $P_O^{\rm II}$ per one SNE II event of Tsujimoto et al. (1995). Unlike our previous paper, new observational data unambiguously lead to the least value for the discrepancy $\Delta$ (for oxygen we denote it as $\Delta^{\rm O}_m$) which corresponds to the model with no radial inflow (in notations of Acharova et al. 2011 it is the model ‘M20’ with $u = 0$): $\Delta^{\rm O}_m = 0.641$ [^5] which corresponds to the best values of $\Omega_P = 33.4$ km s$^{-1}$ kpc$^{-1}$ and $\beta = 0.0126$ Gyr. Comparing the above parameters with the ones from the last paper we see that the rotation velocity for the spiral density waves occurs to be the same (correspondingly, the corotation radius $r_c \approx 7$ kpc) whereas the coefficient $\beta$ has decreased by about 20 per cent. Besides, the confidence contour has changed distinctly (see figure 2): now the axes of the ellipse are not parallel to the axes of $\Omega_P$ and $\beta$. To indicate the confidence borders for the target parameters we adopt the following lower and upper values for them: $\Omega_P = 32.9\, -\, 34.2$ km s$^{-1}$ kpc$^{-1}$ (correspondingly $r_c = 7.1\, -\, 6.8$ kpc); $\beta = 0.0129\, -\, 0.0122$ Gyr (in figure 2 they are labeled by filled circles marked as ‘A’ and ‘B’). For simplicity we adopt the symmetrical errors in $\beta$, so finally $\beta = 0.0126 \pm 0.0004$ Gyr.
![The confidence contour for $\Omega_P$ and $\beta$. The cross corresponds to the best values of $\Omega_P$ and $\beta$.[]{data-label="f2"}](fig2.eps)
In figure 3 we show the theoretical radial distributions of oxygen computed for the best above parameters and for their values, corresponding to the extreme points of the confidence contour from figure 2 (‘A’ and ‘B’), superimposed on the observational distribution. Within the radius range $5 \le r \le 10$ kpc the coincidence of the theory with observations is excellent. Notice the very good agreement of the theory with observations both at $r \sim 7$ kpc where there is the bend in the gradient slope and in the range of the flat (a plateau-like) oxygen distribution.
![The comparison of the theoretical radial distribution of oxygen with the observations. [*Solid*]{} line is for the best values of $\Omega_P,\, \beta$ which correspond to the cross in figure 1; [*dashed*]{} lines correspond to the parameters labeled by points ‘A’ and ‘B’ in the previous figure.[]{data-label="f3"}](fig3.eps)
Our computer experiments confirm the statement, made in Sec. 2.1, that the radial distribution of oxygen, its full synthesized mass and $\Omega_P$ do not change if we adopt another value for $P_{O}^{\rm II}$. Only $\beta$ alters but so as the product $\beta P_{O}^{\rm II}$ has to be kept the same.
*[Step 2: Iron]{}*
------------------
Oxygen is mainly synthesized during SNe II events. So, it is the most pure indicator of spiral arms influence on heavy elements synthesis in the Galactic disc. Besides, since we can neglect by the contribution of SNe Ia to its abundance, of the discussed two elements the kinetics of oxygen synthesis is simpler.
Unlike oxygen, iron is synthesized by SNe II, SNe Ia-P and SNe Ia-T. To estimate the contributions of each type of the above sources to the production of iron is more difficult problem than the one for oxygen. Indeed, to solve the posed task we have to derive the constants for the rates of iron synthesis by means of fitting our theory to the observed fine structure of the radial distribution of iron in the Galactic disc.
Now we set out, in short, our method for evaluation of the free parameters $\gamma$ and $\zeta$. For this, first of all, notice that the enrichment rate of ISM by iron due to SN II explosions is described by the same relation (5) with the only substitution: $P_{i}^{\rm II} \rightarrow P_{Fe}^{\rm II}$. Since the constant $\beta$ was derived at [*Step 1*]{} the contribution of SN II to iron synthesis is determined entirely. Hence, we only need to derive the constants $\gamma$ and $\zeta$ \[see equations (8,10)\] by means of fitting the theory to the observed radial distribution of iron. In a general way, the procedure of evaluation them is similar to the one for derivation of $\Omega_P$ and $\beta$, namely, for the fixed values of $\Omega_P$ and $\beta$ we solve numerically the equations of iron synthesis in the Galactic disc, varying the sought for parameters $\gamma$ and $\zeta$. Then, using the theoretical and observational data for the radial distribution of iron, we again compute the net of the merit function $\Delta^{\rm Fe}$ (the superscript ‘Fe’ means that the discrepancy refers to iron) as a function of $\gamma$ and $\zeta$, find out its minimum over $\gamma$ and $\zeta$ ($min \, \Delta^{\rm Fe} = \Delta^{\rm Fe}_m$) and derive the confidence contour for them. To control the process, we construct the surface $\Delta^{\rm Fe} (\gamma, \zeta)$, an example of which is given in figure 4 for the best values of $\Omega_P$ and $\beta$. In figure 5 we demonstrate the corresponding confidence contour for $\gamma$ and $\zeta$ computed for the best values of $\Omega_P$ and $\beta$. However, at this step we have to take into account that the quantities $\Omega_P$ and $\beta$, derived at the previous step, have errors which may result in biases of the best values of $\gamma$ and $\zeta$ and their errors. To solve this problem we made a numerical experiment, repeating the above procedure for various values of $\Omega_P$ and $\beta$ from their confidence contour and averaging $\gamma$ and $\zeta$ and their errors.
Our computations show that $\gamma$ and $\zeta$ and the disposition of the confidence ellipse for them change slightly if we use $\Omega_P$ and $\beta$ from their confidence region. Therefore, we test only the 7 pairs of values $\Omega_P$ and $\beta$ which are labeled by filled circles and by the cross in figure 2.
![An example of the surface $\Delta^{\rm Fe} (\gamma, \zeta)$ for the best values of $\Omega_P$ and $\beta$. For better visualization we draw the surface ‘bottom-up’.[]{data-label="f4"}](fig4.eps)
![An example of the confidence contour for $\gamma$ and $\zeta$ computed for the best values of $\Omega_P$ and $\beta$. The cross corresponds to $\Delta^{\rm Fe}_m$ for the above values of $\Omega_P$ and $\beta$.[]{data-label="f5"}](fig5.eps)
As a result, we derive 7 pairs of values for $\gamma$ and $\zeta$ corresponding to a particular minimum $\Delta^{\rm Fe}_m$ (denote them as $\gamma_m$ and $\zeta_m$) and to the largest deviations of $\gamma$ and $\zeta$ corresponding to the points ‘C’ and ‘D’ in the last figure \[denote them as ($\gamma_C$, $\zeta_C$) and ($\gamma_D$, $\zeta_D$)\]. Averaging ($\gamma_m$,$\zeta_m$) over the computed 7 results we find out the best values for the sought for parameters \[denote them as ($\langle \gamma_m \rangle$, $\langle \zeta_m \rangle $\]. By analogy we compute the mean extremal confident values for them, correspondingly, the pairs ($\langle \gamma_C \rangle$, $\langle \zeta_C \rangle$) and ($\langle \gamma_D \rangle$, $\langle \zeta_D \rangle$)).
In figure 6 is shown the comparison of the theoretical radial distribution of iron with the observations computed for the ejected mass of oxygen and iron from Tsujimoto et al. (1995) and supposing that SNe Ia-P and SNe Ia-T eject the same mass of iron per one event (i.e., $P_{Fe}^{Ia-P} = P_{Fe}^{Ia-T}$, see Sec. 2.2). Notice that in this figure we demonstrate the theoretical curve up to $r = 13$ kpc despite for the statistic analysis was treated only the region within 10 kpc. Nevertheless the agreement of our theory with the observations happens to be very good even in the extended region of Galactocentric radius.
![Theoretical radial distribution of iron superimposed on the observational data. [*Solid line*]{} corresponds to the theoretical distribution computed for ($\langle \gamma_m \rangle$, $\langle \zeta_m \rangle$); [*dashed lines*]{} correspond to ($\langle \gamma_{C} \rangle$, $\langle \zeta_{C} \rangle$) and ($\langle \gamma_{D} \rangle$, $\langle \zeta_{D} \rangle$).[]{data-label="f6"}](fig6.eps)
In figure 7 is shown the theoretical relation for $[O/Fe]$ vs Galactocentric radius superimposed on the observations. As it was expected, the coincidence of the theory with observations again is good. This result independently demonstrates that the corotation resonance is located at the minimum of the radial distribution of the relation of oxygen to iron.
![Comparison of the theoretical radial distribution of the relation $[O / Fe]$ with observations for the best values of $\beta$, $\gamma$, $\zeta$ and $\Omega_P$. Notice that the minimum of the relation of oxygen to iron at $r \sim 7$ kpc fits to the location of the corotation resonance.[]{data-label="f7"}](fig7.eps)
Let us now discuss the effects of using DTD function of Maoz et al. (2010) which, unlike the bimodal function of Mannucci et al. (2006) and Matteucci et al. (2006), is smooth and peaked at early times (the corresponding approximation for the smooth DTD function see in Sec. 2.2). In figure 8 is shown the radial distribution of iron computed for the above smooth DTD function and the same ejected masses adopted from Tsujimoto et al. (1995). It is seen that the distribution differs slightly from the one derived for the bimodal DTD of Mannucci et al. (2006) and Matteucci et al. (2006).
![The same as in figure 6 but for the smooth DTD function of Maoz et al. (2010).[]{data-label="f8"}](fig8.eps)
Amount of iron synthesized by various sources
---------------------------------------------
Now we can answer the question: how much iron is synthesized by each Type of SNe during the life-time of our Galaxy?
Below we see that the mass of iron, synthesized by each Type of SNe for the period of life of the Galactic disc, differs from the corresponding masses which are kept in the present ISM. [^6] Hence, saying the amount of iron supplied to the Galaxy by any Type of SNe we mean the mass which was synthesized by the corresponding SNe Type for the age of the Galactic disc. To compute these quantities (denote them as $M_{Fe}^{\rm II}$, $M_{Fe}^{\rm Ia-P}$ and $M_{Fe}^{\rm Ia-T}$) we simply integrated the corresponding enrichment rates \[see eqs. (5,8,10)\] over the surface of the Galactic disc and time.
However, the procedure for evaluation of the above masses of iron which occur in the present ISM differs from the one, described before. Indeed, equation (2) governs the evolution of iron content in ISM. So, to find out $M_{Fe}^{\rm II}$, $M_{Fe}^{\rm Ia-P}$ and $M_{Fe}^{\rm Ia-T}$ in the present ISM, we have to solve the corresponding equations separately for each type of iron sources, using the constants of the rates of iron synthesis evaluated at steps of fitting our theory to observations, and then integrate the derived $\mu_{Fe}(r,T_D)$ over the Galactic disc.
In all experiments, considered by us, the radial distributions of iron along the Galactic disc are very close to each other and the distribution shown in figures 6 and 7. That is why we do not demonstrate the distributions derived for other input parameters and restrict our discussion by numerical values given in Table 2. Let us consider them in some details.
[cccccccccccc]{} & & & &
\
&$\beta$& $\gamma$& $\zeta$ & & $M_{\rm Fe}^{II}$& $M_{\rm Fe}^{Ia-P}$& $M_{\rm Fe}^{Ia-T}$ & & $M_{\rm Fe}^{II}$ & $M_{\rm Fe}^{Ia-P}$ & $M_{\rm Fe}^{Ia-T}$\
Case 1: & 0.0126& 0.67 & 0.24 & & 0.75 & 1.80 & 1.43 & & 0.18 & 0.43 & 0.59\
&$(\pm$0.0004)& ($\pm$0.2)& ($\pm$0.03)& & ($\pm$0.02) & ($\pm$0.60) & ($\pm$0.18) & & ($\pm$0.01) & ($\pm$0.14) & ($\pm$0.08)\
& & 19 % & 45 % & 36 % & & 15 % & 36 % & 49 %\
Case 2: & 0.0174 & 0.44 & 0.24 & & 1.03 & 1.63 & 1.43 & & 0.25 & 0.39 & 0.59\
& & & & & 25 % & 40 % & 35 % & & 20 % & 31 % & 49 %\
Case 3: & 0.0084 & 1.2 & 0.24 & & 0.50 & 2.16 & 1.43 & & 0.12 & 0.51 & 0.59\
& & & & & 12 % & 53 % & 35 % & & 9 % & 42 % & 49 %\
Case 4: & 0.0126 & 0.49 & 0.24 & & 1.25 & 1.32 & 1.43 & & 0.30 & 0.31 & 0.59\
& & & & & 32 % & 33 %& 35 % & & 25 % & 26 %& 49 %\
Case 5: & 0.0126 & 0.54 & 0.32 & & 0.75 & 1.81 & 1.43 & & 0.18 & 0.43 & 0.59\
& & & & & 18 % & 44 % & 38 % & & 15 % & 36 % & 49 %\
Case 6: & 0.0126 & 1.64 & 0.15 & & 0.75 & 1.81 & 1.60 & & 0.18 & 0.43 & 0.59\
& & & & & 18 % & 44 % & 38 % & & 15 % & 36 % & 49 %\
\
\
&\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
### [*Bimodal DTD function of Matteucci et al. (2006)*]{}
In [*Cases*]{} 1 - 5 we examine the bimodal DTD function of Matteucci et al. (2006) varying the ejected masses of oxygen or iron during SNe events and analyzing the results of such changes. The input parameters in [*Case 1*]{} are considered as starting ones. For them we adopt the ejected masses per one SNe event from Tsujimoto et al. (1995) and outputs of iron from SNe Ia-P and SNe Ia-T are assumed to be the same (Matteucci et al. 2006). In the following 4 [*Cases*]{} we estimate the effects of variations of $P_{O}^{\rm II}$ or $P_{Fe}^{\rm II}$ and the supposition that $P_{Fe}^{\rm Ia-P} \ne P_{Fe}^{\rm Ia-T}$. Thus, in [*Case*]{} 2 we make an experiment with $P_O^{II}$ = 1.8: this value was proposed by Tsujimoto et al. (1995) for the upper stellar mass $m_U$ = 50 M$_{\odot}$ (in other [*Cases*]{} we use $m_U$ = 70 M$_{\odot}$). To illustrate the effect of increase of the mass of oxygen ejected by one SNe II on iron output, in [*Case*]{} 3 we compute the amounts of iron for $P_O^{II}$ = 3.7. This value is about 1.5 times greater than the starting one (notice that the ejected masses, derived by Woosley & Weaver 1995, are systematically greater than the corresponding value of Tsujimoto et al. 1995 just about 1.5 times). At last, in [*Case*]{} 5 we compute the final masses of iron if we adopt that $P_{Fe}^{\rm Ia-P} \ne P_{Fe}^{\rm Ia-T}$. However, since the completed theory for the two subpopulation of SNe Ia is not built, we use for illustration the largest and the least values from Nomoto et al. (1997).
In the second row of [*Case*]{} 1, in parenthesis, are shown the random errors of $\beta$, $\gamma$ and $\zeta$ evaluated by means of our statistical method and the errors for the masses of iron following from the above random errors in the constants for the rates of enrichment of the Galaxy by iron and oxygen. In other [*Cases*]{} the errors happen to be the same order of magnitude and we do not demonstrate them. Moreover, as it is seen from Table 2, sometimes the variations in the synthesized masses of iron due to uncertainties in the ejected masses, especially in $P_O^{\rm II}$ and $P_{Fe}^{\rm II}$, lead to greater variations in $M_{Fe}^{\rm II}$ and $M_{Fe}^{\rm Ia-P}$, although for long-lived SNe Ia progenitors the final value of $M_{Fe}^{\rm Ia-T}$ is sufficiently stable.
The portions of iron masses supplied by various SNe to the Galactic disc and ISM are shown in per cent.
It is interesting to notice that in all [*Cases*]{} the portion of mass of iron, synthesized by SNe Ia-T does not vary and happens to be equal to about 35 per cent. Correspondingly, the total portion of iron, produced by SNe II and SNe Ia-P, is $\sim$65 per cent. The only effect of the changes in ejected mass consists in redistribution of iron between SNe II and SNe Ia-P. This result confirms our suppositions made in Sec. 2.2.
The same situation holds for the abundance of iron in the present ISM: about 49 per cent of it was supplied by SNe Ia-T, other 51 per cent were captured from SNe II and SNe Ia-P. And again, these 51 per cent of iron are redistributed between SNe II and SNe Ia-p depending on input parameters.
### [*Smooth DTD function of Maoz et al. (2010)*]{}
The radial distribution of iron computed for DTD function of Maoz et al. (2010) is demonstrated in figure 8, the corresponding values, computed for the starting ejected masses, are presented in [*Case*]{} 6 of Table 2. Comparing the results with the ones of [*Case*]{} 1 we see that, the constants $\gamma$ and $\zeta$ are changed significantly: $\gamma$ has increased by 2.4 times, $\zeta$ has decreased about 1.6 times. Nevertheless, the masses of iron synthesized for the age of the Galactic disc in the framework of smooth representation for the DTD function happens to be close to the ones corresponding to [*Case*]{} 1. This statement is also valid for the mass of iron confined in the present ISM.
Conclusions
===========
On the basis of a new observational data on abundances of Cepheids we have studied the problem of how much amount of iron was synthesized by various Types of SNe – SNe II, prompt and tardy SNe Ia, for the age of the Galactic disc. For this, we develop a statistical method which enables to evaluate the constants $\beta$, $\gamma$ and $\zeta$ for the rates of synthesis of oxygen and iron without any preliminary suppositions like the equipartition among the above 3 Types of SNe. To do that, we develop a theory of iron and oxygen synthesis in the Galactic disc. This theory explains the nontrivial distributions along the Galactic disc of oxygen which demonstrates the bend in the radial gradient at $r \sim 7$ kpc with a rather steep gradient for $5 < r < 7$ kpc and a plateau-like distribution in the region of $7 < r < 10$ kpc, as well as the multi-slope radial distribution of iron in the same range of the Galactocentric radius. In order to understand the mechanism of formation of such fine structure of radial distributions of oxygen and iron we use two main ideas.
First, there are 2 Types of SNe Ia - [*prompt*]{} SNe Ia which progenitors are short-lived stars no older than 100 Myr and [*tardy*]{} SNe Ia whose progenitors may have the ages in the range from 100 Myr to 10 Gyr. For the [*Delay Time Distribution*]{} function we study both the bimodal approximation of Matteucci et al. (2006) and smooth representation of Maoz et al. (2010).
Second, we take into account the influence of spiral arms on the formation of the fine structure in the radial distribution of oxygen and iron in the Galactic disc. To realize that, we use the representations for the rate of explosions of short-lived SNe progenitors – SNe II and SNe Ia-P, proposed by Oort (1974), Wyse & Silk (1989) and Portinari & Chiosi (1999) (see also Mishurov et al. 2002; Acharova et al. 2005; 2010; 2011). Our statistical method of treatment of the observational data enables to derive simultaneously the location of the corotation resonance which happens to be located at $r_c \approx 7$ kpc and is situated close to the bend in the slope of oxygen distribution or the minimum in $[O/Fe]$.
Besides, by means of the proposed statistical methods we may estimate the contributions of the 3 Types of SNe to iron synthesis without any preliminary suppositions. The results are as follows. For the age of the Galactic disc about 35 - 38 per cent of iron was produced due to SNe Ia-T and this portion does not varies depending on the input parameters. The total portion of iron produced by SNe II and SNe Ia-P is of the order of 65 per cent. However, the ration of iron between SNe II and SNe Ia-P may changes depending on the ejected mass of oxygen (!) or iron per one SNe II event. Nevertheless, the amounts of iron synthesized by the 3 Types of SNe do not differ significantly from the ones adopted by Matteucci (2004).
However, for the present ISM the situation is another. Thus about 50 per cent of iron in ISM was supplied by SNe Ia-T. The portion of it produced by SNe Ia-P varies from 26 to 42 per cent. Correspondingly, about 9 - 25 per cent of iron, injected by SNe II, was captured by ISM.
At last, the total mass of iron supplied to the Galactic disc during its life by all Types of SNe is $\sim (4.0 \pm 0.4)\cdot 10^7$ M$_{\odot}$, the mass of iron in the present ISM is $\sim (1.20 \pm 0.05)\cdot 10^7 $ M$_{\odot}$ i.e., about 2/3 of iron is contained in stars and stellar remnants.
Our computations show that the result weakly depend on the exact shape of the DTD function - bimodal (Matteucci et al. 2006) or smooth (Maoz et al. 2010). We only need that there have to be a subpopulation of SNe Ia which progenitors are young, i.e. their ages are not more than 100 Myr in order we can to use the idea that spiral arms influence the formation of radial distribution of iron. Our infer may be considered as an argument in favour of the above estimate for the prompt SNe Ia progenitors. The result of Bartunov et al. (1994), that a significant portion of SNe Ia is concentrated in spiral arms, supports this idea.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We are gratefull to the anonymos referee for very important comments and suggestions. Authors also thank to Profs. A.Zasov and S.Blinnikov for helpful discussions. The work was supported in part by grants No. 02.740.0247 and P685 of Federal agency for science and innovations. IAA thanks to the Russian funds for basic research, grant No. 11-02-90702. The spectra were collected with the 1.93-m telescope of the OHP (France), the ESO Telescopes at the Paranal Observatory under program ID266.D-5655, and the Mercator Telescope, operated on the island of La Palma by the Flemish Community, at the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias. Drs. C. Soubiran, B. Lemasle, A. Fry and B. Carney are acknowledged for their help with spectral material.
[99]{}
Acharova I., Lépine J., & Mishurov Yu., 2005 a, MNRAS, 359, 819
Acharova I., Lépine J., Mishurov Yu. [*et al.*]{}, 2010, MNRAS, 402, 1155
Acharova I., Mishurov Yu., & Lépine J., 2005 b, AstRep, 49, 361
Acharova I., Mishurov Yu., & Rasulova M., 2011, MNRAS Lett., 415, 11L
Andrievsky S., Kovtyukh V., Luck R. [*et al.*]{}, 2002 a, A&A, 381, 32
Andrievsky S., Bersier D., Kovtyukh V., [*et al.*]{}, 2002 b, A&A, 384, 140
Andrievsky S., Kovtyukh V., Luck R., [*et al.*]{}, 2002 c, A&A, 392, 491
Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., & Sauval, A.J., and Scott, P. 2009, ARAA 47, 481
Aubourg É., Tojeiro R., Jimenez R., [*et al.*]{} 2008, A&A, 492, 631
Bagnulo S., Jehin E., Ledoux C., et al., 2003, ESO Messenger, 114, 10
Bartunov O., Tsvetkov D., Filimonova I., 1994, PASP, 106, 1276
Bono G., Marconi M., Cassisi S., Caputo F., Gieren W., Pietrzynski G., 2005, ApJ, 621, 966
Brandt T.D., Tojeiro R., Aubourg É., [*et al.*]{} 2010, AJ, 140, 804
Bregman J. 2009, arXiv:0907.3494
Clemens D., 1985, ApJ, 295, 422
Draper N., Smith H. 1981, Applied Regression Analysis. Wiley, New York
Fernie J., Evans N., Beattie B., & Seager S. 1995, IBVS 4148, 1
Fouqué P., Arriagada P., Storm J., Barnes T. , Nardetto N., Merand A., Kervella P., Gieren W., Bersier D., Benedict G. , McArthur B., 2007, A&A, 476, 73
Galazutdinov G., 1992, Prep. SAO RAS, 92
Greggio L. 2005, A&A, 441, 1055
Howell D.A., Sullivan M., Brown E.F. [*et al.*]{}, 2009, ApJ, 691, 661
Katz D., Soubiran C., Cayrel R., Adda M., Cautain R., 1998, A&A, 338, 151
Kovtyukh V., 2007, MNRAS, 378, 617
Kovtyukh V., Andrievsky S., 1999, A&A, 351, 597
Kovtyukh V. , Soubiran C., Luck R. , Turner D. , Belik S. , Andrievsky S. , Chekhonadskikh F. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 1336
Kurucz R. L. 1992, in The Stellar Populations of Galaxies, ed. B. Barbuy, & A. Renzini, IAU Symp. 149, 225
Lacey C.G. & Fall S.M. 1985, ApJ, 290, 154
Lin C.C., Yuan C., Shu F.H, 1969, ApJ, 155, 721
Li W., Chornock R., Leaman J., [*et al.*]{},2011, MNRAS Lett., 412, 1473L
Luck R., Gieren W., Andrievsky S. [*et al.*]{}, 2003, A&A, 401, 939
Luck R., Kovtyukh V., Andrievsky S., 2006, AJ, 132, 902
Luck R. E., Andrievsky S. M., Kovtyukh V. V., Gieren W., Graczyk D. 2011, AJ, 142, 51
Maeda K., Benetti S., Stritzinger M., [*et al.*]{} 2010, Nature, 466, 82
Mannucci F., Della Valle, Panagia N., [*et al.*]{},2005, A& A, 433, 807
Mannucci F., Della Valle M., Panagia N. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 773
Maoz., Mannucci F., Li W., [*et al.*]{},2011, MNRAS, 412, 1508
Maoz.D., Keren S., Gal-Yam G. 2010, ApJ 722, 1879
Matteucci F., 2004, in Dettmar R., Klein U., Salucci P., eds, Baryons in Dark Matter Halos. Proceedings of Science, SISSA, Italy, p. 72.1
Matteucci F., Panagia N., Pipino A., Mannucci F., Recchi S., Della Valle M., 2006, MNRAS, 372, 265
Mishurov Yu., & Acharova I.,, 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1771
Mishurov Yu., Lépine, J. & Acharova I., 2002, ApJL, 571, L113
Nomoto K., Iwamoto K., Nakasato N., [*et al.*]{}, 1997, NPh A, 621, 467
Oort J., 1974, in Shakeshaft J. R., ed., Proc. IAU Symp. 58, The Formation and Dynamics of Galaxies. Reidel, Dordrecht, p. 375
Perlmutter S., Aldering G., Goldhaber G., [*et al.*]{}, 1999, ApJ, 517, 565
Portinari L., & Chiosi C., 1999, A&A, 350, 827
Prantzos N., 2008, in Charbonnel C., Zhan J., eds, Stellar Nuclear Synthesis: 50 Years after BrSH, p. 311
Raskin G., van Winckel H., Hensberge H. [*et al.*]{}, 2011, A&A 526, 69
Riess A.G., Filippenko A.V., Challis P. [*et al.*]{}, 1998, AJ, 116, 1009
Robitaille T., Whitney B., 2010, ApJ, 710, L11
Sancisi R., Fraternali F., 2008, A & A, 15, 189
Thielemann F.-K., Nomoto K., Hashimoto M. 1996, ApJ, 460, 408
Tsujimoto T., Nomoto K., Yoshii Y. [*et al.*]{}, 1995, MNRAS, 277, 945
Turner D., 1996, JRASC, 90, 82
Woosley S.E. & Weaver T.A.,1995, ApJ Suppl., 101,181
Wyse R. & Silk J.,1989, ApJ. 339, 700
Name No. Spectra $P$, days $V$ $(B-V)$ E([*B–V*]{}) r, kpc Mv \[O/H\] \[Fe/H\] age, Myr Mass
----------- ------------- ------------ -------- --------- -------------- -------- ------- --------- ---------- ---------- ------
T Ant 1 5.8977098 9.337 0.750 0.300 8.38 –3.34 –0.43 –0.24 62 6.2
U Aql 1 7.0239582 6.446 1.024 0.399 7.45 –3.54 0.01 0.01 55 6.8
SZ Aql 11 17.1408482 8.599 1.389 0.537 6.42 –4.58 –0.03 0.17 30 10.6
TT Aql 8 13.7547073 7.141 1.292 0.438 7.10 –4.32 0.02 0.10 35 9.5
FF Aql 14 4.4709158 5.372 0.756 0.196 7.63 –3.40 –0.09 0.04 60 6.4
FM Aql 2 6.1142302 8.270 1.277 0.589 7.29 –3.38 –0.19 0.08 61 6.4
FN Aql 4 9.4816027 8.382 1.214 0.483 6.68 –3.89 –0.08 –0.02 45 7.9
V496 Aql 2 6.8070550 7.751 1.146 0.397 6.88 –3.89 –0.15 0.05 45 7.9
V600 Aql 1 7.2387481 10.037 1.462 0.798 6.83 –3.58 0.11 0.03 54 6.9
V733 Aql 1 6.1789999 9.970 0.960 0.106 6.19 –3.39 0.04 0.08 60 6.4
V1162 Aql 2 5.3761001 7.798 1.366 0.195 6.74 –3.61 –0.19 0.01 53 7.0
V1359 Aql 1 3.7320000 9.059 1.350 0.661 7.26 –2.81 0.29 0.09 84 5.0
Eta Aql 14 7.1767349 3.897 0.789 0.130 7.71 –3.57 –0.06 0.08 55 6.9
V340 Ara 1 20.8090000 10.164 1.539 0.546 4.34 –4.81 0.07 0.31 27 11.7
Y Aur 2 3.8595021 9.607 0.911 0.375 9.63 –2.85 –0.30 –0.20 83 5.0
RT Aur 10 3.7281899 5.446 0.595 0.059 8.30 –2.81 –0.07 0.06 85 5.0
RX Aur 16 11.6235371 7.655 1.009 0.263 9.40 –4.13 0.07 –0.01 39 8.8
SY Aur 2 10.1446981 9.074 1.000 0.432 9.98 –3.97 –0.10 –0.05 43 8.2
YZ Aur 5 18.1932125 10.332 1.375 0.538 12.28 –4.65 –0.13 –0.35 29 11.0
AN Aur 4 10.2905598 10.455 1.218 0.565 11.16 –3.99 –0.25 –0.15 43 8.2
AO Aur 2 6.7630062 10.860 1.060 0.431 11.81 –3.50 –0.19 –0.26 57 6.7
AX Aur 1 3.0466399 12.412 1.155 0.598 11.95 –2.57 –0.02 –0.09 97 4.5
BK Aur 2 8.0024319 9.427 1.062 0.425 10.01 –3.69 0.08 0.06 51 7.3
CY Aur 1 13.8476496 11.851 1.600 0.768 13.21 –4.33 –0.41 –0.40 35 9.6
ER Aur 2 15.6907301 11.520 1.124 0.494 15.36 –4.48 –0.63 –0.34 32 10.2
V335 Aur 1 3.4132500 12.461 1.137 0.626 12.11 –2.70 ... –0.27 90 4.7
RW Cam 16 16.4148121 8.691 1.351 0.633 9.35 –4.53 0.02 0.09 31 10.4
RX Cam 9 7.9120240 7.682 1.193 0.532 8.61 –3.68 –0.10 0.04 51 7.2
TV Cam 1 5.2949700 11.659 1.198 0.613 11.20 –3.21 –0.30 –0.08 67 5.9
AB Cam 1 5.7876401 11.849 1.235 0.656 11.44 –3.32 –0.29 –0.09 63 6.2
AD Cam 1 11.2609911 12.564 1.588 0.864 13.05 –4.09 0.00 –0.22 40 8.6
RY CMa 3 4.6782498 8.110 0.847 0.239 8.78 –3.07 –0.13 –0.00 73 5.6
RZ CMa 3 4.2548318 9.697 1.004 0.443 9.11 –2.96 –0.03 –0.03 77 5.3
TW CMa 2 6.9950700 9.561 0.970 0.329 9.76 –3.54 –0.20 –0.17 55 6.8
VZ CMa 1 3.1262300 9.383 0.957 0.461 8.75 –2.98 –0.39 –0.06 76 5.4
AO CMa 1 5.8154202 12.603 1.316 0.738 11.30 –3.32 ... –0.14 63 6.2
U Car 1 38.7681007 6.288 1.183 0.265 7.54 –5.53 ... 0.01 18 16.0
V Car 2 6.6966720 7.362 0.872 0.169 7.88 –3.49 –0.15 0.00 57 6.7
SX Car 1 4.8600001 9.089 0.887 0.318 7.59 –3.11 –0.30 –0.09 71 5.7
UW Car 1 5.3457732 9.426 0.971 0.435 7.62 –3.22 –0.28 –0.06 66 5.9
UX Car 2 3.6822460 8.308 0.627 0.112 7.66 –2.79 –0.05 0.02 85 4.9
UY Car 1 5.5437260 8.967 0.818 0.180 7.55 –3.27 –0.15 0.03 65 6.1
UZ Car 1 5.2046599 9.323 0.875 0.178 7.54 –3.19 –0.10 0.07 68 5.9
VY Car 1 18.9137611 7.443 1.171 0.237 7.58 –4.69 –0.05 0.12 28 11.2
WW Car 1 4.6768098 9.743 0.890 0.379 7.52 –3.07 –0.55 –0.07 73 5.6
WZ Car 1 23.0132008 9.247 1.142 0.370 7.57 –4.92 ... 0.03 25 12.3
XX Car 1 15.7162399 9.322 1.054 0.347 7.38 –4.48 –0.06 0.11 32 10.2
XY Car 1 12.4348297 9.295 1.214 0.411 7.33 –4.21 –0.29 0.04 38 9.1
XZ Car 1 16.6499004 8.601 1.266 0.365 7.41 –4.55 ... 0.14 31 10.5
YZ Car 1 18.1655731 8.714 1.124 0.381 7.63 –4.65 –0.15 0.02 29 11.0
AQ Car 2 9.7689600 8.851 0.928 0.165 7.63 –3.93 –0.10 0.00 44 8.0
CN Car 1 4.9326100 10.700 1.089 0.399 7.80 –3.13 –0.11 0.06 70 5.7
CY Car 1 4.2659302 9.782 0.953 0.370 7.47 –2.96 –0.08 0.10 77 5.3
DY Car 1 4.6746101 11.314 1.003 0.372 7.69 –3.07 –0.28 –0.07 73 5.6
ER Car 2 7.7185502 6.824 0.867 0.096 7.60 –3.65 0.00 0.01 52 7.1
FI Car 1 13.4582005 11.610 1.514 0.691 8.11 –4.30 –0.25 0.06 36 9.4
FR Car 1 10.7169704 9.661 1.121 0.334 7.39 –4.03 –0.18 0.02 42 8.4
GH Car 1 5.7255702 9.177 0.932 0.394 7.41 –3.69 –0.17 –0.01 51 7.2
GX Car 1 7.1967301 9.364 1.043 0.386 7.76 –3.57 –0.07 0.01 54 6.9
HW Car 1 9.2002001 9.163 1.055 0.184 7.56 –3.86 0.02 0.04 46 7.8
IO Car 1 13.5970000 11.101 1.221 0.502 8.08 –4.31 –0.35 –0.05 36 9.5
IT Car 1 7.5331998 8.097 0.990 0.184 7.45 –3.62 –0.15 0.06 53 7.1
V397 Car 2 2.0634999 8.320 0.754 0.266 7.67 –2.50 –0.14 0.03 101 4.4
Name No. Spectra $P$ (days) V $(B-V)$ E([*B–V*]{}) r, kpc Mv \[O/H\] \[Fe/H\] age, Myr Mass
---------- ------------- ------------ -------- --------- -------------- -------- ------- --------- ---------- ---------- ------
l Car 5 35.5513420 3.724 1.299 0.147 7.79 –5.43 0.12 0.02 19 15.3
SZ Cas 1 13.6377468 9.853 1.419 0.794 9.40 –4.31 0.06 0.04 35 9.5
RY Cas 1 12.1388798 9.927 1.384 0.618 9.34 –4.18 0.13 0.10 38 9.0
RW Cas 2 14.7915478 9.117 1.096 0.380 9.96 –4.41 –0.07 0.06 34 9.9
SU Cas 13 1.9493220 5.970 0.703 0.259 8.13 –2.43 –0.02 0.06 105 4.2
SW Cas 1 5.4409499 9.705 1.081 0.467 8.75 –3.25 0.27 0.02 66 6.0
SY Cas 1 4.0710979 9.868 0.992 0.442 8.93 –2.91 0.31 0.04 80 5.2
TU Cas 12 2.1392980 7.733 0.582 0.109 8.31 –2.16 –0.03 0.03 123 3.8
XY Cas 1 4.5016971 9.935 1.147 0.533 8.98 –3.02 –0.09 0.03 75 5.5
BD Cas 3 3.6508999 11.000 1.565 1.006 8.57 –2.78 –0.09 –0.07 86 4.9
CE CasA 1 5.1409001 10.922 1.171 0.556 9.55 –3.18 –0.04 –0.16 68 5.8
CE CasB 1 4.4793000 11.062 1.042 0.527 9.62 –3.02 –0.04 –0.03 75 5.4
CF Cas 5 4.8752198 11.136 1.174 0.553 9.70 –3.12 0.06 –0.01 71 5.7
CH Cas 1 15.0861902 10.973 1.650 0.894 9.60 –4.43 ... –0.08 33 10.0
CY Cas 1 14.3768597 11.641 1.738 0.963 10.06 –4.38 –0.04 0.06 34 9.7
DD Cas 1 9.8120270 9.876 1.188 0.450 9.60 –3.93 0.07 0.10 44 8.1
DF Cas 1 3.8324721 10.848 1.181 0.570 9.72 –2.84 ... 0.13 83 5.0
DL Cas 3 8.0006685 8.969 1.154 0.488 8.85 –3.69 –0.01 –0.01 51 7.3
FM Cas 1 5.8092842 9.127 0.989 0.325 8.94 –3.32 –0.21 –0.09 63 6.2
V379 Cas 2 4.3057499 9.053 1.139 0.600 8.59 –3.36 0.07 0.06 62 6.3
V636 Cas 8 8.3769999 7.199 1.365 0.666 8.24 –3.75 –0.18 0.07 49 7.4
V Cen 3 5.4938612 6.836 0.875 0.292 7.43 –3.26 –0.16 –0.01 65 6.0
XX Cen 1 10.9533701 7.818 0.983 0.266 7.00 –4.06 –0.03 0.16 41 8.5
AY Cen 1 5.3097501 8.830 1.009 0.295 7.42 –3.22 –0.15 0.01 67 5.9
AZ Cen 1 3.2119811 8.636 0.653 0.168 7.41 –3.01 –0.10 –0.05 75 5.4
BB Cen 1 3.9976599 10.073 0.953 0.377 7.12 –3.27 0.06 0.13 65 6.1
KK Cen 1 12.1802998 11.480 1.282 0.611 7.54 –4.18 0.01 0.12 38 9.0
KN Cen 1 34.0296402 9.870 1.582 0.797 6.40 –5.38 ... 0.35 19 15.0
MZ Cen 1 10.3529997 11.531 1.570 0.869 6.53 –3.99 –0.13 0.20 43 8.3
QY Cen 1 17.7523994 11.762 2.150 1.447 6.64 –4.62 –0.09 0.16 30 10.8
V339 Cen 1 9.4659996 8.753 1.191 0.413 6.77 –3.89 –0.20 0.04 45 7.9
V378 Cen 1 6.4593000 8.460 1.035 0.376 7.05 –3.83 –0.09 –0.02 47 7.7
V381 Cen 1 5.0787802 7.653 0.792 0.195 7.24 –3.17 –0.09 0.02 69 5.8
V419 Cen 1 5.5069098 8.186 0.758 0.168 7.41 –3.64 –0.12 0.07 52 7.1
V496 Cen 1 4.4241900 9.966 1.172 0.541 7.06 –3.00 –0.16 0.00 75 5.4
V659 Cen 1 5.6217999 6.598 0.758 0.128 7.45 –3.28 0.00 0.07 64 6.1
V737 Cen 1 7.0658498 6.719 0.999 0.206 7.34 –3.55 –0.09 0.13 55 6.8
CP Cep 1 17.8589993 10.590 1.668 0.649 9.60 –4.63 –0.16 –0.01 30 10.9
CR Cep 1 6.2329640 9.656 1.396 0.709 8.44 –3.79 –0.09 –0.06 48 7.6
IR Cep 2 2.1141241 7.784 0.888 0.413 8.06 –2.53 0.04 0.05 99 4.4
V351 Cep 3 2.8060000 9.440 0.942 0.436 8.49 –2.86 0.07 0.02 82 5.1
Del Cep 18 5.3662701 3.954 0.657 0.075 7.97 –3.23 0.01 0.09 66 6.0
AV Cir 1 3.0651000 7.439 0.910 0.378 7.46 –2.96 –0.08 0.10 77 5.3
AX Cir 2 5.2733059 5.880 0.741 0.146 7.53 –3.21 –0.07 –0.06 67 5.9
BP Cir 1 2.3984001 7.560 0.702 0.224 7.35 –2.67 –0.18 –0.06 91 4.7
R Cru 1 5.8257499 6.766 0.772 0.183 7.54 –3.32 –0.11 0.08 63 6.2
S Cru 1 4.6895962 6.600 0.761 0.166 7.55 –3.07 –0.06 –0.12 73 5.6
T Cru 1 6.7332001 6.566 0.922 0.184 7.55 –3.49 –0.03 0.09 57 6.7
X Cru 1 6.2199702 8.404 1.001 0.272 7.20 –3.40 0.08 0.14 60 6.4
VW Cru 1 5.2652202 9.622 1.309 0.643 7.28 –3.21 –0.07 0.10 67 5.9
AD Cru 1 6.3978901 11.051 1.279 0.647 6.99 –3.43 –0.06 0.06 59 6.5
AG Cru 1 3.8372540 8.225 0.738 0.212 7.35 –2.84 –0.16 –0.13 83 5.0
BG Cru 2 3.3427200 5.487 0.606 0.132 7.69 –3.06 0.01 0.04 73 5.5
X Cyg 26 16.3863316 6.391 1.130 0.228 7.73 –4.53 0.07 0.10 31 10.4
SU Cyg 12 3.8454919 6.859 0.575 0.080 7.60 –2.84 –0.29 –0.03 83 5.0
SZ Cyg 1 15.1096420 9.432 1.477 0.571 8.06 –4.43 0.10 0.09 33 10.0
TX Cyg 2 14.7081566 9.511 1.784 1.130 7.87 –4.40 –0.25 0.07 34 9.9
VX Cyg 1 20.1334076 10.069 1.704 0.753 8.06 –4.77 0.17 0.09 27 11.5
VY Cyg 1 7.8569822 9.593 1.215 0.606 7.88 –3.67 0.06 0.00 51 7.2
VZ Cyg 1 4.8644528 8.959 0.876 0.266 8.13 –3.11 0.18 0.05 71 5.7
BZ Cyg 1 10.1419315 10.213 1.573 0.888 7.95 –3.97 ... 0.07 43 8.2
CD Cyg 16 17.0739670 8.947 1.266 0.493 7.47 –4.58 –0.03 0.11 31 10.6
DT Cyg 14 2.4990821 5.774 0.538 0.042 7.80 –2.72 0.01 0.10 89 4.8
Name No. Spectra $P$ (days) V $(B-V)$ E([*B–V*]{}) r, kpc Mv \[O/H\] \[Fe/H\] age, Myr Mass
----------- ------------- ------------ -------- --------- -------------- -------- ------- --------- ---------- ---------- ------
MW Cyg 1 5.9545860 9.489 1.316 0.635 7.55 –3.35 0.14 0.09 62 6.3
V386 Cyg 1 5.2576060 9.635 1.491 0.841 7.89 –3.21 –0.06 0.11 67 5.9
V402 Cyg 1 4.3648362 9.873 1.008 0.391 7.60 –2.99 0.11 0.02 76 5.4
V532 Cyg 1 3.2836120 9.086 1.036 0.494 7.98 –3.04 0.03 –0.04 74 5.5
V924 Cygs 1 5.5714722 10.710 0.847 0.261 7.53 –3.65 ... –0.09 52 7.2
V1154 Cyg 1 4.9254599 9.190 0.925 0.319 7.70 –3.13 0.00 –0.10 70 5.7
V1334 Cyg 11 3.3330200 5.871 0.504 0.025 7.86 –3.06 –0.13 0.03 73 5.5
V1726 Cyg 1 4.2370601 9.009 0.885 0.339 8.18 –3.34 ... –0.02 62 6.2
TX Dels 1 6.1659999 9.147 0.766 0.222 6.82 –3.39 0.16 0.24 60 6.4
Beta Dor 1 9.8424253 3.731 0.807 0.052 7.90 –3.93 –0.08 –0.01 44 8.1
W Gem 8 7.9137788 6.950 0.889 0.255 8.78 –3.68 –0.15 –0.01 51 7.2
RZ Gem 2 5.5292859 10.007 1.025 0.563 9.84 –3.26 –0.14 –0.19 65 6.0
AA Gem 2 11.3023281 9.721 1.061 0.309 11.55 –4.10 0.07 –0.27 40 8.6
AD Gem 2 3.7879801 9.857 0.694 0.173 10.48 –2.82 –0.31 –0.16 84 5.0
BB Gem 1 2.3080001 11.364 0.881 0.430 10.64 –2.25 –0.45 –0.09 117 3.9
DX Gem 1 3.1374860 10.746 0.936 0.430 10.76 –2.99 –0.28 –0.02 76 5.4
Zeta Gem 11 10.1507301 3.918 0.798 0.014 8.25 –3.97 –0.05 0.00 43 8.2
BB Her 4 7.5079999 10.090 1.100 0.392 6.05 –3.62 0.04 0.15 53 7.0
V Lac 1 4.9834681 8.936 0.873 0.335 8.48 –3.14 0.17 0.00 70 5.7
X Lac 1 5.4449902 8.407 0.901 0.336 8.48 –3.63 0.10 –0.02 53 7.1
Y Lac 9 4.3237758 9.146 0.731 0.207 8.42 –2.98 –0.26 –0.04 77 5.3
Z Lac 9 10.8856134 8.415 1.095 0.370 8.56 –4.05 –0.11 0.01 41 8.5
RR Lac 1 6.4162431 8.848 0.885 0.319 8.55 –3.44 0.09 0.00 59 6.5
BG Lac 3 5.3319321 8.883 0.949 0.300 8.16 –3.22 0.10 –0.01 67 5.9
GH Lup 1 9.2779484 7.635 1.210 0.335 6.94 –3.87 –0.04 0.08 46 7.8
V473 Lyr 2 1.4907800 6.182 0.632 0.025 7.72 –2.12 –0.24 –0.06 125 3.7
T Mon 20 27.0246487 6.124 1.166 0.181 9.15 –5.11 0.04 0.13 22 13.4
SV Mon 10 15.2327805 8.219 1.048 0.234 10.14 –4.44 –0.17 –0.02 33 10.0
TW Mon 2 7.0969000 12.575 1.339 0.663 13.61 –3.55 –0.35 –0.18 55 6.8
TX Mon 2 8.7017307 10.960 1.096 0.485 11.74 –3.79 –0.11 –0.08 48 7.6
TY Mon 1 4.0226951 11.740 1.158 0.572 11.07 –2.89 0.01 –0.06 80 5.2
TZ Mon 3 7.4280138 10.761 1.116 0.420 11.44 –3.61 0.20 –0.04 53 7.0
UY Mon 2 2.3979700 9.391 0.527 0.064 10.08 –2.67 –0.16 –0.13 91 4.7
WW Mon 2 4.6623101 12.505 1.128 0.605 12.94 –3.07 –0.41 –0.36 73 5.6
XX Mon 3 5.4564729 11.898 1.139 0.567 11.95 –3.25 –0.04 –0.09 66 6.0
AA Mon 1 3.9381640 12.707 1.409 0.792 11.36 –2.87 –0.19 –0.21 81 5.1
AC Mon 2 8.0142498 10.067 1.165 0.484 10.12 –3.70 –0.25 –0.22 51 7.3
BE Mon 1 2.7055099 10.578 1.134 0.622 9.36 –2.43 0.03 0.00 105 4.2
BV Mon 1 3.0149601 11.431 1.109 0.612 10.17 –2.56 ... –0.14 97 4.5
CU Mon 1 4.7078729 13.607 1.393 0.751 14.45 –3.08 –0.06 –0.26 72 5.6
CV Mon 2 5.3788981 10.299 1.297 0.722 9.46 –3.23 –0.12 –0.06 66 6.0
EE Mon 1 4.8089600 12.941 0.966 0.465 15.028 –3.10 ... –0.51 71 5.6
EK Mon 2 3.9579411 11.048 1.195 0.556 10.19 –2.88 –0.28 –0.06 81 5.1
FG Mon 1 4.4965901 13.310 1.209 0.651 13.94 –3.02 –0.46 –0.20 75 5.5
FI Mon 1 3.2878220 12.924 1.068 0.513 13.11 –2.66 –0.41 –0.18 92 4.7
V465 Mon 1 2.7131760 10.379 0.762 0.244 10.09 –2.44 0.22 0.03 105 4.2
V495 Mon 2 4.0965829 12.427 1.241 0.609 12.10 –2.92 –0.09 –0.20 79 5.2
V504 Mon 1 2.7740500 11.814 1.036 0.538 10.67 –2.84 –0.35 –0.31 83 5.0
V508 Mon 2 4.1336079 10.518 0.898 0.307 10.71 –2.93 –0.22 –0.21 79 5.2
V510 Mon 2 7.3071752 12.681 1.527 0.802 12.96 –3.59 –0.20 –0.17 54 6.9
V526 Mon 1 2.6749849 8.597 0.593 0.089 9.32 –2.80 –0.52 –0.13 85 5.0
R Mus 1 7.5104671 6.298 0.757 0.114 7.50 –3.62 –0.02 0.10 53 7.0
S Mus 1 9.6598749 6.118 0.833 0.212 7.56 –3.91 –0.19 –0.02 45 8.0
RT Mus 1 3.0861700 9.022 0.834 0.344 7.43 –2.59 0.02 0.02 96 4.5
TZ Mus 1 4.9448848 11.702 1.287 0.664 7.06 –3.13 –0.16 –0.01 70 5.7
UU Mus 1 11.6364098 9.781 1.150 0.399 7.05 –4.13 –0.06 0.05 39 8.8
S Nor 3 9.7542439 6.394 0.941 0.179 7.17 –3.92 –0.13 0.06 44 8.0
U Nor 1 12.6437101 9.238 1.576 0.862 6.82 –4.23 0.04 0.15 37 9.1
SY Nor 1 12.6456871 9.513 1.340 0.756 6.44 –4.23 0.21 0.31 37 9.1
TW Nor 1 10.7861795 11.704 1.930 1.157 5.84 –4.04 0.28 0.28 41 8.4
GU Nor 1 3.4528770 10.411 1.273 0.651 6.55 –2.72 0.15 0.15 89 4.8
V340 Nor 2 11.2869997 8.375 1.149 0.321 6.31 –4.09 0.07 0.05 40 8.6
Y Oph 14 17.1269073 6.169 1.377 0.645 7.42 –4.58 0.00 0.06 30 10.6
Name No. Spectra $P$ (days) V $(B-V)$ E([*B–V*]{}) r, kpc Mv \[O/H\] \[Fe/H\] age, Myr Mass
---------- ------------- ------------ -------- --------- -------------- -------- ------- --------- ---------- ---------- ------
BF Oph 2 4.0675101 7.337 0.868 0.235 7.12 –2.91 –0.08 0.03 80 5.2
RS Ori 6 7.5668812 8.412 0.945 0.352 9.36 –3.63 –0.11 –0.06 53 7.1
CS Ori 2 3.8893900 11.381 0.924 0.383 11.74 –2.85 –0.61 –0.28 82 5.1
GQ Ori 2 8.6160679 8.965 0.976 0.249 10.23 –3.78 –0.03 0.01 48 7.5
SV Per 1 11.1293182 9.020 1.029 0.408 10.09 –4.08 0.15 0.01 41 8.6
UX Per 1 4.5658150 11.664 1.027 0.512 11.10 –3.04 –0.42 –0.21 74 5.5
VX Per 9 10.8890400 9.312 1.158 0.475 9.63 –4.05 –0.18 –0.04 41 8.5
AS Per 1 4.9725161 9.723 1.302 0.674 9.15 –3.14 –0.02 0.10 70 5.7
AW Per 4 6.4635892 7.492 1.055 0.489 8.62 –3.45 –0.03 0.01 58 6.5
BM Per 4 22.9519005 10.388 1.793 0.871 10.85 –4.92 –0.21 0.00 25 12.3
HQ Per 2 8.6379299 11.595 1.234 0.564 12.90 –3.78 0.13 –0.31 48 7.6
MM Per 1 4.1184149 10.802 1.062 0.490 10.30 –2.92 –0.08 –0.01 79 5.2
V440 Per 10 7.5700002 6.282 0.873 0.260 8.47 –3.63 –0.12 –0.04 53 7.1
X Pup 7 25.9610004 8.460 1.127 0.402 9.73 –5.06 –0.22 –0.03 23 13.1
RS Pup 3 41.3875999 6.947 1.393 0.457 8.54 –5.60 0.10 0.17 17 16.5
VW Pup 1 4.2853699 11.365 1.065 0.489 10.34 –2.97 0.19 –0.19 77 5.3
VX Pup 1 3.0108700 8.328 0.610 0.129 8.64 –2.56 –0.05 –0.08 98 4.5
VZ Pup 2 23.1709995 9.621 1.162 0.459 10.40 –4.93 –0.10 –0.12 25 12.4
WW Pup 1 5.5167241 10.554 0.874 0.379 10.07 –3.26 ... –0.18 65 6.0
WX Pup 1 8.9370499 9.063 0.968 0.319 9.25 –3.82 –0.01 0.06 47 7.7
AD Pup 2 13.5939999 9.863 1.049 0.314 10.61 –4.31 0.03 –0.17 36 9.5
AP Pup 5 5.0842738 7.371 0.838 0.198 8.19 –3.17 –0.10 0.00 69 5.8
AQ Pup 3 30.1040001 8.791 1.423 0.518 9.49 –5.23 0.04 –0.09 21 14.1
AT Pup 1 6.6648788 7.957 0.783 0.191 8.41 –3.48 –0.31 –0.14 57 6.6
BC Pup 2 3.5443399 13.841 - 0.800 12.44 –2.75 –0.55 –0.23 87 4.8
BN Pup 2 13.6731005 9.882 1.186 0.416 9.92 –4.32 0.00 0.02 35 9.5
CE Pup 1 49.5299988 11.959 1.745 0.740 14.74 –5.81 –0.32 –0.05 15 18.1
HW Pup 3 13.4540005 12.050 1.237 0.688 12.33 –4.30 –0.23 –0.23 36 9.4
MY Pup 2 5.6953092 5.677 0.631 0.061 8.03 –3.68 –0.15 –0.11 51 7.2
NT Pup 1 15.5649996 12.144 1.389 0.670 12.42 –4.47 –0.39 –0.15 32 10.1
V335 Pup 1 4.8609848 8.717 0.759 0.154 9.19 –3.50 0.13 –0.01 57 6.7
S Sge 9 8.3820858 5.622 0.805 0.100 7.55 –3.75 –0.06 0.08 49 7.4
U Sgr 12 6.7452288 6.695 1.087 0.403 7.32 –3.50 0.03 0.08 57 6.7
W Sgr 8 7.5949039 4.668 0.746 0.111 7.51 –3.63 –0.14 0.02 52 7.1
Y Sgr 12 5.7733798 5.744 0.856 0.191 7.42 –3.31 –0.18 0.05 63 6.2
VY Sgr 1 13.5572004 11.511 1.941 1.221 5.58 –4.31 0.18 0.26 36 9.5
WZ Sgr 12 21.8497887 8.030 1.392 0.431 5.96 –4.86 0.00 0.19 26 12.0
XX Sgr 1 6.4241400 8.852 1.107 0.521 6.63 –3.44 0.07 0.10 59 6.5
YZ Sgr 8 9.5536871 7.358 1.032 0.281 6.80 –3.90 –0.12 0.06 45 7.9
AP Sgr 1 5.0579162 6.955 0.807 0.178 7.10 –3.16 –0.23 0.10 69 5.8
AV Sgr 1 15.4150000 11.391 1.999 1.206 5.48 –4.46 0.36 0.34 33 10.1
BB Sgr 1 6.6371021 6.947 0.987 0.281 7.14 –3.48 –0.13 0.08 57 6.6
V350 Sgr 1 5.1541781 7.483 0.905 0.299 7.06 –3.18 0.23 0.18 68 5.8
RV Sco 2 6.0613060 7.040 0.955 0.349 7.20 –3.37 –0.03 0.05 61 6.3
RY Sco 1 20.3201447 8.004 1.426 0.718 6.67 –4.78 0.06 0.09 27 11.6
KQ Sco 1 28.6896000 9.807 1.934 0.869 5.41 –5.18 0.21 0.16 22 13.8
V482 Sco 1 4.5278072 7.965 0.975 0.336 6.94 –3.03 –0.05 0.07 74 5.5
V500 Sco 5 9.3168392 8.729 1.276 0.593 6.53 –3.87 –0.12 0.01 46 7.8
V636 Sco 1 6.7968588 6.654 0.936 0.207 7.15 –3.50 –0.08 0.07 57 6.7
V950 Sco 1 3.3804500 7.302 0.775 0.254 7.10 –3.07 –0.05 0.11 72 5.6
Z Sct 1 12.9013252 9.600 1.330 0.492 5.52 –4.25 0.16 0.29 37 9.2
SS Sct 1 3.6712530 8.211 0.944 0.325 7.03 –2.79 –0.04 0.06 85 4.9
UZ Sct 1 14.7441998 11.305 1.784 1.020 5.12 –4.40 0.49 0.33 34 9.9
EV Sct 1 3.0909901 10.137 1.160 0.679 6.54 –2.97 ... –0.02 77 5.3
EW Sct 3 5.8232999 7.979 1.725 1.074 7.57 –3.32 –0.04 0.04 63 6.2
V367 Sct 1 6.2930698 11.596 1.769 1.231 6.43 –3.41 0.53 –0.01 60 6.4
BQ Ser 3 4.2708998 9.501 1.399 0.815 7.17 –2.96 –0.13 –0.04 77 5.3
ST Tau 4 4.0342989 8.217 0.847 0.368 8.83 –2.90 –0.12 –0.05 80 5.2
SZ Tau 16 3.1483800 6.531 0.844 0.295 8.39 –2.99 –0.03 0.07 76 5.4
AE Tau 1 3.8964500 11.679 1.129 0.575 11.33 –2.86 –0.17 –0.19 82 5.1
AV Tau 1 3.6158099 12.338 1.376 0.892 10.67 –2.77 ... –0.09 86 4.9
EF Tau 1 3.4481499 13.113 0.931 0.360 16.32 –2.71 –0.23 –0.74 89 4.8
EU Tau 2 2.1024799 8.093 0.664 0.164 8.93 –2.52 –0.05 –0.06 100 4.4
Name No. Spectra $P$ (days) V $(B-V)$ E([*B–V*]{}) r, kpc Mv \[O/H\] \[Fe/H\] age, Myr Mass
--------- ------------- ------------ -------- --------- -------------- -------- ------- --------- ---------- ---------- ------
R TrA 1 3.3892870 6.660 0.722 0.142 7.48 –2.69 –0.08 0.06 90 4.7
S TrA 1 6.3234649 6.397 0.752 0.084 7.28 –3.42 –0.13 0.12 59 6.5
LR TrA 1 2.4549999 7.808 0.781 0.268 7.29 –2.70 0.03 0.25 90 4.7
Alp UMi 1 3.9696000 1.982 0.598 0.000 7.96 –3.26 0.12 0.10 65 6.0
T Vel 4 4.6398191 8.024 0.922 0.289 8.05 –3.06 –0.05 –0.02 73 5.5
V Vel 2 4.3710432 7.589 0.788 0.186 7.85 –2.99 –0.25 –0.21 76 5.4
RY Vel 4 28.1357002 8.397 1.352 0.547 7.73 –5.16 –0.03 0.05 22 13.6
RZ Vel 4 20.3982391 7.079 1.120 0.299 8.22 –4.78 –0.03 0.04 27 11.6
ST Vel 2 5.8584251 9.704 1.195 0.479 8.18 –3.33 –0.26 0.02 62 6.2
SV Vel 1 14.0970697 8.524 1.054 0.373 7.59 –4.35 –0.16 0.08 35 9.7
SW Vel 5 23.4410000 8.120 1.162 0.344 8.43 –4.94 –0.11 –0.10 25 12.4
SX Vel 4 9.5499296 8.251 0.888 0.263 8.24 –3.90 –0.03 –0.02 45 7.9
XX Vel 1 6.9845700 10.654 1.162 0.545 7.71 –3.54 –0.29 –0.05 56 6.8
AE Vel 1 7.1335702 10.262 1.243 0.635 7.98 –3.56 –0.03 0.05 55 6.9
AH Vel 3 4.2272310 5.695 0.579 0.070 8.00 –3.33 0.00 0.05 62 6.2
AX Vel 1 3.6731000 8.197 0.691 0.224 8.11 –2.79 ... –0.08 85 4.9
BG Vel 2 6.9236550 7.635 1.175 0.426 7.92 –3.53 0.01 –0.02 56 6.8
CS Vel 1 5.9047399 11.681 1.448 0.737 8.20 –3.34 –0.01 0.08 62 6.2
CX Vel 1 6.2554250 11.374 1.413 0.723 8.36 –3.41 –0.30 0.06 60 6.4
DK Vel 1 2.4816401 10.614 0.774 0.287 8.13 –2.33 0.03 –0.02 111 4.0
DR Vel 2 11.1992998 9.520 1.518 0.656 8.04 –4.08 –0.02 0.08 40 8.6
EX Vel 1 13.2341003 11.562 1.561 0.775 8.87 –4.28 –0.11 0.05 36 9.4
EZ Vel 2 34.5345993 12.448 1.716 0.822 12.51 –5.39 –0.01 –0.08 19 15.1
FG Vel 1 6.4531999 11.814 1.493 0.810 8.29 –3.44 –0.06 –0.05 59 6.5
FN Vel 1 5.3242202 10.292 1.186 0.588 7.85 –3.22 –0.17 0.06 67 5.9
S Vul 4 68.4639969 8.962 1.892 0.727 7.07 –6.19 –0.20 –0.01 12 21.3
T Vul 12 4.4354620 5.754 0.635 0.064 7.76 –3.01 –0.09 0.01 75 5.4
U Vul 7 7.9906292 7.128 1.275 0.603 7.58 –3.69 –0.04 0.09 51 7.3
X Vul 6 6.3195429 8.849 1.389 0.742 7.53 –3.42 –0.03 0.07 59 6.5
SV Vul 23 44.9947739 7.220 1.442 0.461 7.26 –5.70 –0.01 0.05 16 17.2
\
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: By the way, they also suggested that, in spiral and elliptical galaxies, SNe Ia appear to have different origin.
[^2]: DTD function is the probability distribution of the time period between the SNe progenitor birth and explosion.
[^3]: Acharova et al. (2010) showed that SNe Ia produce only about 2 per cent of oxygen (see also Matteucci 2004 and Tsujimoto et al. 1995). That is why we neglect by the contribution of SNe Ia to synthesis of oxygen.
[^4]: The upper limit for $\tau$ is dictated by the least mass ($\sim$0.8 M$_{\odot}$) of a white dwarf companion in order the binary system results in SNe Ia outburst (see Greggio 2005; Matteucci et al. 2006). So, there is no any contradiction with the shorter age of the Universe.
[^5]: The increase of $\Delta^{\rm O}_m$ relative to the corresponding value of Acharova et al. (2011) is associated with that the weight $w_i > 1$.
[^6]: We neglect by the mass of iron which have fallen on to the Galactic disc with the infall gas during the life of the Galaxy since this mass happens to be $\sim~2.2\cdot 10^5$ M$_{\odot}$ and is much less than the mass of iron produced by SNe.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the problem of estimating the leading eigenvectors of a high-dimensional population covariance matrix based on independent Gaussian observations. We establish a lower bound on the minimax risk of estimators under the $l_2$ loss, in the joint limit as dimension and sample size increase to infinity, under various models of sparsity for the population eigenvectors. The lower bound on the risk points to the existence of different regimes of sparsity of the eigenvectors. We also propose a new method for estimating the eigenvectors by a two-stage coordinate selection scheme.'
---
.1in Aharon Birnbaum$^*$, Iain M. Johnstone$^\dag$, Boaz Nadler$^\ddag$ *and* Debashis Paul$^\S$
.1in*$*$ Hebrew University of Jerusalem; $\dag$ Stanford University; $\ddag$ Weizmann Institute of Science; $\S$ University of California, Davis*
.1in[**Keywords :**]{} minimax risk, high-dimensional data, principal component analysis, sparsity, spiked covariance model
Introduction
============
Principal components analysis (PCA) is a widely used technique in reducing dimensionality of multivariate data. A traditional setting where PCA is applicable involves repeated observations from a multivariate normal distribution. Two key theoretical questions are: [*i) what is the relation between the sample eigenvectors and the population ones ? and ii) how well can population eigenvectors be estimated under various sparsity assumptions ?*]{} When the dimension $N$ of the observations is fixed and the sample size $n$ increases to infinity, the asymptotic properties of the sample eigenvalues and eigenvectors are well-known [@Anderson1963; @Muirhead1982]. Most of this asymptotic analysis is based on the fact that the sample covariance approximates well the population covariance when the sample size is large. However, it is increasingly common to encounter statistical problems where the dimensionality of the observations is of the same order of magnitude as (or even bigger than) the sample size. In such cases, the sample covariance matrix, in general, is not a reliable estimate of the population covariance matrix.
To overcome this curse of dimensionality, several works studied the estimation of the population covariance matrix, under various models of sparsity. These include the development of banding and thresholding schemes [@BickelL2008a; @BickelL2008b; @ElKaroui2008; @RothmanLZ2009; @CaiL2011], and analysis of their rate of convergence in the spectral norm. More recent works, such as [@CaiZZ2010] and [@CaiZ2011] established the minimax rate of convergence under the matrix $l_1$ norm and the spectral norm, and its dependence on the assumed sparsity level.
In contrast to these works, that studied estimation of the population covariance matrix, in this paper we consider a related but different problem, namely, the estimation of its leading eigenvectors. The interest in comparing these two problems is partially due to the fact that, when the population covariance is a low rank perturbation of the identity, which is a primary focus of this paper, sparsity of the eigenvectors corresponding to the non-unit eigenvalues implies sparsity of the whole covariance. Note that consistency of an estimator of the whole covariance matrix also implies convergence of its leading eigenvalues to their population counterparts. If the gaps between the neighboring distinct eigenvalues remain bounded away from zero, it also implies convergence of the corresponding eigen-subspaces [@ElKaroui2008]. Moreover, for population eigenvalues with multiplicity one and gaps with neighboring eigenvalues bounded away from zero, the upper bounds for the whole covariance estimation under the spectral norm, derived in [@BickelL2008b] and [@CaiZ2011], also yield an upper bound on the rate of convergence of the corresponding eigenvectors under the $l_2$ loss. These works, however, did not study the following fundamental problem, considered in this paper: *How well can the leading eigenvectors be estimated, namely, what are the minimax rates for eigenvector estimation ?* We formulate this eigenvector estimation problem under the well-studied “spiked population model” which assumes that
- the eigenvalues of the population covariance matrix $\Sigma$ are $$\lambda_1 + \sigma^2, \ldots, \lambda_M + \sigma^2, \sigma^2,
\ldots,\sigma^2,$$ for some $M \geq 1$, where $\sigma^2 > 0$ and $\lambda_1 >\lambda_2 > \cdots >
\lambda_M > 0$.
This is a standard model in several scientific fields, including for example array signal processing (e.g. see [@vanTrees2002]) where the observations are modeled as the sum of an $M$-dimensional random signal and an independent, isotropic noise. It also arises as a latent variable model for multivariate data, for example in factor analysis [@Jolliffe2002; @TippingB1998]. The assumption that the leading $M$ eigenvalues are distinct is made to simplify the analysis, as it ensures that the corresponding eigenvectors are identifiable up to a sign change. The assumption that all remaining eigenvalues are equal is not crucial as our analysis can be generalized to the case when these are only bounded by $\sigma^2$. Asymptotic properties of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the sample covariance matrix under this model, in the setting when $N/n \to c \in
(0,\infty)$ as $n \to \infty$, have been studied by [@Baik2006], [@Nadler2008], [@Onatski2006] and [@Paul2007], among others. A conclusion of these studies is that when $N/n \to c > 0$, the eigenvectors of standard PCA are inconsistent estimators of the population eigenvectors.
In analogy to the sparse covariance estimation setting, several works considered various models of sparsity for the leading eigenvectors and developed improved sparse estimators. For example [@WittenT2009] and [@ZouHT2006], among others, imposed $l_1$-type sparsity constraints directly on the eigenvector estimates and proposed optimization procedures for obtaining them. [@ShenH2008] suggested a regularized low rank approach to sparse PCA. The consistency of the resulting leading eigenvectors was recently proven in [@ShenSM2011], using a formulation of sparsity in which the sample size $n$ is fixed while $N \to \infty$. [@dAspremontEJL2008] suggested a semi-definite programming (SDP) problem as a relaxation to the $l_0$-penalty for sparse $\Sigma$. Assuming a single spike, [@AminiW2008] studied the asymptotic properties of the leading eigenvector of the covariance estimator obtained by [@dAspremontEJL2008], in the joint limit as both sample size and dimension tend to infinity. Specifically, [@AminiW2008] considered a leading eigenvector with exactly $k \ll N$ nonzero entries all of the form $\{-1/\sqrt{k},1/\sqrt{k}\}$. For this hardest subproblem in the $k$-sparse $l_0$-ball, [@AminiW2008] first derived information theoretic lower bounds, and then, under the assumption that the SDP problem has a rank one solution, proved that it attains the optimal rate of convergence.
In this paper, in contrast, following [@JohnstoneL2009] we study the estimation of the leading eigenvectors of $\Sigma$ assuming that these are approximately sparse, with a bounded $l_q$ norm. Under this model, [@JohnstoneL2009] developed an estimation procedure based on coordinate selection by thresholding the diagonal of the sample covariance matrix, followed by the spectral decomposition of the submatrix corresponding to the selected coordinates. [@JohnstoneL2009] further proved consistency of this estimator assuming dimension grows at most polynomially with sample size, but did not study its convergence rate. Since this estimation procedure is considerably simpler to implement and computationally much faster than the $l_1$ penalization procedures cited above, it is of interest to understand its theoretical properties. More recently, [@Ma2011] developed a related scheme named ITSPCA (iterative thresholding sparse PCA) which is based on repeated application of filtering, thresholding and orthogonalization steps that result in sparse estimators of the subspaces spanned by the leading eigenvectors. He also proved consistency and derived rates of convergence of the proposed estimator under appropriate loss functions and sparsity assumptions.
In this paper, which is partly based on the Ph.D. thesis [@Paul2005] and [@PaulJ2007], we study the estimation of the leading eigenvectors of $\Sigma$ within the framework of [@JohnstoneL2009], but with an arbitrary number of spikes (i.e., $M \geq 1$) whose corresponding eigenvectors all belong to appropriate $l_q$ spaces. Our analysis thus extends the setting studied in [@JohnstoneL2009] and complements the work of [@AminiW2008] that considered the $l_0$-sparsity setting. For simplicity, we assume Gaussian observations in our analysis. However, up to multiplicative constants, the bounds on the minimax rate reported in this paper continue to hold under a relaxed assumption of sub-Gaussian tail behavior for the probability distributions of the random variables.
The main contributions of this paper are as follows. First, we establish lower bounds on the rate of convergence of the minimax risk for any eigenvector estimator under the $l_2$ loss. This analysis points to three different regimes of sparsity, which we denote as *dense, sparse, and ultra-sparse*, each having a different rate of convergence. We show that in the “dense” setting (as defined in Section \[sec:lower\_bound\]), the standard PCA estimator attains the optimal rate of convergence, whereas in sparse settings it is not even consistent. Next, we show that while the diagonal thresholding scheme of [@JohnstoneL2009] is consistent under these sparsity assumptions, in general, it is not rate optimal. This motivates us to propose a new method (Augmented Sparse PCA, or ASPCA) for estimating the eigenvectors that is based on a two-stage coordinate selection scheme, and is a refinement of the thresholding scheme of [@JohnstoneL2009]. While beyond the scope of this paper, it is possible to show that in the ultra-sparse setting, both our ASPCA procedure, as well as the method of [@Ma2011] achieve the lower bound on the minimax risk obtained by us, and are thus rate-optimal procedures. There is an intermediate region where a gap exists between the current lower bound and the upper bound on the risk. It is an open question whether the lower bound can be improved in this scenario, or a better estimator can be derived. Table \[T:comparison\] provides a comparison of the lower bounds and rates of convergence of various estimators.
The theoretical results also show that under comparable scenarios, the optimal rate of convergence for eigenvector estimation, $O((\log N/n)^{-(1-q/2)})$ (under squared-error loss) is faster than the optimal rate for covariance estimation, $O((\log N/n)^{-(1-q)})$ (under squared operator norm loss), as obtained by [@BickelL2008b] and [@CaiZ2011]. Finally, we emphasize that to obtain good finite-sample performance for both our two-stage scheme, as well as for other thresholding methods, the exact thresholds need to be carefully tuned. This issue and the detailed theoretical analysis of the ASPCA estimator is beyond the scope of this paper, and will be presented in a future publication. After this paper was completed, we learned of [@VuL2012], which cites [@PaulJ2007] and contains results overlapping with some of the work of [@PaulJ2007] and this paper.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:model\], we describe the model for the eigenvectors and analyze the risk of the standard PCA estimator. In Section \[sec:lower\_bound\], we present the lower bounds on the minimax risk of any eigenvector estimator. In Section \[sec:diagonal\_thresh\], we derive a lower bound on the risk of the diagonal thresholding estimator proposed by [@JohnstoneL2009]. In Section \[sec:two\_stage\], we propose a new estimator named ASPCA (augmented sparse PCA) that is a refinement of the diagonal thresholding estimator. In Section \[sec:summary\], we discuss the question of attainment of the risk bounds. Proofs of the results are given in Section \[sec:proofs\] in the Appendix.
[**Estimator**]{} [**dense**]{} [**sparse**]{} [**ultra-sparse**]{}
--------------------- --------------- ------------------- -------------------------
[**Lower bound**]{} $O(N/n)$ $O(n^{-(1-q/2)})$ $O((\log N/n)^{1-q/2})$
PCA rate optimal inconsistent inconsistent
D.T. inconsistent not rate optimal not rate optimal
ASPCA inconsistent ? rate optimal
: Comparison of Lower Bounds on eigenvector estimation and Worst Case Rates of various procedures.
\[T:comparison\]
Problem setup {#sec:model}
=============
First we introduce certain notations. Throughout, $\mathbb{S}^{N-1}$ denotes the unit sphere in $\mathbb{R}^N$ centered at the origin, $\lfloor x \rfloor$ denotes the largest integer less than or equal to $x \in \mathbb{R}$. Let $\{X_i : i=1,\ldots,n\}$ be a triangular array, where for each $n$, the $N \times 1$ random vectors $X_i := X_{i}^n, i=1,\ldots,n$ are independent and identically distributed on a common probability space. Throughout we assume that $X_i$’s are i.i.d. as $N(\bs{0},\Sigma)$, where the population matrix $\Sigma$ is a finite rank perturbation of (a multiple of) the identity. In other words, $$\label{eq:Sigma_basic}
\Sigma = \sum_{\nu=1}^M \lambda_\nu \theta_\nu \theta_\nu^T +
\sigma^2 I,$$ where $\lambda_1 > \lambda_2 > \ldots > \lambda_M > 0$, and the vectors $\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_M$ are orthonormal, which implies (\*). $\theta_\nu$ is the eigenvector of $\Sigma$ corresponding to the $\nu$-th largest eigenvalue, namely, $\lambda_\nu + \sigma^2$. The term “finite rank” means that $M$ remains fixed even as $n \to
\infty$. The asymptotic setting involves letting both $n$ and $N$ grow to infinity simultaneously. For simplicity, we assume that the $\lambda_\nu$’s are fixed while the parameter space for the $\theta_\nu$’s varies with $N$.
The observations can be described in terms of the model $$\label{eq:basic}
X_{ik} = \sum_{\nu=1}^M \sqrt{\lambda_\nu} v_{\nu i} \theta_{\nu k} + \sigma
Z_{ik}, \quad i=1,\ldots,n, \quad k=1,\ldots,N.$$ Here, for each $n$, $v_{\nu i}$, $Z_{ik}$ are i.i.d. $N(0,1)$. Since the eigenvectors of $\Sigma$ are invariant to a scale change in the original observations, it is assumed that $\sigma = 1$. Hence, $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_M$ in the asymptotic results should be replaced by $\lambda_1/\sigma^2, \ldots, \lambda_M/\sigma^2$ when (\[eq:Sigma\_basic\]) holds with an arbitrary $\sigma > 0$. Since the main focus of this paper is estimation of eigenvectors, without loss of generality we consider the uncentered sample covariance matrix $\mathbf{S} :=
\frac{1}{n}\mathbf{X}\mathbf{X}^T$, where $\mathbf{X} = [X_1:\ldots:X_n]$.
The following condition, termed *Basic Assumption*, will be used throughout the asymptotic analysis, and will be referred to as [**BA**]{}.
- (\[eq:basic\]) holds with $\sigma = 1$; $N = N(n) \to \infty$ as $n \to
\infty$; $\lambda_1 > \ldots > \lambda_M
> 0$ are fixed (do not vary with $N$), where $M$ is unknown but fixed.
Eigenvector estimation with squared error loss {#subsec:highdpca-lossfn}
----------------------------------------------
Given data $\{X_i\}_{i=1}^n$, the goal is to estimate $M$ and the eigenvectors $\theta_1,\ldots, \theta_M$. For simplicity, to derive the lower bounds, we first assume that $M$ is known. In Section \[subsec:aspca-M\_hat\] we derive an estimator of $M$, which can be shown to be consistent under the assumed sparsity conditions. To assess the performance of any estimator, a minimax risk analysis approach is proposed. The first task is to specify a loss function $L(\widehat\theta_\nu,\theta_\nu)$ between the estimated and true eigenvector. Since the model is invariant to sign changes of each $\theta_\nu$, we consider the following loss function, also invariant to sign changes. $$\label{eq:loss_fn}
L(\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b}) := 2(1 - |\langle \mathbf{a},\mathbf{b}\rangle|) =
\parallel \mathbf{a} - sign(\langle \mathbf{a}, \mathbf{b} \rangle) \mathbf{b}
\parallel^2,$$ where $\mathbf{a}$ and $\mathbf{b}$ are $N \times 1$ vectors with unit $l_2$ norm. An estimator $\widehat\theta_\nu$ is called consistent with respect to $L$, if $L(\widehat \theta_\nu, \theta_\nu) \to 0$ in probability as $n \to
\infty$.
Rate of convergence for ordinary PCA
------------------------------------
We first consider the asymptotic risk of the leading eigenvectors of the sample covariance matrix (henceforth referred to as the standard PCA estimators) when the ratio $N/n$ is small. Specifically, it is assumed that $N/n \to 0$ as $n \to
\infty$.
For future use, we define $$\label{eq:h_lambda}
h(\lambda) := \frac{\lambda^2}{1+\lambda} \qquad \lambda > 0,$$ and $$\label{eq:g_lambda_tau}
g(\lambda,\tau) = \frac{(\lambda-\tau)^2}{(1+\lambda)(1+\tau)},
\qquad \lambda, \tau
> 0.$$ In [@JohnstoneL2009] (Theorem 1) it was shown that under a single spike model, as $N/n \to
0$, the standard PCA estimator of the leading eigenvector is consistent. The following result, proven in the Appendix, is a refinement of that, as it also provides the leading error term.
\[thm:OPCA\_risk\_bound\] Let $\widehat\theta_{\nu,PCA}$ be the eigenvector corresponding to the $\nu$-th largest eigenvalue of $\mathbf{S}$. Assume that [**BA**]{} holds and $N,n \to
\infty$ such that $N/n \to 0$, and moreover, $\log n = o(N)$. Then, for each $\nu=1,\ldots,M$, $$\label{eq:OPCA_risk_bound}
\sup_{\theta_\nu \in \mathbb{S}^{N-1}} \mathbb{E}L(\widehat
\theta_{\nu,PCA}, \theta_\nu) =
\left[\frac{N-M}{nh(\lambda_\nu)} + \frac{1}{n}\sum_{\mu \neq \nu}
\frac{1}{g(\lambda_\mu,\lambda_\nu)}\right](1+o(1)).$$
Observe that Theorem \[thm:OPCA\_risk\_bound\] does not assume any special structure (e.g., sparsity) for the eigenvectors. The first term on the RHS of (\[eq:OPCA\_risk\_bound\]) is a nonparametric component which arises from the interaction of the noise terms with the different coordinates, while the second term is a parametric component which results from the interaction with the remaining $M-1$ eigenvectors corresponding to different eigenvalues. The second term shows that the closer the successive eigenvalues are, the larger is the estimation error. The upshot of (\[eq:OPCA\_risk\_bound\]) is that standard PCA provides a consistent estimator of the leading eigenvectors of the population covariance matrix when the dimension-to-sample-size ratio ($N/n$) is asymptotically negligible.
$l_q$ constraint on eigenvectors {#subsec:l_q_constraint}
--------------------------------
As shown by various authors [@Nadler2008; @Onatski2006; @Paul2007], when $N/n \to c \in (0,\infty]$, standard PCA provides inconsistent estimators for the population eigenvectors. In this subsection we consider the following model for approximate sparsity of the eigenvectors. For each $\nu=1,\ldots,M$, we assume that $\theta_\nu$ belongs to an $l_q$ ball with radius $C$, for some $q \in (0,2)$. Specifically, we assume that $\theta_\nu \in \Theta_q(C)$, where $$\label{eq:Theta_q_C}
\Theta_q(C) := \{ \bs{a} \in \mathbb{S}^{N-1} : \sum_{k=1}^N |a_k|^q \leq
C^q\}.$$ Note that our condition of sparsity is slightly different from that of [@JohnstoneL2009].
Note that since $0< q < 2$, for $\Theta_q(C)$ to be nonempty, one needs $C \geq 1$. Further, if $C^q \geq N^{1-q/2}$, then the space $\Theta_q(C)$ is all of $\mathbb{S}^{N-1}$ because in this case, the least sparse vector $\frac1{\sqrt{N}}(1,1,\ldots,1)$ is in the parameter space.
The parameter space for $\boldsymbol{\theta} :=
[\theta_1:\ldots:\theta_M]$ is denoted by $$\label{eq:Theta_q_M}
\Theta_q^M(C_1,\ldots,C_M) := \{\boldsymbol{\theta} \in
\prod_{\nu=1}^M \Theta_q(C_\nu) ~:~ \langle \theta_\nu,
\theta_{\nu'} \rangle = 0, ~~\mbox{for}~~ \nu \neq \nu'\},$$ where $\Theta_q(C)$ is defined through (\[eq:Theta\_q\_C\]), and $C_\nu \geq 1$ for all $\nu=1,\ldots,M$.
\[rem:covariance\_sparsity\] While our focus is on eigenvector sparsity, condition (\[eq:Theta\_q\_M\]) also implies sparsity of the covariance matrix itself. In particular, for $q \in
(0,1)$, a spiked covariance matrix satisfying (\[eq:Theta\_q\_M\]) also belongs to the class of sparse covariance matrices analyzed by [@BickelL2008b], [@CaiL2011] and [@CaiZ2011]. Indeed, [@CaiZ2011] obtained the minimax rate of convergence for covariance matrix estimators under the spectral norm when the rows of the population matrix satisfy a weak-$l_q$ constraint. However, as we will show below, the minimax rate for estimation of the leading eigenvectors is faster than that for covariance estimation.
Lower bounds on the minimax risk {#sec:lower_bound}
================================
We now derive lower bounds on the minimax risk of estimating $\theta_\nu$ under the loss function (\[eq:loss\_fn\]). To aid in describing and interpreting the lower bounds, we define the following two auxiliary parameters. The first is an *effective noise level per coordinate* $$\label{eq:tau-nu2}
\tau_\nu^2 = 1/(n h(\lambda_\nu))$$ and the second is an *effective dimension* $$\label{eq:m-nu}
m_\nu := A_q (\bar C_\nu/\tau_\nu)^q$$ where $a_q := (2/9)^{1-q/2}$, $c_1 := \log(9/8)$ and $A_q := 1/(a_q c_1^{q/2})$ and $\bar C_\nu^q := C_\nu^q - 1$.
The phrase *effective noise level per coordinate* is motivated by the risk bound in Theorem \[thm:OPCA\_risk\_bound\], since dividing both sides of (\[eq:OPCA\_risk\_bound\]) by $N$, the expected “per coordinate” risk (or variance) of the PCA estimator is asymptotically $\tau_\nu^2$. Next, following [@Nadler2009], let us provide a different interpretation of $\tau_\nu$. Consider a sparse $\theta_\nu$ and an oracle that, regardless of the observed data, selects a set $J_\tau$ of all coordinates of $\theta_\nu$ that are larger than $\tau$ in absolute value, and then performs PCA on the sample covariance restricted to these coordinates. Since $\theta_\nu \in
\Theta_q(C_\nu)$, the maximal squared-bias is $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{\theta_\nu \in \Theta_q(C_\nu)} \sum_{k \not\in J_\tau} |\theta_{\nu
k}|^2 &\asymp& \sup\{\sum_{k=1}^N x_k^{2/q} : \sum_{k=1}^N x_k \leq
C_\nu^q, \max_{k} x_k < \tau^q, \min_{k} x_k \geq 0 \} \\
&\asymp& C_\nu^q \tau^{2-q}\end{aligned}$$ which follows by the correspondence $x_k = |\theta_{\nu k}|^q$, and the convexity of the function $\sum_{k=1}^N x_k^{2/q}$. On the other hand, by Theorem \[thm:OPCA\_risk\_bound\], the maximal variance term of this oracle estimator is of the order $k_\tau/(nh(\lambda_\nu))$ where $k_\tau$ is the maximal number of coordinates of $\theta_\nu$ exceeding $\tau$. Again, $\theta_\nu \in \Theta_q(C_\nu)$ implies that $k_\tau \asymp C_\nu^q
\tau^{-q}$. Thus, to balance the bias and variance terms, we need $\tau \asymp
1/\sqrt{nh(\lambda_\nu)} = \tau_\nu$. This heuristic analysis shows that $\tau_\nu$ can be viewed as an *oracle threshold* for the coordinate selection scheme, i.e., the best possible estimator of $\theta_\nu$ based on individual coordinate selection can expect to recover only those coordinates that are above the threshold $\tau_\nu$.
To understand why $m_\nu$ is an *effective dimension*, consider the least sparse vector $\theta_\nu\in \Theta_q(C_\nu)$. This vector should have as many nonzero coordinates of equal size as possible. If $C_\nu^q > N^{1-q/2}$ then the vector with coordinates $\pm N^{-1/2}$ does the job. Otherwise, we set the first coordinate of the vector to be $\sqrt{1-r^2}$ for some $r \in (0,1)$ and choose all the nonzero coordinates to be of magnitude $\tau_\nu$. Clearly, we must have $r^2 = m \tau_\nu^2$, where $m+1$ is the maximal number of nonzero coordinates, while the $l_q$ constraint implies that $(1-r^2)^{q/2} + m \tau_\nu^q \leq C_\nu^q$. The last inequality shows that the maximal $m$ is just a constant multiple of $m_\nu$. This construction also constitutes the key idea in the proof of Theorems \[th:three-way-lower\] and \[th:sparse-lower\]. Finally, we set $$\label{eq:Nprime}
N' = c_1(N-M),$$ where the origin of $c_1 = \log(9/8)$ will be explained in the proof.
\[th:three-way-lower\] Assume that [**BA**]{} holds, $0 < q < 2$, and $n, N \to \infty$. Then, there exists a constant $B_1 > 0$ such that for $n$ sufficiently large, $$\label{eq:mmxbd}
R_\nu^* := \inf_{\widehat \theta_\nu} \sup_{\Theta_q(\mathbf{C}) } \mathbb{E}
L(\widehat \theta_\nu, \theta_\nu) \geq B_1 \delta_n,$$ where $\delta_n$ is given by $$\delta_n =
\left\{
\begin{array}{cll}
\tau_\nu^2 N' & \quad \text{if} \quad \tau_\nu^2 N' < 1 ~\text{and}~ N' < m_\nu & ~~~[\mbox{dense setting}]\\
\tau_\nu^2 m_\nu & \quad \text{if} \quad \tau_\nu^2 m_\nu < 1 ~\text{and}~m_\nu < N' & ~~~[\mbox{sparse setting}]\\
~~1 & \quad \text{if} \quad \tau_\nu^2 \cdot \min\{N',m_\nu\} > 1 & ~~~[\mbox{weak signal}].
\end{array}
\right.$$
We may think of $m_n := \min\{N', m_\nu\}$ as the effective dimension of the least favorable configuration. In the *sparse* setting, $m_n = A_q
\bar{C}_\nu^q [n h(\lambda_\nu)]^{q/2} < c_1 N$ (i.e., $\bar{C}_\nu^q n^{q/2} <
c' N$ for some $c' > 0$), and the lower bound is of the order $$\label{eq:sparse_rate}
\delta_n = c_1 A_q C_\nu^q \tau_\nu^{2-q} = \frac{ c_1 A_q C_\nu^q}{[n h(\lambda_\nu)]^{1 - q/2}}
\asymp \frac{C_\nu^q}{n^{1-q/2}}~.$$ On the other hand, in the *dense* setting, $m_n = c_1(N-M)$. If $N/n \to
c$ for some $c > 0$, then $\delta_n =c_1(N-M)/(n h(\lambda_\nu)) \asymp 1$, and so any estimator of the eigenvector $\theta_\nu$ is inconsistent. If $N/n \to 0$ then the lower bound is $$\label{eq:dense_rate}
\delta_n = \frac{c_1(N-M)}{n h(\lambda_\nu)} \asymp
\frac{N}{n}~.$$ Eq. (\[eq:dense\_rate\]) and Theorem \[thm:OPCA\_risk\_bound\] imply that in the dense setting with $N/n\to 0$, the standard PCA estimator $\widehat\theta_{\nu,PCA}$ attains the optimal rate of convergence.
A sharper lower bound is possible in what we call an *ultra-sparse* setting which happens if $\bar{C}_\nu^q
n^{q/2} = O(N^{1-\alpha})$ for some $\alpha \in (0,1)$. In this case the dimension $N$ is much larger than the quantity $\bar{C}_\nu^q n^{q/2}$ measuring the effective dimension. Hence, we define a modified effective noise level per-coordinate $$\bar \tau_\nu^2 = \frac{\alpha}{9} \frac{\log N}{n h(\lambda_\nu)},$$ and a modified effective dimension $$\bar m_\nu = a_q^{-1} (\bar C_\nu/ \bar \tau_\nu)^q.$$
\[th:sparse-lower\] Assume that [**BA**]{} holds, $0 < q < 2$, and $n,N \to \infty$ such that $\bar m_\nu
= O(N^{1 - \alpha})$ for some $\alpha \in (0,1)$. Then, assuming that $\bar m_\nu \bar \tau_\nu^2 \leq 1$ for $n$ sufficiently large, the minimax bound holds with $$\label{eq:ultrasparse_rate}
\delta_n = \bar m_\nu \bar \tau_\nu^2
= a_q^{-1} C_\nu^q \Big( \frac{ \log N}{n h(\lambda_\nu)}
\Big)^{1 - q/2}. \quad
\mbox{[ultra-sparse setting]}$$
Note that in the ultra-sparse setting $\delta_n$ is larger by a factor of $(\log N)^{1-q/2}$ compared to the sparse setting, Eq. (\[eq:sparse\_rate\]).
Risk of the diagonal thresholding estimator {#sec:diagonal_thresh}
===========================================
In this section, we analyze the convergence rate of the SPCA scheme (henceforth referred to as the diagonal thresholding or D.T. scheme) proposed by [@JohnstoneL2009]. In this section and in Section \[sec:two\_stage\], we assume for simplicity that $N \geq n$. Let the sample variance of the $k$-th coordinate (i.e., the $k$-th diagonal entry of $\mathbf{S}$) be denoted by $\mathbf{S}_{kk}$. Then the D.T. scheme consists of the following steps.
1. Define $I=I(\gamma_n)$ to be the set of indices $k \in
\{1,\ldots,N\}$ such that $\mathbf{S}_{kk} > \gamma_n$ for some threshold $\gamma_n > 0$.
2. Let $\mathbf{S}_{II}$ be the submatrix of $\mathbf{S}$ corresponding to the coordinates $I$. Perform an eigen-analysis of $\mathbf{S}_{II}$. Denote the eigenvectors by $\mathbf{f}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{f}_{\min\{n,|I|\}}$.
3. For $\nu=1,\ldots,M$, estimate $\theta_\nu$ by the $N\times 1$ vector $\widetilde
{\mathbf{f}}_\nu$, obtained from $\mathbf{f}_\nu$ by augmenting zeros to all the coordinates in $I^c := \{1,\ldots,N\} \setminus I$.
Assuming that $\theta_\nu\in \Theta_q(C_\nu)$, [@JohnstoneL2009] showed that the D.T. scheme with a threshold of the form $\gamma_n = 1 + \gamma \sqrt{\log N/n}$ for some $\gamma > 0$ leads to a consistent estimator of $\theta_\nu$. The risk of this estimator, however, was not analyzed in [@JohnstoneL2009]. As we prove below, the risk of the D.T. estimator is not rate optimal. This can be anticipated from the lower bound on the minimax risk (Theorems \[th:three-way-lower\] and \[th:sparse-lower\]) which indicate that to attain the optimal risk, a coordinate selection scheme must select all coordinates of $\theta_\nu$ of size at least $c \sqrt{\log N/n}$. With a threshold of the form $\gamma_n$ above, however, only coordinates of size $(\log N/n)^{1/4}$ are selected. As shown in the following theorem, even for the case of a single signal ($M=1$) this leads to a much larger lower bound.
\[thm:diagonal\_thresholding\_risk\] Suppose that [**BA**]{} holds with $M =1$. Let $C > 0$, $0 < q < 2$, and $n,N \to
\infty$ be such that $C^q n^{q/4} = o(\max\{\sqrt{n},N\})$. Then the Diagonal Thresholding estimator $\widehat \theta_{1,DT}$ proposed by [@JohnstoneL2009] satisfies, for any $q \in (0,2)$, $$\label{eq:DT_risk}
\sup_{\theta_1 \in \Theta_q(C)}
\mathbb{E}L(\widehat\theta_{1,DT},\theta_1) \geq K_q \bar{C}^q
n^{-\frac{1}{2}(1-q/2)}$$ for a constant $K_q > 0$, where $\bar{C}^q = C^q -1$.
Comparing (\[eq:DT\_risk\]) with the lower bound (\[eq:sparse\_rate\]), shows the large gap between the two rates, $n^{-1/2(1-q/2)}$ vs. $n^{-(1-q/2)}$. The reason for this difference is that the D.T. scheme uses only the diagonal of the sample covariance matrix $\bf S$, ignoring the information in its off-diagonal entries. In the next section we propose a refinement of the D.T. scheme, denoted ASPCA, that constructs an improved eigenvector estimate using all entries of $\bf S$.
A two stage coordinate selection scheme {#sec:two_stage}
=======================================
As discussed above, the DT scheme can reliably detect only those eigenvector coordinates $|\theta_{\nu,k}| = O((\log N/n)^{1/4})$, whereas to reach the lower bound one needs to detect those coordinates of size $|\theta_{\nu,k}| = O((\log N/n)^{1/2})$.
To motivate an improved coordinate selection scheme, consider a partition of the $N$ coordinates into two sets $A$ and $B$, where the former contains all those $k$ such that $|\theta_{1k}|$ is “large” (selected by the D.T. scheme), and the latter contains the remaining smaller coordinates. Partition the matrix $\Sigma$ as $$\Sigma = \begin{bmatrix} \Sigma_{AA} & \Sigma_{AB} \cr
\Sigma_{BA} & \Sigma_{BB} \cr
\end{bmatrix}.$$ Observe that, $\Sigma_{BA} = \lambda_1 \theta_{1,B} \theta_{1,A}^T$. Let $\widetilde \theta_1$ be a “preliminary” estimator of $\theta_1$ such that $\lim_{n \to \infty} \mathbb{P}(\langle \widetilde \theta_{1,A},
\theta_{1,A}\rangle \geq \delta_0) = 1$ for some $\delta_0 > 0$ (e.g., $\widetilde \theta_1$ could be the D.T. estimator). Then we have the relationship, $$\Sigma_{BA} \widetilde \theta_{1,A} = \langle \widetilde \theta_{1,A},
\theta_{1,A}\rangle \lambda_1 \theta_{1,B} \approx c(\delta_0) \lambda_1
\theta_{1,B}$$ for some $c(\delta_0)$ bounded below by $\delta_0/2$, say. Thus, one possible strategy is to additionally select all those coordinates of $\Sigma_{BA}
\widetilde \theta_{1,A}$ that are larger (in absolute value) than some constant multiple of $\sqrt{\log N}/\sqrt{nh(\lambda_1)}$. In practice we do not know $\Sigma_{BA}$ or $\lambda_1$ but we can use $\mathbf{S}_{BA}$ as a surrogate for the former and the largest eigenvalue of $\mathbf{S}_{AA}$ to obtain an estimate for the latter. A technical challenge is to show, that with probability tending to 1, such a scheme indeed recovers all coordinates $k$ with $|\theta_{1 k}| > c_1 \sqrt{\log N}/\sqrt{nh(\lambda_1)}$, while discarding all coordinates $k$ with $|\theta_{1k}| < c_2 \sqrt{\log
N}/\sqrt{nh(\lambda_1)}$ for some constants $c_1 > c_2
> 0$. Figure 1 provides a pictorial description of the D.T. and ASPCA coordinate coordinate selection schemes.
\[fig:thresholding\_schemes\]
{width="5in" height="4in"}
ASPCA scheme
------------
Based on the ideas described above, we now present the ASPCA algorithm. It first makes two stages of coordinate selection, whereas the final stage consists of an eigen-analysis of the submatrix of $\mathbf{S}$ corresponding to the selected coordinates. The algorithm is described below.
For any $\gamma > 0$ define $$\label{eq:I_gamma_def}
I(\gamma) = \{k : \mathbf{S}_{kk} > 1 +\gamma\}.$$ Let $\gamma_i > 0$ for $i=1,2$ and $\kappa > 0$ be constants to be specified later.
- - Let $I = I(\gamma_{1,n})$ where $\gamma_{1,n} = \gamma_1 \sqrt{\log
N/n}$.
- Denote the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $\mathbf{S}_{II}$ by $\widehat\ell_1 > \ldots > \widehat\ell_{m_1}$ and $\mathbf{f}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{f}_{m_1}$ respectively, where $m_1 =
\min\{n, | I|\}$,
- Estimate $M$ by $\widehat M$ defined in Section \[subsec:aspca-M\_hat\].
- - Let $\mathbf{E} = [\widehat\ell_1^{-1/2} \mathbf{f}_1 \cdots
\widehat\ell_{\widehat
M}^{-1/2} \mathbf{f}_{\widehat M} ]$ and $ \mathbf{Q} = \mathbf{S}_{I^c I} \mathbf{E}.$
- Let $J = \{ k \not\in I ~:~ (\mathbf{Q}\mathbf{Q}^T)_{kk} >
\gamma_{2,n}^2\}$ for some $\gamma_{2,n} > 0$. Define $K = I \cup
J$.
- - For $\nu=1,\ldots, \widehat M$, denote by $\widehat \theta_\nu$ the $\nu$-th eigenvector of $\mathbf{S}_{KK}$, augmented with zeros in the coordinates $K^c$.
\[rem:gamma\_choice\] The ASPCA scheme is specified up to the choice of parameters $\gamma_1,\gamma_{2,n}$ and $\kappa$, that determine its rate of convergence. It can be shown that choosing $\gamma_1 = 4$, $\kappa = \sqrt{2+\epsilon}$ for some $\epsilon>0$, and $\gamma_{2,n}$ given by $$\label{eq:gamma_2_n_choice}
\gamma_{2,n} = \gamma_2 \left(\sqrt{\frac{\log N}{n} } +
\frac{1}{\kappa} \sqrt{\frac{\widehat M}{n}}\right)$$ with $\gamma_2 = \kappa \sqrt{3/2}$ results in an asymptotically optimal rate. Again, we note that for finite $N$, $n$, the actual performance in terms of the risk of the resulting eigenvector estimate may have a strong dependence on the threshold. In practice, a delicate choice of thresholds can be highly beneficial. This issue, as well as the analysis of the risk of the ASPCA estimator, are beyond the scope of this paper and will be studied in a separate publication.
Estimation of $M$ {#subsec:aspca-M_hat}
-----------------
Estimation of the dimension of the signal subspace is a classical problem. If the signal eigenvalues are strong enough (i.e., $\lambda_\nu
> c \sqrt{N/n}$ for all $\nu=1,\ldots,M$, for some $c > 1$ independent of $N,n$), then nonparametric methods that do not assume eigenvector sparsity can asymptotically estimate the correct $M$ (see, e.g. [@Kritchman2008]). When the eigenvectors are sparse, we can detect much weaker signals, as we describe below.
We estimate $M$ by thresholding the eigenvalues of the submatrix $\mathbf{S}_{\bar I \bar I}$ where $\bar I := I(\bar\gamma\sqrt{\log
N/n})$ for some $\bar\gamma > 0$. Let $\bar m = \min \{ n, |\bar I|
\}$ and $\bar \ell_1 > \ldots > \bar \ell_{\bar{m}}$ be the nonzero eigenvalues of $\mathbf{S}_{\bar I \bar I}$. Let $\alpha_n
> 0$ be a user-defined threshold. Then, define $\widehat M$ by $$\label{eq:M_hat_def}
\widehat M := \max \{1\leq k \leq \bar m : \bar
\ell_k > 1+\alpha_n \}.$$ It can be shown that under appropriate sparsity conditions, with a suitable choice of threshold $\alpha_n$, $\widehat M$ is a consistent estimator of $M$.
Summary and Discussion {#sec:summary}
======================
In this paper we derived lower bounds on eigenvector estimates under three different sparsity regimes, denoted dense, sparse, and ultra-sparse. In the *dense* setting, Theorems \[thm:OPCA\_risk\_bound\] and \[th:three-way-lower\] show that when $N/n \to 0$, the standard PCA estimator attains the optimal rate of convergence. In the *ultra-sparse* setting, Theorem 3.1 of [@Ma2011] shows that the maximal risk of the ITSPCA estimator proposed by him attains the same asymptotic rate as the corresponding lower bound of Theorem \[th:sparse-lower\]. This implies that in the ultra-sparse setting, the lower bound on the minimax rate is indeed sharp. In a separate paper, we prove that in the ultra-sparse regime, the ASPCA algorithm also attains the minimax rate.
Finally, our analysis leaves some open questions in the intermediate sparse regime. According to Theorem \[th:three-way-lower\], the lower bound in this regime is smaller by a factor of $(\log N)^{1-q/2}$, as compared to the ultra-sparse setting. Therefore, whether there exists an estimator (and in particular, one with low complexity), that attains the current lower bound, or whether this lower bound can be improved is an open question for future research.
Proofs {#sec:proofs}
======
Asymptotic risk of the standard PCA estimator {#sec:OPCA_risk_bound}
---------------------------------------------
To prove Theorem \[thm:OPCA\_risk\_bound\], on the risk of the PCA estimator, we use the following lemmas.
### Deviation of extreme eigenvalues of Wishart matrices {#deviation-of-extreme-eigenvalues-of-wishart-matrices .unnumbered}
In our analysis, we shall need a probabilistic bound for deviations of $\parallel \frac{1}{n} \mathbf{Z}\mathbf{Z}^T - I\parallel$. This is given in the following lemma, proven in Section \[sec:auxiliary\_results\].
\[lemma:eigen\_deviation\_bound\] Let $t_n = 8(N_n/n)\sqrt{\log N_n / N_n}$ where $N_n = \max\{n, N\}$. Let $\mathbf{Z}$ be an $N \times n$ matrix with i.i.d. $N(0,1)$ entries. Then for any $c
> 0$, there exists $n_c\geq 1$ such that for all $n \geq n_c$, $$\mathbb{P}\left( \parallel \frac{1}{n} \mathbf{Z}\mathbf{Z}^T - I_N
\parallel > \frac{N}{n} + 2\sqrt{\frac{N}{n}} + ct_n \right) \leq 2
N_n^{-c^2}.$$
### Deviation of quadratic forms {#subsec:deviation_quad_form .unnumbered}
The following lemma is due to [@Johnstone2001b].
\[lemma:chi\_square\_large\_dev\] Let $\chi_{n}^2$ denote a Chi-square random variable with $n$ degrees of freedom. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}(\chi_{n}^2 > n(1+\epsilon) ) &\leq& e^{-3n\epsilon^2/16}
\qquad (0 < \epsilon < \frac{1}{2}),\label{eq:large_dev_chisq_1}\\
\mathbb{P}(\chi_{n}^2 < n(1-\epsilon) ) &\leq& e^{-n\epsilon^2/4}
~~~~~~~~ (0 < \epsilon < 1),\label{eq:large_dev_chisq_2}\\
\mathbb{P}(\chi_{n}^2 > n(1+\epsilon) ) &\leq& \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\epsilon
\sqrt{n}}e^{-n\epsilon^2/4}
~~(0 < \epsilon < 1/2, n \geq 16). \label{eq:large_dev_chisq_3}\end{aligned}$$
The following lemma is from [@JohnstoneL2009].
\[lemma:quad\_form\_large\_dev\] Let $y_{1i},y_{2i},i=1,\ldots,n$ be two sequences of mutually independent, i.i.d. $N(0,1)$ random variables. Then for large $n$ and any $b$ s.t. $0 < b \ll \sqrt{n}$, $$\label{eq:large_dev_covar}
\mathbb{P}\left(|\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n y_{1i} y_{2i}|>\sqrt{b/n}\right) \leq
2\exp\left\{-\frac{3b}{2} + O(n^{-1}b^2)\right\}.$$
### Perturbation of eigen-structure {#subsec:highdpca-perturb_eigen .unnumbered}
The following lemma from [@Paul2005] is convenient for risk analysis of estimators of eigenvectors. Several variants of this lemma appear in the literature, most based on the approach of [@Kato1980].
\[lemma:evec\_perturb\_bound\] Let $A$ and $B$ be two symmetric $m \times m$ matrices. Let the eigenvalues of matrix $A$ be denoted by $\lambda_1(A) \geq \ldots
\geq \lambda_m(A)$. Set $\lambda_0(A) = \infty$ and $\lambda_{m+1}(A) = - \infty$. For any $r \in\{1,\ldots,m\}$, if $\lambda_r(A)$ is a unique eigenvalue of $A$, i.e., if $\lambda_{r-1}(A) > \lambda_r(A)
> \lambda_{r+1}(A)$, then denoting by $\mathbf{p}_r$ the eigenvector associated with the $r$-th eigenvalue, $$\label{eq:eig_perturb_first}
\mathbf{p}_r(A+B) - \mbox{sign}(\mathbf{p}_r(A+B)^T\mathbf{p}_r(A))
\mathbf{p}_r(A) = - H_r(A) B \mathbf{p}_r(A) + R_r$$ where $H_r(A) := \sum_{s \neq r} \frac{1}{\lambda_s(A) -
\lambda_r(A)} P_{{\cal E}_s}(A)$ and $P_{{\cal E}_s}(A)$ denotes the projection matrix onto the eigenspace ${\cal E}_s$ corresponding to eigenvalue $\lambda_s(A)$ (possibly multi-dimensional). Define $\Delta_r$ and $\overline{\Delta}_r$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eigen_Delta_bar_r}
\Delta_r &:=& \frac{1}{2} [\parallel H_r(A) B \parallel + |\lambda_r(A+B)
- \lambda_r(A)| \parallel H_r(A) \parallel] \label{eq:eigen_Delta_r} \\
\overline{\Delta}_r &=& \frac{\parallel B\parallel} {\min_{1\leq j \neq r \leq
m} |\lambda_j(A) - \lambda_r(A)|}~.\end{aligned}$$ Then, the residual term $R_r$ can be bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eigenvec_error}
&& \hskip-0.2in \parallel R_r \parallel ~\leq~ \min\left\{ 10\overline{\Delta}_r^2, \right. \nonumber\\
&& \hskip-0.2in \left.\parallel H_r(A) B \mathbf{p}_r(A)
\parallel \left[\frac{2\Delta_r(1+2\Delta_r)}{1-2\Delta_r(1+2\Delta_r)} +
\frac{\parallel H_r(A) B \mathbf{p}_r(A)\parallel}
{(1-2\Delta_r(1+2\Delta_r))^2}\right]\right\}\end{aligned}$$ where the second bound holds only if $\Delta_r < (\sqrt{5}-1)/4$.
\[rem:perturbation\_bound\] We can simplify the bound on the perturbation in (\[eq:eigenvec\_error\]) to show that if $\overline{\Delta}_r \leq 1/4$, then $$\label{eq:eigenvec_error_leading}
\parallel R_r \parallel \leq C \parallel H_r(A) B \mathbf{p}_r(A) \parallel \overline{\Delta}_r$$ where we can take $C=30$. To see this, note that $|\lambda_r(A+B) -
\lambda_r(A)| \leq
\parallel B \parallel$ and that $\parallel H_r(A) \parallel \leq [\min_{j\neq r}|\lambda_j(A)
-\lambda_r(A)|]^{-1}$, so that, $$\Delta_r \leq \parallel H_r(A) \parallel \parallel B \parallel \leq
\overline{\Delta}_r.$$ Now, defining $\delta := 2\overline{\Delta}_r
(1+2\overline{\Delta}_r)$ and $\beta := \parallel H_r(A) B
\mathbf{p}_r(A) \parallel$, we have $10 \overline{\Delta}_r^2 \leq
(5/2) \delta^2$, and the bound (\[eq:eigenvec\_error\]) may be expressed as $$\parallel R_r \parallel \leq \frac{\beta \delta}{1-\delta} \min \left\{ \frac{5}{2} \frac{\delta(1-\delta)}{\beta},
1+\frac{\beta}{\delta(1-\delta)} \right\}~.$$ For $x > 0$, the function $x \mapsto \min\{5x/2, 1+1/x\} \leq 5/2$. Further, if $\overline{\Delta}_r < 1/4$, then $\delta <
3\overline{\Delta}_r < 3/4$ and so we conclude that $$\parallel R_r \parallel \leq 10 \beta \delta \leq 30 \beta \overline{\Delta}_r.$$
For notational simplicity, throughout this subsection, we write $\widehat
\theta_\nu$ to mean $\widehat\theta_{\nu,PCA}$. Recall that the loss function $L(\widehat\theta_\nu,\theta_\nu) = \parallel \widehat\theta_\nu -
\mbox{sign}\langle \widehat\theta_\nu,\theta_\nu\rangle \theta_\nu
\parallel^2$. Invoking Lemma \[lemma:evec\_perturb\_bound\] with $A = \Sigma$ and $B=\mathbf{S}-\Sigma$ we get $$\label{eq:theta_nu_OPCA_expansion}
\widehat\theta_\nu - \mbox{sign}\langle
\widehat\theta_\nu,\theta_\nu\rangle \theta_\nu = - H_\nu \mathbf{S}
\theta_\nu + R_\nu,$$ where $$\label{eq:H_nu_Sigma}
H_\nu \equiv H_\nu(\Sigma) := \sum_{1\leq \mu \neq \nu \leq M}
\frac{1}{\lambda_\mu-\lambda_\nu} \theta_\mu \theta_\mu^T -
\frac{1}{\lambda_\mu} P_\perp,$$ where $P_\perp = I - \sum_{\mu=1}^M \theta_\mu \theta_\mu^T$. Note that $H_\nu\theta_\nu = 0$ and that $H_\nu \Sigma \theta_\nu = 0$. The key quantity in bounding the error term $R_\nu$ is $$\overline{\Delta}_\nu = \max\{(\lambda_\nu -
\lambda_{\nu+1})^{-1},(\lambda_{\nu-1}-\lambda_\nu)^{-1}\}
\parallel \mathbf{S} - \Sigma \parallel.$$ Indeed, from (\[eq:eigenvec\_error\_leading\]), when $\overline{\Delta}_\nu < 1/4$, we have, for some constant $C > 0$, $$\parallel R_\nu \parallel \leq C \parallel H_\nu \mathbf{S} \theta_\nu \parallel \overline{\Delta}_\nu.$$ Set $\delta_{n\nu}' = C \overline{\Delta}_\nu$. We will show that as $n \to \infty$, $\delta_{n\nu}' \to 0$ with probability approaching 1 and $$\label{eq:L_theta_nu_hat_bounds}
\parallel H_\nu \mathbf{S}\theta_\nu \parallel^2 (1-\delta_{n\nu}')^2 \leq
L(\widehat\theta_\nu,\theta_\nu) \leq \parallel H_\nu \mathbf{S}\theta_\nu
\parallel^2 (1+\delta_{n\nu}')^2.$$ Theorem \[thm:OPCA\_risk\_bound\] then follows from an (exact, non-asymptotic) evaluation $$\label{eq:expected_H_S_theta_nu}
\mathbb{E}\parallel H_\nu \mathbf{S}\theta_\nu \parallel^2 =
\frac{N-M}{nh(\lambda_\nu)} + \frac{1}{n} \sum_{\mu\neq \nu}
\frac{(1+\lambda_\mu)(1+\lambda_\nu)}{(\lambda_\mu -
\lambda_\nu)^2}~.$$ We begin with the evaluation of (\[eq:expected\_H\_S\_theta\_nu\]). First we derive a convenient representation of $H_\nu
\mathbf{S}\theta_\nu $. In matrix form, model (\[eq:basic\]) becomes $$\label{eq:basic_matrix_repr}
\mathbf{X} = \sum_{\mu=1}^M \sqrt{\lambda_\mu} \theta_\mu v_\mu^T + \mathbf{Z}.$$ For $\nu=1,\ldots,M$, define $$\label{eq:z_w_nu_def}
z_\nu = \mathbf{Z}^T \theta_\nu, \qquad w_\nu = \mathbf{X}^T
\theta_\nu = \sqrt{\lambda_\nu}v_\nu + z_\nu.$$ Define $$\label{eq:average_dot_product}
\langle \mathbf{a},\mathbf{b}\rangle_n := \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n
a_ib_i ~~\mbox{for arbitrary} ~~\mathbf{a}, \mathbf{b} \in
\mathbb{R}^n.$$ Then we have $$\mathbf{S}\theta_\nu = \frac{1}{n} \mathbf{X} w_\nu = \sum_{\mu=1}^M
\sqrt{\lambda_\mu} \langle v_\mu,w_\nu\rangle_n \theta_\mu + \frac{1}{n}
\mathbf{Z}w_\nu.$$ Using (\[eq:z\_w\_nu\_def\]), $$H_\nu \mathbf{Z} w_\nu = \sum_{\mu\neq \nu} \frac{\langle z_\mu,
w_\nu\rangle}{\lambda_\mu - \lambda_\nu} \theta_\mu -
\frac{1}{\lambda_\nu} P_\perp \mathbf{Z}w_\nu.$$ Using (\[eq:H\_nu\_Sigma\]), $H_\nu \theta_\mu = (\lambda_\mu -
\lambda_\nu)^{-1}\theta_\mu$ for $\mu \neq \nu$, and we arrive at the desired representation $$\label{eq:H_nu_Sigma_expansion}
H_\nu \mathbf{S}\theta_\nu = \sum_{\mu\neq \nu} \frac{\langle
w_\mu,w_\nu\rangle_n}{\lambda_\mu - \lambda_\nu} \theta_\mu -
\frac{1}{n\lambda_\nu} P_\perp \mathbf{Z}w_\nu.$$ By orthogonality, $$\label{eq:H_nu_S_theta_nu_norm_squared}
\parallel H_\nu \mathbf{S}\theta_\nu \parallel^2 = \sum_{\mu\neq \nu} \frac{\langle w_\mu,w_\nu\rangle_n^2}
{(\lambda_\mu - \lambda_\nu)^2} + \frac{1}{n^2\lambda_\nu^2} w_\nu^T
\mathbf{Z}^T P_\perp \mathbf{Z}w_\nu.$$ Now we compute the expectation. One verifies that $z_\nu \sim
N(0,I_n)$ independently of each other and of each $v_\nu \sim
N(0,I_n)$, so that $w_\nu \sim N(0,(1+\lambda_\nu) I_n)$ independently. Hence, for $\mu \neq \nu$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:expected_w_mu_w_nu}
\mathbb{E} \langle w_\mu,w_\nu \rangle_n^2 &=& n^{-2} \mathbb{E} \tr(w_\nu w_\nu^T w_\mu w_\mu^T) \nonumber\\
&=& n^{-2} \tr((1+\lambda_\mu)(1+\lambda_\nu) I_n) \nonumber\\
&=& n^{-1} (1+\lambda_\mu)(1+\lambda_\nu).\end{aligned}$$ From (\[eq:z\_w\_nu\_def\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[w_\nu^T \mathbf{Z}^T P_\perp \mathbf{Z} w_\nu
|\mathbf{Z}] &=& z_\nu^T \mathbf{Z}^T P_\perp \mathbf{Z} z_\nu +
\lambda_\nu \mathbb{E}[v_\nu^T
\mathbf{Z}^T P_\perp \mathbf{Z} v_\nu|\mathbf{Z}] \\
&=& \tr(\mathbf{Z}\mathbf{Z}^T P_\perp \mathbf{Z}\mathbf{Z}^T
\theta_\mu\theta_\mu^T) + \lambda_\nu \tr(P_\perp
\mathbf{Z}\mathbf{Z}^T).\end{aligned}$$ Now, it can be easily verified that if $W := \mathbf{Z}\mathbf{Z}^T \sim$ $W_N(n,I)$, then for arbitrary symmetric $N\times N$ matrices $Q$, $R$, we have, $$\label{eq:trace_quadratic}
\mathbb{E}\tr(WQWR) = n[\tr(QR) + \tr(Q)\tr(R)] + n^2 \tr(QR).$$ Taking $Q = P_\perp$ and $R = \theta_\mu\theta_\mu^T$, by (\[eq:trace\_quadratic\]) we have $$\label{eq:expected_w_nu_P_Z_quad}
\mathbb{E}[w_\nu^T \mathbf{Z} P_\perp \mathbf{Z}w_\nu] = n
\tr(P_\perp) + n \lambda_\nu \tr(P_\perp) = n(N - M)(1+\lambda_\nu).$$ Combining (\[eq:expected\_w\_mu\_w\_nu\]) with (\[eq:expected\_w\_nu\_P\_Z\_quad\]) in computing the expectation of (\[eq:H\_nu\_S\_theta\_nu\_norm\_squared\]), we obtain the expression (\[eq:expected\_H\_S\_theta\_nu\]) for $\mathbb{E}\parallel
H_\nu \mathbf{S}\theta_\nu \parallel^2$.
Bound for $\parallel \mathbf{S} - \Sigma \parallel$ {#bound-for-parallel-mathbfs---sigma-parallel .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------------------
We begin with the decomposition of the sample covariance matrix $\mathbf{S}$. Introduce the abbreviation $\xi_\mu = n^{-1}
\mathbf{Z}v_\mu$. Then, $$\label{eq:S_expansion}
\mathbf{S} = \sum_{\mu=1}^M \sum_{\mu'=1}^M \sqrt{\lambda_\mu
\lambda_{\mu'}} \langle v_\mu,v_{\mu'}\rangle_n
\theta_\mu\theta_{\mu'}^T + \sum_{\mu=1}^M \sqrt{\lambda_\mu}
(\theta_\mu \xi_\mu^T + \xi_\mu \theta_\mu^T) + n^{-1}
\mathbf{Z}\mathbf{Z}^T$$ and hence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:S_Sigma_diff_prelim}
\parallel \mathbf{S} - \Sigma \parallel &\leq&
\sum_{\mu=1}^M \sum_{\mu'=1}^M \sqrt{\lambda_\mu \lambda_{\mu'}}
|\langle v_\mu, v_{\mu'}\rangle_n - \delta_{\mu\mu'}| \nonumber\\
&& + 2 \sum_{\mu=1}^M \sqrt{\lambda_\mu} \parallel \xi_\mu
\parallel +
\parallel n^{-1} \mathbf{Z}\mathbf{Z}^T - I \parallel,\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta_{\mu\mu'}$ denotes the Kronecker symbol. Let $D_1$ be the intersection of all the events (for some constant $c
> 0$): $$\begin{aligned}
D_{11} &:=&\{ |\parallel v_\mu \parallel_n^2 - 1| \leq 2c \sqrt{n^{-1} \log n}, ~1 \leq \mu \leq M\}, \\
D_{12} &:=& \{|\langle v_\mu, v_\nu \rangle_n | \leq c \sqrt{n^{-1} \log n}, ~1 \leq \mu \neq \mu' \leq M\}, \\
D_{13} &:=& \{\parallel \xi_\mu \parallel \leq (1+2c\sqrt{N^{-1} \log
n})\sqrt{\frac{N}{n}}, ~1 \leq \mu \leq M\}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $v_\nu \stackrel{i.i.d.}{\sim} N(0,I_n)$ independent of $\mathbf{Z}$, we have $\mathbf{Z} v_\nu/\parallel v_\nu
\parallel \sim N(0,I_N)$ independently of $v_\nu$, and $\parallel v_\nu \parallel^2 \sim \chi_n^2$. Moreover, $$D_{11} \cap \{\parallel \mathbf{Z}v_\mu\parallel^2/\parallel v_\mu \parallel^2
\leq 1+2c\sqrt{N^{-1}\log n},~1\leq \mu \leq M\} \subset D_{13}.$$ Hence, we use Lemmas \[lemma:chi\_square\_large\_dev\] and \[lemma:quad\_form\_large\_dev\] to prove that $$\label{eq:D_1_prob_bound}
1-\mathbb{P}(D_1) \leq 3 M n^{-c^2} + M(M-1) n^{-(3/2)c^2 + O(n^{-1}
\log n)}.$$ Define $D_2$ to be be the event that $$\label{eq:D_2_def}
D_2 := \left\{\parallel \frac{1}{n} \mathbf{Z}\mathbf{Z}^T - I_N
\parallel \leq \frac{N}{n} + 2 \sqrt{\frac{N}{n}} + ct_n\right\},$$ with $t_n$ as in Lemma \[lemma:eigen\_deviation\_bound\] with $N_n =
\max\{n,N\} = n$ so that $t_n = 8\sqrt{n^{-1} \log n}$. Lemma \[lemma:eigen\_deviation\_bound\] also establishes that $1 -
\mathbb{P}(D_2) \leq 2 n^{-c^2}$. Using the notation $\eta_n :=
(N^{-1} \log n)^{1/2}$, we have, on $D_1 \cap D_2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:S_Sigma_diff_prob_bound}
\parallel \mathbf{S} - \Sigma \parallel &\leq& 2c(\sum_{\mu=1}^M \sqrt{\lambda_\mu})^2 \eta_n
+ 2 (\sum_{\mu=1}^M \lambda_\mu)(1+2c\eta_n) \sqrt{\frac{N}{n}} \nonumber\\
&& + 2\sqrt{\frac{N}{n}} + \frac{N}{n} + c t_n.\end{aligned}$$ Recalling that $\rho_\nu = \lambda_\nu/\lambda_1$ for $\nu=1,\ldots,M$, we have for large $n$ that $$\overline{\Delta}_\nu \leq C_\nu(\rho) \frac{\parallel \mathbf{S} -
\Sigma \parallel}{\lambda_1},$$ where, say $C_\nu(\rho) = 2 \max\{(\rho_\nu -
\rho_{\nu+1})^{-1},(\rho_{\nu-1}-\rho_\nu)^{-1}\}$. Observe that $t_n/\lambda_1 = 8\eta_n \sqrt{N/(n\lambda_1)^2}$. Now, substitute (\[eq:S\_Sigma\_diff\_prob\_bound\]) to conclude that there are functions $B_i(\rho)$ such that on $D_n := D_1 \cap D_2$, $$\overline{\Delta}_\nu \leq B_1(\rho) \eta_n + B_2(\rho)
(1+2c\eta_n) \sqrt{\frac{N}{n\lambda_1}} +
2\sqrt{\frac{N}{n\lambda_1^2}} + \frac{N}{n\lambda_1} +
8c\eta_n\sqrt{\frac{N}{n\lambda_1^2}}~.$$ Our assumptions imply that $$\eta_n = \sqrt{\frac{\log n}{N}} \to 0 \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad
\frac{N}{n\lambda_1^2} + \frac{N}{n\lambda_1} = \frac{N}{nh(\lambda_1)} \to 0,$$ so that $\overline{\Delta}_\nu \to 0$. To summarize, choose $c =
\sqrt{2}$, say, so that on $D_n$, which has probability at least $1-O(n^{-2})$, we have $\delta_{n\nu}'\to 0$. This completes the proof of (\[eq:L\_theta\_nu\_hat\_bounds\]).
Theorem \[thm:OPCA\_risk\_bound\] now follows from noticing that $L(\widehat\theta_\nu,\theta_\nu) \leq 2$ and so $$\mathbb{E}[L(\widehat\theta_\nu,\theta_\nu), (D_1 \cap D_2)^c] \leq 2
\mathbb{P}((D_1 \cap D_2)^c) = O(N_n^{-2}) = o(\mathbb{E}\parallel H_\nu
\mathbf{S}\theta_\nu
\parallel^2),$$ and an additional computation using (\[eq:H\_nu\_S\_theta\_nu\_norm\_squared\]) which shows that $$\mathbb{E}[\parallel H_\nu \mathbf{S} \theta_\nu \parallel^2, D_n^c]
\leq (\mathbb{E}[\parallel H_\nu \mathbf{S} \theta_\nu
\parallel^4)^{1/2} P(D_n^c) = o(\mathbb{E}[\parallel H_\nu \mathbf{S} \theta_\nu
\parallel^2).$$
Lower bound on the minimax risk {#sec:highdpca_proof_minimax_lbd}
-------------------------------
In this subsection, we prove Theorems \[th:three-way-lower\] and \[th:sparse-lower\]. The key idea in the proofs is to utilize the geometry of the parameter space in order to construct appropriate finite dimensional subproblems for which bounds are easier to obtain. We first give an overview of the general machinery used in the proof.
### Risk bounding strategy {#subsec:highdpca_lower_bound_strategy .unnumbered}
A key tool for deriving lower bounds on the minimax risk is *Fano’s Lemma*. In this subsection, we use superscripts on vectors $\theta$ as indices, not exponents. First, we construct a large finite subset ${\cal F}$ of $\Theta_q^M(C_1,\ldots,C_M)$, such that the following property holds, for a given $\nu \in \{1,\ldots,M\}$.
- If $\boldsymbol\theta^{1}, \boldsymbol\theta^{2} \in {\cal F}$, then $L(\theta_\nu^{1},\theta_\nu^{2}) \geq 4\delta$, for some $\delta > 0$ (to be chosen).
This property will be referred to as “$4\delta$-distinguishability in $\theta_\nu$”. Given any estimator $\widehat{\boldsymbol\theta}$ of $\boldsymbol\theta$, based on data $\mathbf{X}_n = (X_1,\ldots,X_n)$, define a new estimator $\phi(\mathbf{X}_n) = \bs \theta^*$, whose $M$ components are given by $\theta^*_\nu = \arg \min_{\boldsymbol\theta \in {\cal F}} L(\widehat
\theta_\nu,\theta_\nu)$, where $\widehat \theta_\nu$ is the $\nu$-th column of $\widehat{\boldsymbol\theta}$. Then, by Chebyshev’s inequality and the $4\delta$-distinguishability in $\theta_\nu$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:risk_lb_M}
\sup_{\boldsymbol\theta \in \Theta_q^M(C_1,\ldots,C_M)}
\mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol\theta} L(\widehat\theta_\nu,\theta_\nu)
&\geq& \delta \sup_{\boldsymbol\theta \in {\cal F}}
\mathbb{P}_{\boldsymbol\theta} ( \phi(\mathbf{X}_n) \neq
\boldsymbol\theta).\end{aligned}$$ The task is then to find an appropriate lower bound for the quantity on the right hand side of (\[eq:risk\_lb\_M\]). For this, we use the following version of Fano’s lemma, due to [@Birge2001], modifying a result of [@YangB1999] (p. 1570-71).
\[lemma:Fano\_lb\_large\] Let $\{P_\theta : \theta \in \Theta\}$ be a family of probability distributions on a common measurable space, where $\Theta$ is an arbitrary parameter set. Let $p_{max}$ be the minimax risk over $\Theta,$ with the loss function $L'(\theta,\theta') = \mathbf{1}_{\theta \neq \theta'}$,
$$p_{max} = \inf_T \sup_{\theta \in \Theta} \mathbb{P}_\theta(T \neq \theta) =
\inf_T \sup_{\theta \in \Theta} \mathbb{E} L'(\theta,T),$$ where $T$ denotes an arbitrary estimator of $\theta$ with values in $\Theta$. Then for any finite subset ${\cal F}$ of $\Theta$, with elements $\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_J$ where $J = |{\cal F}|$, $$\label{eq:Fano}
p_{max} \geq 1 - \inf_{Q} ~\frac{J^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^J K(P_i, Q) + \log 2}{\log
J}$$ where $P_i = \mathbb{P}_{\theta_i}$, and $Q$ is an arbitrary probability distribution, and $K(P_i,Q)$ is the Kullback-Leibler divergence of $Q$ from $P_i$.
The following lemma, proven in Section \[sec:auxiliary\_results\], gives the Kullback-Leibler discrepancy corresponding to two different values of the parameter.
\[prop:multi\_KL\_div\] Let $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{j} := [\theta_1^{j} : \ldots :
\theta_M^{j}]$, $j=1,2$ be two parameters (i.e., for each $j$, $\theta_k^j$’s are orthonormal). Let $\Sigma_{j}$ denote the matrix given by (\[eq:Sigma\_basic\]) with $\bs\theta = \bs\theta^{j}$ (and $\sigma = 1$). Let $P_j$ denote the joint probability distribution of $n$ i.i.d. observations from $N(0,\Sigma_{j})$. Then the Kullback-Leibler discrepancy of $P_2$ with respect to $P_1$ is given by $$\label{eq:multi_KL_div}
{\cal K}_{1,2} := K(\boldsymbol\theta^{1},\boldsymbol\theta^{2}) =
\frac{n}{2} \Bigg[\sum_{\nu=1}^M \eta(\lambda_\nu) \lambda_\nu -
\sum_{\nu=1}^M\sum_{\mu=1}^M \eta(\lambda_\nu) \lambda_{\mu}
|\langle \theta_{\mu}^{1}, \theta_\nu^{2}\rangle|^2\Bigg],$$ where $\eta(\lambda) = \lambda/(1+\lambda)$.
### Geometry of the hypothesis set and Sphere Packing {#subsec:highdpca-geometry .unnumbered}
Next, we describe the construction of a large set of hypotheses ${\cal F}$, satisfying the $4\delta$ distinguishability condition. Our construction is based on the well studied sphere packing problem, namely how many unit vectors can be packed onto $\mathbb{S}^{m-1}$, with given minimal pairwise distance between any two vectors.
Here we follow the construction due to [@Zong1999] (p. 77). Let $m$ be a large positive integer, and $m_0 = \lfloor 2m/9\rfloor$. Define $Y_m^*$ as the maximal set of points of the form ${\bf z}=(z_1,\ldots,z_m)$ in $\mathbb{S}^{m-1}$ such that the following is true: $$\label{eq:separation}
\sqrt{m_0} z_i \in \{-1,0,1\} ~\forall~ i, ~~ \sum_{i=1}^m |z_i| =
\sqrt{m_0} ~~\mbox{and, for} ~~{\bf z}, {\bf z}' \in Y_m^*, ~~
\parallel {\bf z} - {\bf z}'\parallel \geq 1.$$ For any $m \geq 1$, the maximal number of points lying on $\mathbb{S}^{m-1}$ such that any two points are at distance at least 1, is called the *kissing number* of an $m$-sphere. [@Zong1999] uses the construction described above to derive a lower bound on the *kissing number*, by showing that $|Y_m^*| \geq
(9/8)^{m(1+o(1))}$ for $m$ large.
Next, for $m<N-M$ we use the sets $Y_m^*$ to construct our hypothesis set $\cal F$ of same size, $|{\cal F}| = |Y_m^*|$. To this end, let $\{{\bf e}_\mu\}_{\mu=1}^N$ denote the standard basis of $\mathbb{R}^N$. Our initial set ${\bs \theta}^0$ is composed of the first $M$ standard basis vectors, ${\bs \theta}^0 = [{\bf e}_1:\ldots:{\bf e}_M]$. Then, for fixed $\nu$, and values of $m,r$ yet to be determined, each of the other hypotheses ${\bs \theta}^j\in{\cal F}$ has the same vectors as ${\bf \theta}^0$ for $k\neq \nu$. The difference is that the $\nu$-th vector is instead given by $$\label{eq:theta_nu_j_F}
\theta_\nu^{j} = \sqrt{1-r^2} ~\mathbf{e}_\nu + r \sum_{l=1}^m
z_l^{j} \mathbf{e}_{M+l}, ~~~j=1,\ldots,|{\cal F}|,$$ where $\mathbf{z}^{j}= (z_1^{j},\ldots,z_m^{j})$, $j\geq 1$, is an enumeration of the elements of $Y_m^*$. Thus $\theta_\nu^{j}$ perturbs $\mathbf{e}_\nu$ in subsets of the fixed set of coordinates $\{M+1, \dots, M+m\}$, according to the sphere packing construction for $\mathbb{S}^{m-1}$.
The construction ensures that $\theta_1^j,\ldots,\theta_M^j$ are orthonormal for each $j$. Furthermore, (\[eq:multi\_KL\_div\]) simplifies to $$\label{eq:KL_div}
K(\boldsymbol\theta^{j},\boldsymbol\theta^{0}) = \frac{1}{2}
nh(\lambda_\nu) (1 - (\langle
\theta_\nu^{j},\theta_\nu^{0}\rangle)^2) = \frac{1}{2}
nh(\lambda_\nu) r^2, ~~j=1,\ldots,|{\cal F}|.$$ Finally, by construction, for any $\bs \theta^j,\bs \theta^k\in {\cal F}$ with $j\neq k$ $$\label{eq:r_square_distinguish}
L(\theta_\nu^{j},\theta_\nu^{k}) \geq r^2,
$$ In other words, the set ${\cal F}$ is $r^2$-distinguishable in $\theta_\nu$. Consequently, combining (\[eq:risk\_lb\_M\]) and (\[eq:KL\_div\]), $$\label{eq:rstarbd}
R_\nu^* = \inf_{\hat \theta_\nu} \sup_{\Theta_q(\mathbf{C})}
\mathbb{E} L(\hat \theta_\nu, \theta_\nu)
\geq (r^2/4) [1 - a(r, \mathcal{F})],$$ with $$\label{eq:a_r_F_0}
a(r,\mathcal{F}) = \frac{\tfrac{1}{2} n h(\lambda_\nu) r^2 + \log 2}{\log
|\mathcal{F}|}~.$$
### Proof of Theorem \[th:three-way-lower\] {#proof-of-theorem-ththree-way-lower .unnumbered}
Let $m$ be an integer yet to be specified and let $r \in (0,1)$. Let $Y_m^*$ be the sphere-packing set defined above, and let $\cal F$ be the corresponding set of hypotheses, defined via (\[eq:theta\_nu\_j\_F\]).
Let $c_1 = \log(9/8)$, then we have $\log |\mathcal{F}| \geq b_m
c_1 m$, where $b_m \to 1$ as $m\to\infty$. Inserting the following value for $r=r(m)$, $$\label{eq:rdef}
r^2 = \frac{c_1 m}{n h(\lambda_\nu)},$$ into Eq. (\[eq:a\_r\_F\_0\]) gives that $$a(r, \mathcal{F}) \leq
\frac{ \tfrac{1}{2} c_1 m + \log 2}{b_m c_1 m}~.
$$ Therefore, so long as $m \geq m_*$, an absolute constant, we have $a(r, \mathcal{F}_0) \leq 3/4$.
We need to ensure that $\theta_\nu^{j} \in \Theta_q(C_\nu)$. Since exactly $m_0$ coordinates are non-zero out of $\{ M+1, \dots,
M+m\}$, $$\| \theta_\nu^{j} \|_q^q = (1 - r^2)^{q/2} + r^q m_0^{1-q/2} \leq
1 + a_q r^q m^{1-q/2}$$ where $a_q = (2/9)^{1-q/2}$. A sufficient condition for $\theta_\nu^{(j)} \in \Theta_q(C_\nu)$ is that $$\label{eq:int-cond}
a_q m (r^2/m)^{q/2} \leq \bar C_\nu^q.$$ Substituting (\[eq:rdef\]) puts this into the form $$m \leq \frac{1}{a_q c_1^{q/2}} \bar C_\nu^q [n h(\lambda_\nu)]^{q/2}.$$
To simultaneously ensure that (i) $r^2 < 1$, (ii) $m$ does not exceed the number of available co-ordinates, $N-M$, and (iii) $\theta_\nu^{j} \in \Theta_q(C_\nu)$, we set $$m = \min \{ \lfloor n h(\lambda_\nu)\rfloor, N-M, \lfloor A_q \bar C_\nu^q (n
h(\lambda_\nu))^{q/2}\rfloor \},$$ where $A_q = 1/(a_q c_1^{q/2})$. Recalling the notations (\[eq:tau-nu2\]), (\[eq:m-nu\]) and (\[eq:Nprime\]), this becomes (without loss of generality assuming $nh(\lambda_\nu)$ and $m_\nu$ to be integers) $$m = \min \{ \tau_\nu^{-2}, N', m_\nu \} = \tau_\nu^{-2} \min\{1,\tau_\nu^2 \cdot \min\{N', m_\nu\} \}$$ and Theorem \[th:three-way-lower\] follows.
### Proof of Theorem \[th:sparse-lower\] {#proof-of-theorem-thsparse-lower .unnumbered}
The construction of the set of hypotheses in the proof of Theorem \[th:three-way-lower\] considered a fixed set of potential non-zero coordinates, namely $\{M+1,\ldots,M+m\}$. However, in the *ultra-sparse* setting, when the effective dimension is significantly smaller than the nominal dimension $N$, it is possible to construct a much larger collection of hypotheses by allowing the set of non-zero coordinates to span all remaining coordinates $\{M+1,\ldots,N\}$.
In the proof of Theorem \[th:sparse-lower\] we shall use the following lemma, proven in Section \[sec:auxiliary\_results\]. Call $A \subset \{ 1, \ldots, N
\}$ an *$m-$set* if $|A| = m$.
\[lemma:counting\] Let $k$ be fixed, and let $\mathcal{A}_k$ be the maximal collection of $m-$sets such that the intersection of any two members has cardinality at most $k-1$. Then, necessarily, $$\label{eq:cardinality}
| \mathcal{A}_k | \geq \binom{N}{k} \bigg/ \binom{m}{k}^2.
$$ Let $k = [m_0/2] + 1$ and $m_0 = [\beta m]$ with $0 < \beta < 1.$ Suppose that $m, N \rightarrow \infty$ with $m = o(N)$. Then $$\label{eq:entropy}
| \mathcal{A}_k | \geq \exp [ N \mathcal{E}(\beta m/2N) - 2 m
\mathcal{E}(\beta/2) ] (1 + o(1)).$$ where ${\cal E}(x)$ is the Shannon entropy function, $${\cal E}(x) = - x \log(x) - (1-x) \log(1-x), ~~ 0 < x < 1.$$
Let $\pi$ be an $m-$set contained in $\{ M+1, \dots, N \}$, and construct a family $\mathcal{F}_\pi$ by modifying to use the set $\pi$ rather than the fixed set $\{M+1, \dots, M+m\}$ as in Theorem \[th:three-way-lower\]: $$\label{eq:theta_nu_j_F_pi}
\theta_\nu^{(j,\pi)} = \sqrt{1-r^2} ~\mathbf{e}_\nu + r \sum_{l \in
\pi} z_l^{j} \mathbf{e}_l, ~~~j=1,\ldots,|Y_m^*|.$$ We will choose $m$ below to ensure that $\theta_\nu^{(j,\pi)} \in
\Theta_q(C_\nu)$. Let ${\cal P}$ be a collection of sets $\pi$ such that, for any two sets $\pi$ and $\pi'$ in ${\cal P}$, the set $\pi \cap \pi'$ has cardinality at most $m_0/2$. This ensures that the sets ${\cal
F}_\pi$ are disjoint for $\pi \neq \pi'$, since each $\theta_\nu^{(j,\pi)}$ is nonzero in exactly $m_0+1$ coordinates. This construction also ensures that $$\mbox{for all} ~~ \mathbf{y}, \mathbf{y}' \in \bigcup_{\pi \in \cal
P} {\cal F}_\pi, \quad L(\mathbf{y},\mathbf{y}') \geq
\left(\frac{m_0}{2} +
\frac{m_0}{2}\right)\left(\frac{r}{\sqrt{m_0}}\right)^2 = r^2.$$ Define ${\cal F} := \bigcup_{\pi \in \cal P} {\cal F}_\pi$. Then $$\label{eq:big_F_0_lower}
|{\cal F}| = |\bigcup_{\pi \in \cal P} {\cal F}_\pi| = |{\cal P}|
~|Y_m^*| \geq |{\cal P}| (9/8)^{m(1+o(1))}.$$ By Lemma \[lemma:counting\], there is a collection ${\cal P}$ such that $|{\cal P}|$ is at least $\exp( [N {\cal E}(m/9N) - 2m{\cal
E}(1/9)](1+o(1)))$. Since ${\cal E}(x) \geq -x\log x$, it follows from (\[eq:big\_F\_0\_lower\]) that, $$\frac{\log |{\cal F}|}{m} \geq \left( \frac{1}{9} \log
\frac{9N}{m} - 2 {\cal
E}(1/9)\right) + \log(9/8)(1+o(1))
\geq \frac{\alpha}{9} \log N +O(1),$$ since $m = O(N^{1-\alpha})$. Proceeding as for Theorem \[th:three-way-lower\], we have $\log
|\mathcal{F}| \geq b_m (\alpha/9) m \log N$, where $b_m \to 1$. Let us set (with $m$ still to be specified) $$\label{eq:rdef_refined}
r^2 = m \frac{(\alpha /9) \log N}{n h(\lambda_\nu)}
= m \bar \tau_\nu^2,$$
Again, we need to ensure that $\theta_\nu^{(j,\pi)} \in
\Theta_q(C_\nu)$, which as before is implied by . Substituting (\[eq:rdef\_refined\]) puts this into the form $$m \leq \bar{m}_\nu = a_q^{-1} (\bar C_\nu/ \bar \tau_\nu)^q.$$ To simultaneously ensure that (i) $r^2 < 1$; (ii) $m$ does not exceed the number of available co-ordinates, $N-M$; and (iii) $\theta_\nu^{j} \in \Theta_q(C_\nu)$, we set $$m = \min \{ \lfloor \bar \tau_\nu^{-2}\rfloor, N-M, \lfloor a_q^{-1}
(\bar C_\nu^q/ \bar \tau_\nu)^q\rfloor \}.$$ As $n,N\to\infty$, we have that $m = \lfloor a_q^{-1}
(\bar C_\nu/ \bar \tau_\nu)^q\rfloor$, and Theorem \[th:sparse-lower\] follows.
Lower bound on the risk of the D.T. estimator
---------------------------------------------
To prove Theorem \[thm:diagonal\_thresholding\_risk\], assume w.l.g. that $\langle \widehat \theta_{1,DT},\theta_1 \rangle
> 0$, and decompose the loss as $$\label{eq:loss_decomp}
L(\widehat \theta_{1,DT},\theta_1) = \parallel \theta_1 -
\theta_{1,I}\parallel^2 + \parallel \widehat \theta_{1,DT} -
\theta_{1,I}\parallel^2,$$ where $I=I(\gamma_n)$ is the set of coordinates selected by the D.T. scheme and $\theta_{1,I}$ denotes the subvector of $\theta_1$ corresponding to this set. Note that, in (\[eq:loss\_decomp\]), the first term on the right can be viewed as a bias term while the second term can be seen as a variance term.
We choose a particular vector $\theta_1 = \theta_{*} \in
\Theta_q(C)$ so that $$\label{eq:diagonal_thresh_bias}
\mathbb{E}\parallel \theta_* - \theta_{*,I}\parallel^2 \geq K
\bar{C}^q n^{-\frac{1}{2}(1-q/2)}.$$ This, together with (\[eq:loss\_decomp\]), proves Theorem \[thm:diagonal\_thresholding\_risk\] since the worst case risk is clearly at least as large as (\[eq:diagonal\_thresh\_bias\]). Accordingly, set $r_n = \bar{C}^{q/2} n^{-\frac{1}{4}(1-q/2)}$, where $\bar{C}^q = C^q -1$. Since $C^q n^{q/4} = o(n^{1/2})$, we have $r_n = o(1)$, and so for sufficiently large $n$, we can take $r_n < 1$ and define $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_{*,k} = \begin{cases} \sqrt{1-r_n^2} & ~\mbox{if}~~ k=1\\
\frac{r_n}{\sqrt{m_n}} &~\mbox{if}~~ 2
\leq k \leq m_n+1\\
0 & ~\mbox{if}~~ m_n+2 \leq k \leq N
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where $m_n = \lfloor(1/2) \bar{C}^q n^{q/4}\rfloor$. Then by construction $\theta_* \in \Theta_q(C)$, since $$\sum_{k=1}^N |\theta_{*,k}|^q = (1-r_n^2)^{q/2} + r_n^q m_n^{1-q/2}
< 1 + r_n^q m_n^{1-q/2} \leq 1 + \frac{\bar{C}^q}{2^{1-q/2}} < C^q,$$ where the last inequality is due to $q \in (0,2)$ and $\bar{C}^q =
C^q -1$.
For notational convenience, let $\alpha_n = \gamma\sqrt{\log N/n}$. Recall that D.T. selects all coordinates $k$ for which $\mathbf{S}_{kk} > 1+\alpha_n$. Therefore, coordinate $k$ is *not selected* with probability $$\label{eq:DT_selection_prob}
p_k = \mathbb{P}(\mathbf{S}_{kk} < 1+\alpha_n) =
\mathbb{P}\left(\frac{W_n}{n} < \frac{1+\alpha_n}{1+\lambda_1
\theta_{*,k}^2}\right)$$ where $W_n \sim \chi_{n}^2$. Notice that, for $k = 2,\ldots,m_n+1$, $p_k = p_2$, and $\theta_{*,k} =0$ for $k > m_n+1$. Hence, $$\mathbb{E}\parallel \theta_* - \theta_{*,I}\parallel^2 =
\sum_{k=1}^N p_k |\theta_{*,k}|^2 > p_2 \sum_{k=2}^{m_n+1}
|\theta_{*,k}|^2 = p_2 r_n^2 = p_2 \bar{C}^q
n^{-\frac{1}{2}(1-q/2)}.$$ Thus, to finish the proof of Theorem \[thm:diagonal\_thresholding\_risk\], it is enough to show that $p_2
> 1-A_n$ for some $A_n$ that converges to 0 as $n \to \infty$. Rewrite (\[eq:DT\_selection\_prob\]) as $$p_k = \mathbb{P}\left(\frac{W_n}{n} < 1+\epsilon_k\right) = 1-
\mathbb{P}\left(\frac{W_n}{n} \geq 1+\epsilon_k\right)
~~\mbox{where}~~\epsilon_k =
\frac{\alpha_n-\lambda_1|\theta_{*,k}|^2}{1+\lambda_1
|\theta_{*,k}|^2}~.$$ Since $|\theta_{*,2}|^2 = r_n^2/m_n = 2n^{-1/2}(1+o(1))$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_2 = \frac{\gamma \sqrt{\frac{\log N}{n}} - \lambda_1
\frac{r_n^2}{m_n}}{1+\lambda_1 \frac{r_n^2}{m_n}} =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \left(\frac{\gamma \sqrt{\log N} -
2\lambda_1}{1+2\lambda_1/\sqrt{n}}\right)(1+o(1))\end{aligned}$$ so that $n \epsilon_2^2 \to \infty$ as $n \to \infty$. This, together with (\[eq:large\_dev\_chisq\_2\]), shows that $p_2 \geq
1-A_n$ where we can choose $A_n = \exp(-3n\epsilon_2^2/16) = o(1)$.
Proof of relevant lemmas {#sec:auxiliary_results}
========================
Proof of Lemma \[lemma:eigen\_deviation\_bound\]
------------------------------------------------
We use the following result on extreme eigenvalues of Wishart matrices by [@Davidson2001].
\[lemma:extreme\_singval\_concen\] Let $Z$ be a $p \times q$ matrix of i.i.d. $N(0,1)$ entries with $p \leq q$. Let $s_{max}(Z)$ and $s_{min}(Z)$ denote the largest and the smallest singular value of $Z$, respectively. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}(s_{max}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{q}} Z) > 1+ \sqrt{p/q} + t) &\leq&
e^{-qt^2/2} ,
\label{eq:extreme_singular_1}\\
\mathbb{P}(s_{min}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{q}}Z) < 1- \sqrt{p/q} - t) &\leq&
e^{-qt^2/2}. \label{eq:extreme_singular_2}\end{aligned}$$
We apply Lemma \[lemma:extreme\_singval\_concen\] separately for $N \leq n$ and for $N > n$. Observe first that, $$\Delta := \parallel \frac{1}{n} \mathbf{Z}\mathbf{Z}^T - I_N
\parallel = \max\{\lambda_1(n^{-1}\mathbf{Z}\mathbf{Z}^T) -1, 1-
\lambda_N(\mathbf{Z}\mathbf{Z}^T)\}.$$ Consider first $N \leq n$ and let $s_\pm$ denote the maximum and minimum singular values of $n^{-1/2} \mathbf{Z}$. Define $\gamma(t) := \sqrt{N/n} + t$ for $t > 0$. Then, since $\Delta = \max\{s_+^2 - 1, 1-s_-^2\}$, and letting $\Delta_n(t) := 2\gamma(t) + \gamma(t)^2$ we have $$\{\Delta > \Delta_n(t)\} \subset \{s_+ > 1+\gamma(t)\} \cup \{s_- <
1-\gamma(t)\}.$$ Now, applying Lemma \[lemma:extreme\_singval\_concen\] with $p=N$ and $q=n$, we get $$\mathbb{P}( \Delta > \Delta_n(t)) \leq 2e^{-nt^2/2}.$$ We observe that $$\label{eq:Delta_n_t}
\Delta_n(t) = (N/n + 2\sqrt{N/n}) + t(2+t+2\sqrt{N/n}).$$ Now consider $N > n$. Noting that $\lambda_N(n^{-1} \mathbf{Z}\mathbf{Z}^T) =
0$, we have $$\Delta = \max\{(N/n)s_+^2 -1, 1\}.$$ This time, let $\bar\gamma(t) := \sqrt{n/N} + t$ and $\Delta_N(t) :=
\max\{(N/n) (1+\bar\gamma(t))^2 - 1, 1\}$. We apply Lemma \[lemma:extreme\_singval\_concen\] with $p=n$, $q=N$, so that $$\mathbb{P}( \Delta > \Delta_N(t)) = \mathbb{P}(s_+ > 1+\bar\gamma(t)) \leq
e^{-nt^2/2},$$ and observe that $$\label{eq:Delta_N_t}
\Delta_N(t) = (N/n + 2\sqrt{N/n}) + (N/n) t(2+t+2\sqrt{n/N}).$$ Thus from (\[eq:Delta\_n\_t\]) and (\[eq:Delta\_N\_t\]), we have $$\Delta_{\max\{n,N\}}(t) \leq (N/n + 2\sqrt{N/n}) + t(N_n/n)(4+t).$$ Now choose $t = c\sqrt{2\log N_n/N_n}$ so that tail probability is at most $2
e^{-N_n^2 t^2/2} = 2 N_n^{-c^2}$. The result is now proved, since if $c
\sqrt{\log n/n} \leq 1$ then $t(N_n/n)(4+t) \leq ct_n$.
Proof of Lemma \[prop:multi\_KL\_div\]
--------------------------------------
Recall that, if distributions $F_1$ and $F_2$ have density functions $f_1$ and $f_2$, respectively, such that the support of $f_1$ is contained in the support of $f_2$, then the Kullback-Leibler discrepancy of $F_2$ with respect to $F_1$, to be denoted by $K(F_1,F_2)$, is given by $$\label{eq:KL_general}
K(F_1,F_2) = \int \log \frac{f_1(y)}{f_2(y)} f_1(y) dy.$$ For $n$ i.i.d. observations $X_i, i=1,\ldots,n$, the Kullback-Leibler discrepancy is just $n$ times the Kullback-Leibler discrepancy for a single observation. Therefore, without loss of generality we take $n = 1$. Since $$\label{eq:Sigma_inverse}
\Sigma^{-1} = (I - \sum_{\nu=1}^M \eta(\lambda_\nu) \theta_\nu \theta_\nu^T),$$ the log-likelihood function for a single observation is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:multi_log_likelihood}
\log f(x|\bs\theta) &=& -\frac{N}{2}\log(2\pi) - \frac{1}{2}\log|\Sigma|
- \frac{1}{2} x^T\Sigma^{-1}x \nonumber\\
&=& -\frac{N}{2}\log(2\pi) - \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\nu = 1}^M
\log(1+\lambda_\nu) \nonumber\\
&& - \frac{1}{2} \left(\langle x,x \rangle - \sum_{\nu=1}^M \eta(\lambda_\nu)
\langle x,\theta_\nu \rangle^2\right).\end{aligned}$$ From (\[eq:multi\_log\_likelihood\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\cal K}_{1,2} \\
&=& \mathbb{E}_{\bs\theta^{1}} \left(\log f(X|\bs\theta^{1}) - \log
f(X|\bs\theta^{2})\right) \nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\nu=1}^M \eta(\lambda_\nu)
[\mathbb{E}_{\bs\theta^{1}}(\langle X , \theta_\nu^{1} \rangle)^2 -
\mathbb{E}_{\bs\theta^{1}}(\langle X ,
\theta_\nu^{2} \rangle)^2] \nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\nu=1}^M \eta(\lambda_\nu) [\langle \theta_\nu^{1},
\Sigma_{(1)} \theta_\nu^{1}\rangle - \langle
\theta_\nu^{2}, \Sigma_{(1)} \theta_\nu^{2}\rangle] \nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\nu=1}^M \eta(\lambda_\nu) \left[(\parallel\theta_\nu^1
\parallel^2 - \parallel\theta_\nu^2
\parallel^2)
+ \sum_{\mu=1}^M \lambda_{\mu} \{(\langle
\theta_{\mu}^{1},\theta_\nu^{1}\rangle)^2 - (\langle \theta_{\mu}^{1},
\theta_\nu^{2}\rangle)^2\}\right],\end{aligned}$$ which equals the RHS of (\[eq:multi\_KL\_div\]), since the columns of $\bs\theta^{j}$ are orthonormal for each $j=1,2$.
Proof of Lemma \[lemma:counting\]
---------------------------------
Let $\mathcal{P}_m$ be the collection of all $m-$sets of $\{ 1, \ldots,
N \}$, clearly $|\mathcal{P}_m| = \binom{N}{m}.$ For any $m-$set $A$, let $\mathcal{I}(A)$ denote the collection of “inadmissible” $m-$sets $A'$ for which $| A \cap A' | \geq k$. Clearly $$| \mathcal{I}(A) | \leq \binom{m}{k} \binom{N-k}{m-k}.$$ If $\mathcal{A}_k$ is maximal, then $\mathcal{P}_m = \cup_{A \in
\mathcal{A}_k} \mathcal{I}(A)$, and so follows from the inequality $$|\mathcal{P}_m| \leq | \mathcal{A}_k| \, \max_A |\mathcal{I}(A)|,$$ and rearrangement of factorials.
Turning to the second part, we recall that Stirling’s formula shows that if $k$ and $N \rightarrow \infty$, $$\binom{N}{k} = \theta \bigg( \frac{N}{2 \pi k (N-k)} \bigg)^{1/2}
\exp \Big\{ N \mathcal{E} \Big(\frac{k}{N} \Big) \Big\},$$ where $\theta \in ( 1 - (6k)^{-1}, 1 + (12 N)^{-1})$. The coefficient multiplying the exponent in $ \binom{N}{k} \big/ \binom{m}{k}^2$ is $$\sqrt{2 \pi k} (1 - k/N)^{-1/2} (1 - k/m)
\sim \sqrt{ \pi \beta m} ( 1- \beta/2) \rightarrow \infty$$ under our assumptions, and this yields .
[1]{}
A. Amini and M. Wainwright. High-dimensional analysis of semidefinite relaxations for sparse principal components. , 37:2877–2921, 2008.
T. W. Anderson. Asymptotic theory for principal component analysis. , 34:122–148, 1963.
J. Baik and J. W. Silverstein. Eigenvalues of large sample covariance matrices of spiked population models. , 97:1382–1408, 2006.
P. J. Bickel and E. Levina. Regularized estimation of large covariance matrices. , 36:199–227, 2008.
P. J. Bickel and E. Levina. Covariance regularization by thresholding. , 36:2577–2604, 2008.
L. Birgé. A new look at an old result : [F]{}ano’s lemma. Technical report, Université Paris 6, 2001.
T. T. Cai and W. Liu. Adaptive thresholding for sparse covariance matrix estimation. Technical report, 2011. arXiv:1102.2237v1.
T. T. Cai, C.-H. Zhang, and H. Zhou. Optimal rates of convergence for covariance matrix estimation. , 38:2118–2144, 2010.
T. T. Cai and H. Zhou. Minimax estimation of large covariance matrices under $\ell_1$-norm. Technical report, 2011.
A. d’Aspremont, L. El Ghaoui, M. I. Jordan, and G. R. G. Lanckriet. A direct formulation of sparse [PCA]{} using semidefinite programming. , 49(3):434–448, 2008.
K. R. Davidson and S. Szarek. Local operator theory, random matrices and banach spaces. In Lindenstrauss J. Johnson, W. B., editor, [*Handbook on the Geometry of Banach Spaces, V. 1*]{}, pages 317–366. Elsevier Science, 2001.
N. El Karoui. Operator norm consistent estimation of large dimensional sparse covariance matrices. , 36:2717–2756, 2008.
I. M. Johnstone. Chi square oracle inequalities. In M. de Gunst, C. Klaassen, and A. van der Waart, editors, [ *Festschrift for William R. van Zwet*]{}. Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2001.
I. M. Johnstone and A. Y. Lu. On consistency and sparsity for principal components analysis in high dimensions. , 104:682–693, 2009.
I. Jolliffe. . Springer, Berlin, 2002.
T. Kato. . Springer-Verlag, 1980.
S. Kritchman and B. Nadler. Determining the number of components in a factor model from limited noisy data. , 94:19–32, 2008.
Z. Ma. Sparse principal component analysis and iterative thresholding. Technical report, University of Pennsylvania, 2011.
R. J. Muirhead. . Wiley, New York, 1982.
B. Nadler. Finite sample approximation results for principal component analysis : a matrix perturbation approach. , 36:2791–2817, 2008.
B. Nadler. Discussion of “[O]{}n consistency and sparsity for principal component analysis in high dimensions”. , 104:694–697, 2009.
A. Onatski. Determining the number of factors from empirical distribution of eigenvalues. Technical report, Columbia University, 2006. Technical Report.
D. Paul. . PhD thesis, Stanford University, 2005.
D. Paul. Asymptotics of sample eigenstructure for a large dimensional spiked covariance model. , 17:1617–1642, 2007.
D. Paul and I. M. Johnstone. Augmented sparse principal component analysis for high dimensional data. (`http://anson.ucdavis.edu/\simdebashis/techrep/augented-spca.pdf`). Technical report, University of California, Davis, 2007.
A. J. Rothman, E. Levina, and J. Zhu. Generalized thresholding of large covariance matrices. , 104:177–186, 2009.
D. Shen, H. Shen, and J. S. Marron. Consistency of sparse pca in high dimension, low sample size contexts. (`http://arxiv.org/PScache/arxiv/pdf/1104/1104.4289v1.pdf`). Technical report, 2011.
H. Shen and J. Z. Huang. Sparse principal component analysis via regularized low rank matrix approximation. , 99:1015–1034, 2008.
M. E. Tipping and C. M. Bishop. Probabilistic principal component analysis. , 61:611–622, 1998.
H. L. van Trees. . Wiley-Interscience, 2002.
V. Q. Vu and J. Lei. Minimax rates of estimation for sparse pca in high dimensions. (`http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.0786.pdf`). Technical report, 2012.
D. M. Witten and R. Tibshirani. A penalized matrix decomposition, with applications to sparse principal components and canonical correlation analysis. , 10:515–534, 2009.
Y. Yang and A. Barron. Information-theoretic determination of minimax rates of convergence. , 27:1564–1599, 1999.
C. Zong. . Springer, 1999.
H. Zou, T. Hastie, and R. Tibshirani. Sparse principal comoponent analysis. , 15:265–286, 2006.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper presents an adaptable steganography (information hiding) method for digital radio communication. Many radio steganography methods exist, but most are defined at higher levels of the protocol stack and are thus protocol dependent. In contrast, this method is defined at the physical layer, which makes it widely applicable regardless of the protocols used at higher layers. This approach is also adaptive; the covertness of the hidden channel is simple to control via a single continuous parameter either manually or automatically. Several variations are introduced, each with performance evaluated by simulation. Results show this to be a feasible method with a reasonable trade-off between performance and covertness.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'Adaptive\_Software\_Radio\_Steganography.bib'
title: Adaptive Software Radio Steganography
---
Introduction
============
Steganography is the art and science of hiding one message in another such that an observer does not suspect the presence of hidden information. The hidden message is called the *secret*, and the message in which it is hidden is called the *cover*. A receiver that is not aware of the steganographic channel is called a *legacy* receiver.
Steganography methods exist for most media, such as images or audio, including analogue and digital radio. This paper addresses steganography in digital radio transmissions, where information is transmitted as a sequence of *symbols*. A symbol represents $n$ bits and is encoded as a particular phase, amplitude, or frequency of the radio wave for a chunk of time.
The basic goal of digital steganography is to convey additional bits of information along with those of the cover. This can be done at the symbol level: where the legacy signal has $2^n$ symbols each with $n$ bits, secretly there are actually $2^{n+k}$ symbols each with $n+k$ bits. The secret symbols are defined in such a way that a legacy receiver can correctly decode the $n$ bits of the cover.
The number of bits per symbol and precise way each symbol is mapped to a signal vary in real-world systems, but all digital radio is based on the same fundamental principles. A steganography method defined at the physical layer can thus be used in almost any digital radio system, e.g. 802.11 WiFi networks, digital mobile phones, digital television broadcasts, and so on, though some modulation schemes are more suited to this modification than others.
Background
==========
Previous Work
-------------
Several steganography methods [@Banoci2009][@Mehta2008] exist for spread spectrum technologies like Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) and Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), where each $n$ bit symbol is multiplied by a longer pseudo-random *chip code*. This has the effect of *spreading* symbols over more bandwidth, which adds error tolerance. Chip codes are chosen such that spread symbols are well separated in hamming distance. The receiver resolves symbols to the closest known symbol in hamming distance, thus tolerating bit errors. Since the spread symbols are much longer than $n$ bits, this process creates room to hide a secret channel at the cost of some error tolerance. The spreading is designed to tolerate bit errors, but as a result secret information can be conveyed by [*deliberately*]{} flipping bits. As long as the number of bits flipped is low enough that the manipulated symbol is closer to the correct cover symbol than any other, a legacy receiver will work correctly. A trivial example is to simply use the least significant bit of each spread symbol as a secret channel. Practical schemes are more sophisticated, but based on the same general idea: if the receiver can tolerate $b$ bit errors per symbol, then with sufficiently good signal quality, up to $b$ bits can be deliberately manipulated to convey secret messages.
One disadvantage of chip code based steganography is that it only works in protocols that use such codes. Many common protocols do, but the details vary dramatically which makes adapting to a new protocol non-trivial. Another important disadvantage is that it is difficult to generate a suitable set of steganographic symbols. Discovering a superior such set is a proposed avenue of future research [@Mehta2008], not something simple to adjust dynamically. The distance between symbols in the state of the art is fixed, and is inherently integral (being defined by hamming distance) and of limited range (being limited by the number of tolerable bit errors). The intricate relationship between symbol distance and number of possible symbols adds additional complexity.
Hence, chip-code based methods are not adaptable: the subtlety can not be easily controlled via a continuous parameter. The ability to do so would be useful for achieving the most subtle secret channel possible that is feasible with the current signal quality.
Another strategy is to take advantage of *white space*: blocks of time that are unused in a protocol due to packet padding [@Szczypiorski2011]. This unused time can be used to transmit secret messages. Some protocols have enough white space to transmit at relatively high data rates, e.g. WiFi, where a secret channel with a rate of over 1 Mbit/s is possible. However, this method alone is not very interesting from a covert communication perspective since the secret channel would be obvious to any observer looking for it. Where a normal transmission should be zero there would be a signal, making it obvious that white space is being used for transmission. This approach is suitable for achieving high data rates without interfering with legacy receivers, but not where security is more important than performance. Like chip code schemes, it is also intimately tied to a particular protocol since white space exists at very specific times defined in higher layers. This method is also not particularly radio specific; similar methods can be used in a purely software domain anywhere padding exists.
In contrast, the approach presented here is defined at the physical layer, protocol independent, radio specific, and adaptable. The performance vs. subtlety trade-off can be easily tuned at run-time according to the current signal conditions, either manually or automatically as part of a cognitive radio steganography system. This is achieved by manipulating the *constellation* which defines how symbols are mapped to a physical wave.
Constellations
--------------
![Standard 4-QAM/4-PSK Constellation[]{data-label="const_qam_n4_b1"}](const_qam_n4_b1.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
![Standard 16-QAM Constellation[]{data-label="const_qam_n16_b1"}](const_qam_n16_b1.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
![Standard 16-PSK Constellation[]{data-label="const_psk_n16_b1"}](const_ppsk_n16_b1.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Digital signals based on periodic waveforms, like radio waves, have 3 parameters suitable for modulation: amplitude, frequency, and phase. To encode digital information, a specific amplitude/frequency/phase is mapped to a symbol which represents $n$ bits. Typically, frequency is used to divide the spectrum into channels, while phase and amplitude are modulated to represent symbols (frequency may also be modulated within a band). The mapping of symbols to phase and amplitude can be illustrated with a constellation diagram, where symbols are points, the horizontal axis represents the *in-phase* $I = \cos(x)$, and the vertical axis represents the *quadrature* $Q = \sin(x)$. Thus the phase (angle from the positive $x$-axis) and amplitude (distance from the origin) of a point is apparent. There are several standard ways to arrange $m$ symbols in a constellation, where $m$ is usually a power of 2. One arrangement for $m=4$, known as 4-QAM (for Quadrature Amplitude Modulation)[^1] or 4-PSK (for Phase Shift Keying) is shown in Fig. \[const\_qam\_n4\_b1\]. PSK and QAM are identical for 4 symbols, but the difference can be seen for higher $m$. A 16-QAM constellation is shown in Fig. \[const\_qam\_n16\_b1\], and a 16-PSK constellation is shown in Fig. \[const\_psk\_n16\_b1\]. The bits corresponding to each symbol are gray coded so that adjacent symbols differ by 1 bit, which improves error tolerance. As their names suggest, QAM modulates both the phase and amplitude of the signal, while PSK modulates only the phase. For each time slot, the receiver detects the phase and amplitude of the incoming signal, and resolves to the closest symbol in the constellation. Thus there is limited error tolerance built in at the physical layer, though precisely how much is difficult to say as it depends on many factors.
Approach
========
The fact that the receiver correctly resolves symbol points that are slightly distorted can be exploited to hide a secret channel. Around each symbol point, there is a region where any point resolves to that symbol. If a cluster of $k$ secret points is arranged in this region, they can be correctly resolved given sufficiently high signal quality. Thus if cover symbols are $n$ bits, there are a total of $2^{n + k}$ secret symbols, each with $n + k$ bits. By choosing the most significant $n$ bits of each symbol to be the cover, and the least significant $k$ bits to be the secret (or vice-versa), a cover and secret can be transmitted simultaneously. Since each of the $k$ symbols clustered around a legacy symbol is closer to that legacy symbol than any other, a legacy receiver resolves only the cover bits, ignoring what seems like noise. The same signal can be resolved by a steganographic receiver to the full $n + k$ bits per symbol. Dividing these bits appropriately yields the original cover and secret bits.
Since symbols are defined as 2-dimensional coordinates in a continuous space, it is simple to tune the secret constellation. The *blatancy* $\beta$ represents how spread out clusters are from the original symbol point. It is normalised such that $\beta = 0$ produces all points exactly on cover points (making secret communication impossible), and $\beta = 1$ produces the maximum reasonable spread, usually equivalent to the standard constellation with the same number of symbols.
Square Clusters
---------------
![Square 4x4-QAM Secret Constellation, $\beta=0.5$[]{data-label="const_qam_n16_b05"}](const_qam_n16_b05.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
A steganographic constellation based on QAM is shown in Fig. \[const\_qam\_n16\_b05\]. The cover constellation is 4-QAM as shown in Fig. \[const\_qam\_n4\_b1\]. There are clusters of 4 symbols arranged in a square around each legacy symbol, where the most significant 2 bits of each is equivalent to the 2 bits of the cover symbol. Hence any of these 4 symbols are resolved to the same 2 bits by a legacy receiver. Since there are 4 secret symbols per cover symbol, this arrangement is referred to as “square 4x4-QAM”. The blatancy controls the size of each square, such that $\beta=1.0$ produces a standard 16-QAM constellation as shown in Fig. \[const\_qam\_n16\_b1\]. Lower values cluster points closer to the corresponding cover points, which increases stealth but also reduces the reliability of the steganographic channel.
Circular Clusters
-----------------
![Circular 4x4-QAM Secret Constellation, $\beta=0.5$[]{data-label="const_cpsk_n16_b05"}](const_cpsk_n16_b05.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
A similar scheme is to arrange secret symbols in a circle around the cover points, as shown in Fig. \[const\_cpsk\_n16\_b05\]. This arrangement is referred to as “circular 4x4-QAM”. Like square 4x4-QAM, the blatancy controls the size of each cluster, in this case the radius of the circle. The maximum, $\beta = 1.0$, is the size where points become as close to points in other clusters as they are to their own cover point. This arrangement is very similar to square 4x4-QAM, but circular clusters are more convenient for adding additional modulation to increase stealth. Such an improvement is described in Section \[stealth\].
Phase Shift Keying
------------------
![Secret 4x4PSK Constellation, $\beta=0.5$[]{data-label="const_ppsk_n16_b05"}](const_ppsk_n16_b05.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Some radio platforms use only PSK and thus are not designed to detect amplitude modulation. In order to achieve steganography in this context, a secret constellation based exclusively on phase modulation is required. One such arrangement, referred to as “4x4-PSK”, is shown in Fig. \[const\_ppsk\_n16\_b05\]. Here, $\beta$ controls the angular distance over which clusters are spread. The maximum $\beta = 1.0$ is where all adjacent points are equidistant, resulting in a constellation identical to standard 16-PSK as shown in Fig. \[const\_psk\_n16\_b1\].
Performance
===========
In order to evaluate the performance of each constellation type, a simulation was performed using GNU Radio [@gnuradio]. GNU Radio includes a channel model which simulates atmospheric radio transmission by adding noise, frequency and timing distortion, and multi-path echoes caused by radio waves reflecting off various surfaces. GNU Radio includes generic modulation and demodulation modules which can use an arbitrary constellation, making this sort of experimentation possible without developing custom modules.
For each constellation type, a plot is shown comparing the Packet Error Rate (PER), i.e. the ratio of packets that failed to transmit without error, to the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR), at a fixed blatancy $\beta$. To show how the blatancy impacts performance, an additional plot is shown comparing the PER to the blatancy at a fixed SNR, roughly the signal quality where the secret channel begins to work reliably. The values shown are the average of 4 separate experiments, each of which sends 32 128-byte messages. To avoid obscuring the performance impact of the steganographic channel, no error correction is used for packet payloads: even a single bit corrupted counts as a failed packet. Higher reliability would be simple to achieve in practice, but the various protocol-specific methods of doing so are outside the scope of this work.
Square 4x4-QAM
--------------
![Square 4x4-QAM Error Rate vs. Blatancy ($SNR = 25 \textnormal{ dB}$)[]{data-label="sqam_error_v_blatancy"}](qam_error_v_blatancy.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
![Square 4x4-QAM Error Rate vs. Signal Quality ($\beta = 0.6$)[]{data-label="sqam_error_v_quality"}](qam_error_v_snr.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
The error rate vs. blatancy for square 4x4-QAM is shown in Fig. \[sqam\_error\_v\_blatancy\]. With high blatancy, near perfect transmission of both the cover and secret is achieved. This is not surprising, since when $\beta = 1.0$ the constellation is the same as standard 16-QAM, an ideal constellation for 16 symbols. The signal quality shown here is good enough that the cover transmission works perfectly, so the cover PER is zero at all blatancies.
The performance over a wide range of signal qualities with $\beta = 0.6$ is shown in Fig. \[sqam\_error\_v\_quality\]. It is clear that the secret channel requires a higher signal quality to function than the cover channel. This reflects the basic principle of radio steganography: giving up some error tolerance in exchange for a secret channel.
The range where cover transmission is possible but secret transmission is not, roughly 12 to 20 dB, is clearly visible in Fig. \[sqam\_error\_v\_quality\]. The secret channel is less robust to noise, but this gap is actually an advantage for steganography. An observer in this range can reliably receive the cover, but not the secret, even if the secret constellation is known. The physical properties of radio waves can provide a level of security beyond what is possible within a reliable medium. Digital steganography which, for example, embeds hidden information in images, uses a reliable transport in the hope that an observer does not notice, but the information is there for any observer to decode. With radio, secret messages can be exchanged that are impossible to recover for an observer with poor reception, and to such an observer it appears as if a normal legacy transmission is taking place. This property suggests many interesting applications, such as personal area networks with secret channels invisible to an observer, not via mathematical means but because a distant observer simply does not have sufficient signal quality to receive the secret channel.
Circular 4x4-QAM
----------------
![Circular 4x4-QAM Error Rate vs. Blatancy ($SNR = 25\textnormal{ dB}$)[]{data-label="cqam_error_v_blatancy"}](cpsk_error_v_blatancy.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
![Circular 4x4-QAM Error Rate vs. Signal Quality ($\beta = 0.6$)[]{data-label="cqam_error_v_quality"}](cpsk_error_v_snr.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
The circular 4x4-QAM constellation is very similar to the 4x4-QAM constellation, except that each secret symbol cluster is arranged slightly differently. Accordingly, the performance differences should be minimal. The PER vs. blatancy is shown in Fig. \[cqam\_error\_v\_blatancy\], and the PER vs. SNR in Fig. \[cqam\_error\_v\_quality\]. Both plots use the same fixed values as the corresponding plots for square 4x4-QAM.
As expected, both arrangements have very similar performance, but the circular arrangement performs slightly worse with the same parameters. Roughly, it requires about 0.05 higher blatancy at 25 dB, or 2 dB better signal quality at $\beta = 0.6$, to achieve similar performance to square 4x4 QAM. The error rate also flattens out more slowly as the blatancy is increased, though at 25 dB this effect is minimal. The circular variant is slightly less robust since, unlike the square variant, $\beta = 1.0$ is somewhat strange and does not correspond to a standard 16 point constellation. This is because the points are not evenly distributed in order to maximise the distance between any two points, which is the general ideal for constellation arrangements.
It could be considered a minor advantage that the constellation at high blatancy does not appear to be any standard constellation, since an observer may attempt to decode an unknown signal by trying every standard constellation. Since this arrangement does not correspond to any standard constellation, such a search will not be successful. This prevents a very simple automatic process from determining the secret constellation, though is no defense against more sophisticated statistical analysis.
Despite the slightly inferior performance, circular 4x4-QAM is more convenient than the square arrangement for adding additional modulation in order to increase stealth. Section \[stealth\] discusses the stealth of each constellation type, and such a modulation of circular 4x4-QAM in detail.
4x4-PSK
-------
![4x4-PSK Error Rate vs. Blatancy ($SNR = 25 \textnormal{ dB}$)[]{data-label="psk_error_v_blatancy"}](ppsk_error_v_blatancy.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
![4x4-PSK Error Rate vs. Signal Quality ($\beta = 0.6$)[]{data-label="psk_error_v_quality"}](ppsk_error_v_snr.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
When only phase modulation is used, it is not possible to cluster 4 points with equal distance to the original point. As a result this constellation is not expected to perform as well as the QAM schemes. The results shown in Fig. \[psk\_error\_v\_blatancy\] and Fig. \[psk\_error\_v\_quality\] confirm this to be the case.
While $\beta = 1.0$ corresponds to a standard 16-PSK constellation, some secret symbols are spread very far from their corresponding legacy symbols. Hence, very high blatancy interferes with the cover much more than in either of the QAM schemes. Fig. \[psk\_error\_v\_blatancy\] shows that this is the case even for the relatively high signal quality of 25 dB. Here there is a relatively small range of feasible blatancy, roughly 0.5 to 0.7. Because of this, tuning would be more difficult with this level of signal quality, especially in varying conditions, though an automatic solution would be able to provide a reliable channel. The same quality, 25 dB, is shown here to facilitate direct comparison with the other constellations, but realistically a higher SNR would be required for good performance with 4x4-PSK. As can be seen in Fig. \[psk\_error\_v\_quality\], at around 28 dB near-perfect performance is possible with $\beta = 0.6$.
While the effects of blatancy manipulation here are considerably more sporadic and unpredictable, the signal does show a predicable improvement in error rate as quality increases. With higher signal quality the range of feasible blatancies would be wider, making manual or automatic tuning simpler.
The 4x4-PSK constellation results in a signal that is both more obvious and less robust than either QAM arrangement. However, these results show that constellation-based steganography is possible in a context where only phase modulation is possible.
Stealth
=======
Due to noise, symbol points as decoded by a receiver differ from the ideal constellation. The stealth of each scheme can thus be visualised as a scatter plot of the received points. Such a plot for a stealthy signal looks like a noisy legacy constellation, but the secret constellation is visible for a less stealthy signal. Because a transmission is composed of many thousands of symbols, a histogram is shown on each axis to better illustrate their distribution. This plot is referred to as the *appearance* of the signal. The plots shown here are generated from the same signal data used to show performance in the previous section.
Square 4x4-QAM
--------------
The appearance of the square 4x4-QAM signal is shown in Fig. \[sqam\_appearance\]. The histogram at the top and right of each plot shows the frequency of points received at a given position. At the relatively low $\beta = 0.2$ the transmission is subtle. The signal appears to be a normal 4-QAM transmission with some noise, so an observer is unlikely to suspect covert communication. However, at higher blatancy, like $\beta = 0.6$, the fact that there are actually 16 points in use is very obvious. The technique works, but there is much room for improvement on stealth.
Circular 4x4-QAM
----------------
Comparing the appearance of circular 4x4-QAM shown in Fig. \[cqam\_appearance\] to the square arrangement is slightly more interesting. The rotated cluster configuration causes 6 distinct peaks along each histogram axis, rather than the 4 peaks of the square variant. Thus it is slightly better than square 4x4-QAM in terms of stealth, but still quite obvious at this signal quality. An improvement based on this observation is described in Section \[dynamic\]. As before, at $\beta = 0.2$ the signal appears to be a legacy signal, though communication with such low blatancy would require higher signal quality.
4x4-PSK
-------
The appearance shown in Fig. \[psk\_appearance\] confirms the expectation that the PSK scheme is the least stealthy due to the wide spread of secret symbols. At $\beta = 0.6$ the secret constellation is obvious as with the other schemes, but here even at $\beta = 0.2$ it is clear that something other than normal 4-PSK is being used. Atmospheric noise tends to scatter points in a circular region around the ideal points. Here points are spread in a distinct arc, which is unlikely to occur as a result of noise or other environmental conditions. Thus the signal is more obvious than either QAM arrangement, since symbols are not distributed evenly about their corresponding legacy symbols.
Dynamic Constellations {#dynamic}
----------------------
The existence of the secret channel is obvious to an observer with sufficiently high $SNR$ since the secret symbols are visibly distinct when the signal is analysed over time.
This situation can be improved by dynamically modulating the constellation such that the positions of secret symbols vary over time, but remain clustered around the original point. The circular 4x4-QAM scheme is best suited to this purpose; each secret point is arranged in a circle around the cover point, so the angle at which they are placed can be modulated to achieve the desired effect.
This dynamic modulation is defined in terms of a new parameter, the *shift* $\sigma$. The shift is normalised to $[0,1]$ such that 0 is the original secret constellation, which is adjusted as the shift increases in a circular fashion such that 1 is also the original secret constellation. This prevents sudden dramatic changes in the constellation, which has a negative impact on performance. As transmission occurs, the shift at step $t$ is $\sigma_t = \sigma_{t - 1} + \epsilon \pmod{1}$ for some $0 < \epsilon \ll 1$. For circular 4x4-QAM, the shift corresponds to an angular offset where $\sigma = 0 \Rightarrow 0$ radians, and $\sigma = 1 \Rightarrow 2\pi$ radians. This results in each cluster making a complete revolution as $\sigma$ increasees from 0 to 1.
The blatancy is similarly modulated within a range in order to spread the points radially as well as angularly. The $\beta$ parameter then becomes a range; the blatancy oscillates within this range during transmission.
Unlike the static secret constellations, this method requires some form of synchronisation between the transmitter and receiver. If the constellations become unsynchronised, secret communication becomes impossible. Any synchronisation method is sufficient, for example a slow modulation based on a shared real-time clock (e.g. GPS or NTP), or increasing the shift by a known amount when the sender receives a successful acknowledgement of packet reception.
The GNU radio modulation and demodulation modules were not designed for dynamic constellation manipulation. In order to evaluate the performance of this method, the C++ implementations of the modulation and demodulation modules were modified to allow changing the constellation without destroying the module. Replacing the module instances every time the constellation changes does not work, since this destroys the internal time synchronisation state[^2] required for symbol decoding.
![Shifted 4x4-QAM Error Rate vs. Blatancy (SNR = 25 dB)[]{data-label="vqam_error_v_blatancy"}](vcpsk_error_v_blatancy.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
![Shifted 4x4-QAM Error Rate vs. Signal Quality ($\beta = 0.6$)[]{data-label="vqam_error_v_quality"}](vcpsk_error_v_snr.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
The performance of dynamically modulated circular 4x4-QAM is shown in Fig. \[vqam\_error\_v\_blatancy\] and Fig. \[vqam\_error\_v\_quality\]. The impact of adjusting the constellation during transmission is clear. The most distinct effect is more sporadic performance; the error rate curves are less smooth though the variance of this “choppiness” is low enough to be of little concern.
The increased blatancy and signal quality requirements are more significant. At 25 dB a blatancy about 0.1 higher is required for reliable transmission. With a blatancy of 0.6, a SNR of about 33 dB is required for reliable transmission, in contrast to only about 27 dB for the static arrangement, a difference of 5 dB. While dynamic modulation clearly has a negative impact on performance, transmission is still feasible, and some performance degradation is expected as the cost of increased stealth. However, it is likely that a modulator and demodulator specifically designed to better tolerate this situation would result in better performance.
The appearance of this signal is shown in Fig. \[vqam\_appearance\]. With a high enough SNR to receive the signal, the points now appear as rings rather than distinct points. As can be seen in the histograms, this is a considerable improvement in stealth. While the rings make it clear something other than standard 4-QAM is in use to an observer with sufficiently high SNR, the secret constellation is not visible since the points change over time.
At the slightly lower SNR of 20 dB, the rings are much more subtle; the signal looks more like standard 4-QAM with noise. So, while not very subtle to an observer with a high enough signal quality to receive the secret transmission, the technique is covert to observers with lower signal quality.
Conclusions and Future Work
===========================
The constellation-based approach to radio steganography presented here is a feasible one with several unique benefits. Simulations confirm that reliable transmission of both the cover and secret channels is possible, and constellations can easily be tuned to be as subtle as possible while achieving communication in a given environment. This method also has the desirable quality, unique to analogue transmission, that the secret channel is unrecoverable by an observer with poor signal quality even if the information hiding technique in use is known.
However, the resulting signals are not stealthy enough to evade statistical analysis by an observer with sufficiently high signal quality. Modulating the constellation over time improves this situation considerably, at the cost of some performance. Further work is required to make GNU radio suitable for this type of modulation. Because of this, and the fact that some form of protocol-dependant synchronisation is required, it is expected that a real implementation would see better results for this technique.
The methods presented here work well for secret communication with minimal interference to a legacy receiver, but there are other potential improvements for stealth. One obvious problem is the ring-like appearance of the dynamically modulated signal. Possible solutions include a perturbation of circular clusters, or an alternative “hubbed” constellation where the original point is preserved in the secret constellation and surrounded by $k-1$ points. This would decrease the distance between symbols, but make the secret channel much more resistant to statistical analysis.
Finally, the approach here is easily applicable to most constellations. It would be useful to investigate secret constellations for others such as circular QAM or Frequency Shift Keying (FSK). Constellations with more than 16 points would also be useful, and allow for the possibility of increased adaptability by choosing how many points to use in the secret constellation. For example, it is possible to use a secret 64-QAM constellation with a 4-QAM cover, though the signal quality requirements for the secret would be much higher.
This preliminary investigation shows that secret constellations are a promising method of hiding information in a digital radio signal, and possibly in other mediums based on periodic waveforms. Future work in this area is likely to result in robust and practical covert communication systems.
[^1]: Specifically *rectangular* QAM, there is also circular QAM but this paper only uses the rectangular variant and refers to it simply as “QAM”.
[^2]: Note this is unrelated to the high level synchronisation requirements of dynamic constellations.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Two anomalously weak transitions within the $2\;^3{\rm S}_1~-~3\;^3{\rm P}_J$ manifolds in $^3$He have been identified. Their transition strengths are measured to be 1,000 times weaker than that of the strongest transition in the same group. This dramatic suppression of transition strengths is due to the dominance of the hyperfine interaction over the fine structure interaction. An alternative selection rule based on *IS*-coupling (where the nuclear spin is first coupled to the total electron spin) is proposed. This provides qualitative understanding of the transition strengths. It is shown that the small deviations from the *IS*-coupling model are fully accounted for by an exact diagonalization of the strongly interacting states.'
author:
- 'I. A. Sulai'
- Qixue Wu
- 'M. Bishof'
- 'G. W. F. Drake'
- 'Z.-T. Lu'
- 'P. Mueller'
- 'R. Santra'
bibliography:
- 'He3Sulai.bib'
title: 'Hyperfine Suppression of $2~^3{\rm S}_1 ~-~ 3~^3{\rm P}_J$ Transitions in $^3$He'
---
Persistent efforts in both theory and experiment have yielded increasingly precise understanding of the helium atom. Due to its simplicity, the helium atom has been a proving ground for precision atomic measurements and calculations of few-body quantum systems. The knowledge gained from this effort is used to test bound-state quantum electrodynamics [@Morton1; @Morton2; @Pachucki], determine the fine structure constant [@Zelevinsky; @George], and explore exotic nuclear structure [@WangPRL; @Mueller; @Shiner; @Marin]. We report results of a combined theoretical and experimental study on the strengths of $2\;^3{\rm S}_1 - 3\;^3{\rm P}_J$ transitions in $^3$He.
Surprisingly, we observe that the strengths of two “allowed” transitions, $2\;^{3}{\rm S}_{1},(F=\frac{3}{2})~-~3\;^{3}{\rm P}_{1},(F=\frac{3}{2}) $ and $2\;^3{\rm S}_1,(F = \frac{1}{2})~-~3\;^3{\rm P}_2,(F = \frac{3}{2})$, are 1,000 times weaker than that of the strongest transition $2\;^3{\rm S}_1, (F = \frac{3}{2})~-~3\;^3{\rm P}_2,(F = \frac{5}{2})$. The level scheme showing these transitions is presented in Fig \[fig1\]. This dramatic suppression of transition strengths is due to a rare atomic phenomenon: within the $3\;^3{\rm P}$ manifold, the hyperfine interaction is comparable to or even stronger than the fine structure interaction. Consequently the conventional model based on *LS*-coupling is no longer applicable. Rather, we find that an alternative model where the fine structure interaction is treated as a perturbation on states obtained by first coupling nuclear spin to the total electron spin provides a good qualitative explanation of the observed suppression. We refer to this coupling scheme as *IS*-coupling. We start by discussing the details of the experiment and compare the data with the predictions from the different coupling schemes. Finally, we discuss an exact diagonalization method to account for the small differences between experiment and the *IS*-coupling scheme.
![Level scheme of $^3$He showing the levels investigated, with the arrows indicating the suppressed transitions observed. The level positions are drawn to scale within each manifold. The large hyperfine splitting with respect to the fine structure splitting is evident. With a nuclear spin $I = 1/2$ for $^3$He, the levels are designated by the familiar term symbols, with $\mathbf{J} = \mathbf{L}+\mathbf{S}$, $\mathbf{F} = \mathbf{J} +
\mathbf{I}$ on the left. The levels are labeled on the right using the quantum number $\mathbf{K} = \mathbf{I} + \mathbf{S}$, $\mathbf{F} = \mathbf{K}+\mathbf{L}$.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Fig1.eps){width="\ImSize"}
We measure the ratio of transition strengths using a cross-beam laser induced fluorescence method. A beam of metastable helium atoms in the $2\;^3{\rm S}_1$ state is prepared in a liquid-nitrogen cooled RF-driven discharge. A retro-reflected beam of linearly polarized 389 nm light is incident perpendicular to the atomic beam. The polarization of the light is along the direction of the atomic beam. A uniform external magnetic field of 5 Gauss is applied along the direction of the laser to provide an axis of quantization. As the frequency is scanned across different resonances, the atoms are excited, and fluorescence from the atoms is detected in the direction normal to the atomic and laser beams. The metastable atomic beam is collimated using a collimator, made of a stack of microscope cover slips which provides high collimation in the direction along the laser beam [@Tanner]. We are able to obtain Doppler broadened lines of $20$ MHz linewidth. The natural linewidth of the transitions is 1.6 MHz. Approximately 4 mW of 389 nm light is obtained by frequency doubling infrared light at 778 nm. The frequency of the 778 nm light is referenced to a temperature stabilized Fabry-Perot cavity. The power of the laser and its wavelength are monitored continuously.
The nine E1 allowed transitions are repeatedly probed in a random order and the spectra are recorded. Each spectrum is fitted using a statistically weighted Voigt profile. The integrated area of the profile divided by the power of the probing laser beams is taken as a measure of the transition strength. As the absolute atomic beam flux and efficiency of detecting the fluorescence photons are not measured in this experiment, only the ratios of transition strengths are determined. By defining the strength of the strongest transition, $2\;^3{\rm S}_1, (F = \frac{3}{2})~-~3\;^3{\rm P}_2,(F = \frac{5}{2})$, to be unity, we determine the relative strengths of the other eight transitions. The results are presented in Fig. \[fig2\] and in Table \[Data\].
The intensity of the probing laser beam is varied depending on the transition under study. For example, when probing the two highly suppressed transitions, the intensity of the probe is increased by two orders of magnitude. In all cases, however, the laser intensity is kept well below the saturation intensity of the particular transition under study. Indeed, the intensity is chosen so that on average less than one photon is scattered by each atom as it passes the laser beams in approximately $2~ \mu$s. This is to avoid nonlinear effects in the measurements due to optical pumping and mechanical effects of the light on the atomic beam. Such systematic effects are studied by examining the dependence of transition signal on the laser beam power. Additional corrections are made and systematic errors generated due to changing background in the measured laser power and the anisotropic angular distribution of the fluorescence emission. The final error estimates are given in Table \[Data\].
![Comparison of relative transition strengths for all E1 allowed transitions between the $2\;^3{\rm S}_1$ and $3\;^3{\rm P}_J$ manifolds. All values are normalized with respect to the $2\;^3{\rm S}_1, (F=\frac{3}{2}) - 3\;
^3{\rm P}_2, (F=\frac{5}{2})$ transition.[]{data-label="fig2"}](Fig2.eps){width="\ImSize"}
------------------ ------------------ ------------ ------ ------ --------
Initial (J,F) Final (J,F) Experiment LS IS Exact
$2\;^3{\rm S}_J$ $3\;^3{\rm P}_J$ Diag.
(2,5/2) 1 1 1 1
(2,3/2) 0.69(5) 0.11 0.67 0.67
(1,1/2) 0.26(4) 0.11 0.33 0.24
(1,3/2) 0.0012(2) 0.55 0 0.0010
(0,1/2) 0.10(5) 0.22 0 0.093
(2,3/2) 0.0011(4) 0.55 0 0.0010
(1,1/2) 0.08(3) 0.22 0 0.093
(1,3/2) 0.65(4) 0.11 0.67 0.67
(0,1/2) 0.27(4) 0.11 0.33 0.24
------------------ ------------------ ------------ ------ ------ --------
: Relative transition strengths for all E1 allowed transitions between the $2\;^3{\rm S}_1$ and $3\;^3{\rm P}_J$ manifolds. All values are normalized with respect to the $2\;^3{\rm S}_1, (F=\frac{3}{2}) - 3\;
^3{\rm P}_2, (F=\frac{5}{2})$ transition.
\[Data\]
The textbook strategy [@Sobelman] to estimate theoretically the atomic transition strengths is based on the presumed hierarchy that hyperfine splittings be small in comparison with fine-structure splittings. Consequently approximate eigenstates of the total Hamiltonian may be constructed by first coupling $L$ (total orbital angular momentum quantum number) and $S$ (total electronic spin quantum number) to form the total electronic angular momentum $J$; coupling $J$ and $I$ (nuclear spin quantum number) then gives the total atomic angular momentum $F$. Within this *LS*-coupling model, the total strength for an electric dipole transition may be evaluated using standard angular momentum algebra [@Edmonds].
The results of this $LS$-coupling model are compared with the experimental data in Fig. \[fig2\]. It is apparent that there is not even qualitative agreement. The origin of the failure of the $LS$-coupling model may be understood as follows. In $^3$He, the hyperfine structure is almost entirely due to the magnetic dipole interaction of the tightly bound $1s$ electron with the nucleus. The fine structure is a consequence of both one-body spin-orbit coupling of the excited $nL$ electron and two-body spin-other-orbit and spin-spin interactions of the $nL$ electron with the $1s$ electron [@BetheSalpeter]. As $n$ increases, the fine-structure splittings decrease as $n^{-3}$. The hyperfine interaction of the $1s$ electron, on the other hand, tends for large $n$ to the constant hyperfine interaction strength in $^3$He$^+$. Note that the hyperfine splitting in the ground state of $^3$He$^+$ is $8.7$ GHz [@FoMa66], which is comparable to, or larger than, the level spacings within the $2$ $^3S$ and $3$ $^3P$ manifolds (see Fig. \[fig1\]).
The relative strength of the hyperfine interaction in $^3$He has been recognized before [@FrTo51; @TiAn73; @DeLo80; @FrLi80; @BlCo82; @PrHi83; @Vassen] and has been taken as an indication that a simple angular momentum coupling model describing transitions in $^3$He is not available and that a numerical diagonalization of an effective Hamiltonian is necessary. We demonstrate in the following that although $n$ is quite small in the ${\rm 3}$ $^3{\rm P}$ manifold, the assumption of relatively weak fine structure interactions does provide a simple model that allows us to understand qualitatively the strengths of transitions from $2$ $^3{\rm S}$ to $3$ $^3{\rm P}$.
For $3\;^3{\rm P}$, ${\rm S}$ is still a good quantum number, since the separation of this manifold from $3\;^1 {\rm P}$ is large ($\sim
10^4$ GHz) in comparison with the hyperfine and fine structure splittings. Therefore, the basic idea underlying what we refer to as the $IS$-coupling model is that the electrostatic exchange interaction between the two electrons preserves $\bf{S}$; the hyperfine interaction couples $\bf{S}$ and $\bf{I}$ to form a new intermediate angular momentum $\bf{K}$; and $\bf{F}$ is then obtained by coupling $\bf{L}$ and $\bf{K}$. In this picture, the $^3$He eigenstates of relevance here are not labeled in terms of $nLS(J)I,F$, but in terms of $nIS(K)L,F$. An immediate consequence of the fact that the electric dipole operator acts on neither $S$ nor $I$ is that $K$ must be conserved in an $E1$ transition, i.e., $|\langle\Psi^{(n^{\prime}L^{\prime}S^{\prime}I)}_{K^{\prime}F^{\prime}}
\parallel \hat{D}\parallel\Psi^{(nLSI)}_{K F}\rangle|^2$ vanishes if $K$ differs from $K^{\prime}$. A similar model was used in 1933 for a case in which $S$ is not conserved [@GoBa33], but that appears to be the only other study employing an extreme hyperfine-coupling picture to develop a basic understanding of transition strengths involving hyperfine multiplets.
As shown in Fig. \[fig2\], there is good qualitative agreement between experiment and the $IS$-coupling model, thus suggesting that already for $n=3$, the fine-structure interactions may be considered perturbations to the hyperfine structure. For instance, within the $IS$-coupling model, the suppression of the transition from $2$ $^3{\rm S}_1$, $F=\frac{3}{2}$ ($K=\frac{3}{2}$) to $3$ $^3{\rm P}_1$, $F=\frac{3}{2}$ ($K=\frac{1}{2}$) follows from the $K$-selection rule in $E1$ transitions. On the other hand, according to experiment, the transition from $2$ $^3{\rm S}_1$, $F=\frac{3}{2}$ ($K=\frac{3}{2}$) to $3$ $^3{\rm P}_0$, $F=\frac{1}{2}$ ($K=\frac{1}{2}$) is weakly allowed, in slight deviation from the $IS$-coupling model. We note that the observed suppressions for certain transitions from $2$ $^3{\rm S}$ to $5$ $^3{\rm P}$ [@BlCo82; @Vassen] are fully consistent with the $K$-selection rule.
In order to characterize the nature of the perturbations to the $IS$-coupling model for $^3$He, and account for the slight deviations, we have performed an exact diagonalization of the total Hamiltonian $H$ within the manifold of $3\;^3{\rm P}$ and $3\;^1{\rm P}$ states, including both fine and hyperfine structure. The total Hamiltonian of $^{3}$He in the absence of external fields is of the form $$\begin{aligned}
H= H_{\rm NR} + H_{\rm{fs}}+H_{\rm{hfs}}\end{aligned}$$ where $H_{\rm NR}$ is the nonrelativistic Hamiltonian, $H_{\rm{fs}}$ represents the fine structure interaction for helium as described by many authors (see Drake [@a1; @a2] for a review), and $H_{\rm
hfs}$ represents the hyperfine structure interaction, see for example, Bethe and Salpeter [@BetheSalpeter]. In this picture, $H_{\rm
hfs}$ is treated as a small perturbation relative to the large electrostatic splitting between states with different principal quantum number $n$, and by exact diagonalization within the manifold of strongly mixed states with the same $n$. The technique is basically the same as that described by Hinds, Prestage and Pichanick [@a5].
Using these methods, a comprehensive investigation of the fine and hyperfine structure of $^{3}$He has recently been carried out by Morton, Wu, and Drake [@Morton2]. All fine structure and hyperfine structure parameters required to diagonalize the complete fine and hyperfine interaction matrix in the basis set of singlet and triplet states are accurately calculated by using double basis set variational wave functions in Hylleraas coordinates as described by Drake [@a1; @a2]. For the $3P$ state, instead of using directly the theoretical energies for $^3$He, we combined the theoretical isotope shifts for $^{3}$He relative to $^{4}$He [@Morton2] with the best experimental ionization energies for $^{4}$He.[@Mueller; @Morton2]. This gives higher accuracy due to cancelations of the mass-independent QED uncertainties in the calculated isotope shifts.
The final step is to calculate the electric dipole transition line strengths between the perturbed hyperfine states of $2\;^3{\rm S}$ and $3\;^3P$ in terms of standard angular momentum theory, in which the perturbed hyperfine states are linearly expanded in terms of unperturbed eigenstates. The expansion coefficients are obtained by the above diagonalization of the complete matrix. The final results and the comparison with experiment are given in Table \[Data\]. The calculations show that the mixing between hyperfine states of $3\;^3{\rm P}$ with different $K$ but the same $F$ of $^{3}$He precisely accounts for the deviations shown in Table \[Data\] from the *IS*-coupling model. This mixing is due to the fine structure interactions. We find that both the one-body spin-orbit, and the two-body spin-spin and spin-other-orbit interactions must be included, in order to accurately reproduce the strengths. In the case of the 2$S$ state, this hyperfine mixing is also important for hyperfine structure, as shown by Riis *et al.* [@a7], but its contribution to the transition strength is negligible in the present work.
In summary, the hyperfine suppression of $2\;^{3}{\rm S}_{1},(F=\frac{3}{2}) $ to $3\;^{3}{\rm P}_{1},(F=\frac{3}{2})$ and $2\;^{3}{\rm S}_{1},(F=\frac{1}{2}) $ to $3\;^{3}{\rm P}_{2},(F=\frac{3}{2})$ radiative transitions in $^3$He is caused by a selection rule that emerges in the limit of strong hyperfine mixing between states with the same $F$ but different $J$. In this limit, the radiative transitions are better described by a coupling scheme in which [**I**]{} and [**S**]{} are coupled to form [**K**]{}, and then [**L**]{} is coupled to [**K**]{} to form [**F**]{}. In this limit, the eigenvalue $K$ is approximately preserved as a good quantum number. The small deviations from the *IS*-coupling scheme are well accounted for by an exact diagonalization for the intermediate coupling case. However, with increasing $n$, the *IS*-coupling scheme should rapidly become more accurate because the fine-structure interactions decrease in proportion to $1/n^3$, while the hyperfine interactions tend to a constant at the series limit. The surprise is that it already works so well for $n= 3$.
We would like to thank K. Bailey and T. P. O’Connor for technical support. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Physics and Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Office of Science, under Contract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357. G.W.F.D. acknowledges support by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and by SHARCNET.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Information-theoretically secure (ITS) authentication is needed in Quantum Key Distribution (QKD). In this paper, we study security of an ITS authentication scheme proposed by Wegman&Carter, in the case of partially known authentication key. This scheme uses a new authentication key in each authentication attempt, to select a hash function from an Almost Strongly Universal$_2$ hash function family. The partial knowledge of the attacker is measured as the trace distance between the authentication key distribution and the uniform distribution; this is the usual measure in QKD. We provide direct proofs of security of the scheme, when using partially known key, first in the information-theoretic setting and then in terms of witness indistinguishability as used in the Universal Composability (UC) framework. We find that if the authentication procedure has a failure probability ${\varepsilon}$ and the authentication key has an ${\varepsilon}'$ trace distance to the uniform, then under ITS, the adversary’s success probability conditioned on an authentic message-tag pair is only bounded by ${\varepsilon}+|{\mathcal{T}}|{\varepsilon}'$, where $|{\mathcal{T}}|$ is the size of the set of tags. Furthermore, the trace distance between the authentication key distribution and the uniform increases to $|{\mathcal{T}}|{\varepsilon}'$ after having seen an authentic message-tag pair. Despite this, we are able to prove directly that the authenticated channel is indistinguishable from an (ideal) authentic channel (the desired functionality), except with probability less than ${\varepsilon}+{\varepsilon}'$. This proves that the scheme is (${\varepsilon}+{\varepsilon}'$)-UC-secure, without using the composability theorem.
, Strongly Universal hash functions, Partially known key, Trace distance, Universal Composability, Quantum Key Distribution.
author:
- 'Aysajan Abidin and Jan-[Å]{}ke Larsson'
bibliography:
- 'wca.bib'
title: |
Direct Proof of Security of Wegman-Carter\
Authentication with Partially Known Key
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Information-theoretically secure (ITS) message authentication codes [@WC1; @WC2] provide two users, Alice and Bob, with means to guarantee authenticity and integrity of messages exchanged over an insecure public channel. To achieve ITS (sometimes called unconditional security) the schemes used need shared secret between Alice and Bob. This procedure is secure against any adversary, even with unlimited computing and storage capability, provided that the key is perfectly secret. Such schemes normally have high demand for fresh secret key material, but even so they are used in some cryptographic schemes; especially in ITS key agreement schemes such as Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) [@BB84; @Ekert91]. QKD needs ITS authentication in order to thwart man-in-the-middle attacks [@BB84; @AL09; @Abidin; @PAL12].
This paper addresses security of an ITS Authentication scheme originally proposed by Wegman and Carter [@WC2], in the case of partially known key. The scheme is based on secretly selecting a function from a certain family of functions, details will be given in what follows. The function is then used to create a message authentication code, a tag, from the message. The important property of the family in question is that revealing the output, the tag, from one single use of a function does not reveal too much information on which function is used. This is to prohibit an attacker from identifying the function used, to generate a tag for another (forged) message. However, revealing two tags for two different messages may reveal enough to generate a tag for a third, so the function cannot be reused. Several messages can be authenticated securely by secretly selecting a new function for each desired authentication; we will refer to this mode of operation as WCA. Another is to hide the output, by encrypting the tag using one-time pad encryption, but in this paper, we only consider the WCA scheme.
The WCA scheme is ITS provided that the authentication key is uniformly distributed (or perfect). In practice, however, cryptographic keys are imperfect if partial information has leaked about them. One example of this is QKD-generated keys, where an eavesdropper can extract some information on the key, tightly restricted by security parameters of the system. In this paper, we study security of the WCA scheme in the scenario where the key is partially known to the adversary. We measure the adversary’s partial knowledge of the key as the trace distance between the distribution of the key and the uniform distribution, as is done in QKD. We should stress that our analysis is not just restricted to QKD. The same analysis applies *whenever* the authentication scheme under study is used with a key that has a small but non-zero trace distance to the uniform.
Related work, and contribution of this paper {#related-work-and-contribution-of-this-paper .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------
The security of the WCA scheme as used in QKD was studied in [@CL] where the observation was made that, for the WCA scheme with partially known authentication key, an active attack is not always needed to weaken the system. The attacker can, in essence, wait for a beneficial moment and only launch an active (guessing) attack at that moment. The paper also proposes a countermeasure to this that is simple to implement.
A more recent paper [@Portmann] extends the security of the WCA scheme to the Universally Composable (UC) framework, proving that the scheme is UC-secure if the authentication key is perfectly secret. In the same paper, the Composability Theorem [@Canetti] is used to further extend the result to the case with partially known key, but due to the complexity of the UC framework and the composability theorem, the existence of the guessing attack mentioned above, and ultimately the differences between questions of Confidentiality and Integrity, there has been some discussion as to the meaning and appropriate statement of this result [@OH12; @RR12; @HY12].
In this paper, we aim to resolve the issue by providing upper bounds for failure probability, both for the problem discussed in [@CL] and for witness indistinguishability as used in the UC framework. This is done for the case of partially known key using a direct proof, without using the Composability Theorem. We first show that, if the authentication procedure has a failure probability ${\varepsilon}$; the authentication key has an ${\varepsilon}'$ trace distance to the uniform; and the adversary has seen a valid message-tag pair, then the adversary’s success probability of breaking the authentication is only bounded by ${\varepsilon}+|{\mathcal{T}}|{\varepsilon}'$, where $|{\mathcal{T}}|$ is the size of the tag space. This is *significantly* larger than what one would expect from the bound emerging from the UC framework. Despite this, we are able to prove directly that the authenticated channel is distinguishable from an authentic channel (the desired functionality) with probability less than ${\varepsilon}+{\varepsilon}'$.
The structure of the paper is as follows. Some background on Universal hashing and its use in constructing ITS authentication will be given in Section \[sec:background\]. In Section \[sec:trace-distance\], we present some properties of subset probability from distributions at nonzero trace distance from the uniform, that are needed in the security proofs. The ITS security bound of the scheme when using partially known key is proved in Section \[sec:ITS-security\], and the implications of the high bound is discussed at the end of the section. In Section \[sec:UC-security\], we prove indistinguishability of the scheme from the ideal functionality when using partially known key. Section \[sec:conclusions\] concludes the paper.
Background {#sec:background}
==========
In this section we present some necessary background that facilitates understanding of the whole paper. First of all, we need to specify the measure of partial knowledge to be used.
This is also known as the variational distance or the statistical distance between two probability distributions $P_X$ and $P_X'$, and is $$\label{eq:trace-distance}
{\delta}(P_X,P_X') = \tfrac12\sum_{x\in{\mathcal{X}}}|P_X(x)-P_X'(x)|.$$
When we discuss security of a key in this paper, the following notion will be used.
\[def:key-security\] A key $k$ is called *perfect* if it is uniformly distributed from the adversary’s point of view; a key $k$ is called *${\varepsilon}$-perfect*, if its distribution has an ${\varepsilon}$ trace distance to the uniform.
The family of functions used to create the tags are defined as follows. Let ${\mathcal{M}}$ be the set of messages and ${\mathcal{T}}$ be the set of tags, both finite and ${\mathcal{T}}$ typically much smaller than ${\mathcal{M}}$. Also, let ${\mathcal{H}}$ be a set of functions from ${\mathcal{M}}$ to ${\mathcal{T}}$. The appropriate set of functions to use in ITS authentication is the following.
The set ${\mathcal{H}}$ is a *Strongly Universal$_2$ (SU$_2$) hash function family* if **(a)** for any $m_1\in{\mathcal{M}}$ and any $t_1\in{\mathcal{T}}$ there exist exactly $|{\mathcal{H}}|/|{\mathcal{T}}|$ hash functions $h\in{\mathcal{H}}$ such that $h(m_1)=t_1$, and **(b)** for any $m_2\in{\mathcal{M}}$ (distinct from $m_1$) and any $t_2\in{\mathcal{T}}$ (possibly equal to $t_1$), the fraction of those functions such that $h(m_2)=t_2$ is $1/|{\mathcal{T}}|$. If the fraction in (b) instead is at most ${\varepsilon}$, the family ${\mathcal{H}}$ is *${\varepsilon}$-Almost Strongly Universal$_2$ (${\varepsilon}$-ASU$_2$)*.
When proving security of an authentication scheme, there are two probabilities to bound: the probability of success in an *impersonation* attack, and the probability of success in a *substitution* attack. In an impersonation attack, the adversary pretends to be a legitimate user and tries to generate the correct tag for a (forged) message with no additional information, as would be given by a valid message-tag pair. In a substitution attack, the adversary intercepts a valid message-tag pair and tries to replace it with a new message-tag pair. This latter attack is more powerful than the former [@Johansson1].
It is fairly straightforward to see that ${\varepsilon}$-ASU$_2$ hash functions can be used to construct unconditionally secure authentication schemes in a natural way. Let Alice and Bob share a secret key $k$ to identify a hash function $h_k$ in a family ${\mathcal{H}}$ of ${\varepsilon}$-ASU$_2$ hash functions from ${\mathcal{M}}$ to ${\mathcal{T}}$. Alice sends her message $m$ along with $t=h_k(m)$ to Bob. Upon receiving $m$ and $t$, Bob verifies the authenticity of $m$ by comparing $h_k(m)$ with $t$. If $h_k(m)$ and $t$ are identical, then Bob accepts $m$ as authentic; otherwise, $m$ will be rejected.
Now, if Eve tries to impersonate Alice and sends $m^\prime$ without knowing the key $k$, or $h_k$, the best she can do is to guess the correct tag for $m^\prime$. The probability of success in this case is $1/|{\mathcal{T}}|$. Even if Eve waits until seeing a valid message-tag pair $(m,t)$ from Alice, the probability of guessing the correct tag $t'$ for $m^\prime$ is at most ${\varepsilon}$; cf. Def. 3(b). In other words, even seeing a valid message-tag pair does not increase Eve’s success probability above ${\varepsilon}$. Therefore, by using a family of ${\varepsilon}$-ASU$_2$ hash functions with suitably chosen ${\varepsilon}$, one can achieve unconditionally secure message authentication.
In this scheme, however, a key cannot be used more than once, because a repeated use of the same key may give Eve enough information to forge a valid message-tag pair; Def. 3 does not say anything about set sizes for three message-tag pairs. Therefore, in the mode of operation considered here, WCA, a new secret key is used for each authentication. The key length for typical known families of ${\varepsilon}$-ASU$_2$ hash functions is logarithmic in the message length $\log|{\mathcal{M}}|$ [@Stinson1; @Stinson2; @Stinson3; @Stinson4; @AticiStinson; @Hugo; @Hugo1; @Johansson; @Johansson1; @Boer; @AL11], where $\log$ denotes the binary logarithm. Hence, the key-consumption rate of WCA is logarithmic in the message length.
Probabilities of sets with non-uniform underlying distribution {#sec:trace-distance}
==============================================================
In what follows, we will need some simple results of probabilities of subsets of key values, or hash functions, when the key is ${\varepsilon}$-perfect. In general we denote the probability of a subset of values ${\mathcal{X}}'\subseteq{\mathcal{X}}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
P_X({\mathcal{X}}') = \sum_{x\in{\mathcal{X}}'}P_X(x).\end{aligned}$$ First we note a simple property of the probability of a subset of ${\mathcal{X}}$, when the distribution has a nonzero trace distance to the uniform distribution.
\[lemma:subset\] If the trace distance between $P_X$ and the uniform distribution is ${\varepsilon}$, then for any subset ${\mathcal{X}}'\subseteq{\mathcal{X}}$, $$\label{eq:subset}
\Big|P_X({\mathcal{X}}')-\frac{|{\mathcal{X}}'|}{|{\mathcal{X}}|}\Big| \le {\varepsilon}.$$ Also, there are subsets that reach the bound.
With ${\mathcal{X}}_+:=\{x\in{\mathcal{X}}:P_X(x)>1/|{\mathcal{X}}|\}$ and ${\mathcal{X}}_-:=\{x\in{\mathcal{X}}:P_X(x)<1/|{\mathcal{X}}|\}$, it is straightforward to see that $$\begin{split}
{\varepsilon}=\tfrac12\sum_{x\in{\mathcal{X}}}\Big|P_X(x)-\frac1{|{\mathcal{X}}|}\Big|
=P_X({\mathcal{X}}_+)-\frac{|{\mathcal{X}}_+|}{|{\mathcal{X}}|}=\frac{|{\mathcal{X}}_-|}{|{\mathcal{X}}|}-P_X({\mathcal{X}}_-).
\end{split}$$ Now, for any subset ${\mathcal{X}}'\subseteq{\mathcal{X}}$, we have $$\begin{split}
P_X({\mathcal{X}}')-\frac{|{\mathcal{X}}'|}{|{\mathcal{X}}|}
\le P_X({\mathcal{X}}'\cap{\mathcal{X}}_+)-\frac{|{\mathcal{X}}'\cap{\mathcal{X}}_+|}{|{\mathcal{X}}|}
\le P_X({\mathcal{X}}_+)-\frac{|{\mathcal{X}}_+|}{|{\mathcal{X}}|}={\varepsilon}\end{split}$$ and also $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{|{\mathcal{X}}'|}{|{\mathcal{X}}|}-P_X({\mathcal{X}}')
\le \frac{|{\mathcal{X}}'\cap{\mathcal{X}}_-|}{|{\mathcal{X}}|}-P_X({\mathcal{X}}'\cap{\mathcal{X}}_-)
\le \frac{|{\mathcal{X}}_-|}{|{\mathcal{X}}|} - P_X({\mathcal{X}}_-)={\varepsilon}.
\end{aligned}$$ This proves the inequality, and the subsets ${\mathcal{X}}'={\mathcal{X}}_+$ and ${\mathcal{X}}'={\mathcal{X}}_-$ both reach the bound.$\square$
From this lemma follows a bound for the conditional probability of an even smaller subset of ${\mathcal{X}}$, when the distribution has a nonzero trace distance to the uniform distribution. We will use this later when discussing security with preexisting partial knowledge and additional gained knowledge in the message exchange.
\[lemma:sub-subset\] If the trace distance between $P_X$ and the uniform distribution is ${\varepsilon}$, then for any subsets ${\mathcal{X}}''\subseteq{\mathcal{X}}'\subseteq{\mathcal{X}}$, $$\label{eq:sub-subset}
\Big|P_X({\mathcal{X}}''\,|\,{\mathcal{X}}') - \frac{|{\mathcal{X}}''|}{|{\mathcal{X}}'|}\Big|
\le \frac{|{\mathcal{X}}|}{|{\mathcal{X}}'|}{\varepsilon}.$$ Also, there are subsets which reach the bound.
The conditional probability can be written $$\label{eq:sss2}
\begin{aligned}
P_X({\mathcal{X}}''\,|\,{\mathcal{X}}') &= \frac{P_X({\mathcal{X}}'')}{P_X({\mathcal{X}}')}
= \frac{P_X({\mathcal{X}}'')}{P_X({\mathcal{X}}'') + P_X({\mathcal{X}}'\setminus{\mathcal{X}}'')}
= \left(1+\frac{P_X({\mathcal{X}}'\setminus{\mathcal{X}}'')}{P_X({\mathcal{X}}'')}\right)^{-1}.
\end{aligned}$$ To bound this from above, we need an upper bound for $P_X({\mathcal{X}}'')$ and a lower bound for $P_X({\mathcal{X}}'\setminus{\mathcal{X}}'')$, both of which can be obtained using Lemma \[lemma:subset\], $$\label{eq:sss3}
P_X({\mathcal{X}}'')\le \frac{|{\mathcal{X}}''|}{|{\mathcal{X}}|} + {\varepsilon};\quad
P_X({\mathcal{X}}'\setminus{\mathcal{X}}'') \ge \frac{|{\mathcal{X}}'\setminus{\mathcal{X}}''|}{|{\mathcal{X}}|}
- {\varepsilon}.$$ These give us the upper bound $$\label{eq:sss5}
\begin{aligned}
P_X({\mathcal{X}}''\,&|\,{\mathcal{X}}')
= \left(1+\frac{P_X({\mathcal{X}}'\setminus{\mathcal{X}}'')}{P_X({\mathcal{X}}'')}\right)^{-1}
\le\left(1+\frac{\frac{|{\mathcal{X}}'\setminus{\mathcal{X}}''|}{|{\mathcal{X}}|} -
{\varepsilon}}{\frac{|{\mathcal{X}}''|}{|{\mathcal{X}}|} + {\varepsilon}} \right)^{-1} =
\frac{|{\mathcal{X}}''|}{|{\mathcal{X}}'|} + \frac{|{\mathcal{X}}|}{|{\mathcal{X}}'|}{\varepsilon}.
\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, from Lemma \[lemma:subset\] we also know that $$\label{eq:sss6}
P_X({\mathcal{X}}'')\ge\frac{|{\mathcal{X}}''|}{|{\mathcal{X}}|} - {\varepsilon};\quad
P_X({\mathcal{X}}'\setminus{\mathcal{X}}'') \le \frac{|{\mathcal{X}}'\setminus{\mathcal{X}}''|}{|{\mathcal{X}}|}
+ {\varepsilon}.$$ These give us the lower bound $$\label{eq:sss8}
\begin{aligned}
P_X({\mathcal{X}}''\,&|\,{\mathcal{X}}') = \left(1+\frac{P_X({\mathcal{X}}'\setminus{\mathcal{X}}'')}
{P_X({\mathcal{X}}'')}\right)^{-1}
\ge\left(1+\frac{\frac{|{\mathcal{X}}'\setminus{\mathcal{X}}''|}{|{\mathcal{X}}|} + {\varepsilon}}
{\frac{|{\mathcal{X}}''|}{|{\mathcal{X}}|} - {\varepsilon}} \right)^{-1} =
\frac{|{\mathcal{X}}''|}{|{\mathcal{X}}'|} - \frac{|{\mathcal{X}}|}{|{\mathcal{X}}'|}{\varepsilon}.
\end{aligned}$$ This proves the inequality. The bound can be reached in several ways, for example when $({\mathcal{X}}_+\cup{\mathcal{X}}_-)\subseteq{\mathcal{X}}'$ and ${\mathcal{X}}''={\mathcal{X}}_+$.$\square$
Using the above theorem, we can derive a bound for the trace distance of the conditional distribution of $x$ on a subset ${\mathcal{X}}'\subseteq{\mathcal{X}}$. This will be useful when discussing trace distance in relation to security later.
\[lemma:cor\] If the trace distance between $P_X$ and the uniform distribution is ${\varepsilon}$, then given a subset ${\mathcal{X}}'\subseteq{\mathcal{X}}$, the conditional distribution of $x$ on ${\mathcal{X}}'$ has trace distance to the uniform (on ${\mathcal{X}}'$) that is bounded by $$\label{eq:cor}
\tfrac12\sum_{x\in{\mathcal{X}}'}\Big|P_X(x\,|\,{\mathcal{X}}')-\frac1{|{\mathcal{X}}'|}\Big|
\le \frac{|{\mathcal{X}}|}{|{\mathcal{X}}'|}{\varepsilon}.$$ For certain subsets ${\mathcal{X}}'$, the bound is reached.
It is straightforward to see that $$\label{eq:cor1}
\begin{aligned}
\tfrac12\sum_{x\in{\mathcal{X}}'}&\Big|P_X(x\, |\, {\mathcal{X}}') - \frac1{|{\mathcal{X}}'|}\Big|
= P_X({\mathcal{X}}_+\cap {\mathcal{X}}' \,|\, {\mathcal{X}}') - \frac{|{\mathcal{X}}_+\cap{\mathcal{X}}'|}{|{\mathcal{X}}'|}
\le \frac{|{\mathcal{X}}|}{|{\mathcal{X}}'|}{\varepsilon},
\end{aligned}$$ where the inequality follows from Theorem \[lemma:sub-subset\]. The bound is reached when ${\mathcal{X}}_+\cup{\mathcal{X}}_-\subseteq{\mathcal{X}}'$.$\square$
Information-theoretic security with partially known key {#sec:ITS-security}
=======================================================
In this section we analyse security of the authentication scheme under study in information-theoretic setting, in the scenario where the key has a small but non-zero trace distance to the uniform. The WCA scheme uses ${\varepsilon}$-ASU$_2$ hashing, and is ${\varepsilon}$-secure, meaning that the probability of success in a substitution attack is bounded above by ${\varepsilon}$, if the authentication key is uniformly distributed (perfect). We will now analyse what happens when this is not the case, when the trace distance to the uniform is nonzero. This means that the authentication key is a random variable $K$ to Eve, and we use ${\varepsilon}'$ to denote its trace distance to the uniform.
We will start by giving an example of how large Eve’s probability for a successful substitution attack can become, even when using a SU$_2$ family. Since we are talking about a substitution attack, we need to calculate the probability conditioned on Eve having seen a message-tag pair $(m,t)$ from Alice. One possible distribution is $$\label{eq:key-distr}
P_K(k)=
\begin{cases}
\frac1{|{\mathcal{K}}|}+{\varepsilon}',&\text{if }k\in{\mathcal{K}}_+=\{k_+\}\\
\frac1{|{\mathcal{K}}|}-{\varepsilon}'\frac1{|{\mathcal{K}}_-|},
&\text{if } k\in{\mathcal{K}}_-\\
\frac1{|{\mathcal{K}}|},&\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ This has trace distance ${\varepsilon}'$ to the uniform. If ${\varepsilon}'>1/|{\mathcal{K}}|$, the set ${\mathcal{K}}_-$ must contain more than one value. (Compare with the distribution used in [@CL] where $P_K(k)=0$ if $k\in{\mathcal{K}}_-$; $P_K(k)=1/(|{\mathcal{K}}|-|{\mathcal{K}}_-|)$ if $k\in{\mathcal{K}}_+={\mathcal{K}}\setminus{\mathcal{K}}_-$; and ${\varepsilon}'=|{\mathcal{K}}_-|/|{\mathcal{K}}|$.) It is easy to see that Eve’s probability for success, without more information on $K$, is maximal if she chooses $t_{\text E}=f_{k_+}(m_{\text E})$ and $m_{\text E}$ is such that $t_{\text E}\neq{}f_{k_-}(m_{\text E})$ for all $k_-\in{\mathcal{K}}_-$. Since the hash function family is SU$_2$, $|\{k:f_k(m_{\text E})=t_{\text E}\}|=|{\mathcal{K}}|/|{\mathcal{T}}|$, and this set contains $k_+$ but excludes ${\mathcal{K}}_-$ so that $$\begin{split}
\Pr\big\{f_{K}(m_{\text E})=t_{\text E}\big\}
=\frac1{|{\mathcal{K}}|}+{\varepsilon}'+\Big(\frac{|{\mathcal{K}}|}{|{\mathcal{T}}|}-1\Big)\frac1{|{\mathcal{K}}|}
=\frac{|{\mathcal{K}}|}{|{\mathcal{T}}|}\frac1{|{\mathcal{K}}|}+{\varepsilon}'
=\frac1{|{\mathcal{T}}|}+{\varepsilon}'.
\end{split}\label{eq:2}$$ It is also easy to see that Eve’s probability for success increases if she sees a valid message-tag pair $(m,t=f_K(m))$. Eve’s gain will now depend on $m$, and her gain is maximal if both $f_{k_+}(m)=t$ and $f_{k_-}(m)=t$ for all $k_-\in{\mathcal{K}}_-$, so that $$\Pr\big\{f_{K}(m) =t\big\}
=\frac{|{\mathcal{K}}|}{|{\mathcal{T}}|}\frac1{|{\mathcal{K}}|}+{\varepsilon}'
-|{\mathcal{K}}_-|{\varepsilon}'\frac1{|{\mathcal{K}}_-|}
=\frac1{|{\mathcal{T}}|}.$$ If ${\varepsilon}'$ is small, there will exist such messages $m$. Since the hash function family is SU$_2$, $|\{k:f_k(m_{\text E})=t_{\text E}\wedge{}f_k(m)=t\}|=|{\mathcal{K}}|/|{\mathcal{T}}|^2$, and again this set contains $k_+$ but excludes ${\mathcal{K}}_-$. Therefore $$\begin{split}
\Pr\big\{f_{K}(m_{\text E})=t_{\text E}\,\big|\, f_{K}(m)=t\big\}
&=\frac{\Pr\big\{f_{K}(m_{\text E})=t_{\text E}\wedge f_{K}(m)=t\big\}}
{\Pr\big\{f_{K}(m)=t\big\}}\\
&=\frac{\frac{|{\mathcal{K}}|}{|{\mathcal{T}}|^2}\frac1{|{\mathcal{K}}|}+{\varepsilon}'}{\frac1{|{\mathcal{T}}|}}
=\frac{\frac1{|{\mathcal{T}}|^2}+{\varepsilon}'}{\frac1{|{\mathcal{T}}|}}
=\frac1{|{\mathcal{T}}|}+|{\mathcal{T}}|{\varepsilon}'.
\end{split}
\label{eq:1}$$ Note that this is an equation, not an inequality. Before seeing $(m,t)$ Eve’s probability of a successful message insertion attack equals $1/|{\mathcal{T}}|+{\varepsilon}'$. After seeing $(m,t)$, Eve’s probability of a successful substitution attack *equals* $1/|{\mathcal{T}}|+|{\mathcal{T}}|{\varepsilon}'$.
This might be taken as cause for alarm, but one should note that this is message-dependent: not all message-tag pairs $(m,t)$ will cause such an increase. It was pointed out already in [@CL] that the message and used key value may be such that Eve may have this unexpectedly high probability of success. On the other hand, in some situations (here, when $f_{k_+}(m)\neq t$), Eve will instead find out that her most likely key value was, in fact, not used, and that she must remove it from the set of possible key values. In this case, the information she had becomes unusable; she will have lost information. But, importantly, Eve can find out if there was a gain or not, before performing an active (guessing) attack, by using her distribution of $K$ and the received message-tag pair from Alice. Eve then only performs an active attack if her success probability has increased (sufficiently, see [@CL]). From Alice’s point of view, the probability of having her message-tag pair *and* a successful attack from Eve is $1/|{\mathcal{T}}|+{\varepsilon}'$, but this probability is *per round*, not per guess (by Eve). Eve does not need to reveal herself by guessing frequently; she can wait for the beneficial case where her success probability is high [@CL].
Therefore, there is a clear need for an upper bound for the success probability in this situation. For general ${\varepsilon}$-ASU$_2$-based authentication, the following theorem holds.
\[thm-WCA\] *(Bound for guessing probability with partially known key.)* Consider the WCA scheme based on ${\varepsilon}$-ASU$_2$ hashing. If the authentication key is ${\varepsilon}'$-perfect (as random variable $K$ to the adversary), the probability of a successful message insertion is bounded by $$\Pr\big\{f_K(m_{\text E})=t_{\text E}\big\}\le\frac1{|{\mathcal{T}}|}+{\varepsilon}'.$$ If in addition the adversary has access to a valid message-tag pair $(m,t)$, the probability of a successful substitution is bounded by $$\label{eq:thm-WCA}
\Pr\big\{f_K(m_{\text E})=t_{\text E}\,\big|\, f_K(m)=t\big\}
\le {\varepsilon}+|{\mathcal{T}}|{\varepsilon}'.$$
The first inequality is obtained by applying Lemma \[lemma:subset\] to the set $\{k\in{\mathcal{K}}:f_k(m_{\text E})=t_{\text E}\}$. Since the hash function family is ${\varepsilon}$-ASU$_2$ (Def. 3(a)), this set has the size $|{\mathcal{K}}|/|{\mathcal{T}}|$, and $$\label{WCA-1}
\Pr\big\{f_K(m_{\text E})=t_{\text E}\big\}
\le\frac{|{\mathcal{K}}|}{|{\mathcal{T}}|}\frac1{|{\mathcal{K}}|}+{\varepsilon}'
=\frac1{|{\mathcal{T}}|}+{\varepsilon}'.$$ To bound the probability that the adversary sees $(m,t)$ *and* performs a successful substitution attack, we denote the subset of authentication key values that gives $(m,t)$ by $$\label{eq:WCA-2}
{\mathcal{K}}' = \{k\in{\mathcal{K}}: f_k(m)=t\},$$ and where the attack succeeds by $${\mathcal{K}}''=\{k\in{\mathcal{K}}: f_k(m_{\text E}) = t_{\text E}\wedge f_k(m) = t \}.
\label{eq:WCA-3}$$ We know from Def. 3 that $|{\mathcal{K}}'|=|{\mathcal{K}}|/|{\mathcal{T}}|$ and that $|{\mathcal{K}}''|={\varepsilon}|{\mathcal{K}}|/|{\mathcal{T}}|$. So using Theorem \[lemma:sub-subset\], we have $$\label{eq:WCA-4}
\begin{split}
\Pr\big\{f_K(m_{\text E})&=t_{\text E}\,\big|\, f_K(m)=t\big\} =P_K({\mathcal{K}}''\,|\,{\mathcal{K}}')
\le \frac{|{\mathcal{K}}''|}{|{\mathcal{K}}'|} + \frac{|{\mathcal{K}}|}{|{\mathcal{K}}'|}{\varepsilon}' \le {\varepsilon}+|{\mathcal{T}}|{\varepsilon}'.
\end{split}$$ $\square$
This theorem tells us that the previous example really is a worst-case scenario, so that the upper bound for Eve’s success probability after seeing a message-tag pair is ${\varepsilon}+|{\mathcal{T}}|{\varepsilon}'$. Conversely, the example shows that the bound is sharp: there are situations where the bound is reached, so the bound cannot be lowered if one wants information-theoretic security.
In the Universal Composability framework (to be discussed below), the relevant figure of merit is the trace distance to the uniform distribution, and not the guessing probability as given above. And also the trace distance increases by the same amount, in the beneficial case for Eve. The key is still random to Eve, but the distribution conditioned on her new knowledge that $h_K(m)=t$ has a larger trace distance to the uniform. A uniform distribution conditioned on $h_K(m)=t$ would be constant at $|{\mathcal{T}}|/|{\mathcal{K}}|$ (the set of still possible keys has the size $|{\mathcal{K}}|/|{\mathcal{T}}|$), but in our example, if both $f_{k_+}(m)=t$ and $f_{k_-}(m)=t$ for all $k_-\in{\mathcal{K}}_-$, $$\label{eq:3}
\begin{split}
P_K(k_+\,|\,h_K(m)=t)&=\frac{\Pr\{K=k_+\wedge
h_K(m)=t\}}{P\{h_K(m)=t\}}
=\frac{P_K(k_+)}{\Pr\{h_K(m)=t\}}\\
&=\frac{\frac1{|{\mathcal{K}}|}+{\varepsilon}'}{\frac1{|{\mathcal{T}}|}}
=\frac{|{\mathcal{T}}|}{|{\mathcal{K}}|}+|{\mathcal{T}}|{\varepsilon}'.
\end{split}$$ This forces the conditional distribution of the key to have a high trace distance to the uniform. As before, the example gives the worst-case scenario, and an upper bound for this trace distance is given by the following theorem.
\[thm-WCA-cor\] *(Bound for trace distance with partially known key.)* Consider the WCA scheme based on ${\varepsilon}$-ASU$_2$ hashing. If the authentication key is ${\varepsilon}'$-perfect (as random variable $K$ to the adversary), and the adversary has access to a valid message-tag pair $(m,t)$, then the trace distance from the conditional probability to the uniform is bounded by $$\label{eq:WCA-cor}
\tfrac12\sum_{k:f_k(m)=t}\bigg|P_K(k\,|\,f_K(m)=t)
-\frac1{|\{k:f_k(m)=t\}|}\bigg|
\le |{\mathcal{T}}|{\varepsilon}'.$$
We use ${\mathcal{K}}' = \{k\in{\mathcal{K}}: f_k(m)=t\}$ and immediately obtain the bound from Theorem \[lemma:cor\]: $$\label{eq:WCA-cor-1}
\tfrac1{2}\sum_{k\in{\mathcal{K}}'}\Big|P_K(k\,|\,{\mathcal{K}}')
-\frac1{|{\mathcal{K}}'|}\Big|
\le \frac{|{\mathcal{K}}|}{|{\mathcal{K}}'|}{\varepsilon}'
=|{\mathcal{K}}|\frac{|{\mathcal{T}}|}{|{\mathcal{K}}|}{\varepsilon}'=|{\mathcal{T}}|{\varepsilon}'.$$ $\square$
Again, the bound is sharp because of the example: there are situations where the bound is reached, so the bound cannot be lowered if one wants information-theoretic security. Note that, again, that this depends on $(m,t)$, and a similar argument as that used above applies to Eve’s success rate. The upper bound is only reached in beneficial situations (for Eve).
The example shows that the bounds cannot be lowered, but are only reached for certain $(m,t)$. This means that the notion of ITS used here is ill suited for the situation. It works well for perfect keys, because there, the probability of a successful attack is equally bounded, with a low bound. It is clear that the situation is the same whether one looks at guessing probability or trace distance; there is a substantial, but non-constant increase. This is the reason to turn to the notion of indistinguishability, which is better suited for this situation.
Indistinguishability from Ideal Authentication {#sec:UC-security}
==============================================
The notion of witness indistinguishability was first introduced in [@FS]. Here, we use the indistinguishability notion to prove that, despite the substantially high bound for ITS, the WCA scheme with an ${\varepsilon}'$-perfect key is indistinguishable from the ideal authentication, except with probability ${\varepsilon}+{\varepsilon}'$. As a natural consequence, Universally Composable (UC) security of the WCA scheme with an ${\varepsilon}'$-perfect key directly follows from our proof of indistinguishability.
(-2.6,0) node\[fill=black!10,minimum width=2cm,minimum height=.8cm\]; (2.6,0) node\[fill=black!10,minimum width=2cm,minimum height=.8cm\]; (-3,0) node\[draw,minimum width=1cm,fill=white\](a) [Alice]{}; (3,0)node\[draw,minimum width=1cm,fill=white\](b) [Bob]{}; (0, 0)node\[draw,minimum width=3cm,fill=white\](f) [${\mathcal{F}}$]{}; (a) to node\[above\][$m$]{} (f); ($(f.south)+(-1,0)$) to\[bend right=45\] node\[below left\][$m$]{} ++(.5,-.5); ($(f.south)+(-1,0)$)++(.5,-.5) to ++(1,0); ($(f.south)+(-1,0)$)++(.5,-.5)++(1,0) to\[bend right=45\] node\[below right\][$m'$]{} ($(f.south)+(1,0)$); (f) to node\[above\][$m,\bot$]{} (b);
(-2,0) node\[fill=black!10,minimum width=3cm,minimum height=.8cm\]; (2,0) node\[fill=black!10,minimum width=3.1cm,minimum height=.8cm\]; (-3,0) node\[draw,minimum width=1cm,fill=white\](a) [Alice]{}; (3,0)node\[draw,minimum width=1cm,fill=white\](b) [Bob]{}; (0, 1)node\[draw,rounded rectangle, minimum width=1.3cm\](k) [Key]{}; (-1,0)node\[draw,rectangle,minimum width=1cm,fill=white\](T) [TAG]{}; (1,0)node\[draw,rectangle,minimum width=1cm,fill=white\](V) [VRFY]{}; (0,.5) node\[draw,dotted,minimum width=3cm,minimum height=1.7cm\] +(1.2,.75)node[WCA]{}; (a) to node\[above\][$m$]{} (T); (T.south) to\[bend right=45\] node\[below left\][$(m,t)$]{} ++(.5,-.5); (T.south)++(.5,-.5) to ++(1,0); (T.south)++(.5,-.5)++(1,0) to\[bend right=45\] node\[below right\][$(m',t')$]{} (V.south); (V) to node\[above\][$m',\bot$]{} (b); (k.south) to node\[above right,at end\][$k$]{} (T.north); (k.south) to node\[above left,at end\][$k$]{} (V.north);
The ideal functionality of authentication, an *authentic* channel ${\mathcal{F}}$, connects Alice and Bob in such a way that Bob can be certain that any message output from the channel was sent by Alice. If the message was modified on the channel, the symbol $\bot$ is delivered, see Fig. \[fig:functionality\]. In other words, messages received from ${\mathcal{F}}$ are either authentic or blocked, and so *cannot* be successfully modified or substituted. Note that there is no confidentiality requirement, so the message can be read by anyone. The real implementation of authentication in the WCA scheme has three components, as depicted in Fig. \[fig:functionality\]: a tag generation algorithm TAG, a verification algorithm VRFY, and a key source. Both TAG and VRFY use the same key. From an input message $m$, Alice uses TAG to compute a message-tag pair $(m,t)$ where $t=f_k(m)$ and $f_k$ is a hash function from an ${\varepsilon}$-ASU$_2$ family identified by $k$. Bob uses VRFY to verify a received message-tag pair $(m',t')$, and VRFY outputs $m'$ if $f_k(m')=t'$ (for example if $m'=m$ and $t'=t$), otherwise $\bot$.
The distinguisher (in UC terminology, the *environment*) ${\mathcal{Z}}$ should not be able to distinguish the two systems, except with low probability. It can attempt to distinguish the two by controlling the input to the system (the message $m$), and the output from the channel $(m',t')$. The systems should be indistinguishable even under the presence of an *adversary* ${\mathcal{A}}$, and it is sufficient to consider the system under an adversary completely controlled by the environment [@Canetti], a *dummy adversary* that only forwards the desired channel output from the environment. As is, the systems are trivially distinguishable because of the lack of a tag in the ideal system. We therefore add a *simulator* ${\mathcal{S}}$ to the ideal functionality, that adds a tag $t$ that is generated from $m$ using the appropriate key and hash function to make it indistinguishable from the real case, and strips off any received tag $t'$ after the channel. The name simulator also alludes to simulating the adversary, and is especially simple when simulating the dummy adversary.
We now want to ensure that the environment ${\mathcal{Z}}$ cannot distinguish between the two cases *(a)* it is interacting with ${\mathcal{A}}$ and participants running the WCA scheme or *(b)* it is interacting with ${\mathcal{S}}$ and participants running ${\mathcal{F}}$, except with low probability (see Fig. \[fig:setup1\]). Perhaps we should point out that the description here differs slightly from that of [@Portmann]. The WCA scheme is resolved in somewhat finer detail and is separated from the participants, and the ideal functionality is that of an authentic channel rather than an immutable but blockable channel. This is done solely for the purpose of clear comparison of the real and the ideal cases, and does not affect the results of the security evaluation. Now, having set the stage, we can state our main theorem.
(0,-3) node\[draw,minimum width=6.5cm\] (z) [${\mathcal{Z}}$]{}; (-2.6,0) node\[fill=black!10,minimum width=2cm,minimum height=.8cm\]; (2.6,0) node\[fill=black!10,minimum width=2cm,minimum height=.8cm\]; (-3,0) node\[draw,minimum width=1cm,fill=white\](a) [Alice]{}; (3,0)node\[draw,minimum width=1cm,fill=white\](b) [Bob]{}; (0,-1.5)node\[draw,minimum width=3cm\](s) [${\mathcal{S}}$]{}; (0, 0)node\[draw,minimum width=3cm,fill=white\](f) [${\mathcal{F}}$]{}; (-2.8, -1.5)node\[draw,rounded rectangle, minimum width=1.3cm\](k) [Key]{}; (z.west) to\[bend left=40\] node\[right\][$m$]{} (a.west); (a) to node\[above\][$m$]{} (f); (k) to node\[above\][$k$]{} (s); ($(f.south)+(-1,0)$) to node\[left\][$m$]{} ($(s.north)+(-1,0)$); ($(s.south)+(-1,0)$) to node\[left\][$(m,t)$]{} ($(z.north)+(-1,0)$); ($(z.north)+(1,0)$) to node\[right\][$(m',t')$]{} ($(s.south)+(1,0)$); ($(s.north)+(1,0)$) to node\[right\][$m'$]{} ($(f.south)+(1,0)$); (f) to node\[above\][$m,\bot$]{} (b); (b.east) to\[bend left=40\] node\[left\] [$m',\bot$]{} (z.east);
(0,-3) node\[draw,minimum width=6cm\] (z) [${\mathcal{Z}}$]{}; (-2,0) node\[fill=black!10,minimum width=3cm,minimum height=.8cm\]; (2,0) node\[fill=black!10,minimum width=3.1cm,minimum height=.8cm\]; (-3,0) node\[draw,minimum width=1cm,fill=white\](a) [Alice]{}; (3,0)node\[draw,minimum width=1cm,fill=white\](b) [Bob]{}; (0,-1.5)node\[draw,minimum width=3cm\](e) [${\mathcal{A}}$]{}; (0, 1)node\[draw,rounded rectangle, minimum width=1.3cm\](k) [Key]{}; (-1,0)node\[draw,rectangle,minimum width=1cm,fill=white\](T) [TAG]{}; (1,0)node\[draw,rectangle,minimum width=1cm,fill=white\](V) [VRFY]{}; (0,.5) node\[draw,dotted,minimum width=3cm,minimum height=1.7cm\] +(1.2,.75)node[WCA]{}; (z.west) to\[bend left=40\] node\[right\][$m$]{} (a.west); (a) to node\[above\][$m$]{} (T); (T.south) to node\[left\][$(m,t)$]{} ($(e.north)+(-1,0)$); ($(e.south)+(-1,0)$) to node\[left\][$(m,t)$]{} ($(z.north)+(-1,0)$); ($(z.north)+(1,0)$) to node\[right\][$(m',t')$]{} ($(e.south)+(1,0)$); ($(e.north)+(1,0)$) to node\[right\][$(m',t')$]{} (V.south); (V) to node\[above\][$m',\bot$]{} (b); (b.east) to\[bend left=40\] node\[left\] [$m',\bot$]{} (z.east); (k.south) to node\[above right,at end\][$k$]{} (T.north); (k.south) to node\[above left,at end\][$k$]{} (V.north);
\[thm-WCA-uc\] *(Indistinguishability)* No distinguisher ${\mathcal{Z}}$ can distinguish between the two cases
*(a)* it is interacting with ${\mathcal{A}}$ and participants running the WCA scheme based on ${\varepsilon}$-ASU$_2$ hashing using ${\varepsilon}'$-perfect authentication key, or
*(b)* it is interacting with ${\mathcal{S}}$ and participants running ${\mathcal{F}}$
except with probability ${\varepsilon}+{\varepsilon}'$.
In the proof, the message given to Alice is denoted $X$ and its distribution is in control of the environment ${\mathcal{Z}}$. The authentication key $K$ is used to select $f_K$ that in turn is used to generate the tag. The key distribution is not in control of ${\mathcal{Z}}$, and has ${\varepsilon}'$ trace distance to the uniform. The corresponding output message-tag pair is denoted $Y$. The channel output is denoted $Y'$ and is again in control of ${\mathcal{Z}}$. The output of the real and ideal functionality is denoted ${\widetilde{X}}$ and ${\widehat{X}}$, respectively and take values in ${\mathcal{M}}\cup\{\bot\}$. Thus, the environment ${\mathcal{Z}}$ has access to the joint random variables $XYY'{\widetilde{X}}$ in the real case and $XYY'{\widehat{X}}$ in the ideal case. In both cases, ${\mathcal{Z}}$ is in control of $X$ and $Y'$. The random variable $Y$ has an identical distribution (conditioned on the value of $X$) in both cases, so distinguishing the two systems can only be done from the output ${\widetilde{X}}$ or ${\widehat{X}}$, if the output is different from $X$ and also not $\bot$. This is only possible in the real implementation, and the probability of this is $\Pr\{{\widetilde{X}}\neq\bot\wedge{\widetilde{X}}\neq X\}$. This can also be studied through the trace distance between the two distributions $$\label{eq:trace-WCA}
\begin{split}
\delta(P_{XYY'{\widetilde{X}}},P_{XYY'{\widehat{X}}}) =
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{m,y,y',x'}
\Big|P_{XYY'{\widetilde{X}}}\big(m,y,y',x'\big)-
P_{XYY'{\widehat{X}}}\big(m,y,y',x'\big)\Big|.
\end{split}$$ Above, the index $x'$ runs over ${\mathcal{M}}\cup\{\bot\}$. Since the real and ideal cases are indistinguishable if $m=x'$, the above sum simplifies to the terms where $m\neq x'$. Furthermore, if $m\neq x'$ the ideal functionality ${\mathcal{F}}$ always outputs $\bot$. We can therefore change the name of the index to $m'$ since it now runs only over ${\mathcal{M}}$, and we find that the trace distance equals $\Pr\{{\widetilde{X}}\neq\bot\wedge{\widetilde{X}}\neq X\}$, because $$\label{eq:trace-WCA-2}
\begin{split}
\delta&(P_{XYY'{\widetilde{X}}},P_{XYY'{\widehat{X}}})= \sum_{m,y,y',m'\neq m}
P_{XYY'{\widetilde{X}}}\big(m,y,y',m'\big)
=\Pr\{{\widetilde{X}}\neq\bot\wedge{\widetilde{X}}\neq X\}\\
&= \sum_{m,t,t',m'\neq m} P_{X}(m)P_{Y|X}\big((m,t)|m\big)P_{Y'|XY}\big((m',t')\big|m,(m,t)\big)
P_{{\widetilde{X}}|XYY'}\big(m'|m,(m,t),(m',t')\big)\\
&= \sum_{m,t,t',m'\neq m} P_{X}(m)\Pr\big\{h_K(m)=t\big\}P_{Y'|Y}\big((m',t')\big|(m,t)\big)
\Pr\big\{h_K(m')=t'|h_K(m)=t\big\}\\
&=\sum_{m,t,t',m'\neq m} P_{X}(m) P_{Y'|Y}\big((m',t')\big|(m,t)\big)\Pr\{f_K(m')=t' \,\wedge\,
f_K(m)=t\}.
\end{split}$$ Now, the simple bound $\Pr\{f_K(m')=t'\,\wedge\,
f_K(m)=t\}\le{\varepsilon}/|{\mathcal{T}}|+{\varepsilon}'$ (from Lemma \[lemma:subset\]) only gives $$\begin{split}
\delta(P_{XYY'{\widetilde{X}}},P_{XYY'{\widehat{X}}})
&=\sum_{m,t,t',m'\neq m} P_{X}(m)
P_{Y'|Y}\big((m',t')|(m,t)\big)\Pr\{f_K(m')=t' \,\wedge\,
f_K(m)=t\} \\
&\le \sum_{m,t,t',m'\neq m}
P_{X}(m) P_{Y'|Y}\big((m',t')|(m,t)\big)
\Big(\frac{{\varepsilon}}{|{\mathcal{T}}|}+{\varepsilon}'\Big)={\varepsilon}+|{\mathcal{T}}|{\varepsilon}',
\end{split}$$ and that is insufficient for our purposes. This occurs for the same reason as the high bounds in Theorems \[thm-WCA\] and \[thm-WCA-cor\]: the upper bound for the individual terms *is* this high, but the bound is not reached for all $(m,t)$. Here, we can do better by bounding the expression $$\sum_{t,t',m'\neq m}
P_{Y'|Y}\big((m',t')|(m,t)\big)\Pr\{f_K(m')=t' \,\wedge\, f_K(m)=t\}$$ instead of the individual terms. The probability $P_{Y'|Y}\big((m',t')|(m,t)\big)$ corresponds to the adversary’s attack strategy: given a message-tag pair on the input to the channel, choose what to substitute as output from the channel. If the adversary uses a deterministic attack, meaning that $(m',t')$ are functions of $(m,t)$, we immediately obtain $$\begin{split}
\sum_{t,t',m'\neq m}
&P_{Y'|Y}\big((m',t')|(m,t)\big)\Pr\{f_K(m')=t'\,\wedge\,f_K(m)=t\}
\\&
= \sum_{t}\Pr\{f_K\big(m'(m,t)\big)=t'(m,t) \,\wedge\, f_K(m)=t\}\\
&= \Pr\Big[\bigcup_t\big\{f_K\big(m'(m,t)\big)=t'(m,t)
\,\wedge\, f_K(m)=t\big\}\Big]\\
&\le|{\mathcal{T}}|\Big({\varepsilon}\frac{|{\mathcal{K}}|}{|{\mathcal{T}}|}\Big)\frac1{|{\mathcal{K}}|}+{\varepsilon}_1
={\varepsilon}+{\varepsilon}_1.
\end{split}$$ The sum can be rewritten as the probability of a union because the events are disjoint, and the inequality is obtained from Lemma \[lemma:subset\]. The remaining average over $m$ has no effect on the bound.
If the adversary has a randomized attack, we can introduce an auxiliary probability space $(\Omega,{\mathcal{F}},\mu)$ for the random variable $Y'=(X',T')$, where $\Omega$ is the sample space, ${\mathcal{F}}$ is the $\sigma$-algebra of events, and $\mu$ is the probability measure. Using the indicator function $\chi$ we can write $$P_{Y'|Y}\big((m',t')|(m,t)\big)
=\int_\Omega\chi_{\{\omega\in\Omega:Y'(m,t,\omega)=(m',t')\}}(\omega)\,d\mu.$$ We note that for each fixed sample $\omega$, the attack is deterministic. The above approach now gives $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{t,t',m'\neq m}&
P_{Y'|Y}\big((m',t')|(m,t)\big)\Pr\{f_K(m')=t' \,\wedge\, f_K(m)=t\}\\
&\,=\sum_{t,t',m'\neq m}\int_\Omega\chi_{\{\omega\in\Omega:
Y'(m,t,\omega)=(m',t')\}}(\omega)\,d\mu\Pr\{f_K\big(m'\big)
=t' \,\wedge\, f_K(m)=t\}\\
&\,=\int_\Omega\sum_{t}\Pr\big\{f_K\big(X'(m,t,\omega)\big)
=T'(m,t,\omega) \,\wedge\, f_K(m)=t\big\}\,d\mu\\
&\le \int_\Omega \,{\varepsilon}+{\varepsilon}'\,d\mu = {\varepsilon}+{\varepsilon}'.
\end{aligned}$$ Again, the remaining average over $m$ has no effect on the bound.$\square$
Now, the UC security of the WCA scheme with a partially known key follows immediately.
\[cor-WCA-uc\] *(UC security)* Consider the WCA scheme based on ${\varepsilon}$-ASU$_2$ hashing. Assume that the authentication key $k$ is ${\varepsilon}'$-perfect. Then the WCA scheme is ${\varepsilon}+{\varepsilon}'$-UC-secure.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We have presented a detailed security analysis of Wegman-Carter authentication with failure probability ${\varepsilon}$, in the case of partially known key whose distribution is ${\varepsilon}'$ trace distance from the uniform distribution. We proved tight upper bounds for the adversary’s success probability of breaking the scheme with impersonation and substitution attacks in the information-theoretic setting, with success probability upper bounded by $1/|{\mathcal{T}}|+{\varepsilon}'$ and ${\varepsilon}+|{\mathcal{T}}|{\varepsilon}'$, respectively. The latter is substantially higher than expected, but we give an example that reaches the bound, meaning that the bound is sharp. Also in terms of trace distance, a similar increase can be noted. The best possible upper bound to the trace distance after having seen a valid message-tag pair is $|{\mathcal{T}}|{\varepsilon}'$; the same example tells us that this bound is sharp.
Since the bounds we obtained are substantially higher than what one would expect, we also analyze whether the scheme is secure in terms of witness indistinguishability. Despite the high success probability bound and increase in trace distance, we prove that the authentication under study is indeed indistinguishable from the ideal functionality, except with probability less than ${\varepsilon}+{\varepsilon}'$. We provide a direct proof for the case of partially known key, without using the composability theorem. Naturally, UC security of the scheme with partially known key follows from our proof of indistinguishability.
These results seem to contradict each other, but they do not. The first should be understood as pointing out that the attacker will have high success probability in some rounds, after having seen a valid message-tag pair. The second shows that this happens seldom enough to retain the expected security. The important lesson is that the attacker can refrain from performing an active attack, if the success probability is low after having seen a valid message-tag pair. This is because she can calculate her success probability from available knowledge on the key and the additional information obtained from a valid message-tag pair. In essence she does not need to reveal herself at each attempt to break the system, but needs only take this risk when the success probability is high. The security parameters should not be read as “the probability that an attacker is revealed, in each attack” but rather “the probability that the system is broken, in each round.” It is important to keep this in mind when using this type of authentication, and of course, the size of the security parameters ${\varepsilon}$ and ${\varepsilon}'$ should be chosen accordingly.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present new limits on resonant ${ { t} \bar{{b}} }$ production in ${ { p} \bar{{ p}} }$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 1.96TeV, using 1.9${ {\rm fb}^{-1} }$ of data recorded with the CDF II detector at the Fermilab Tevatron. We reconstruct a candidate mass in events with a lepton, neutrino candidate, and two or three jets, and search for anomalous ${ { t} \bar{{b}} }$ production as modeled by $W'' \rightarrow t\bar{b}$. We set a new limit on a right-handed $W''$ with standard model-like coupling, excluding any mass below 800 at 95% C.L. The cross-section for any narrow, resonant ${ { t} \bar{{b}} }$ production between 750 and 950 is found to be less than 0.28pb at 95% C.L. We also present an exclusion of the $W''$ coupling strength versus $W''$ mass over the range 300 to 950.'
title: 'Search for the Production of Narrow ${{ { t} \bar{{b}} }}$ Resonances in 1.9${ {\rm fb}^{-1} }$ of ${{ { p} \bar{{ p}} }}$ Collisions at ${\sqrt{s}=}$ 1.96TeV\'
---
Many modifications of the standard model (SM) of particle physics include new, massive, short-lived particles with two-body decays to known fermion pairs. A classic search strategy for these states looks for resonant signals in the spectra of two-body mass distributions. Recent techniques developed to observe electroweak single-top production are well-suited to a search for unexpected $t\bar{b}$ resonances [@singletop]. A $t\bar{b}$ resonance (inclusion of the charge conjugate is implied throughout the text) is predicted by a wide range of models containing a massive charged vector boson, generically referred to as $W'$. The classic model is a simple extension of the SM to the left-right symmetric group $\mathrm{SU}(2)_{\mathrm{L}} \times \mathrm{SU}(2)_{\mathrm{R}} \times \mathrm{U}(1)$ [@lr], which adds a right-handed charged boson $W_{\mathrm{R}}$ with universal weak coupling strength and unknown mass. The $W'$ may arise in models with other symmetry extensions: as the excitation of the $W$-boson in Kaluza-Klein extra dimensions [@ed], as the techni-$\rho$ of technicolor theories [@tc], or as a bosonic partner in little Higgs scenarios [@lh].
The classic limits on $W'$ are derived from searches in the $W'\rightarrow l\nu$ decay channel [@Wev]. For large $W'$ masses, the sensitivity in this channel is diminished by the broad Jacobian lineshapes for the lepton momentum and $W'$ transverse mass. Searches in the $t\bar{b}$ channel [@Wtb] avoid this difficulty and also probe models where the couplings are free parameters and the leptonic decay modes may be suppressed. Although we quantify our results using the model of a right-handed $W'$ with SM-like coupling [@zack], this analysis is sensitive to any narrow state decaying to $t\bar{b}$, including [*e.g.*]{} a charged Higgs boson or bound states arising from new dynamics in the third generation. Searches in the $t\bar{b}$ channel complement searches for neutral states coupling to $t\bar{t}$ [@Z'].
In this Letter we present a new search for an $s$-channel $W' \rightarrow { { t} \bar{{b}} }$ resonance produced in $p\bar{p}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 1.96TeV at the Fermilab Tevatron. The dataset of 1.9${ {\rm fb}^{-1} }$ was recorded with the CDF II detector; a standard coordinate system [@coord] is used. A detailed explanation of this analysis can be found in [@thesis]. Our selection is based on the leptonic decay mode $t\bar{b} \rightarrow (\ell\nu b)\bar{b}$, which has been well understood in the search for electroweak single-top production [@singletop]. Events are expected to have a high transverse momentum ($p_{\mathrm{T}}^{~}$) electron or muon candidate, missing transverse energy () from a neutrino [@met], and two or three jets, at least one of which is a $b$-quark candidate. The dominant background is from $W+\mathrm{jet}$ processes and electroweak top-quark production. We reconstruct each event according to our signal hypothesis $W'\rightarrow { { t} \bar{{b}} }\rightarrow (\ell\nu b)\bar{b}$, then search the mass spectrum for a narrow resonance. If no signal is detected, we set limits on $\sigma(p\bar{p} \rightarrow W') \times \mathrm{BR}(W' \rightarrow t\bar{b})$ and on the $W'$ coupling strength $g_{W'}^{~}$.
The CDF II detector [@CDF] is a cylindrically-symmetric general-purpose detector. Precision charged-particle tracking is accomplished by layers of silicon microstrip detectors surrounded by a large open-cell drift chamber within a 1.4T solenoidal magnetic field. Outside the magnet are the electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters, steel for hadronic shielding, and an exterior layer of muon detectors. The luminosity of the $p\bar{p}$ collisions is measured using gas Cherenkov detectors at small angles.
We select data using online selection criteria which require a high-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{~}$ lepton or large [@trigger]. We identify $t\bar{b} \rightarrow \ell\nu b\bar{b}$ candidates as having an electron or muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{~}\geq 20$. We also require ${\mbox{$\protect \raisebox{.3ex}{$\not$}{{ E}_{\mathrm{T}}}$}}\geq 25$GeV and two or three hadronic jets with $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{~}\geq 20$ and ${|\eta| \leq}$ 2.8. Jets are clustered in cones of fixed radius $\Delta R \equiv \sqrt{(\Delta \eta)^2 + (\Delta \phi)^2} \leq 0.4$, and at least one jet is required to be “$b$-tagged”, [*i.e.*]{} the jet contains a secondary vertex consistent with the decay of a hadron containing a $b$-quark [@g4topxsec]. We reduce $Z$-decays and $t\bar{t}$ contamination by excluding events with a second charged lepton. Events consistent with cosmic ray or photon interactions are also excluded. QCD multi-jet background, which does not involve a $W$ boson, is rejected with a specific set of requirements [@thesis].
The primary background process is the associated production of a $W$ boson and jets with subsequent leptonic decay of the $W$ boson ($W+\mathrm{jets}$). Approximately 70% of our sample are $W+\mathrm{jets}$ events containing heavy flavor ($Wb\bar{b}$, $Wc\bar{c}$, $Wcj$) or incorrectly $b$-tagged light flavor (mistags). We establish the normalization of these processes from data, and estimate the fraction of the candidate events with bottom or charm flavor using the [ALPGEN]{} Monte Carlo event generator [@alpgen]. The mistagging rate for light-flavor jets is estimated from inclusive generic jet data [@M2]. Additional backgrounds including $t\bar{t}$ pair production, $s$-channel and $t$-channel single-top production, and diboson processes ($WW$,$WZ$,$ZZ$) are modeled using the [PYTHIA]{} Monte Carlo event generator [@pythia] and are normalized to the next-to-leading-order cross-sections predicted by theory. A small multi-jet background without leptonic $W$ decay (“non-$W$”) arises when a jet is misidentified as a lepton and results from jet energy mismeasurement; this background is modeled using data. The predicted SM background is detailed in Table I. The uncertainties are dominated by imprecise knowledge of the heavy flavor fraction and pertain to background rate estimates only; other systematic uncertainties are discussed later. In data we observe 1362 events with two jets and 617 events with three jets.
[lcc]{} Background & 2 Jets & 3 Jets\
\
$Wb\bar{b}$ & $409.4\pm123.4$ & $125.6\pm37.9$\
$Wc\bar{c} + Wcj$ & $412.4\pm127.2$ & $109.3\pm33.6$\
Mistags & $276.5\pm35.0$ & $82.5\pm10.7$\
Non-$W$ & $53.2\pm21.3$ & $17.3\pm6.9$\
${t\bar{t}}$ & $126.5\pm13.4$ & $291.8\pm36.7$\
Single Top ($t$-channel) & $53.3\pm7.8$ & $15.7\pm2.3$\
Single Top ($s$-channel) & $35.4\pm5.0$ & $11.6\pm1.6$\
$WW+WZ+ZZ$ & $54.4\pm4.2$ & $18.4\pm1.5$\
$Z$+jets & $22.6\pm3.3$ & $9.3\pm1.4$\
Total BG Prediction & $1443.8\pm254.6$ & $681.6\pm83.0$\
Observed & 1362 & 617\
\[M2Table\]
According to the proposed $W'$ hypothesis, the $W'$ mass is given by reconstructing $M_{t\bar{b}}$ from the four-momenta of the lepton, neutrino, and two jets. The unmeasured longitudinal neutrino momentum $p^{\nu}_{\mathrm{z}}$ is quadratically constrained by assigning $M_{l\nu}=M_W=$ 80.448 [@PDG]. We assign $p^{\nu}_{\mathrm{z}}$ to the smallest real solution or to the real part of complex solutions [@oldsingletop]. We assume the two highest $E_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets arise from the $b$-quarks, even for the three-jet case in which the third jet has been $b$-tagged. The reconstructed $W$ is then combined with these two leading jets, corrected to reproduce parton-level energies, to form $M_{t\bar{b}}$.
Our signal model is a $W'$ with purely right-handed decays and SM-like coupling, simulated using [PYTHIA]{}. The model assumes a top quark mass of 175. The left-handed case is not considered since the consequent $W-W'$ interference has not been observed in any precision $W$ measurements. Figure \[MTotal\] shows the $M_{t\bar{b}}$ distribution in data superimposed with the expected signal shape for a 600 $W'$ produced with a total cross-section of 9pb ($\sim4\times$ the prediction for a $W'$ with SM-like coupling [@zack]). The reconstructed width of the signal is dominated by resolution effects, particularly the jet energy resolution [@JES] and the incorrect assignment of jets from initial or final state radiation. Our test signal is therefore applicable for any $W'$-like object whose width is small compared to the experimental resolution. The binning is chosen so that background models have a sufficient number of entries in each bin, including the overflow bin for all values above 700.
![$M_{t\bar{b}}$ for events with two jets and one $b$-tag, comparing the shapes between background and signal. Backgrounds are stacked and grouped according to similar shape. A 600 $W'$ model is shown with $\sigma \times \mathrm{BR}(W' \rightarrow t\bar{b})=$ 9pb ($\sim4\times$ the prediction for a $W'$ with SM-like coupling).[]{data-label="MTotal"}](WJJM.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
Unlike single-top production, $W'$ production is entirely an $s$-channel process; contributions from the $t$ and $u$ channels are suppressed by the large $W'$ mass. We simulate a narrow right-handed $W'$ with SM-like coupling and a mass between 300 and 950 in steps of 100 below 600 and steps of 50 above. This is the mass range to which our analysis is sensitive to changes in the signal distribution: above 950 the signal events simply pile into the $M_{t\bar{b}}$ overflow bin. Since there is very little high-mass background, we are sensitive to excesses of just a few events in the tail. For $M_{W'}=$ 800, our selection efficiency in the $t\bar{b}$ channel is approximately $2.8\pm1.0$%. An excess of ten events, for example, would correspond to a Tevatron cross-section of 0.18pb.
The branching ratios of a right-handed $W'$ depend on whether decay to $\nu_{\mathrm{R}}^{~}$ is allowed; we consider both possibilities. If leptonic decay is forbidden, as for a leptophobic $W'$ or when $M_{W'}<M_{\nu_{\mathrm{R}}^{~}}$, the $M_{t\bar{b}}$ prediction simply has a slightly larger normalization. For example, if $M_{W'}=$ 800, $\sigma \times \mathrm{BR}(W'\rightarrow t\bar{b})$ is predicted to be 0.337pb if leptonic decays are forbidden and 0.262pb if they are allowed.
We set frequentist limits on $W'\rightarrow t\bar{b}$ using the measure $CL_s$ from [@CLs], which is defined as the probability of background plus a specified signal fraction matching the data ($P_{\mathrm{S+B}}$) divided by the probability of a background-only model matching the data ($P_{\mathrm{B}}$). Sources of uncertainty are treated using a large series of trials ($\sim$50k) for both cases. Each trial is produced by randomly varying all uncertain parameters in the model prediction within a Gaussian constraint about their nominal values. $P_{\mathrm{S+B}}$ is determined from the fraction of the S+B trials with a minimized $\Delta \chi^2 = \chi^2(\mathrm{Data}|\mathrm{S+B})-\chi^2(\mathrm{Data}|\mathrm{B})$ larger than in data; $P_{\mathrm{B}}$ is analogous. The 95% C.L. limit is set by adjusting the signal fraction assumed in the S+B model until $CL_{\mathrm{s}}=0.05$.
Our event selection introduces various sources of systematic uncertainty. These are manifest as errors in both the rates and shapes the mass distributions for our signal and background models. They include: jet-energy scale (JES), $b$-tagging efficiencies, lepton identification and trigger efficiencies, recorded luminosity, quantity of initial and final state radiation, parton distribution functions, factorization and renormalization scale, and MC modeling. Our limit procedure evaluates their impact by making reasonable variations in the model parameters and re-simulating the analysis [@thesis].
The systematic uncertainties are dominated by JES and the $b$-tagging rate uncertainties for the signal. JES uncertainty is modeled by calculating 1$\sigma$ shifts in each jet-energy correction and adding the results in quadrature. The uncertainty in $b$-tagging efficiency is determined by binning the $b$-tagging rate as a function of energy for multi-jet data. The uncertainty is found to be proportional to the jet energy, allowing extrapolation to the higher energies common for our $W'$ signal. This jet-energy weighted uncertainty on the $b$-tagging rate leads to acceptance errors as large as 40% for a 950 $W'$. Including all such sources of uncertainty in our model results in the expected upper limit on the cross-section increasing by 30-40%.
Applying the full limit procedure, we set 95% C.L. upper limits on $\sigma \times \mathrm{BR}(W' \rightarrow t\bar{b})$ as listed in Table II for a right-handed $W'$ with SM-like coupling. Predicted cross-sections for such a $W'$ [@zack] are shown in Figure \[Limit\_obs\]: we set new 95% C.L. limits of $M_{W'}>$ 800 including leptonic decays, and $M_{W'}>$ 825 if leptonic decays are forbidden. The best prior result used 0.9${ {\rm fb}^{-1} }$ and found $M_{W'} \geq$ 768 if leptonic decays are forbidden [@Wtb]. These results are quoted for a top quark mass of 175 and thus are slightly conservative: using the smaller world-average would increase the $t\bar{b}$ branching fraction.
[ccc]{} ${M_{W'}~(\gevcc)}$ & Expected Limit (pb) & Observed Limit (pb)\
\
300 & $1.56_{-0.45}^{+0.62}$ & 1.59\
400 & $1.04_{-0.30}^{+0.44} $ & 1.17\
500 & $0.74_{-0.22}^{+0.35}$ & 0.84\
600 & $0.54_{-0.17}^{+0.24}$ & 0.44\
650 & $0.46_{-0.13}^{+0.21}$ & 0.39\
700 & $0.40_{-0.12}^{+0.17}$ & 0.32\
750 & $0.33_{-0.09}^{+0.15}$ & 0.28\
800 & $0.30_{-0.09}^{+0.13}$ & 0.26\
850 & $0.28_{-0.08}^{+0.13}$ & 0.25\
900 & $0.28_{-0.08}^{+0.13} $ & 0.26\
950 & $0.30_{-0.09}^{+0.13} $ & 0.28\
\[LimitTable\]
![Expected and observed 95% C.L. limits on $\sigma \times \mathrm{BR}(W' \rightarrow t\bar{b})$ as function of $M_{W'}$ for 1.9${ {\rm fb}^{-1} }$, along with theoretical predictions. A right-handed $W'$ with SM-like couplings is excluded for $W'$ masses below 800.[]{data-label="Limit_obs"}](Limit_obs.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
For a simple $s$-channel model with effective coupling $g_{W'}^{~}$, the cross-section is proportional to $g_{W'}^4$. Relaxing the assumption of the universal weak coupling, our cross-section limits can be rewritten as upper limits on $g_{W'}^{~}$ as a function of $M_{W'}$. The excluded region of the $g_{W'}^{~}-M_{W'}$ plane is shown in Figure \[Coupling\_obs\], with $g_{W'}^{~}$ in units of $g_{W}^{~}$. At $M_{W'} = 300~\gevcc$, we limit (95% C.L.) the effective coupling to be less than 0.40 of the $W$ boson coupling. In this more general case, the effective cross-section for any narrow, resonant ${ { t} \bar{{b}} }$ production between 750 and 950 is found to be less than 0.28pb at 95% C.L.
![Observed 95% C.L. limits on the coupling strength of a right-handed $W'$ compared to the SM $W$ boson coupling, $g_{W'}^{~}$/$g_{W}^{~}$, as function of $M_{W'}$ for 1.9${ {\rm fb}^{-1} }$. The shaded region above the dashed lines are excluded.[]{data-label="Coupling_obs"}](Coupling_obs.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
We thank the Fermilab staff and the technical staffs of the participating institutions for their vital contributions. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and National Science Foundation; the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare; the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan; the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; the National Science Council of the Republic of China; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the A.P. Sloan Foundation; the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Germany; the Korean Science and Engineering Foundation and the Korean Research Foundation; the Science and Technology Facilities Council and the Royal Society, UK; the Institut National de Physique Nucleaire et Physique des Particules/CNRS; the Russian Foundation for Basic Research; the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, and Programa Consolider-Ingenio 2010, Spain; the Slovak R&D Agency; and the Academy of Finland.
[99]{}
T. Aaltonen [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 252001 (2008).
J.C. Pati, A. Salam, Phys. Rev. D [**10**]{}, 275 (1974) \[Erratum-ibid. D [**11**]{} 703 (1975)\]; R.N. Mohapatra, J.C. Pati, Phys. Rev. D [**11**]{}, 566 (1975); G. Senjanovic, R.N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D [**12**]{}, 1502 (1975).
Y. Mimura, S. Nandi, Phys. Lett. B [**538**]{}, 406 (2002); G. Burdman, B.A. Dobrescu, E. Ponton, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 075008 (2006).
E. Malkawi, T. Tait, C.P. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B [**385**]{}, 304 (1996); H. Georgi, E.E. Jenkins, E.H. Simmons, Nucl. Phys. B [**331**]{}, 541 (1990).
M. Perelstein, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**58**]{}, 247 (2007).
V.M. Abazov [*et al.*]{} (DØ Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 031804 (2008); A. Abulencia [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 091101 (2007).
V.M. Abazov [*et al.*]{} (DØ Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 211803 (2008); D. Acosta [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 081802 (2003).
Z. Sullivan, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{} 075011, (2002).
T. Aaltonen [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 231801 (2008); T. Aaltonen [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 051102 (2008).
We use coordinates where $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle, $\theta$ is the polar angle with respect to the proton beam axis, transverse energy is $E_{\mathrm{T}} = E\sin(\theta)$, and the pseudorapidity is $\rm{\eta = -ln[tan(\theta/2)]}$.
J.C. Cully, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan, FERMILAB-THESIS-2008-55 (2008).
Missing transverse energy, ${\mbox{$\protect \raisebox{.3ex}{$\not$}{{ E}_{\mathrm{T}}}$}}$, is defined as the magnitude of the vector $ -\sum_i E_{\mathrm{T}}^i \vec n_i$ where $E_{\mathrm{T}}^i$ are the magnitudes of transverse energy contained in each calorimeter tower $i$, and $\vec n_i$ is the unit vector from the interaction vertex to the tower in the transverse ($x,y$) plane.
D. Acosta [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 032001 (2005).
A. Abulencia [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 072006 (2006); T. Aaltonen [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 211801 (2008).
We use the [SECVTX]{} algorithm described in D. Acosta [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 052003 (2005).
M.L. Mangano [*et al.*]{} , J. High Energy Phys. [**0307**]{}, 001 (2003).
D. Acosta [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 052003 (2005).
T. Sjostrand [*et al.*]{}, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**135**]{}, 238 (2001).
D.E. Groom [*et al.*]{} (Particle Data Group), Eur. Phys. Jour. C [**15**]{} 1 (2000).
D. Acosta [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 012005 (2005).
A. Bhatti [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instr. Meth. A [**566**]{}, 375 (2006).
T. Junk, Nucl. Instr. Meth. A [**434**]{}, 435 (1999); A.L. Read, J. Phys. G [**28**]{}, 2693 (2002).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The $7$–dimensional link $K$ of a weighted homogeneous hypersurface on the round $9$–sphere in $\C^5$ has a nontrivial null Sasakian structure which is contact Calabi-Yau, in many cases. It admits a canonical co-closed $\rm G_2$–structure $\varphi$ induced by the Calabi-Yau $3$–orbifold basic geometry. We distinguish these pairs $(K,\varphi)$ by the Crowley-Nordström $\Z_{48}$–valued $\nu$ invariant, for which we prove odd parity and provide an algorithmic formula.
We describe moreover a natural Yang-Mills theory on such spaces, with many important features of the torsion-free case, such as a Chern-Simons formalism and topological energy bounds. In fact compatible $\rm G_2$–instantons on holomorphic Sasakian bundles over $K$ are exactly the transversely Hermitian Yang-Mills connections. As a proof of principle, we obtain $\rm G_2$–instantons over the Fermat quintic link from stable bundles over the smooth projective Fermat quintic, thus relating in a concrete example the Donaldson-Thomas theory of the quintic threefold with a conjectural $\rm G_2$–instanton count.
author:
- 'Omegar Calvo-Andrade, Lázaro O. Rodríguez Díaz, Henrique N. Sá Earp'
bibliography:
- 'library.bib'
- 'Refs\_2015\_12.bib'
title: 'Gauge theory and ${\rm G}_2$–geometry on Calabi-Yau links'
---
Introduction
============
We propose a contemporary angle on Milnor’s celebrated study of singular hypersurface links [@Milnor1969], from the perspective of special metrics and higher-dimensional gauge theory. Our intuitive starting point was the observation that several topological properties of the Milnor fibre and its boundary the link (see Section \[sec-geometric-structures\]) resemble those of the ${\rm G}_2$–invariant $\nu$ recently introduced by Crowley and Nordström [@Crowley2015b], suggesting to optimists that Milnor’s construction might be related to ${\rm G}_2$–geometry.
$\rG_2$–metrics on Calabi-Yau links
-----------------------------------
Let $\cV \subset\C^{n+1}$ be a complex analytic variety with an isolated singularity at the origin. Milnor proved that $\cV$ intersects transversally every sufficiently small sphere $S^{2n+1}:=\partial B_{\epsilon}(0)$, and the *link* $$K:= \cV\cap S^{2n+1}$$ is a $(n-2)$–connected smooth manifold with $\dim_\R K=2\dim_\C\cV-1$. The topologies of $\cV$ and of its embedding in $\C^{n+1}$ are completely determined by the embedding $K\hookrightarrow S^{2n+1}$.
Suppose henceforth that $\cV=(f)$ is an affine hypersurface defined by a homogeneous polynomial $f:\C^{n+1}\rightarrow\C$, with $f(0)=0$ and $\Crit(f)\cap B_{\epsilon}(0)=\{0\}$. The Hopf fibration $\pi:S^{2n+1}\rightarrow \P^n$ characterises the corresponding link $K_f$ in a natural way as the total space of a $S^1$–bundle over the smooth projective hypersurface $V$ defined by $f$: $$\pi:K_f \stackrel{S^1}{\longrightarrow} V\subset\P^n.$$ As a circle bundle, $K_f$ carries a global angular form $\theta\in\Omega^{1}(K)$, whose restriction to each fibre $\pi^{-1}(x)$ generates the cohomology $H^1(\pi^{-1}(x),\R)$. Its exterior derivative $\de\theta=-\pi^*e\in \Omega^2(K)$ is the pullback of the Euler class on the base (compare with Lemma \[lemma: dtheta is (1,1)\]).
If the link has degree $n+1$, then the projective variety $V$ is a Calabi-Yau $(n-1)$–fold. Fixing $n=4$, a *quintic* link $K_f $ is a smooth Sasakian $7$-manifold fibering by circles over the smooth Calabi-Yau $3$–fold $V$, and it is the simplest example of a *Calabi-Yau (CY) link* (see Definition \[def: CY link\]). Now, it is well-known that the Riemannian product of a Calabi-Yau $3$–fold and a circle carries a torsion-free $\rG_2$–structure, so we define naturally (see also Theorem 2.5 in [@Gray1969]) the following $\rG_2$-structure on $K_f $: $$\label{eq-GrayG2structure}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\varphi &:=& \theta\wedge \omega + \Im\epsilon,\\
\psi &:=&\frac{1}{2}\omega\wedge\omega
+ \theta\wedge\Re\epsilon=*\varphi
%d\psi&=&\operatorname{Re}\Omega\wedge\pi^*e =0\text{ by the }\partial\bar\partial\text{--lemma}.
\end{array}$$ where $\omega$ and $\epsilon$ are respectively the Kähler and holomorphic volume forms defining the Calabi-Yau structure on $V$ and we denote identically differential forms and their pullbacks under $\pi$. Although in the nontrivial fibration case this structure has torsion, it is still cocalibrated (see Section \[sec: G\_2-geometry of links\]):
\[thm: cocalibrated G2-structure\] Every quintic link $K_f $ is a $2$–connected, compact, smooth real $7$–manifold admitting the natural coclosed $\rG_2$–structure (\[eq-GrayG2structure\]).
It should be stressed that Theorem \[thm: cocalibrated G2-structure\] has recently been found and subsumed, independently, by Habib and Vezzoni [@Habib15 §6.2] in the context of *contact Calabi-Yau* (cCY) geometry. Their theory allows for a generalised account of this discussion for weighted homogenous links, which therefore yields many more examples of CY links, fibering over CY $3$–orbifolds in weighted $\P^4(w)$ (see Section \[sec: contact Calabi Yau\]). This is very fortunate, because otherwise the Fermat quintic is the only strictly homogeneous quintic with an isolated singularity at the origin.
In the light of substantial recent progress in the classification of $2$–connected $7$–manifolds with $\rG_2$–structures [@Crowley2014; @Crowley2015; @Crowley2015b], it is a natural task to sort such CY links $(K_f,\varphi)$. The important $\Z_{48}$–valued invariant $\nu(\varphi)$ introduced by Crowley and Nordström [@Crowley2015b] allows us to distinguish such pairs, up to diffeomorphisms of $K_f $ and homotopy of $\varphi$, but its definition is non-constructive and it requires an *ad hoc* spin coboundary $8$–manifold $W$ such that $K_f =\partial W$. In Section \[sec: eta invariant\], we show that this coboundary can be essentially taken to be a typical Milnor fibre, and we find an explicit formula for $\nu(\varphi)$ in terms of topological data:
\[thm: Crowley-Nordstrom\] Let $K_f \stackrel{S^1}{\longrightarrow} V\subset\P^4(w)$ be a weighted Calabi-Yau link of degree $d$ and weight $w=(w_0,\dots,w_4)$; then the Crowley-Nordström $\nu$ invariant of any $S^1$–invariant $\rG_2$–structure $\varphi$ on $K_f $ is an odd integer given by $$\nu(\varphi)=(\frac{d}{w_{0}}-1)\dots(\frac{d}{w_{4}}-1)-3(\mu_{+}-\mu_{-})+1.$$ where $(\mu_{-}, \mu_{+})$ is the signature of the intersection form on $H^{4}(\widetilde{\cV},\R)$, for $$\widetilde{\cV}={\{f(z)=1\}}\subset \mathbb{C}^5.$$
Using a method by Steenbrink to calculate the signature, we obtain an effective algorithm to determine $\nu(\varphi)$ for any CY link, with straightforward computational methods (see Appendix \[app: algorithm\]). We observe that several values of $\nu$ are realised in this manner, and conjecture that indeed all possible 24 values can be realised by weighted CY links. In particular, for the homogeneous case we find:
\[cor: nu for Fermat quintic\] The Crowley-Nordström $\nu$ invariant of the Fermat quintic link with $\rG_2$–structure (\[eq-GrayG2structure\]) is $\nu(\varphi)=5$.
To the best of our knowledge, this large class of $7$–manifolds with $\rG_2$–structure of the form $(K_f,\varphi)$ is the first instance besides the original reference [@Crowley2015b] in which the $\nu$ invariant has been computed explicitly.
Gauge theory on contact Calabi-Yau manifolds
--------------------------------------------
In Section \[sec: gauge theory\] we turn to the second axis of interest in $\rG_2$–geometry, as a model for $7$–dimensional gauge theory. Since that concept appeared in the Physics literature [@Corrigan83], physicists pursue an analogous definition of Witten’s topological quantum field theory [@Witten88] on spaces with $\rG_2$–metrics [@Acharya97]. Moreover, it was noticed in [@Harvey99] that the superpotential for M–theory compactifications on $\rG_2$–manifolds ‘counts’ associative $3$–manifolds (i.e. submanifolds calibrated by $\varphi$) in the same way as the prepotential of type II strings counts holomorphic curves in CY 3–folds. Mathematicians, on the other hand, following the seminal viewpoint of [@Donaldson1998], expect the theory to culminate in a topological count of instantons, yielding an invariant for $7$–manifolds with a $\rG_2$–structure, in the same vein as the Casson invariant for flat connections over $3$–manifolds [@Donaldson2002]. At the current stage, however, major compactification issues remain and a more thorough analytical understanding might have to be postponed in favour of exploring a good number of examples [@Clarke2014; @SaEarp2009; @Walpuski2013; @SaEarp2014; @SaEarp2015c; @SaEarp2015d].
We propose a consistent formulation of elementary Yang-Mills theory on $7$–dimensional cCY manifolds. In Section \[sec: YM and CS\], we define a connection $A$ on a complex vector bundle $E\to K$ to be a *$\rG_2$–instanton* if $F_A\wedge\psi=0$, where $\psi$ is the $\rG_2$–structure $4$–form (cf. [@Donaldson1998; @Tian2000]), which characterises $A$ at first as a critical point of the Chern-Simons functional. In Section \[sec: Sasakian vb\] we endow $E$ with a suitable holomorphic Sasakian vector bundle structure, following the framework of Biswas and Schumacher [@Biswas2010], to obtain a notion of *Chern connection*, compatible at once with the holomorphic structure and some Hermitian bundle metric (Proposition \[prop: Chern connection\]). This in turn provides a secondary characteristic class leading to topological energy bounds, even though the $\rG_2$–structure has torsion, and we prove in Section \[sec: top energy bounds\]:
\[thm: G2-inst are YM minima\] Let $\cE$ be a holomorphic Sasakian bundle over a $7$–dimensional closed contact Calabi-Yau manifold $M$ endowed with its natural cocalibrated $\rm G_2$–structure (cf. Proposition \[prop: G2-structure on cCY\]). If the absolute topological minimum of the Yang-Mills functional $\cS_{\rm YM}$ is attained among integrable connections, then the minima are exactly the $\rG_2$–instantons, i.e., the critical points of the Chern-Simons functional $\cS_{\rm CS}$.
Finally, we show in Section \[sec: G2 = tHYM\] that the $\rG_2$–instanton condition is exactly equivalent to a natural transverse Hermitian Yang-Mills condition (Lemma \[lem: SD lifts to G2-instanton\] and Corollary \[cor: SD lifts to G2-instanton\]), in a somewhat similar vein as the classical identification of selfdual and HYM connections on compact K�hler surfaces [@Donaldson1990 §2]. To conclude with an example, in Section \[sec: example pullback\] we focus on the simplest case of the Fermat quintic CY link, in which $E$ is a pullback from the projective quintic $CY^3$, derive the explicit local equations of $\rG_2$–instantons in that setting:
\[thm: G2-intantons on K\] Suppose $\pi: K\to V$ is the $7$–dimensional quintic CY link, and let $\cE:=\pi^*\cE_0\to K$ be the pullback from a Hermitian vector bundle $\cE_0\to V$; then
(i) if a connection $\mathbf{A}=A+\sigma\theta$ on $E$ is a $\rG_2-$instanton, then $A$ defines locally a family $\left\{A_t\right\}_{t\in S^1}$ of Hermitian Yang-Mills connections on $\cE_0$, satisfying $$\left(\frac{\partial A_t}{\partial t}-\de_{A_t}\sigma\right)\wedge\theta=0.$$
(ii) if $\cE$ is indecomposable, there is a one-to-one correspondence between $S^1$–invariant $\rG_2$–instantons on $\cE$ and Hermitian Yang-Mills connections on $\cE_0$.
In particular, Theorem \[thm: G2-intantons on K\] implies that $S^1$–invariant $\rG_2$–instantons on $\cE$ are ‘counted’ by the Donaldson-Thomas invariants of $\cE_0$, and this count should remain constant at least for any $S^1$–invariant deformations of the $\rG_2$–structure (\[eq-GrayG2structure\]). Finally, we underscore that the homogeneous case is offered as proof of principle, since our narrative seems to readily extend to crepant resolutions of weighted projective Calabi-Yau $3$–orbifolds.
Readers interested in a more detailed account of instanton theory on $\rG_2$–manifolds are kindly referred to the introductory sections of [@SaEarp2015c; @SaEarp2015d] and citations therein.
**Ackowledgements:** We thank Gonçalo Oliveira and Johannes Nordström for contributions to the proof of Theorem \[thm: Crowley-Nordstrom\] and the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in Berkeley, CA for hosting that discussion. We also thank Thomas Walpuski for pointing out a mistake in the preprint version. We are grateful to Sara D. Cardell for designing the figures. OC-A was supported by São Paulo State Research Council (Fapesp) grant 2014/23594–6 and CONACYT 262121. LRD was supported by Fapesp grant 2014/13357-7 and HSE was supported by Fapesp grant 2014/24727-0 and by Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq) grant 312390/2014-9.
Geometric structures on links {#sec-geometric-structures}
=============================
We address the possibilities of $\rG_2$–geometry on Calabi-Yau links, starting from the motivational fact that a $7$–manifold admits a $\rG_2$-structure if and only if it is orientable and spin [@Gray1969], as is the case of links weighted homogeneous hypersurface singularities in $\C^5$ [@BoyerGalicki08Book Theorem $9.3.2$]. Such links have a very rich tautological geometry, including a null Sasakian structure with a compatible non-degenerate $3$–form which is ‘transversely’ holomorphic, fitting in the category of contact Calabi-Yau manifolds proposed by Tomassini and Vezzoni [@Tomassini08]. In this section we compile relevant definitions and known properties of weighted homogeneous links, and derive some straightforward consequences.
Hypersurface links of isolated singularities
--------------------------------------------
We begin by reviewing more carefully Milnor’s fibration theorem, following the original reference [@Milnor1969 §5-7]. We denote by $\overline{B}_{\epsilon}$ the closed ball of radius $\epsilon$ centered at the origin of $\C^{n+1}$, by $S^{2n+1}_{\epsilon}=\partial B_{\epsilon}(0)$ the boundary of this ball, and $B_{\epsilon}$ for the corresponding open ball. Let $f:\C^{n+1}\rightarrow\C$ be a complex analytic map with $f(0)=0$ and denote $\cV:=f^{-1}(0)$ and $K_f :=\cV\cap S^{2n+1}_{\epsilon}$ (Figure \[fig: hypersurface singularity link\]).
(0,0)circle(3);(-3,0) to \[bend left\] (3,0);(-3,0) to \[bend right\] (3,0);
(2.3,2) to \[bend right=10\](2.3,-2);K (2.25,2) to \[bend left=10\](2.25,-2);K suspensiva
(0,0) .. controls (2,1) and (2,1) .. (3,4);superior (0,0) .. controls (2,-1) and (2,-1) .. (3,-4);inferior
(0,0) node\[draw, circle,scale=0.4,fill=black\] ;(-0.4,0) node\[scale=1.5\] [$0$]{};
(3.5,4) node\[scale=1.5\][$\mathcal{V}$]{}; (1.6,0) node \[scale=1.5\] [$K$]{}; (-3,2.5) node \[scale=1.5\] [$S^{2n+1}$]{};
\[thm-Milnorfibration\] Let $\epsilon > 0$ be sufficiently small; then the map $$\phi: S^{2n+1}_{\epsilon}-K\rightarrow S^{1}, \;\;\;\; \phi=\frac{f(x)}{\left|f(x)\right|},$$ is a locally trivial fibration, each fibre $F=\phi^{-1}(a)$ is smooth parallelisable and has the homotopy type of a finite CW-complex of dimension $n$. Furthermore, if $f$ has an isolated singularity at $0$, then each fibre $F$ has the homotopy type of a bouquet $S^{n}\vee \overset{\mu}{\dots} \vee S^{n}$ of spheres, and it is homotopy-equivalent to its closure $\overline{F}$ which is a compact manifold with boundary, with common boundary $\partial\overline{F}=K$. Likewise, $K_f $ is a smooth $(n-2)$-connected real manifold of dimension $2n-1$.
The number $\mu$ of spheres $S^{n}$ in the bouquet described in Theorem \[thm-Milnorfibration\] is called the *Milnor number* and it is an extremely important topological invariant of the link.
\[thm-Milnornumber\] The Milnor number $\mu$ has the following interpretations:
(i) $\mu$ is the complex dimension of the vector space obtained by taking the quotient of the local ring $\cO_{0}(\C^{n+1})$ of holomorphic functions at $0\in \C^{n+1}$ by the Jacobian ideal $J_{f}=\left(\partial f/ \partial z_{0}, \dots, \partial f/ \partial z_{n}\right)$ of $f$: $$\mu=\mathrm{dim}_{\C}\frac{\cO_{0}(\C^{n+1})}{J_{f}},$$
(ii) $\mu$ is the rank of the free Abelian middle homology group $H_{n}(F)$,
(iii) $\mu$ is determined by the Euler characteristic of $F$: $$\chi(F)=1+(-1)^{n}\mu.$$
The following result [@Milnor1969 Theorem 5.11] gives a useful alternative description of the Milnor fibre:
\[thm-Lefibration\] If a complex number $c\neq 0$ is sufficiently close to zero, then the complex hypersurface $f^{-1}(c)$ intersects the open ball $B_{\epsilon}$ along a smooth manifold which is diffeomorphic to the fibre $F$.
Now we focus on the particular case in which $f$ is a weighted homogeneous polynomial with an isolated singularity at $0\in \C^{n+1}$. This case is special because $\cV:=f^{-1}(0)$ intersects transversally every sphere $S^{2n+1}_{r}$ around the origin. Recall the definition of a weighted homogeneous polynomial.
\[def-weighted polynomial\] A polynomial $f(z_{0}, \dots, z_{n})$ is called a *weighted homogeneous polynomial* of degree $d$ and weights $\left(w_{0}, \dots, w_{n}\right)$ if for any $\lambda\in \C^{*}$ $$f(\lambda^{w_0}z_{0}, \dots,\lambda^{w_{n}} z_{n})=\lambda^{d}f(z_{0}, \dots, z_{n}).$$
NB.: a homogeneous polynomial of degree $d$ is weighted homogeneous of weights $\left(1, \dots, 1\right)$.
\[prop: wh Milnor number\] Let $f(z_{0}, \dots, z_{n})$ be a weighted homogeneous polynomial of degree $d$ and weights $\left(w_{0}, \dots, w_{n}\right)$ having an isolated singularity at the origin. Then the cohomology $H_{n}(F,\Z)$ is free Abelian of rank $\mu=(\frac{d}{w_{0}}-1)\dots(\frac{d}{w_{n}}-1)$.
The Milnor fibration associated to a weighted homogeneous polynomial can appear under a different dressing, as the following lemma shows ([@Milnor1969 Lemma 9.4]; see also [@DimcaBook92 Chapter 3, exercises 1.11 and 1.13]).
\[lemm-affineMilnorfiber\] Let $f(z_{0}, \dots, z_{n})$ be a weighted homogeneous polynomial. Then the mapping $$f:\C^{n+1} - \cV\rightarrow \C^{*}$$ given by restriction of $f$ is a locally trivial fibration. Denote by $\psi$ the restriction of the above fibration over the unit circle $S^{1}$, then $\psi$ is fibre-diffeomorphic to the Milnor fibration $\phi$ of Theorem \[thm-Milnorfibration\] associated to $f$. In particular the Milnor fibre is diffeomorphic to the non-singular affine hypersurface $\tilde\cV :=\{z\in\C^{n+1}| f(z)=1\}$.
Weighted homogeneous polynomials give rise in a natural way to links, fibering by circles over weighted projective hypersurfaces:
\[def: wh link\] Let $f:\C^{n+1}\to\C$ be a $w$–weighted homogeneous polynomial with an isolated critical point at $0$, so that each sphere $S^{2n+1}=\partial B_\epsilon(0)$ intersects $\cV:=f^{-1}(0)\subset \C^{n+1}$ transversely. Then $K_f := \cV\cap S^{2n+1}$ is called a *weighted link of degree $\deg f$ and weight $w$*.
Given a weight vector $w=(w_0,\dots,w_n)$, denote by $\C^{*}(w)$ the weighted $\C^{*}$–action on $\C^{n+1}$ given by $$\label{eq-weigted action}
(z_{0}, \dots, z_{n}) \rightarrow (\lambda^{w_0}z_{0}, \dots,\lambda^{w_{n}}
z_{n}).$$ We have the commutative diagram $$\xymatrix@C1pc{
K \ar[r]^-{} \ar[d]_-{}& S^{9} \ar[d]^-{}\\
V \ar[r]^-{}& \P^{4}(w),}$$ where the horizontal arrows are Sasakian and Kählerian embeddings, respectively, and the vertical arrows are principal $S^{1}$–orbibundles and orbifold Riemannian submersions. As a complex orbifold, the hypersurface $V\subset\P^4(w)$ can be represented as the quotient $\left(\cV-{0}\right)/\C^{*}(w)$ where $\cV=f^{-1}(0)$.
$\rG_2$-geometry {#sec: G_2-geometry of links}
----------------
We now address the context of Theorem \[thm: cocalibrated G2-structure\], concerning the natural cocalibrated $\rG_2$–structure (\[eq-GrayG2structure\]). This section serves the double purpose of recalling notions of $\rG_2$-geometry and setting the scene for the gauge theoretical investigation in Section \[sec: gauge theory\].
Let $Y$ be an oriented smooth $7-$manifold. A $\rG_2-$*structure* is a smooth tensor $\varphi \in \Omega ^{3}(Y)$ identified, at every $p\in Y$, by some frame $f_{p}:T_{p}Y\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{7}$, with the model (sign conventions of [@Salamon1989]) $$\label{eq: G2 3-form}
\varphi_0
=e^{567}+\omega_1\wedge e^{5}
+\omega_2\wedge e^{6}
+\omega_3\wedge e^{7}$$ in the sense that $\varphi _{p}=f_{p}^{\ast }\left(
\varphi _{0}\right)$, where $$\omega_1= e^{12} - e^{34}, \quad
\omega_2= e^{13} - e^{42}, \quad
\text{and}\quad
\omega_3= e^{14} - e^{23}$$ are the canonical generators of selfdual $2$–forms in $\Lambda^2_+\left(\R^4\right)^*$. The pointwise inner-product $$\label{eq: phi0 gives inner product}
\left\langle u,v\right\rangle e^{1...7}
:=\frac{1}{6}
\left( u\lrcorner \varphi_{0}\right)
\wedge
\left( v\lrcorner \varphi _{0}\right)
\wedge
\varphi _{0}$$ determines a Riemannian metric $g_\varphi$ on $Y$, under which $\ast_\varphi\varphi$ is given pointwise by $$\label{eq: G2 4-form}
\ast \varphi_0
=%\frac{1}{7}\left[
e^{1234}-\omega_1\wedge e^{67}
-\omega_2\wedge e^{75}
-\omega_3\wedge e^{56}
%\right]
.$$ In the language of calibrated geometry [@Harvey1982], a $7$–manifold with $\rG_2$–structure $(Y,\varphi)$ is said to be *calibrated* if $\de\varphi =0$ and *cocalibrated* if $\de\ast _{\varphi }\varphi =0$; moreover it is common to omit $Y$ and refer simply to $\varphi$ in those terms. Cocalibrated $\rG_{2}$-structures appear in the Fern[á]{}ndez-Gray classification [@Fernandez1982] of $\rG_{2}$-structures by their intrinsic torsion. A $\rG_2$–structure $\varphi$ is both calibrated and cocalibrated if and only if $\nabla^{g_\varphi}\varphi=0$, in which case $\Hol(g_\varphi)\subseteq\rG_2$ and it is said to be *torsion-free* [@Salamon1989 Lemma 11.5].
Let us consider the following familiar example found, for example, in [@Joyce2000 Proposition 11.1.2]:
\[ex: localmodel\] Let $\left(Z, \omega, \epsilon\right)$ be a Calabi-Yau 3-fold. Then the product manifold $Z\times S^{1}$ has a natural torsion-free $\rG_{2}$-structure defined by: $$\varphi:= \de t\wedge \omega + \operatorname{Im}\epsilon,$$ where $t$ is the variable in $S^{1}$ and tensors are denoted identically to their pullbacks under projection onto the $Z$ factor. The Hodge dual of $\varphi$ is $$\psi :=*\varphi=\frac{1}{2}\omega\wedge\omega + \de t\wedge\Re\epsilon$$ and the induced metric $g_{\varphi}=g_Z + \de t\otimes \de t$ is the Riemannian product metric on $Z\times S^{1}$, with holonomy $\operatorname{Hol}(g_\varphi)=\operatorname{SU}(3)$ properly contained in $\rG_{2}$.
In the case of a quintic link, we only deviate from the product model of Example \[ex: localmodel\] in the sense that $K_f $ is necessarily *nontrivial* as a circle bundle over the $CY^3$ base $V$, since $\pi_1(K)=\{1\}$ by Theorem \[thm-Milnorfibration\], so it is fair to ask whether $K_f $ also inherits a ‘globally twisted’ $\rG_2$–structure from the Calabi-Yau structure of $V$.
\[rem: decomposition\] If a Lie group $G$ induces a $G$-structure on a manifold $M$, then every bundle of tensors splits into summands corresponding to irreducible representations of $G$. The link $K_f $ carries a $G_2$-structure so, in particular, $2$–forms split as $$\Omega^{2}(K)=\Omega^2_7(K)\oplus\Omega^2_{14}(K),$$ where $\Omega^2_7(K)$ and $\Omega^2_{14}(K)$ are vector subbundles of $\Omega^{2}(K)$ with fibres isomorphic to the irreducible **7** and **14** representations of $\rG_2$, respectively. It is a well-known fact about manifolds with a $\rG_2$–structure [@Bryant1987; @SaEarp2015c] that $\left( \Omega^{2}\right)_{^{\;7}_{14} }$ is respectively the $_{+1}^{-2}-$eigenspace of the $%
\rG_{2}-$equivariant linear map$$\begin{aligned}
T_{\varphi} \;: \; \Omega ^{2} &\rightarrow& \Omega ^{2} \\
\eta &\mapsto &T_{\varphi}\eta :=\ast \left( \eta \wedge \varphi
\right) .\end{aligned}$$
Links as Sasakian 7–manifolds
-----------------------------
A *contact manifold* $(M,\theta)$ is given by a smooth $(2n+1)$–manifold $M$ and a *contact structure* $\theta\in\Omega^1(M)$ such that $\theta \wedge \left( \de \theta \right)^{n}\neq 0$, everywhere on $M$. On a contact manifold there exists a unique *Reeb vector field* $\xi\in\Gamma(TM)$, such that $\xi \lrcorner \theta=1$ and $\xi\lrcorner \de\theta=0$. The Reeb vector field is nowhere-vanishing, so it uniquely determines a $1$–dimensional foliation $N_{\xi}$ called the *characteristic foliation*. It is customary to think of contact manifolds as odd-dimensional analogues of symplectic manifolds, with the $2$–form $\de \theta$ being ‘transversely symplectic’ with respect to the characteristic foliation. From that perspective, Sasakian geometry encodes the notion of ‘transversely Kähler structure’:
\[def: Sasakian manifold\] A *Sasakian structure* on $M$ is a quadruple $\left(M, \theta, g, \Phi \right)$ such that $\left(M, g\right)$ is a Riemannian manifold, $(M,\theta)$ is a contact manifold with Reeb vector field $\xi$, $\Phi$ is a global section of $\End(TM)$, and the following relations hold: $$\begin{aligned}
g\left(\xi,\xi\right)=1, \quad \Phi\circ \Phi=-\operatorname{Id}_{TM}+\theta \otimes \xi, \quad g\left(\Phi X,\Phi Y\right)=g\left(X,Y\right)-\theta\left(X\right)\theta\left(Y\right),\\
\nabla^{g}_{X}\xi=-\Phi X, \quad \left(\nabla^{g}_{X}\Phi\right)\left(Y\right)=g\left(X,Y\right)\xi-\theta\left(Y\right)X, \quad \qquad \qquad\end{aligned}$$ where $X, Y$ are vector fields on $M$ and $\nabla^{g}$ is the Levi-Civita connection corresponding to $g$. If $\left(M, \theta, g, \Phi \right)$ satisfies these conditions we say $M$ is a *Sasakian manifold*.
If the orbits of $\xi$ are all closed, hence circles, then $\xi$ integrates to an isometric $U(1)$ action on $M$, in particular this action is locally free. If the action is in fact free then the Sasakian structure is said to be *regular*, otherwise, it is said to be *quasi-regular*. The leaf space $\mathcal{Z}: = M/N_{\xi} = M/U(1)$ has the structure of a manifold or orbifold, in the regular or quasi-regular case respectively.
The sphere $S^{2n+1}$ has a natural contact structure $$\theta_{c}=-\frac{i}{2}\sum^{n}_{j=0}\left(z_{j}d\bar{z}_{j}-\bar{z}_{j}d z_{j}\right)$$ given by the Hopf fibration $\mathcal{H}: S^{2n+1}\stackrel{\pi}{\rightarrow} \P^n$; in real coordinates $z_{j}=x_{j}+i y_{j}$ the contact form is $\theta_{c}=\sum^{n}_{i=0}y_{i}dx_{i}-x_{i}dy_{i}$. In fact it is well known [@SasakiHatakeyama62] that $S^{2n+1}$ carries a regular Sasakian structure $\left(S^{2n+1}, \theta_{c}, g_{c}, \Phi_{c} \right)$ with Reeb vector field $$\xi_{c}=\sum_{i=0}^{n}\left(y_{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{i}}-x_{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial y_{i}}\right)=-i\sum_{j=0}^{n}\left(z_{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial z_{j}}-\bar{z}_{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{z}_{j}}\right),$$ the metric $g_{c}$ is the flat metric on $\R^{2n+1}$ restricted to $S^{2n+1}$, and $$\Phi_{c}=\sum_{i,j}\left\{
\left[\left(x_{i}x_{j}-\delta_{ij}\right)\partial_{x_i}
+
\left(x_{j}y_{i}\right)\partial_{y_i}
\right]
\otimes dy_{j}
-
\left[\left(y_{i}y_{j}-\delta_{ij}\right)\partial_{y_i}
+
x_{i}y_{j}\partial_{x_i}
\right]
\otimes dx_{j}
\right\}.$$
The links of isolated hypersurface singularities admit Sasakian structures in a natural way.
Let $K_{f}$ be the link of a hypersurface singularity. Then the Sasakian structure $\mathcal{S}_{c}:=\left(\theta_{c}, g_{c}, \Phi_{c} \right)$ on $S^{2n+1}$ defined above induces by restriction a Sasakian structure, also denoted by $\mathcal{S}_{c}$, on the link $K_{f}$.
Contact Calabi-Yau structures on links {#sec: contact Calabi Yau}
--------------------------------------
Contact Calabi-Yau manifolds were introduced by Tomassini and Vezzoni in [@Tomassini08] and thoroughly studied by Habib and Vezzoni in [@Habib15], as a development of Reinhart’s general theory of Riemannian foliations [@Reinhart1959]. This concept describes Sasakian manifolds endowed with a closed basic complex volume form, which is ‘transversally holomorphic’ in a certain sense (see Definition \[def: contact CY mfd\]). Most importantly for us, it allows for a vast generalisation of the $\rG_2$–geometry on homogeneous links discussed in Section \[sec: G\_2-geometry of links\].
Let $(M, \theta)$ be a contact manifold with contact $1$-form $\theta$ and denote $B:= \operatorname{ker}\theta$ its contact distribution of rank $2n$, i.e., $TM=B\oplus N_{\xi}$. Let $X$ denote an arbitrary vector field tangent to the characteristic foliation $N_{\xi}$. A differential form $\beta\in\Omega^k(M)$ is said to be *transversal* if $X \lrcorner \beta =0$ and $\mathcal{L}_{X} \beta=0$ for every such $X$.
If $(M, \theta, \Phi)$ is a Sasakian manifold, and $x\in M$, it follows from Definition \[def: Sasakian manifold\] that $\left(\Phi|_{B_{x}}\right)^{2}=-\operatorname{Id}_{B_{x}}$. Then we can decompose the complexification $B_{x}\otimes_{\mathbb{R}}\mathbb{C}$ into the eigenspaces of the complexifed automorphism $\Phi|_{B_{x}}\otimes_{\mathbb{R}}\mathbb{C}$: $$B_{x}\otimes_{\mathbb{R}}\mathbb{C}=B_{x}^{1,0}\oplus B_{x}^{0,1},$$ where $B_{x}^{1,0}$ and $B_{x}^{0,1}$ correspond to the eigenvalues $\bi:=\sqrt{-1} $ and $-\bi $ respectively. This induces a splitting of the exterior differential algebra over $B_\C :=B\otimes_{\mathbb{R}}\mathbb{C}$: $$\label{eq: B^(p,q)}
\Omega^{k}\left( B_\C \right)=\bigoplus_{p+q=k}\Omega^{p,q}(M),$$ where $\Omega^{p,q}(M):=\Gamma\left(\Lambda^{p}(B^{1,0})^*\otimes (\Lambda^{q}B^{0,1})^*\right)$ and $p,q \geq 0$. Then we have an obvious decomposition of exterior forms on $M$ given by $$\Omega^j(M)=\bigoplus_{p+q=j}\Omega^{p,q}(M)
\oplus
\bigoplus_{p+q=j-1}\Omega^{p,q}(M)
\wedge
\theta.$$ If $\beta\in\Omega^k(M)$ is a transversal differential form, we will say that *$\beta$ is of type $(p,q)$* if it belongs to $\Omega^{p,q}(M)$. The following lemma [@Biswas2010 Corollary 3.1] will be crucial for our applications in gauge theory, so we sketch for convenience:
\[lemma: dtheta is (1,1)\] Let $(M, \theta, \Phi)$ be a Sasakian manifold. Then $d\theta \in \Omega^{1,1}(M)$.
That $d\theta$ is transversal is clear from Definition \[def: Sasakian manifold\] . It is easy to prove that $d\theta(X,Y)=-g(\Phi X, Y)$ for all $X, Y\in B$, then $d\theta$ is of type $(1,1)$.
\[def: contact CY mfd\] A *contact Calabi-Yau manifold (cCY)* is a quadruple $(M, \theta, \Phi, \epsilon)$ such that:
- $(M, \theta, \Phi)$ is a $2n + 1$-dimensional Sasakian manifold;
- $\epsilon$ is a nowhere vanishing transversal form on $B=\operatorname{ker}(\theta)$ of type $(n,0)$: $$\begin{gathered}
\epsilon \wedge \bar{\epsilon}=c_{n}\omega^{n}, \quad d\epsilon=0, \end{gathered}$$ where $c_{n}=(-1)^{n(n+1)/2}(\bi)^{n}$ and $\omega:=d\theta$. We denote accordingly $$\Re\epsilon:=\frac{\epsilon+\bar{\epsilon}}{2}
\qandq
\Im \epsilon:=\frac{\epsilon-\bar{\epsilon}}{2\bi}.$$
Our interest in cCY structures for $\rm G_2$-geometry derives from the following fundamental result:
\[prop: G2-structure on cCY\] Let $(M, \theta, \Phi, \epsilon)$ be $7$-dimensional contact Calabi-Yau manifold. Then $M$ carries a transversal co–closed $\rm G_2$–structure defined by $$\label{eq: cCY G2-structure}
\varphi:= \theta\wedge \omega + \Im\epsilon$$ with torsion $d\varphi=\omega\wedge\omega$ (cf. Definition \[def: contact CY mfd\]) and corresponding dual $4$-form $$\psi=\ast\varphi=\frac{1}{2}\omega\wedge\omega+\theta\wedge\Re\epsilon$$
The existence of cCY structures on links is equivalent to a simple numerical criterion on the weighted homogeneous data, which we adopt as a definition:
\[def: CY link\] A weighted link $K_f $ (cf. Definition \[def: wh link\]) of degree $d$ and weight $w=\left(w_{0}, \dots, w_{n}\right)$ is said to be a *Calabi-Yau (CY) link* if $$d=\sum_{i=0}^{n}w_{i}.$$
The condition $d-\sum_{i=0}^{n}w_{i}=0$ means precisely that the Sasakian structure $(K, \theta_{c}, \Phi_{c})$ on $K_f $ induced from the canonical Sasakian structure of the sphere $S^{2n+1}$ is null Sasakian, i.e., the (basic) first Chern class of $(K, \theta_{c}, \Phi_{c})$ vanishes. Recall also this vanishing is exactly the requirement for the weighted projective $V$ to be a Calabi-Yau orbifold [@Candelas90], thus CY links are nontrivial circle fibrations over Calabi-Yau $3$–orbifolds. Furthermore, the Reeb vector field the unit tangent to the $S^1(w)$-action and the $3$-form $\varepsilon$ is transversal, so the $\rm G_2$–structure (\[eq: cCY G2-structure\]) is $S^1$–invariant. In the terms of Definition \[def: CY link\], Habib and Vezzoni’s existence result can be restated as:
\[prop: cCY link\] Every Calabi-Yau link admits a $S^1$–invariant contact Calabi-Yau structure.
The proof of Proposition \[prop: cCY link\] relies on a Sasakian version of the El Kacimi theorem to prove that any null Sasakian structure on a compact simply-connected manifold can be deformed into a contact Calabi-Yau one. Combining the previous two propositions:
\[cor: cocalibrated G2-str on K\] Every Calabi-Yau link has a cocalibrated $S^1$–invariant $\rm G_2$–structure of the form (\[eq: cCY G2-structure\]).
The $\nu$ invariant of Calabi-Yau links {#sec: eta invariant}
=======================================
For an arbitrary closed $7$-manifold with $\rm G_2$-structure $(Y^7,\varphi)$, Crowley and Nordström define a pair of homotopy invariants $(\nu(\varphi),\xi(\varphi))$ which completely classifies the data, up to diffeomorphism and homotopy, if $Y$ is $2$–connected [@Crowley2015b Theorem 1.17]. Subsequently this has been refined as an analytic invariant of manifolds with $\rG_2$–metrics [@Crowley2015], and similar ideas also intervene in the authors’ topological classification of spin $2$–connected $7$–manifolds [@Crowley2014].
We will be interested in the first invariant $\nu(\varphi)$, which is a $\mathbb{Z}_{48}$–valued combination of topological data from a compact coboundary $8$–manifold with a $\rm{Spin}(7)$–structure $(W^8,\Psi)$ filling $(Y,\varphi)$, in the sense that $Y=\partial W$ and $\Psi|_{Y}=\varphi$: $$\label{eq: nu(phi)}
\nu(\varphi):=\chi(W)-3\sigma(W) \quad\rm{mod}\; 48$$ ($\chi$ and $\sigma$ denote the real Euler characteristic and the signature, respectively.) This quantity is preserved under diffeomorphisms of $Y$ and homotopies of the $\rG_2$–structure $\varphi$ [@Crowley2015b Theorem 1.3]. Moreover, $\nu(\varphi)$ is independent of the particular choice of coboundary $W$ [@Crowley2015b Corollary 3.2], thus it is interpreted as an “$\hat A$-defect" from certain integral characteristic classes of principal $\rm{Spin}(8)$–bundles evaluated on $TW$ and the half-spinor bundles $S^\pm W$.
A central aspect is the fact that such a filling $W$ always exists [@Crowley2015b Lemma 3.4 (ii)]. The argument relies on the fact that the bordism group $\Omega^{\rm{spin}}_7$ is trivial, hence there always exists *some* (connected) coboundary $(W,\Psi)$ inducing a reference $\rm G_2$–structure on $Y$, but it is totally non-constructive. For example, the authors must resort to an elaborate construction of an explicit coboundary $W$ to calculate $\nu=24$ \[Theorem 1.7\] for the important class of manifolds with holonomy $\rm G_2$ obtained as *twisted connected sums* [@Corti2015]. This allows one to distinguish, for instance, whether a given $\rm G_2$–structure is not a gluing of asymptotically cylindrical Calabi-Yau $3$-folds [@Corti2013].
Construction of a spin coboundary
---------------------------------
In order to calculate the $\nu$ invariant for our $\rG_2$–structure (\[eq: cCY G2-structure\]) on a link $K_f $, we must therefore find an ad hoc compact $\rm{Spin}(7)$–coboundary $(W,\Psi)$ such that: $$K=\partial W \qandq \Psi|_{K}=\varphi.$$
Let $K_f $ be the weighted link (cf. Definition \[def: wh link\]) of degree $d$ and weight $w=\left(w_{0}, \dots, w_{4}\right)$. The ambient $4$–form $$\Psi:=\frac{1}{f}\sum_{i=0}^{4} z_i dz_0\wedge\overset{\hat i}{\dots}\wedge dz_4
\in \Lambda^{4,0}(\C^5)$$ is $S^{1}\subset \C^{*}$–invariant under the action (\[eq-weigted action\]) if, and only if, $d-\sum_{i=0}^{4}w_{i}=0$, i.e., exactly when the link $K_f $ is Calabi-Yau (Definition \[def: CY link\]). Let ${f_\epsilon}$ be a smoothing of $f$, e.g. ${f_\epsilon}:=f-\epsilon$ and $$X_\epsilon:={f_\epsilon}^{-1}(0)\cap \overline{B}^{10}\subset \C^5$$ the $8$–manifold inside the (compact component of the complement of the) sphere $S^9$ with boundary $K_f =\partial{X_\epsilon}$ (Figure \[fig: smoothing\]). The restriction $\Psi|_{{X_\epsilon}}$ induces an $SU(4)$–structure, hence a $\Spin(7)$–structure on ${X_\epsilon}$, which is $S^1$–invariant by construction.
(\[shift=(-90:5)\]0,0) arc (-90:90:5)–(0,5) to \[bend right\] (0,-5); (0,-5) to \[bend right\] (0,5);
(3.95,3.05) to \[bend left=20\](3.95,-3.05) to \[bend left=20\](3.95,3.05); (3.95,3.05) to \[bend right=20\](3.95,-3.05)..controls (2.15,1) and (2.15,-1) ..(3.95,3.05);
(0,0) .. controls (3,0.5) and (3,0.5) .. (5,6); (0,0) .. controls (3,-0.5) and (3,-0.5) .. (5,-6);
(0,0) node\[draw, circle,scale=0.5,fill=black\] ;
(\[shift=(-90:5)\]0,0) arc (-90:90:5)–(0,5) to \[bend right\] (0,-5);de la esfera y ecuador
(-1.8,3) node \[scale=1.5\][$S^9$]{}; (2.5,1.9) node \[scale=1.5\][$X_{\epsilon}$]{}; (6,0) node \[scale=1.5\][$K_f$]{};
(5.4,0)–(3.5,0);
Restricting to the boundary we get an $S^1$–invariant $\rG_2$–structure on $K_f $, which corresponds exactly to an $SU(3)$–structure $\varphi'$ on the $CY^3$ quintic $V$. Now, all $SU(3)$–structures on a $6$–manifold are homotopic, as sections of a bundle of rank $8$, so $\varphi'$ is homotopic to our $\varphi$ and we can take $W={X_\epsilon}$: $$\label{eq: nu from smoothing X}
\nu(\varphi)=\nu(\varphi')=\chi({X_\epsilon})-3\sigma({X_\epsilon}) \mod\;48.$$ Now all we need is to calculate the topology of the smoothing of an affine hypersurface.
\[prop: X = F = V\] Let $f:\C^{n+1}\to\C$ be weighted homogeneous polynomial with typical Milnor fibre $F$ (cf. Theorem \[thm-Milnorfibration\]), and consider the model affine variety $$\widetilde{\cV}:=\left\{ z\in\C^{n+1} : f(z)=1 \right\}.$$ Given $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small, the smoothing ${f_\epsilon}:=f-\epsilon$, defines in $\C^{n+1}$ a compact manifold with boundary $X_\epsilon:={f_\epsilon}^{-1}(0)\cap \overline{B}^{2n+2}$, and the following are diffeomorphic: $$\begin{gathered}
{X_\epsilon}\simeq \overline{F} \qquad {X_\epsilon}\backslash \partial {X_\epsilon}\simeq F \simeq \widetilde\cV.\end{gathered}$$
Taking $\epsilon=c=1$ in Theorem \[thm-Lefibration\], we identify diffeomorphically the smoothing $X_{\epsilon}$ with the closure of the Milnor fibre $\overline{F}$. Then the second identification is immediate from Lemma \[lemm-affineMilnorfiber\].
Explicit formula for $\nu$ on Calabi-Yau links {#sec: Formula for nu}
----------------------------------------------
In view of Proposition \[prop: X = F = V\], we will obtain the $\nu$ invariant from the following: $$\label{eq: sigma and chi of X }
\chi({X_\epsilon})
=\chi(\overline{F})
\qandq
\sigma({X_\epsilon})=\sigma(\widetilde{\cV}).$$
We begin with Steenbrink’s method [@Steenbrink77] for the signature of $\widetilde{\cV}$. Let $\{z^{\alpha}: \alpha=(\alpha_{0}, \dots, \alpha_{n})\in I \subset \N^{n+1}\}$ be a set of monomials in $\C[z_{0}, \dots, z_{n}]$ representing a basis over $\C$ for $\tfrac{\C[[z_{0}, \dots, z_{n}]]}{\left(\partial
f/\partial z_{0}, \dots, \partial f/\partial z_{n}\right)}$ (cf. (i) of Theorem \[thm-Milnornumber\]). For each $\alpha\in
I$ define $$\label{eq-array Steenbrink}
l(\alpha):=\sum^{n}_{i=0}\left(\alpha_{i}+1\right)\frac{w_{i}}{d}.$$ Assume that $n$ is even (in our case, indeed $n=4$), and denote by $(\mu_{-}, \mu_{0}, \mu_{+})$ the signature of the intersection form on $H^{n}(\widetilde{\cV},\R)$ i.e., $\mu_{-}$, $\mu_{0}$ and $\mu_{+}$ denote the numbers of negative, zero and positive entries, respectively, on the diagonal of the intersection matrix. Then $$\sigma(\widetilde{\cV})=\mu_{+}-\mu_{-}.$$ Note that the sum $\mu_{+}+\mu_{-}+\mu_{0}$ equals the Milnor number $\mu$ by (ii) of Theorem \[thm-Milnornumber\]. On the other hand, by (iii) of Theorem \[thm-Milnornumber\], the Euler characteristic of the Milnor fiber is determined by the Milnor number, which is given by Proposition \[prop: wh Milnor number\] for weighted homogenous links. By Theorem \[thm-Milnorfibration\], $F$ is homotopy-equivalent to $\overline{F}$, so for $n=4$: $$\chi(\overline{F})=\chi(F)=1+(\frac{d}{w_{0}}-1)\dots(\frac{d}{w_{4}}-1).$$ Finally, replacing (\[eq: sigma and chi of X \]) in (\[eq: nu from smoothing X\]), we establish the formula of Theorem \[thm: Crowley-Nordstrom\]: $$\label{eq: nu(phi) = formula}
\nu(\varphi)=(\frac{d}{w_{0}}-1)\dots(\frac{d}{w_{4}}-1)-3(\mu_{+}-\mu_{-}) +1.$$
Steenbrink proved [@Steenbrink77 Theorem 2] that the signature $(\mu_{-}, \mu_{0}, \mu_{+})$ can be computed as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{+}&=&\left\vert\{\beta \in I: l(\beta)\notin\Z, \left\lfloor
l(\beta)\right\rfloor \in 2\Z \}\right\vert,\\
\mu_{-}&=&\left\vert\{\beta \in I: l(\beta)\notin\Z, \left\lfloor
l(\beta)\right\rfloor \notin 2\Z \}\right\vert,\\
\mu_{0}&=&\left\vert\{\beta \in I: l(\beta) \in\Z \}\right\vert,\end{aligned}$$ where $\left\lfloor x\right\rfloor$ denotes the integer part of $x\in\mathbb{Q}$, hence the above process can be easily implemented. We offer the code for a working algorithm in a combination of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Singular</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mathematica</span>, but surely readers will be able to formulate leaner alternatives. We display in Table \[tab: values of nu for various CY\] the invariants given by (\[eq: nu(phi) = formula\]) for some examples from Candelas’ list of weighted Calabi-Yau threefolds.
degree weights polynomial $\nu$
-------- ------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------
75 (10,12,13,15,25) $z_{0}^{5}z_{4}+z_{1}^{5}z_{3}+z_{2}^{5}z_{0}+z_{3}^{5}+z_{4}^{3}$ 1
135 (1,18,32,39,45) $z_{0}^{135}+z_{1}^{5}z_{4}+z_{2}^{3}z_{3}+z_{3}^{3}z_{1}+z_{4}^{3}$ 3
36 (18, 12, 4, 1, 1) $z_{0}^{2}+z_{1}^{3}+z_{2}^{9}+z_{3}^{36}+z_{4}^{36}$ 5
81 (3,7,18,26,27) $z_{0}^{27}+z_{1}^{9}z_{2}+z_{2}^{3}z_{4}+z_{3}^{3}z_{0}+z_{4}$ 7
45 (3,5,8,14,15) $z_{0}^{15}+z_{1}^{9}+z_{2}^{5}z_{1}+z_{3}^{3}z_{0}+z_{4}^{3}$ 9
45 (4,7,9,10,15) $z_{0}^{9}z_{2}+z_{2}^{5}+z_{1}^{5}z_{3}+z_{3}^{3}z_{4}+z_{4}^{3}$ 11
75 (5,8,12,15,35) $z_{0}^{15}+z_{1}^{5}z_{4}+z_{2}^{5}z_{3}+z_{3}^{5}+z_{4}^{2}z_{0}$ 13
180 (90, 60, 20, 9, 1) $z_{0}^{2}+z_{1}^{3}+z_{2}^{9}+z_{3}^{20}+z_{4}^{180}$ 15
45 (15, 15, 5, 9, 1) $z_{0}^{3}+z_{1}^{3}+z_{2}^{9}+z_{3}^{5}+z_{4}^{45}$ 17
16 (4,8,2,1,1) $z_{0}^{2}z_{1}+z_{1}^{2}+z_{2}^{4}z_{1}+z_{3}^{16}+z_{4}^{16}+z_{2}^{8}$ 19
81 (2,9,19,24,27) $z_{0}^{27}z_{4}+z_{2}^{3}z_{3}+z_{3}^{3}z_{1}+z_{1}^{9}+z_{4}^{3}$ 21
24 (12, 8, 2, 1, 1) $z_{0}^{2}+z_{1}^{3}+z_{2}^{12}+z_{3}^{24}+z_{4}^{24}$ 23
1806 (42, 258, 903, 602, 1) $z_{0}^{43}+z_{1}^{7}+z_{2}^{2}+z_{3}^{3}+z_{4}^{1806}$ 25
51 (2,6,9,17,17) $z_{0}^{17}z_{4}+z_{1}^{7}z_{2}+z_{2}^{5}z_{1}+z_{3}^{3}+z_{4}^{3}$ 29
93 (3,8,21,30,31) $z_{0}^{31}+z_{1}^{9}z_{2}+z_{2}^{3}z_{3}+z_{3}^{3}z_{0}+z_{4}^{3}$ 31
63 (3,4,14,21,21) $z_{0}^{21}+z_{1}^{15}z_{0}+z_{2}^{3}z_{3}+z_{3}^{3}+z_{4}^{3}$ 33
103 (1,16,23,29,34) $z_{0}^{103}+z_{1}^{5}z_{2}+z_{2}^{3}z_{4}+z_{3}^{3}z_{1}+z_{4}^{3}z_{0}$ 37
135 (5,6,14,45,65) $z_{0}^{27}+z_{4}^{2}z_{0}+z_{1}^{15}z_{3}+z_{3}^{3}+z_{2}^{5}z_{4}$ 39
60 (30, 20, 5, 4, 1) $z_{0}^{2}+z_{1}^{3}+z_{2}^{12}+z_{3}^{15}+z_{4}^{60}$ 41
55 (4,4,11,17,19) $z_{0}^{11}z_{2}+z_{1}^{9}z_{4}+z_{2}^{5}+z_{3}^{3}z_{1}+z_{4}^{2}z_{3}$ 43
135 (1,21,30,38,45) $z_{0}^{135}+z_{1}^{5}z_{2}+z_{2}^{3}z_{4}+z_{3}^{3}z_{1}+z_{4}^{3}$ 45
45 (5, 5, 9, 11, 12) $z_{0}^{9}+z_{1}^{8}z_{0}+z_{2}^{5}+z_{4}^{3}z_{2}+z_{3}^{3}z_{4}$ 47
: The $\nu$ invariant for certain Calabi-Yau links[]{data-label="tab: values of nu for various CY"}
Inspection of a few examples suggests a parity constraint for the $\nu$ invariant, and this is indeed the case:
The Crowley-Nordström $\nu$ invariant of a weighted link is odd in $\Z_{48}$.
We know from [@Crowley2015b Theorem 1.3] that $\nu(\varphi)\equiv \chi_{\Q}(K)\;\rm{mod}\;2$, where $\chi_{\Q}(K):=\sum_{i=0}^{n}b_{i}(K)$ is the rational semi-characteristic of $K_f $. On the other hand, $b_1=b_2=0$ because $K_f $ is $2$–connected (cf. Theorem \[thm-Milnorfibration\]), and we know from [@BoyerGalicki08Book Theorem $9.3.2$] that the Betti number $b_{n-1}$ is even, if $n$ is even. Therefore $b_{3}$ is even when $n=4$, thus $\chi_{\Q}(K)$ is odd.
Together with formula (\[eq: nu(phi) = formula\]), this completes the proof of Theorem \[thm: Crowley-Nordstrom\].
\[exa: Fermat quintic\] Let us calculate the $\nu$ invariant for our $\rG_2$–structure (\[eq-GrayG2structure\]) on the Fermat quintic $$f(z)=z_0^5+z_1^5+z_2^5+z_3^5+z_4^5.$$ In this case the Milnor algebra is just $\tfrac{\C[z_{0}, \dots, z_{4}]}{\left(z_{0}^{4}, \dots, z_{4}^{4}\right)}$, the Milnor number is $\mu=1024$ and we can take, as a basis of the Milnor algebra, all monomials of the form $z_{0}^{\alpha_0} \dots z_{4}^{\alpha_4}$, with $0\leq \alpha_{i} \leq 3,\;\forall i$. A simple computation gives $$(\mu_{-}, \mu_{0}, \mu_{+})=(240, 204, 580),$$ therefore $\sigma(\widetilde{\cV})=340.$ On the other hand, Theorem \[thm-Milnornumber\] gives $\chi({X_\epsilon})
=1+\mu=1025.$ Hence $\nu(\varphi)=5$ as claimed in Corollary \[cor: nu for Fermat quintic\].
Gauge theory on contact Calabi-Yau $7$–manifolds {#sec: gauge theory}
================================================
Let $(M,\varphi)$ be a closed contact Calabi-Yau manifold and consider a $G$-bundle $E\to M$ with $G$ a compact semisimple Lie group, denote by $\cG:=\Gamma(\Aut E)$ its gauge group with $\fg:=\Lie(\cG)$ the associated adjoint bundle and by $\cA(E)$ its space of connections. We address the classical problem of describing the absolute minima of the *Yang-Mills functional* $$\begin{aligned}
\cS_{\rm YM}&\colon& \cA(E) \to \R^+\\
\cS_{\rm YM}(A)
&:=&\left\Vert F_A \right\Vert^2_{L^2(M)}
=\int_M \left\langle F_A\wedge*F_A\right\rangle_\frg\end{aligned}$$ i.e., solutions of the *Yang-Mills equation*: $$\label{eq: YM}
\de^*_A F_A=0.$$
Yang-Mills connections, $\rG_2$–instantons and the Chern-Simons action {#sec: YM and CS}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The paradigmatic PDE for gauge theory in the presence of a $\rG_2$–structure is the *$\rG_2$–instanton equation* [@Donaldson1998; @Tian2000], which can be formulated equivalently in terms of $\varphi$ or $\psi:=*\varphi$: $$\label{eq: g2-instanton}
F_A\wedge\psi =0\\
\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad
*F_A= F_A\wedge\varphi.$$ This is the natural Euler-Lagrange equation for the *Chern-Simons action*, defined relatively to a fixed reference connection $A_0\in\cA(E)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\cS_{\rm CS}&\colon& \cA( E)\simeq A_0+\Omega^1(\frg)
\to \R\\
\cS_{\rm CS}(A_0+a)
&:=&\frac{1}{2}\int_M\tr
\left(\de_{A_0}a\wedge a
+\frac{2}{3}a\wedge a\wedge a\right)
\wedge\psi\end{aligned}$$ with $\cS_{\rm CS}(A_0)=0$. Supposing the cocalibrated condition $\de\psi=0$, the action is well-defined and $\rG_2$–instantons are manifestly critical points. Its gradient is the *Chern-Simons $1$–form* $\rho=\de\cS_{\rm CS}$, defined on vector fields $b\colon \cA( E)\to\Omega^1(\fg)$ by $$\label{eq: CS 1-form}
\rho(b)_A=\int_M \tr \left(F_A\wedge b_A\right)\wedge\psi.$$ and indeed the solutions of (\[eq: g2-instanton\]) are precisely its zeroes (for a more detailed exposition, see [@SaEarp2014].)
Now, if the $\rG_2$–structure was closed, then by the Bianchi identity every solution of (\[eq: g2-instanton\]) would automatically solve (\[eq: YM\]). In other words, $\rG_2$–instantons would manifestly be critical points of the Yang-Mills functional, somewhat in analogy to (anti-)selfdual connections in dimension $4$ [@Donaldson1990]. This indeed was the starting point of our predecessors in proposing gauge theory on $\rG_2$–manifolds. Since then, such Yang-Mills $\rG_2$–instantons have been constructed on Joyce manifolds [@Walpuski2013], Bryant-Salamon manifolds [@Clarke2014], associative fibrations [@SaEarp2014], asymptotically cylindrical $\rG_2$–manifolds [@SaEarp2009; @SaEarp2015c] and their twisted connected sums [@SaEarp2015d; @Walpuski2015]. However, the implication (\[eq: g2-instanton\]) $\Rightarrow$ (\[eq: YM\]) depends on a certain characteristic class in de Rham cohomology that yields Chern-Weil energy bounds, and it fails in general for merely cocalibrated $\rG_2$–structures. This is unfortunate, because many examples of the latter are now known (see e.g. [@Conti2006; @Agricola2008; @Lotay2012; @Freibert2013] and references therein). As we will show in Section \[sec: top energy bounds\], a suitable version of the argument *does* hold for the natural cocalibrated $\rG_2$–structure on contact Calabi-Yau manifolds and in particular for Calabi-Yau links, so in our case $\rG_2$–instantons are exactly absolute minima of the Yang-Mills functional, as well as critical points of the natural Chern-Simons action.
Sasakian vector bundles {#sec: Sasakian vb}
-----------------------
Interpreting Sasakian structures as a setup for ‘transversely Kähler’ geometry, any compatible formulation of gauge theory requires a good notion of transversely compatible structures on vector bundles. We adopt the lexicon proposed by Biswas and Schumacher [@Biswas2010 §3.3].
Let $E\to M$ be a $C^\infty$ complex vector bundle over a smooth manifold and let $$\label{eq: subbundle inclusion}
L\subset TM_\C:=TM\otimes_{\R}\C$$ be an integrable subbundle, i.e., closed under the Lie bracket. A *partial connection along $L$* is a $C^\infty$ differential operator $$\begin{aligned}
\De_L:E &\longrightarrow& L^*\otimes E\end{aligned}$$ satisfying the Leibniz condition for $ f\in C^\infty(M)$ and $s\in\Gamma(E)$: $$\De_L(fs)=f\De_L(s)+q_L(\de f)$$ relative to the dual $q_L:T^*M_\C\to L^*$ of the inclusion (\[eq: subbundle inclusion\]). Since $L$ is integrable, $q_L$ induces a natural exterior derivative $\hat \de : L^* \to\bigwedge^2 L^*$, hence an extension of $\De_L$ to $E$–valued sections of $L^*$ $$\begin{aligned}
\De_L:L^*\otimes E & \longrightarrow& ({\bigwedge}^2 L^*)\otimes
E\\
\De_L(t\otimes s) &:=& \hat\de(t)\otimes s-t\otimes \De_L(s).\end{aligned}$$ The *curvature* of $\De_L$ is the $C^\infty(M)$–linear section $$F_{\De_L}:=\De_L^2 \in \Gamma \left( ({\bigwedge}^2 L^*)\otimes \fg \right)$$ and $D_L$ is said to be *flat* if $F_{\De_L}=0$.
\[def: Sasakian vb\] A *Sasakian (vector) bundle* $\bE\to M$ over a Sasakian manifold $\left(M, \theta, g, \Phi \right)$ with Reeb field $\xi$ is a pair $(E,\Dex)$ given by a $C^\infty$ complex vector bundle $E$ over $M$ and a partial connection $\Dex:E\to\theta\otimes E$ along $\xi$.
To be completely precise, we are applying the previous discussion to the line subbundle $L=\xi_\C:=N_\xi\otimes_\R\C\subset TM_\C$ spanned by $\xi$ over $\C$ (cf. Section \[sec: contact Calabi Yau\]); it is clear that any such $\Dex$ is flat. Moreover, the natural partial connection induced by $\Dex$ on $E^*$ gives natural definitions of $\bE^*$ and $\End({\bE})$ as Sasakian bundles, and we define a *Hermitian structure* on $\bE$ as a smooth Hermitian structure $h$ on $E$ preserved by $\Dex$, in the sense that $$\de( h(s_1,s_2))|_{\xi_\C}=h(\Dex (s_1),s_2)+h(s_1,\Dex(s_2)).$$ Clearly a Hermitian structure on $\bE$ induces a Hermitian structure on $\bE^*$ and on $\End({\bE})$. A *unitary connection* on $(\bE,h)$ is a connection $A$ on $E$ such that $\de_A$ preserves $h$ in the usual sense.
Finally, in the notation of (\[eq: B\^(p,q)\]), we obtain a natural notion of transversely holomorphic structures over a Sasakian manifold $M^{2n+1}$ relative to the integrable ‘extended anti-holomorphic’ $(n+1)$–dimensional foliation $$\label{eq: hol distribution}
\tilde B^{0,1}:= B^{0,1} \oplus \xi_\C \subset TM_\C.$$
\[def: hol Sasakian vb\] A *holomorphic (Sasakian) bundle* $\cE\to M$ over a Sasakian manifold $M $ with Reeb field $\xi$ is a pair $(\bE,\bar\partial)$ given by a Sasakian bundle $\bE=(E,\Dex)$ (cf. Definition \[def: Sasakian vb\]) and a flat partial connection $\bar\partial=\De_{\tilde B^{0,1}}$ such that $\bar\partial|_{\xi_\C}=\Dex$.
An *integrable connection* on $\cE=(\bE,\bar\partial)$ is connection $A$ on $E$ such that its induced partial connection along $\tilde B^{0,1}$ given by $D_{\tilde B^{0,1}}:=\de_A|_{\tilde B^{0,1}}$ coincides with $\bar\partial$. We denote by $\cA(\cE)$ the subset of integrable connections inside $\cA(E)$. We are now in position to extend the well-known concept of a *Chern connection*, mutually compatible with the holomorphic structure and the Hermitian metric [@Donaldson1990 Proposition 2.1.56]:
\[prop: Chern connection\] Let $(\cE,h)$ be a holomorphic Sasakian bundle with Hermitian structure; then there exists a unique unitary and integrable *Chern connection* $A_h$ on $\cE$, and $$F_{A_h}\in \Omega^{1,1}(\fg).$$ Moreover, the expression $$\det\left( \id_E+\frac{\bi}{2\pi} F_{A_h}\right)
=:
\sum_{j=0}^{n} c_j(\cE,h)$$ defines closed *Chern forms* $c_j(\cE,h) \in \Omega^{j,j}(M)$.
In a local holomorphic trivialization $\tau$, i.e., such that $\cE$ is locally spanned by sections in $\ker\delbar$, the Chern connection of $h$ is represented by the matrix of $(1,0)$–forms $A^\tau_h=h^{-1}\partial h$ and its curvature has the form $F^\tau_{A_h}=\delbar(h^{-1}\partial
h)$. Moreover, it is clear from (\[eq: hol distribution\]) and Definition \[def: hol Sasakian vb\] that any other Hermitian structure $h'$ induces a Chern connection on $\cE$ satisfying $A_{h'}-A_h\in \Omega^{1,0}(\fg)$.
Characteristic classes and topological energy bounds {#sec: top energy bounds}
----------------------------------------------------
We will show that Calabi-Yau links admit a naturally defined secondary characteristic class representing topological charge, which is a peculiar feature among $\rG_2$–structures with torsion. From the perspective of gauge theory, this means that critical points of the Chern-Simons functional indeed saturate the Yang-Mills energy, just like in classical $4$-dimensional theory or more familiar torsion-free higher dimensional models.
\[def: charge k(A)\] Let $E\to M$ be a Sasakian bundle (cf. Definition \[def: hol Sasakian vb\]) over a $7$–dimensional closed contact Calabi-Yau manifold (cf. Definition \[def: contact CY mfd\]) with $\rm G_2$–structure (\[eq: cCY G2-structure\]) given by Proposition \[prop: G2-structure on cCY\]. We define the *charge* of a connection $A\in\cA(E)$ by $$\label{eq: k(E)}
\kappa(A):=\int_M \tr F_A^2 \wedge\varphi$$
\[lemma: topological charge\] In the context of Proposition \[prop: Chern connection\] and Definition \[def: charge k(A)\], fix a Hermitian metric $h$ on $\cE$ with Chern connection $A=A_h\in\cA(\cE)$; then any connection on the underlying Sasakian bundle $E$ has the form $A'=A +b $, for some $b\in\Omega^1(\fg)$, and the following hold:
(i) If $b=\alpha.\theta$ for some $\alpha\in\Omega^0(\fg)$, then $$\kappa(A')=\kappa(A)
+
\int_M \tr (\alpha. F_{A})\wedge (\de\theta)^2\wedge\theta$$ In particular, if $\alpha=\lambda.\id_{E}$ is a homothety, then $\kappa(A')=\kappa(A)+\lambda.c_1(\cE,h)$.\
(ii) If $b\in\Omega^{1,0}(\fg)$, then $\kappa(A')=\kappa(A)$, hence the charge of any Chern connection is independent of the Hermitian structure and it defines a *topological charge* $\kappa(\cE)$.
Given any connection $A\in\cA(E)$ and variation $b\in\Omega^1(\fg)$, we know from standard Chern-Weil theory that$$\tr F^2_{A+b}-\tr F^2_A = \de\left(\tr\eta\right)$$ for some $\eta\in\Omega^1(\fg)$ of the form $$\eta=\eta(A,b)
:=F_A\wedge b
+\frac{1}{2}\de_{A}b\wedge b
+\frac{1}{3}b\wedge b\wedge b.$$ Since by assumption $M$ is a closed manifold, the quantity (\[eq: k(E)\]) is defined up to a term given by Stokes’ theorem after integration by parts: $$\label{eq: Chern-Weil term}
\int_K \tr\eta\wedge \de\varphi=\int_K \tr \left(F_{A}\wedge b
+\frac{1}{3}b\wedge b\wedge b\right)\wedge \de\varphi.$$ Recall from Lemma \[lemma: dtheta is (1,1)\] and Proposition \[prop: G2-structure on cCY\] that $\de\varphi=(\de\theta)^2\in\Omega^{2,2}(M)$. Moreover, since $A$ is a Chern connection, Proposition \[prop: Chern connection\] specifies the bi-degree of $$F_A\wedge\de\varphi\in\Omega^{3,3}(\fg).$$
In the situation of $(i)$, the cubic term on the right-hand side of (\[eq: Chern-Weil term\]) vanishes trivially, since $\theta^2=0$, which yields the claim. As for $(ii)$, both terms vanish by excess in bi-degree.
Now, following a classical argument, on one hand we have the orthogonal decomposition of the Yang-Mills functional:$$\label{YM(A)}
\cS_{\rm YM}\left( A\right)
= \Vert F_{A}\Vert ^{2}
=\Vert F_7\Vert ^{2}
+\Vert F_{14}\Vert ^{2}.$$ On the other hand, applying the $\rG_2$–equivariant eigenspace decomposition from Remark \[rem: decomposition\] to integrable connections as in $(ii)$ of Lemma \[lemma: topological charge\], a straightforward calculation relates the topological charge to these components: $$\kappa \left( \cE\right)
=
-2\left\Vert F_{7}\right\Vert^{2}+\left\Vert F_{14}\right\Vert ^{2}.$$ Combining with (\[YM(A)\]), we can isolate the topological charge as a lower bound of the Yang-Mills energy among integrable connections: $$\label{eq: topological energy}
\cS_{\rm YM}|_{\cA(\cE)}(A)=-\frac{1}{2}\kappa \left( \cE\right)+\frac{3}{2}\Vert F_{14}\Vert ^{2}
=\kappa (\cE)+3\left\Vert F_{7}\right\Vert ^{2}.$$Hence, if $\cS_{\rm YM} $ attains on $\cA(\cE)$ its absolute topological minimum, this occurs at a connection whose curvature lies either in $\Omega_{7}^{2}$ or in $\Omega_{14}^{2}$. Moreover, since $\cS_{\rm YM}\geq0$, the sign of $\kappa(\cE)$ obstructs the existence of one type or the other, so we fix $\kappa(\cE)\geq0$, compatibly with the existence of our $\rG_2-$instantons (\[eq: g2-instanton\]) with $ F_7=0$, i.e., such that $\cS_{\rm YM}(A)=\kappa(\cE)$. We have thus proved Theorem \[thm: G2-inst are YM minima\].
In summary, among compatible connections, $\rG_2$–instantons (\[eq: g2-instanton\]) over contact Calabi-Yau $7$–manifolds are Yang-Mills minima, even though the natural $\rG_2$–structure is not closed.
$\rG_2$–instantons and the Hermitian Yang-Mills condition {#sec: G2 = tHYM}
---------------------------------------------------------
A connection $A$ on a complex vector bundle over a Kähler manifold is *Hermitian Yang-Mills (HYM)* if $$\hat F_A:=(F_A,\omega)= 0
\qandq
F_A^{0,2}=0.$$ This notion extends literally to Sasakian bundles $E \to M$, taking $\omega=d\theta\in\Omega^{1,1}(M)$ as the transverse Kähler form. Fixing a holomorphic structure on $E$, it is easy to check that compatible HYM connections are exactly $\rG_2$–instantons:
\[lem: SD lifts to G2-instanton\] Let $\cE$ be a holomorphic bundle over a $7$–dimensional closed contact Calabi-Yau manifold $M$ endowed with its natural $\rm G_2$–structure (\[eq: cCY G2-structure\]) . Then a Chern connection $A$ on $\cE$ is HYM if, and only if, it is a $\rG_2-$instanton.
A Chern connection $A$ satisfies $F_{A}\in \Omega ^{1,1}\left( M \right)$ (Proposition \[prop: Chern connection\]), so taking account of the bidegree of the transverse holomorphic volume form (cf. Definition \[def: contact CY mfd\]) we have $F_{A}\wedge \epsilon =$ $F_{A}\wedge \bar{\epsilon }=0$ . Therefore $$F_{A}\wedge \Im\epsilon
=\frac{1}{2\bi} F_{A}\wedge \left( \epsilon -\bar{\epsilon }\right)
=0.$$ Now, taking the product with the $4$–form we have $$F_{A}\wedge\psi = \tfrac{1}{2} F_{A}\wedge \omega \wedge \omega=(cst.)\hat
F_A(*\theta),$$ hence $A$ is a solution of (\[eq: g2-instanton\]) if, and only if, $\hat F_A=0$.
This result generalises the well-known fact that HYM connections compatible with a fixed holomorphic structure over a smooth Calabi-Yau $3$–fold pull back bijectively to $S^1$–invariant $\rG_2$–instantons over the product $CY^3\times S^1$ [@SaEarp2015c Proposition 8]. Indeed, it is easy to deduce the corresponding claim for arbitrary circle fibrations:
\[cor: SD lifts to G2-instanton\] Let $X$ be a Calabi-Yau threefold, let $\pi:Y\to X$ be a circle fibration endowed with the natural $\rG_2$–structure (\[eq-GrayG2structure\]), and let $\cE:=\pi^*\cE_0\to Y$ be the pullback from a holomorphic vector bundle $\cE_0\to X$. Then $\cE$ is a holomorphic Sasakian bundle, and a Chern connection $A$ on $\cE_0$ is HYM if, and only if, $\pi^*A$ is a $\rG_2-$instanton on $\cE$.
The contact Calabi-Yau structure is trivially given by the global angular form $\theta\in\Omega^1(Y)$ and the pullbacks of the Calabi-Yau data from $X$, under $\pi$, with natural Reeb field determined by $\theta(\xi)=1$, tangent to the $S^1$–action. Then the underlying complex vector bundle $\pi^*E_0$ is trivial along $\xi$ and we can adopt $D_\xi=\de_\xi$ the trivial vertical connection, which is manifestly flat. This defines a Sasakian bundle structure (cf. Definition \[def: Sasakian vb\]). Moreover, the $6$–dimensional distribution $B:=\ker\theta\subset TY$ maps under $\pi_*$ isomorphically to $TX$, which induces a natural bi-degree decomposition $B=\bigoplus B^{i,j}$. It is immediate to check that the holomorphic structure $\delbar_0$ on $\cE_0$ pulls back to a holomorphic structure $\delbar:=\pi^*\delbar_0$ on $\cE$.
This gives a correspondence $$ {
---------------------------------
$S^1$–invariant unitary
connections on $\cE=\pi^*\cE_0$
---------------------------------
} {
------------------------
HYM Chern
connections on $\cE_0$
------------------------
} $$ which proves part *(ii)* of Theorem \[thm: G2-intantons on K\]. Notice that the right-hand side is bijectively parametrised by stable holomorphic structures on the underlying complex vector bundle $E_0\to X$, by the Hitchin-Kobayashi correspondence.
At this point it is sharply relevant to ask whether a Sasakian version of that correspondence may be obtained, via a suitable notion of transverse stability. While Biswas and Schumacher do outline some progress in that direction [@Biswas2010 §3.4], we believe the subject still deserves some further elaboration - perhaps as a general theory for transversely Kähler foliated geometries - which shall be the object of future work.
Example: $\rG_2-$instantons on pullback bundles {#sec: example pullback}
-----------------------------------------------
Motivated by Corollary \[cor: SD lifts to G2-instanton\] in the previous section, let us explore the simplest model case for gauge theory on a $7$–dimensional CY link. Let $\pi:Y=K_f \to V$ be the Fermat quintic link (cf. Example \[exa: Fermat quintic\]), which fibres nontrivially by circles over the smooth $3$–fold $V=(f)\subset\P^4$, and consider the holomorphic Sasakian bundle given by pullback $\cE:=\pi^*\cE_0\to K_f$ of a holomorphic bundle over $V$. We would like to describe the explicit local form of the constraint imposed on a connection $\bA\in \cA(\cE)$ by the $\rG_2-$instanton equation (\[eq: g2-instanton\]).
Over a trivialising neighbourhood of $K_f $ as a circle fibration, i.e. an open set $ U\subset V$ such that $K_f \supset\ \pi^{-1}(U)\simeq
S^1 \times U$, given points $y\in \pi^{-1}(U)$ and $x=\pi(y)\in U$, an arbitrary integrable connection $\mathbf{A}$ on $\cE$ can be written as $$\mathbf{A}(y)\overset{\loc}{=}
\pi^*A_t(x)+ \sigma(x,t)\theta$$ where $\left\{A_t\right\}_{t\in S^{1}}$ is a family of connections on $\cE_0$ and $\sigma\in\Omega^0(K,\fg)$, where $\fg:=\pi^*\mathfrak{g}_{\cE_0}$ is the corresponding adjoint bundle of $\cE$. Let us denote this fact informally by $$\mathbf{A}=A_t+\sigma\theta.$$ The curvature of $\mathbf{A}$ is the gauge-covariant global $2$–form $$F_\mathbf{A} = F_{A_t}
+\left(
\de_{A_t}\sigma-\frac{\partial A_t}{\partial t}
\right)
\wedge \theta\in\Omega^{2}(K,\fg).$$ and, replacing that expression in the $\rG_2$–instanton equation (\[eq: g2-instanton\]), one obtains in particular$$\hat F_{A_t}(*\theta)=F_{A_t}\wedge\omega^2=0.
$$ This is exactly the HYM condition on each $A_t$. On the other hand, by Proposition \[thm: G2-inst are YM minima\], if $\mathbf{A}$ is an integrable $\rG_2-$instanton, then it minimises the Yang-Mills functional (\[YM(A)\]). This implies $$\left\Vert\left(
\de_{A_t}\sigma-\frac{\partial A_t}{\partial t}
\right)
\wedge \theta\right\Vert^2
=0,$$ since otherwise the pullback component $A_t$ alone would violate the minimum topological energy (\[eq: topological energy\]): $$\cS_{\rm YM}(A_t)=\left\Vert F_{A_t}\right\Vert^2<\left\Vert F_{\mathbf{A}}\right\Vert^2=\cS_{\rm YM}(\mathbf{A})=\kappa(\cE).$$ Moreover, if the family $A_t\equiv A_{t_0}$ is constant, i.e., $S^1$–invariant, then $\de_{A_{t_0}}\sigma=0$ implies $\sigma\equiv0$, since by assumption $\cE$ is indecomposable and therefore does not admit nonzero parallel sections, and so $\mathbf{A}$ is indeed a pullback. If the moduli space $\hat\cM$ of HYM connections on the base $V$ is discrete, then by continuity the family $\left\{A_t\right\}$ is contained in a gauge orbit. This concludes the proof of Theorem \[thm: G2-intantons on K\].
Since the moduli space of stable holomorphic bundles on a Fermat quintic Calabi-Yau $3$–fold $V$ is known to be discrete, we infer that $S^1$–invariant $\rG_2-$instantons should be counted in some sense by the Donaldson-Thomas invariant of $V$, which is deformation-invariant because $h^{0,2}(V)=0$ [@Thomas2000 Definition 3.34]. Thus we envisage a ‘conservation of number’ property for $S^1$–invariant $\rG_2-$instantons over such Fermat quintic links, to be made precise in upcoming work.
Afterword: Atiyah’s conjecture and singular $\rm G_2$–metrics {#afterword-atiyahs-conjecture-and-singular-rm-g_2metrics .unnumbered}
==============================================================
Atiyah predicted that the Casson invariant $\lambda(\Sigma)$ of a homology sphere which is the link of a normal complete intersection singularity equals $\tfrac{1}{8}\sigma(F)$, where $F$ is the Milnor fibre. This was verified for Brieskorn spheres by Fintushel and Stern [@FintushelStern90], and Neumann and Wahl [@NeumannWahl90] inductively use that fact to confirm the conjecture for weighted homogeneous surface singularities and for links of hypersurfaces of the form $f(x,y)+z^n=0$, among others. Their theorem suggests a general relation between the Floer homology (or at least the Casson invariant) of a link in $\C^3$ and the signature of $F$. Arnold and Floer [@Arnold95] suggested higher-dimensional analogues, which would require extra structure on the links (e.g. CR or contact structure) and Milnor fibre (e.g. symplectic structure).
In our context, Chern-Simons theory (\[eq: CS 1-form\]) suggests thinking of $\rG_2$–instantons as $7$–dimensional analogues of flat connections. Applying the above intuition to the holomorphic Casson invariant of R. Thomas over a CY $3$–fold base [@Thomas2000], we wonder whether a version of Atiyah’s conjecture may hold for CY links.
Finally, from the perspective of M-theory, examples of compact $\rm G_2$–metrics with prescribed singularities might be within reach, starting from some suitably singular CY link and taking adiabatic limits on the circle fibres near an orbifold singularity. As we have shown, meaningful Yang-Mills theory results may be established on such spaces, even though the $\rG_2$–structure has some torsion.
Algorithm for Steenbrink’s signature theorem {#app: algorithm}
============================================
As discussed in Section \[sec: Formula for nu\], Steenbrink’s method for the signature of a compactified affine variety depends solely on computing the nonzero signature $(\mu_{+},\mu_{-})$. This requires an explicit basis of the Milnor algebra, which several computational tools provide. We use the following code in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Singular</span> [@Greuel01].
We first compute the numbers (\[eq-array Steenbrink\]), for a given polynomial $f$ of degree $d$ and a list of weights $W$, and arrange them into list $L$:\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
Then we use <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mathematica</span> code to compute the $\nu$ invariant from the list $L$:\
$\nu$=` Mod[Length[L]+1-3*(Length[Select[Select[L, # \[NotElement] Integers &], Mod[IntegerPart[#], 2] == 0 &]]`\
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'D. Shulyak'
- 'G. Valyavin'
- 'O. Kochukhov'
- 'B.-C. Lee'
- 'G. Galazutdinov'
- 'K.-M. Kim'
- Inwoo Han
- |
\
T. Burlakova
- 'V. Tsymbal'
- 'D. Lyashko'
date: 'Received / Accepted'
title: 'The Lorentz force in atmospheres of CP stars: $\theta$ Aurigae'
---
Introduction
============
The atmospheres of magnetic chemically peculiar (CP) stars display the presence of global magnetic fields ranging in strength from a few hundred G up to several tens of kG [@landstreet2001]. In the contrast to the complex, localized and unstable magnetic fields of the cool stars with an external convective envelope, magnetic fields of CP stars are organized at a large scale, roughly dipolar [@landstreet2001] or low-order multipolar [@bagnulo] geometries, which are likely stable during significant time intervals. In fact, these stars provide a unique natural laboratory for the study of secular evolution of global cosmic magnetic fields and other dynamical processes which may take place in the magnetized plasma. In particular, the slow variation of the field due to decay changes the pressure-force balance in the atmosphere via the induced Lorentz force, that makes it possible to detect it observationally and establish a number of important constraints on the plausible scenarios of the magnetic field evolution in early-type stars.
Several physical mechanisms have been suggested as the sources of non-zero Lorentz force in the atmospheres of CP stars: the global field distortion and evolution [@stepien; @landstreet1987; @valyavin], the global drift of charge atmospheric particles under the influence of radiative forces [@peterson], ambipolar diffusion [@leblanc]. Phenomenological atmosphere models with the Lorentz force included were also presented by @madeja [@madejb] and @carpenter. In the light of these discussions it becomes clear that the study of the Lorentz force in the atmospheres of CP stars is of fundamental importance for understanding the nature of intrinsic microscopic processes in magnetized atmospheric plasma.
The aforementioned studies suggested that the magnetic forces may lead to significant differences between the atmospheric structures of magnetic and non-magnetic stars. In some cases, the Lorentz force may noticeably change the effective gravity and influence formation of the pressure-sensitive spectral features, especially the hydrogen Balmer lines. Some of the H$\beta$ photometric data [@madej1984; @musielok] can be considered as an evidence for the presence of non-force-free magnetic fields. Spectroscopy of the hydrogen lines also points in this direction. @kroll found variability with amplitudes more than 1% in the Balmer lines in several magnetic stars. He showed that at least part of this variability can be attributed to the presence of a non-zero Lorentz force in stellar atmospheres.
Unfortunately, apart from the study by Kroll, who presented low-resolution spectroscopic observations of the Balmer line variability with rotation phase in only a few CP stars, there have been no other systematic spectroscopic surveys of the Balmer line variability. Such a situation is due to the fact that the observational aspect of the problem is fairly complex, and comprehensive understanding can be obtained only with the help of high-precision, high-resolution spectroscopic observations. Very weak variations in the Balmer line profiles (for the majority of stars it is 2% or less) require reconstruction of the strongly broadened spectral features with an accuracy of $\sim$0.1%. Until recently, such a precision could not be reached by high-resolution spectroscopy. However, the situation has been improved significantly with the development of highly stable fibre-fed spectrographs that made it possible to carry out these studies at a more advanced instrumental level. Taking this into account and following the pioneering work by @kroll we have initiated a new spectroscopical search of hydrogen line variability [@valyavin05].
In this paper we present the phase-resolved high-resolution observations of one of the brightest weak-field ($B \approx 1$kG) magnetic CP star . We detected significant variation of the Balmer line profiles and interpreted it in terms of the non-force-free magnetic field configuration. We argue that chemically overabundant spots in the atmosphere of can not produce the observed variability.
In the next section we describe observations and methods of spectral processing. Variability of the H$\alpha$, H$\beta$, and H$\gamma$ lines is illustrated in this section. Sect. 3 introduces the model which we have employed to interpret the observations. In Sect. 4 we perform calculation of our stellar model atmosphere with the Lorentz force. Results are presented in Sect. 5 and summarized in Sect. 6. General discussion is presented in Sect. 7.
Observations
============
(HD40312) is a broad-lined A0p star with a relatively weak ($\approx$1kG) dipolar magnetic field [see @wade]. During rotation the star shows equatorial (phases 0.25, 0.75) as well as polar regions (phases 0.0, 0.5) of its magnetosphere. As follows from the previous studies [e.g. @valyavin], the maximum atmospheric perturbation by the Lorentz force is expected to be observed at the equatorial plane and is nearly zero at the polar regions. This makes it possible to estimate the magnetic force term by analyzing the differences between the Balmer line profiles obtained at different rotation phases.
The observations were carried out with the BOES echelle spectrograph installed at the 1.8m telescope of the Korean Astronomy and Space Science Institute. The spectrograph and observational procedures are described by @kim. The instrument is a moderate-beam, fibre-fed high-resolution spectrograph which incorporates 3 STU Polymicro fibres of 300, 200, and 80 $\mu$m core diameter (corresponding spectral resolutions are $\lambda/\Delta\lambda$=30000, 45000, and 90000 respectively). The medium resolution mode was employed in the present study. Working wavelength range is from 3500 Å to 10000 Å. High throughput of the spectrograph at 4100–8000 Å wavelength range and its high stability make it possible to obtain spectra of the Balmer lines with an accuracy of about $0.2-0.3$%.
Twenty spectra of were recorded in the course of about 20 observing nights from January 2004 to April 2005. Typical exposure times of a few minutes allowed to achieve $S/N\sim150$. Table \[Tphases\] gives an overview of our observations. Throughout this study we use ephemeris derived by @wade: $$JD=2450001.881+E\times3.61860,$$ where the reference time corresponds to the negative extremum of the longitudinal field variation.
No. JD Rotation Phase
----- -------------- ----------------
1 2453015.0238 0.681
2 2453015.9949 0.950
3 2453020.0157 0.061
4 2453038.0886 0.056
5 2453039.1761 0.356
6 2453039.9192 0.562
7 2453040.9137 0.837
8 2453042.9287 0.393
9 2453046.0285 0.250
10 2453340.0242 0.496
11 2453341.0364 0.775
12 2453341.3455 0.861
13 2453343.0469 0.331
14 2453354.0668 0.377
15 2453354.3565 0.456
16 2453356.0911 0.936
17 2453356.3045 0.995
18 2453457.9726 0.091
19 2453458.0466 0.111
20 2453458.0834 0.121
: Observations of . The first column gives the number of observation, the second column lists the Julian date (JD) and the last one is the rotation phase calculated with ephemeris by @wade.
\[Tphases\]
The spectral reduction was carried out using the image processing program DECH [@gala] as well as MIDAS packages. The general steps are standard and include cosmic ray hits removal, electronic bias and scatter light subtraction, extraction of the spectral orders, division by the flat-field spectrum, normalization to the continuum and wavelength calibration.
Normalization to the continuum deserves some additional comments. In order to obtain uniformly reconstructed continuum in all the spectra we applied the following technique. After the flat-fielding procedure all extracted spectral orders of individual frames were merged into new 2-D (4000x75) images where the echelle orders (75 orders in total) where consequently placed as image rows. Then, with the aid of the median and Gaussian filters, we identified and cut out all narrow spectral features in all spectral orders. Finally, ignoring the Balmer line regions we fitted all the images using 2-D cubic spline function and created 2-D continuum images. Normalized spectra were produced by the division of the initial images by their corresponding 2-D continuum images. Examples of the initial image, 2-D continuum derived from it and normalization results are presented in Fig. \[Fcont2d\].
Our analysis showed that such a technique makes it possible to achieve a required high accuracy and stability of the continuum reconstruction in those places of the observed spectra where the spectrograph’s response function can be described by a monotonic low-order polynomial 2-D function. For the BOES the most appropriate region is from 4150 to about 5100 Å that makes our analysis reliable at the H$\gamma$ and H$\beta$ Balmer lines. Accuracy of the continuum normalization around these lines is estimated to be approximately 0.1–0.2%. In order to illustrate this conclusion, here we present results of test observations of Vega which were carried out in different nights in the period from early March to May of 2006. It is established [@peterson2] that this standard star has the inclination of the rotational axis $i = 4.5 \degr
\pm 0.33 \degr$. Such a small inclination minimizes the probability to detect any physical variability in the Balmer profiles of Vega’s spectrum allowing to use this star as a standard in our study. Results of the tests are presented in Fig. \[Vega\] where the upper plot illustrates mean spectrum of the star obtained by averaging the observed spectra. The lower plot is the dispersion of the result obtained as standard deviation of the individual spectra from the mean. As can be seen from the behavior of the dispersion function, all instabilities of the continuum reconstruction lie typically below $0.15-0.2$%.
Also, we would like to note that during these observations the spectrograph’s configuration has been changed many times by service requirements. Nevertheless, the response function of the spectrograph showed very good stability despite the fact of these re-configurations. Analyzing observations of another program Ap/Bp stars which do not show any significant variability of the Balmer profiles we also concluded that the response function does not change its shape for the last three years (2003-2006).
For different reasons, the stability around the other Balmer lines is not so good compared to the H$\gamma$ and H$\beta$ regions. For example, the H$\alpha$ region is characterized by the presence of a narrow slope of the response function that makes it difficult to reconstruct continuum around this line with the necessary accuracy. However, in this study we decided to include the H$\alpha$ line also as an illustration.
Taking all the above conclusions into account we searched the Balmer line profile variations using normalized spectra at the H$\alpha$, H$\beta$, and H$\gamma$ regions. For each of the spectral intervals we examined the standard deviation $\sigma$ from the mean in the profiles during full rotation cycle of the star. The standard deviations as function of wavelength are presented in Fig. \[Fsigma\]. Analyzing spectral regions with low lines density we found that the standard deviation due to the photon noise and inaccuracies in the spectra processing lie below the level of 0.3%. Any deviation above this value indicates the presence of significant intrinsic variability of Balmer line profiles.
The standard deviations at the H$\beta$ and H$\gamma$ reveal the characteristic fingerprint first described by @kroll as the impact of the Lorentz force: the amplitude rises in the wings and drops to the line center. This picture is less clear for the H$\alpha$ line due to the above reasons and strong distortion of the profile by the telluric molecular absorptions. (Here we note that the spectra obtained at different dates on the time base of about one year are strongly Doppler-shifted relative to each other due to the Earth’s movement. In this connection our study requires rebinding the spectra to the rest wavelengths and, as a result, all the telluric lines become randomly shifted in the individual rebined spectra that strongly complicates analysis of the H$\alpha$ profile). Nevertheless, the effect is seen in the red wing of the line (see Fig. \[Fsigma\]).
The narrow features in the standard deviations (H$\beta$ and H$\gamma$ lines, Fig. \[Fsigma\]) come from metal lines located in wings of the hydrogen line profiles. Strong variability of these lines indicates the presence of an inhomogeneous surface distribution of corresponding chemical abundances. This distorting factor contributes to an additional noise but it can be isolated and separated from the broad spectral changes in the hydrogen lines.
Model
=====
General equations and approximations
------------------------------------
In order to model the found variation of the Balmer line profiles we assume that this variability is caused by the Lorentz force and follow approaches outlined by @valyavin.
In the presence of the Lorentz force term the hydrostatic equation reads: $$\vec{\nabla} P_{\rm total} = \rho \vec{g} + \vec{f}_{\rm L},
\label{Ehydro}$$ and $$\vec{f}_{\rm L} = \frac{1}{c}\vec{j}\times\vec{B},
\label{Efl}$$ where $P_{\rm total}=P_{\rm gas}+P_{\rm rad}$ denotes the total pressure, $P_{\rm gas}$ and $P_{\rm rad}$ are the gas and radiation field pressures respectively, $\rho$ is the gas density, $\vec{g}$ is the surface gravity, $\vec{j}$ and $\vec{B}$ are the surface currents and magnetic field vector respectively, and $c$ is the speed of light. The electric currents are determined using the Ohm’s law: $$\vec{j} = \lambda\vec{E}_{\rm \parallel} +
\lambda_{\rm \perp}\vec{E}_{\rm \perp} +
\lambda_{\rm H}\frac{\vec{B}\times\vec{E}_{\rm \perp}}{B},
\label{Ecurrent}$$ where $\vec{E}_{\rm \parallel}$ and $\vec{E}_{\rm \perp}$ are electric field components directed along and across magnetic field lines respectively, $\lambda$ is the electric conductivity in the absence of the magnetic field, $\lambda_{\rm \perp}$ is the electric conductivity across the magnetic field lines and $\lambda_{\rm H}$ is the Hall’s conductivity.
To simplify solution of the problem, we consider poloidal surface magnetic field geometry. The non-force-free term giving rise in the Lorentz force is described via the induced electric field (). This configuration can be justified in the context of the magnetic field evolution. For example, distortion of initially force-free configuration of the magnetic field and respective distribution of the electric field over the stellar surface may be produced by the global field decay/generation or by any other, more complicated scenario related, for instance, to generation of internal toroidal fields by differential rotation etc. In the present study we do not consider these details and generalize the problem making no assumption about the origin of the Lorentz force. Following the approach developed in previous studies and taking into account the fact that the surface magnetic field of the majority of CP stars may approximately be described by low-order axisymmetric poloidal fields, we restrict our model considering only azimuthal geometry of the induced electric field. In this case the equations introduced above can be implemented in a 1-D stellar model atmosphere code.
Finally, the complete set of assumptions used in our modelling can be summarized as follows:
1. The stellar surface magnetic field is axisymmetric and is dominated by dipolar or dipole+quadrupolar component in all atmospheric layers.
2. The induced has only an azimuthal component, similar to that described by @wrubel, who considered decay of the global stellar magnetic field. In this case the distribution of the surface electric currents can be expressed by the Legendre polynomials $P^1_n(\mu)$, where $n = 1$ for dipole, $n = 2$ for quadrupole, etc., and $\mu=\cos\theta$ is the cosine of the co-latitude angle $\theta$ which is counted in the coordinate system connected to the symmetry axis of the magnetic field.
3. The atmospheric layers are assumed to be in static equilibrium and no horizontal motions are present.
4. Stellar rotation, Hall’s currents, ambipolar diffusion and other dynamical processes are neglected.
Taking into account these approximations and substituting Eq. (\[Efl\]) and Eq. (\[Ecurrent\]) into Eq. (\[Ehydro\]), we can write the hydrostatic equation in the following form $$\frac{\partial P_{\rm total}}{\partial r} =
-\rho g \pm \frac{1}{c} \lambda_{\rm \perp}
\sum_n c_n P^1_n(\mu) \sum_n B^{(n)}_{\rm \theta}.
\label{EhydroR}$$ Obtaining this equation we used the superposition principle for field vectors and the solution of Maxwell equations for each of the multipolar components following @wrubel. We also suppose that $\vec{E}\perp\vec{B}$. Here $c_n$ represents the effective electric field generated by the $n$-th magnetic field component at the stellar magnetic equator and $B_{\rm \theta}$ is the horizontal field component. The signs “+” and “–” refer to the outward and inward directed Lorentz forces, respectively. Equation (\[EhydroR\]) can be solved if the plasma conductivity $\lambda_{\rm\perp}$ is known.
We note that the values of $c_n$ are free parameters to be found by using our model. These values represent the fundamental characteristics which can be used for building self-consistent models of the global stellar magnetic field geometry and its evolution. Thus, an indirect measurement of these parameters via the study of the Lorentz force is of fundamental importance for understanding the stellar magnetism.
Calculation of plasma conductivity
----------------------------------
Calculation of the electric conductivity $\lambda_{\rm \perp}$ can be carried out using the Lorentz collision model where only binary collisions between particles are allowed. The detailed description and basic relationships of this approach is given in @valyavin. Improving the latter work, here we calculate the electric conductivity including all available charged particles. The precise calculations require direct evaluation of the effective stopping force acting between two charged particles of types $k$ (background particle) and $i$ (test particle): $$F_{\rm eff}^{(ik)} = \frac{4 \pi (Z_i e)^2 (Z_k e)^2 n_k
\ln\Lambda}{M v_{k,\rm T}^2} f_{ik}\left(\frac{v_i}{v_{k,\rm T}}\right).$$ Here $n_k$ and $v_{k,\rm T}$ are the concentration and the most probable thermal velocity of particles of type $k$, $Z_i$ and $Z_k$ are charges of the particles, $M$ is the reduced mass and $\ln\Lambda$ is the classical Coulomb logarithm. The Chandrasekhar function $f(x)$ has the following form [@chandrasekhar]: $$f(x) = \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}x^{-2}\left[\int_0^x e^{-x^2} dx -
x e^{-x^2}\right].$$ In the case of the interaction between charged and neutral particles we use the elastic collision cross-sections, $$\sigma_k = \pi a_0^2 \left(\frac{m_k}{m_{\rm p}}\right)^{-2/3},$$ where $a_0$ is the Bohr radius and $m_{\rm p}$ is the proton mass.
Generally, at the uppermost atmospheric layers where the cyclotron frequency of the conducting particles is much higher than their mean free-path times, effects of magnetoresistivity on $\lambda_{\rm \perp}$ redirect induced horizontal electric currents into Hall’s currents [see @valyavin] which are ignored in our model. In the deepest layers, the effects of the magnetic field influence on the conductivity become negligible and electric currents can be described by ordinary Ohm’s law for the non-magnetic case. In the intermediate atmospheric layers, however, the situation becomes more complicated. Under the influence of horizontal magnetic field, the contribution of ionized particles to the conductivity is strongly stratified by the magnetic field that produces the [*bimodal shape*]{} of the Lorentz force term [@valyavin].
Computations of the electric conductivity under the aforementioned assumptions enables us to present the solution via unknown induced ($c_n$) and magnetic field determined from observations. A preliminary analysis [see also @valyavin] showed that amplitudes of the pressure-temperature modification with the Lorentz force depend mainly on the induced Magnetic field strength also influences the amplitudes but mainly affects the positions of the perturbed bimodal area on the Rosseland optical depth scale. For the very small magnetic fields the perturbation of the atmosphere is limited to small Rosseland optical depths above the region where the wings of the Balmer lines form. Increasing the magnetic field strength shifts the perturbation toward the deeper regions, which contribute to the formation of hydrogen lines. In this process the two maxima of the bimodal atmospheric perturbations pass one after another through the zone of Balmer line formation, giving rise to maximum perturbations to the Balmer line formation around horizontal local magnetic field $B_{\theta}$ of 400–500 G and 10000 G with a significant gap between $B_{\theta} = 1$ kG and $6$ kG. In terms of global, nearly dipolar magnetic fields these areas of the most effective contribution of the horizontal magnetic field to the Balmer line formation correspond to approximately 1 kG and 20 kG magnetic stars. Taking into account that the majority of magnetic stars have magnetic fields weaker than 10 kG we predict that the maximum amplitudes of the Balmer line variation due to the Lorentz force are expected to be among magnetic Ap/Bp stars with magnetic fields between 0.4 kG and 1–2 kG. The is one of such stars.
Model atmospheres with Lorentz force
------------------------------------
Our calculations were carried out with the stellar model atmosphere code developed by @shulyak. The code is based on the modified [@kurucz13] and [@kuruczA12] subroutines as well as on the spectrum synthesis package described by @tsymbal. is written in Fortran90 and uses the following general approximations (which are typical for many 1-D model atmosphere tools):
- the plane-parallel geometry is assumed;
- the Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium (LTE) is used to calculate the atomic level populations for all chemical species;
- the stellar atmosphere is assumed to be in a hydrostatic equilibrium;
- the radiative equilibrium condition is fulfilled.
The code incorporates the so-called line-by-line (LL) method of the bound-bound opacity calculations [@shulyak]. This technique allows us to account for individual stellar abundance pattern, which is important in the present study of because this star shows non-solar abundances and an inhomogeneous horizontal distribution of some chemical elements. In this case accurate treatment of lines opacity in model atmospheres is needed to ensure correct calculation of model structures with individual abundance patterns.
The new module was written to compute electric conductivity and magnetic pressure. Since the effective gravity is a function of atmospheric depth, additional changes in the solution of the hydrostatic equation and in the mass correction routines were made. The hydrostatic equation is solved and presented in terms of monochromatic optical depth scale $\tau_{\rm 5000}$ as an independent variable. At each iteration the code calculates electric conductivity in all atmospheric layers using all available charged and neutral plasma particles. The conductivity is then used to evaluate magnetic contribution to the effective gravity and to execute mass correction procedure.
As can be seen from Eq. (\[EhydroR\]), in the case of the outward directed Lorentz force, there is some critical value of $c_n$ which may produce unstable solution. Such models can not be considered in the hydrostatic equilibrium approximation introduced above and were assumed to be non-physical in our calculations. Thus, for each set of models, we adopted $c_n$ values as to ensure static equilibrium.
In addition, the following calculation settings have been used: the atmosphere is sliced into 72 layers equally spaced along the Rosseland optical scale height $\tauros$, from ${\tauros = -6.875}$ to ${\tauros = 2.0}$. The number of frequency points used for the flux integration procedure was 495000 in the 500–50000Å spectral region. The initial atomic line list taken from VALD (Vienna Atomic Line Database) [@vald1; @vald2] contains information about 21.6 million atomic lines, including lines originating from the predicted energy levels. This line list was used as an input for the preselection procedure in the code. We adopted the selection threshold $\ell_{\rm\nu}/\alpha_{\rm\nu} \geqslant 1$%, where $\alpha_{\rm\nu}$ and $\ell_{\rm\nu}$ are the continuum and line absorption coefficients at the given frequency $\rm\nu$. The preselection enabled us to reduce the total number of lines used for the line opacity calculations to about 525000.
Results
=======
Model atmosphere parameters of
-------------------------------
The model atmosphere parameters, $\logg$ and $\teff$, were determined using spectrophotometric energy distribution [@adelman] and theoretical fit of the H$\beta$ and H$\gamma$ line profiles. For this purpose we have chosen observations at phase 0.995 (polar region) where the influence of the Lorentz force is small and the stellar atmosphere is expected to be close to the standard non-magnetic model structure. The chemical composition as well as the projected rotational velocity $v\sin i=55$ were taken from @kuschnig, who used multi-element Doppler Imaging technique to derive surface maps for eight elements in . Table \[Tabundances\] gives abundance patterns for four representative rotation phases.
Element 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 average
--------- ------- ------- ------- ------- --------- -- --
He -2.32 -2.32 -2.40 -2.32 -2.34
Mg -5.28 -5.27 -5.35 -5.50 -5.35
Si -3.35 -3.27 -3.09 -3.22 -3.23
Ti -7.52 -7.61 -7.67 -7.61 -7.60
Cr -5.14 -5.35 -4.99 -4.75 -5.06
Mn -5.50 -5.64 -5.49 -5.34 -5.49
Fe -3.86 -3.83 -3.63 -3.69 -3.75
Sr -8.43 -8.43 -8.36 -8.19 -8.35
: The surface-averaged abundances ($\log N/N_{\rm total}$) of for the four rotation phases [@kuschnig] and averaged over the whole stellar surface (last column).
\[Tabundances\]
Synthetic Balmer line profiles were calculated using the [Synth]{} program [@piskunov]. The program incorporates recent improvements in the treatment of the hydrogen line opacity [@barklem]. The stellar energy distribution and Balmer lines are best approximated with the following parameters: $\teff=10\,400\pm300$ K, $\logg=3.6\pm0.05$. Note, that such a high accuracy of the determined parameters is just an internal accuracy obtained from our technique which we used to fit the data. Real parameters may be slightly different from the obtained ones due to various systematic error sources, but this does not play a significant role in our study. Comparison of the observations and model predictions are presented in Fig. \[Fenergy\] and Fig. \[Fhydlines\]. Fundamental parameters of suggest that this star is significantly evolved from the ZAMS. From the comparison with theoretical evolutionary tracks @hrmag find to be at the very end of its main sequence life.
Recent studies by @zeeman_paper1 and @zeeman_paper2 [@zeeman_paper3] showed that the effects of Zeeman splitting and polarized radiative transfer on model atmosphere structure and shapes of hydrogen line profiles are less than 0.1% for magnetic field intensities around 1 kG and thus can be safely neglected in the present investigation.
Magnetic field geometry
-----------------------
To calculate the Lorentz force effects it is essential to specify the magnetic field geometry (see Eq. (\[EhydroR\])). The first longitudinal magnetic field measurements were obtained for by @borra using H$\beta$ photopolarimetric technique. The authors observed a smooth single-wave variation with rotation phase and concluded that it is probably caused by a dipole inclined to the rotation axis of the star. @wade presented high-precision longitudinal field measurements of this star. They confirmed and improved results of @borra. In particular, deviation of the variation from the purely sinusoidal magnetic curve has been found [see Fig. 12 in @wade].
Following these works, we have approximated magnetic field topology of by a combination of the dipole and axisymmetric quadrupole magnetic components. We have also assumed that the symmetry axes of the dipole and quadrupole magnetic fields are parallel. Thus, the model parameters include the polar strength of the dipolar component $B_{\rm d}$, relative contribution of the quadrupole field $B_{\rm q}/B_{\rm d}$, magnetic obliquity $\beta$, and inclination angle $i$ of the stellar rotation axis with respect to the line of sight. The last parameter is best estimated independently, from the usual oblique rotator relation connecting stellar radius, rotation period and $v\sin i$. Hipparcos parallax $\pi=18.83\pm0.81$ mas and $\teff=10\,400\pm300$ K yield $R=5.1\pm0.4\,R_{\odot}$. This leads to $i=51\degr\pm6\degr$, which is in good agreement with $i=$50–60 derived in Doppler imaging studies [@rice; @kuschnig].
The remaining free parameters of our model for the magnetic field geometry were determined with the least-squares fit of the observed variation [@borra; @wade]. We have examined “positive” (quadrupolar field has two positive and one negative poles) and “negative” (the two negative and one positive poles) quadrupolar field configurations. We found that the lowest $\chi^2_\nu\equiv\chi^2/\nu$ corresponds to the negative quadrupolar configuration with $B_{\rm q}/B_{\rm d}\approx-2$ ($\chi^2_\nu=1.14$, $B_{\rm d}=1.4$ kG, $\beta=78\degr$), while the purely dipole model gives $\chi^2_\nu=2$ ($B_{\rm d}=1.3$ kG, $\beta=73\degr$).
Effects of horizontal abundance distribution
--------------------------------------------
In order to distinguish effects of the magnetic pressure from the ones of the abundance distribution, we calculated model atmospheres for each of the four representative phases using individual abundances from Table \[Tabundances\]. The synthetic profiles of the hydrogen lines as well as the standard deviation of the profiles due to the variable chemical abundances at the listed phases were then calculated. The results are presented in Fig. \[FsigmaABN\]. As one can see, effects due to a non-uniform abundance distribution are totally different from the observed one: the strongest variability occurs in the line core whereas the line wings are not affected much. This allows us to conclude that the chemical spots do not lead to the observed Balmer line variations. This fact is in concordance with the results obtained by @kroll, who showed that the found shape of the Balmer line variability can not be reproduced by metallicity or temperature variations, but can be considered in the frame of changes in the pressure structure of the stellar atmosphere. Finally, the average abundances from Table \[Tabundances\] (last column) were used in the rest of model atmosphere calculations.
The Lorentz force
-----------------
In order to fit the observed variations of the line profiles, both the inward and outward directed Lorentz forces were examined through the model atmosphere calculations. The actual magnetic input parameters of computations with code include the sign of the Lorentz force, magnetic field modulus $B$, and the product of two sums $\sum c_n P^1_n \sum B^{(n)}_{\rm\theta}$. Following the procedure described by @valyavin, we take the latter two parameters to be disk-averaged at the individual rotation phases. We used this simplified procedure because a direct integration of the model over the stellar surface is a very time-consuming process under our approaches. The most general and precise way to produce a disk-integrated model spectrum is to
- calculate (for given $c_n$ and the polar strength $B^{(n)}_{\rm p}$) a number of local model atmospheres and synthetic spectra for all surface areas from the magnetic equator to the pole,
- integrate the local spectra over the visible stellar hemisphere for a set of rotational phases and given orientation of the stellar rotational and magnetic axis.
At the present stage of our studies we are not yet ready to carry out such computations. Thus, our basic modelling strategy is to replace the flux from the disk-integrated model which should be computed for each observed phase with the flux from a single atmosphere model from , with parameters which represent approximately the disk-averaged means. On the other hand, our additional study revealed that even the strongest possible intensities of the Lorentz force do not change significantly the limb darkening in computations with the magnetic model compared to the non-magnetic one. Therefore, for the first investigation we used the above simplified approach. This approximate method essentially assumes linear response of the properties of magnetic atmospheres to changes in the input parameters.
Finally, the Lorentz force in the cases of dipole and quadrupole magnetic field geometries can be written as $$\frac{\partial P_{\rm total}}{\partial r} = -\rho g \pm \frac{1}{c}
\langle \lambda_{\rm \perp} \rangle c_{1} \left\langle\left(P^1_1(\mu) + \frac{c_{2}}{c_{1}}P^1_2(\mu)\right)
\left(B^{(1)}_{\rm\theta} + B^{(2)}_{\rm\theta}\right)\right\rangle,
\label{EhydroMean}$$ where braces mean the disk-averaging operation ($\langle \lambda_{\rm \perp} \rangle$ here means the “effective” conductivity calculated with the magnetic field strength averaged over the stellar disc). Equation (\[EhydroMean\]) can be written in a simplified form by introducing the effective acceleration $g_{\rm eff}$ as a sum of gravitational and magnetic accelerations so that $$\frac{\partial P_{\rm total}}{\partial r} = -\rho g_{\rm eff}.
\label{EhydroGeff}$$
Results of the disk-averaging procedure of the magnetic parameters are illustrated in Table \[Tav\] where we adopted $B_{\rm q}/B_{\rm d}=0.0$ (dipole) and $-2.0$ (dipole+quadrupole). Several sets of models with the outward and inward directed Lorentz force and $B_{\rm q}/B_{\rm d}$ ranging from 0.5 to $-2.0$ with a step of 0.5 were then calculated. The best fit to the shape of the observed hydrogen line variation was finally found for the following parameters: $c_2/c_1=2.5$ and $B_{\rm q}/B_{\rm d}=-2.0$.
Numerical tests showed that, in order to reproduce the amplitudes of the observed standard deviations due to the profile variations in case of the inward directed Lorentz force, the effective electric field should be $c_1=2\times10^{-10}$ CGS units for the dipolar configuration and $c_1=1\times10^{-10}$ CGS units for the dipole+quadrupole model. In case of the outward directed Lorentz force these values should be $c_1=3.5\times10^{-11}$ CGS units and $c_1=1\times11^{-11}$ CGS units, respectively. Increasing $c_1$ further leads to unstable solution. This occurs for both inward and outward directed Lorentz forces. In the latter case this means that magnetic force directed outwards becomes stronger than the gravitational force, numerically forcing $P_{\rm gas}<0$. For example, the critical value of the effective electric field is $c_1 \approx 2\times10^{-11}$ CGS units for dipole+quadrupole configuration. In spite of the fact that inward directed Lorentz force increases pressure of stellar plasma, the enormous increase of $c_1$ causes a failure of some numerical algorithms implemented in the model atmosphere code (mainly hydrostatic equation). This also causes numerical problems with the interpolation of partition functions for some elements. The estimated critical value for inward directed force is $c_1 > 2\times10^{-10}$ CGS units for dipole+quadrupole configuration.
------- --------------------- --------------------------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase $\langle B \rangle$ $\langle P^1_1 B_{\rm\theta} \rangle$ $\langle \sum B^{(n)}\rangle$ $\langle \sum \frac{c_n}{c_1}P^1_n \cdot \sum B^{(n)}_{\rm\theta} \rangle$
0.056 856 436 2158 -2652
0.061 854 438 2147 -2636
0.091 842 449 2077 -2533
0.111 833 458 2016 -2449
0.121 829 463 1982 -2406
0.250 812 480 1530 -1913
0.331 863 429 1332 -1836
0.356 886 406 1289 -1878
0.377 905 388 1261 -1931
0.393 920 373 1240 -1987
0.456 965 331 1188 -2198
0.496 975 321 1177 -2256
0.562 955 340 1199 -2145
0.681 852 439 1358 -1827
0.775 806 485 1613 -1989
0.837 813 479 1833 -2224
0.861 821 470 1921 -2329
0.936 853 439 2142 -2627
0.950 858 434 2169 -2668
0.995 865 427 2210 -2734
------- --------------------- --------------------------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Results of the surface averaging procedure for the dipole and dipole+quadrupole ($B_{\rm q}/B_{\rm d}=-2.0$, $c_2/c_1=2.5$) magnetic field configurations. Field strengths are given in Gauss.
\[Tav\]
Figure \[Fgeff\] illustrates resulting dependence of $g_{\rm eff}$ on the Rosseland optical depth in the atmosphere of ($B_{\rm q}/B_{\rm d}=-2, c_2/c_1=2.5$). The formation region of the central parts of Balmer lines ($\log\tau_{\rm Ross}<-1$ and above) demonstrates strong changes in the effective gravity during rotation that results in the Balmer line variations. Examination of the purely dipolar model gives similar results.
As follows from Eq. (\[EhydroMean\]), the resulting disc-averaged atmospheric perturbations due to the Lorentz force depend on the competition between the effective electric conductivity $\langle \lambda_{\rm \perp} \rangle$ and the product $\langle \sum \frac{c_n}{c_1}P^1_n \cdot \sum B^{(n)}_{\rm\theta} \rangle$ averaged over the disc. The electric conductivity $\langle \lambda_{\rm \perp} \rangle$ across the magnetic field lines of force is reduced in comparison to the non-magnetic conductivity by the full disc-averaged magnetic field $\langle \sum B^{(n)}
\rangle $ (the magnetoresistivity effect, see $\S$ 2 in @PI66; @CO57; @SC50). In our dipolar magnetic field model $\langle B \rangle $ (and the magnetoresistivity as a result) varies with an amplitude of about 10% about the average value, which is almost twice smaller than the variation of the weighted-average of the horizontal magnetic field (see Table \[Tav\]). Therefore, in case of the dipolar geometry, variation of the Balmer lines is produced mainly by phase variation of the horizontal magnetic field. In the dipole+quadrupole configuration however, the variation of conductivity also plays noticeable role due to significant rotational modulation of $\langle \sum B^{(n)}
\rangle $ (Table \[Tav\]), which explains the influence of magnetoresistivity on the Balmer line variations for this geometry.
Comparison with the observations
--------------------------------
We compared observations and theoretical predictions for each of the rotation phases. To minimize effects of systematic errors in the modelling procedure, we have examined residual theoretical and observed Balmer lines, which are obtained by subtracting a spectrum at a reference phase ($\phi = 0.056$ where the Balmer profiles have the largest widths) from all the other spectra. Figures \[FHadiff\], \[FHbdiff\] and \[FHgdiff\] illustrate residual H$\alpha$, H$\beta$ and H$\gamma$ line profiles for each of the observed rotation phases. The positive sign of the residuals implies that the lines at the current phase are narrower than those obtained at the reference phase. Here we present only those calculations, which are able to reproduce the observed positive deviations with satisfactory accuracy. This is achieved for the purely dipolar geometry of the magnetic field with the inward directed Lorentz force (dotted lines in the figures) and by examination of the dipole+quadrupole geometry with the outward directed force (thick solid lines).
The most noticeable effect is seen at phases between $\phi~=~0.250$ and $\phi = 0.6$. However, both models fit the data only in the phase region between $\phi = 0.45$ and $\phi = 0.6$. We attribute this disagreement to our assumption of the axisymmetric magnetic field geometry (in reality the field can be decentered or distorted). Despite this discrepancy we suppose that our model reproduces general phase dependence found in observations.
Comparing results of the fit obtained from both models we conclude that observations are better reproduced in the case of the outward directed Lorentz force for the dipole+quadrupole magnetic field geometry. As can be seen from Fig. \[FHbdiff\], \[FHgdiff\] the inward directed force gives too wide line wings and is unable to describe the line cores of the observed residual spectra. In contrast, the outward directed Lorentz force shows better agreement with observations. Such a difference between the two models results from the fact that at the upper atmospheric layers of the Balmer line formation regions the inward directed Lorentz force changes the pressure-temperature balance more effectively than the outward directed one (see Fig. \[Fgeff\]). Increasing $g_{\rm eff}$, the inward directed Lorentz force makes the Balmer line profiles non-realistically wider than the observed ones. This makes the outward directed magnetic force more preferable in our analysis.
The best fit obtained with $B_{\rm q}/B_{\rm d}=-2.0$ and $c_2/c_1=2.5$ agrees with the longitudinal field modelling results. The outcome of the H$\gamma$ line profile analysis (Fig. \[FHgdiff\]) is in satisfactory agreement with the H$\beta$ line modelling. In the case of the H$\alpha$ line (Fig. \[FHadiff\]) it is difficult to distinguish predictions of the two models.
Now, before general discussion, we would like to clarify some points in the above modelling approaches. The observed changes in Stark profiles of the Balmer lines demonstrate monotonic single-wave variation during full rotation cycle of . Originally, however, we expected another picture of the variations due to predicted dominant dipolar component of the magnetic field in this star. According to previous studies [@valyavin and references therein] we expected that if a magnetic star with centered dipolar field shows the observer both positive and negative parts of its magnetosphere during rotation (that takes place in ), the hydrogen lines should demonstrate double-wave variations during full rotation cycle. To resolve this difficulty, we have included the quadrupole component, which is still not well-established for , but is plausible for the reasons mentioned above. In the contrast to the purely dipolar magnetic field, the combination of dipole+quadrupole enables us to derive a satisfactory fit to the observed behavior of the Balmer line variations. As follows from Table \[Tav\], we are able to obtain a configuration of the dipole+quadrupole magnetic field for which the maximum visible horizontal component is located at those phase points where the varying longitudinal magnetic field exhibits extremum (not at the crossover). Such a configuration gives the single-wave variation of the Lorentz force and reproduces our observations.
Another important point is related to different orientations of the Lorentz force obtained for the two examined geometries of the magnetic field. For both geometries with the opposite-oriented Lorentz force the sign of the resulting Balmer line residual variations is unchanged at the extremal point of the phase curve ($\phi \approx 0.5$). In this connection we note again (see above), that the Stark widths variations in the purely dipolar model are mainly produced by the horizontal magnetic field that provides the minimum inward directed Lorentz force at this phase due to the minimum of visible horizontal component (see Table \[Tav\]). The Stark widths of the lines are reduced at this phase in comparison to the other phases. In contrast, the dipole+quadrupole geometry of the magnetic field provides significant horizontal component at this point and minimum magnetoresistivity that results in the maximum outward directed magnetic force term. As a result, the Stark widths of the Balmer lines are also reduced at this phase relatively to all the other phases of the stellar rotation even implementing the opposite orientation of the Lorentz force.
Despite the fact that a fairly good agreement with observations is obtained, we do not claim that our geometric fit is absolutely correct. For example, our assumption about essentially poloidal centered magnetic field may be wrong. Intuitively we may assume, that decentered dipole may also produce the Balmer line profile variations which can be similar to the observed ones. Besides, we do not exclude the presence of more complicated dynamical, non-evolutionary processes such as meridional circulation which can also produce similar observable features. The problem is too complicated, and the answer about the true model parameters (also about the true nature of the Lorentz force) can be obtained only when the exact geometry of the surface field in will be established. In this study we only demonstrate that the observations [*can be described with simple geometrical approaches about magnetic field and induced electric currents*]{}. We therefore conclude that the main achievement of this paper is not our explanation of the behavior of the phase-resolved Balmer line profiles, but our argumentations for the presence of the detectable Lorentz force in the atmosphere of .
Conclusions
===========
With the aim to probe the presence of the Lorentz force in atmospheres of magnetic CP stars, we have acquired new high-precision spectral observations for one of the bright magnetic stars, . The hydrogen line profile variations are investigated using high-resolution spectra covering the full rotation cycle of the star. We have detected and studied variability of the Stark-broadened profiles of H$\alpha$, H$\beta$, and H$\gamma$. Several evidences for the presence of significant Lorentz force in atmosphere of are found:
- The characteristic shape of the variation during full rotation cycle of the star corresponds to those described by @kroll and other authors [@valyavin and references therein] as a result of an impact of a substantial Lorentz force.
- Numerical calculations of the model atmospheres with individual abundances demonstrate that the surface chemical spots can not produce the observed variability of the hydrogen line profiles of .
- Our model shows good agreement with the observations if the outward directed magnetic force is applied assuming the dipole+quadrupole magnetic field configuration with the induced effective equatorial electric field of $c_1=1\times10^{-11}$ CGS units.
- The dipole+quadrupole magnetic model with the quadrupolar strength twice stronger than the dipolar one reproduces behavior of the phase-resolved H$\beta$ and H$\gamma$ spectra.
Discussion
==========
In the above considerations we did not examine any mechanisms of the magnetic force generation. We have restricted ourselves to the purely phenomenological and geometrical description of the problem. Let us finally discuss physical processes which could create the Lorentz force in the atmospheres of magnetic CP stars.
Secular evolution of the global magnetic field
----------------------------------------------
It is well known that any variation of the global stellar magnetic field (related, for instance, to a global field decay) leads to the development of the induced electric currents in conductive atmospheric layers. The Lorentz force, which appears as a result of the interaction between the magnetic field and electric currents, may affect the atmospheric structure and influence the formation of spectral lines causing their rotational variability. The sign of the observed Lorentz force (outward or inward directed) is also found to be important. For example, following @wrubel, who was the first to present numerical calculations of the decay of poloidal interior magnetic field, the decay-induced electric field $E_{\rm\phi}$ have essentially azimuthal form: $$E_{\rm\phi} \sim g(r) P^1_n(\mu),$$ where $g(r)$ is a scalar radial function of a distance $r$ from stellar center ($r = [0,R_\star]$). Considering only the dipole component, the induced currents do not change sign at the stellar surface, achieving maximum strength at the magnetic equator (where the magnetic field lines of force is horizontal) and vanishing at the magnetic poles ($\theta = 0\degr, 180\degr$). In this case the Lorentz force corresponds to the case of the outward directed decay-induced force term at any non-polar area of the stellar surface. Therefore, determination of the sign of the Lorentz force provides an important constraint which is able to restrict [*direction of the field evolution*]{}.
According to @landstreet1987, who also considered a decay of an essentially dipolar fossil magnetic field, we should not expect any signatures of the Lorenz force in atmospheres of CP stars. In his model magnetic field has dipolar geometry throughout a magnetic star and electric field induced at the equator can be approximated with the following expression: $$E_{\rm eq} \sim \frac{R_{\rm \star} B_{\rm eq}}{c t},
\label{Einduce}$$ where ${R_{\rm\star}}$ is the stellar radius, $B_{\rm eq}$ is the strength of the dipole-like surface field at the magnetic equator and $t$ is the characteristic decay time of the magnetic field. For a typical A0 magnetic star with the surface field of 10 kG this leads to the value $E_{\rm eq} \sim 10^{-13}$ CGS, which is about 2–3 orders of magnitude smaller compared to the strength of the electric currents tested in our model calculations and inferred from the variations of hydrogen lines. The former theoretical estimate of $E_{\rm eq}$ is based on the $10^{10}$yr characteristic decay time of nearly dipolar fields. Thus, if the observed strong electric currents in the atmosphere of have the evolutionary nature, we may conclude that the general concept of a slow decay of the fossil, essentially dipolar, fields requires for revision. One should examine more realistic structures of the internal fields, and this may lead to faster field evolution. As it was recently shown by @mhd, dynamical stability of the global stellar magnetic fields is ensured if the interior field configuration includes both poloidal and toroidal components. Diffusive evolution of such a twisted field structure may lead to relatively rapid change of the surface field intensity. This, in turn, induces a noticeable atmospheric Lorentz force during certain periods in the star’s life. In this context advanced evolutionary stage of is remarkable.
Thus, large amplitude of the induced electric currents may indicate that the poloidal magnetic geometry, dominating at the surface, becomes significantly distorted inside a magnetic star. Such a distortion is very likely to be related to dynamical processes of the field evolution and, possibly, interaction with the core convective zone or differential rotation.
Non-evolutionary surface effects
--------------------------------
Generally, any global magnetic topology gives a large collection of possibilities of generation of the surface electric currents even without invoking the global magnetic field evolution. There are mechanisms which may produce significant atmospheric currents even in constant magnetic fields. For instance, @peterson considered interaction of the horizontal component of the magnetic field with a flow of charged particles, drifting in the atmosphere under the influence of the radiation pressure. The result of such an interaction is that drifting particles acquire some horizontal velocity component. This leads to appearance of the Lorentz force which may be significant for hot stars ($T_{\rm eff} > 18\,000-20\,000$K). More recently @leblanc studied a similar physical situation in the context of ambipolar diffusion. Furthermore, interaction of the magnetic field and stellar rotation may induce dynamical processes leading to the development of additional plasma flows (such as meridional circulations) which are able to create electric currents and the Lorentz force.
We have obtained our results under the assumption that the equatorial induced electric field is constant in vertical direction. This should be close to reality if we deal with evolving global magnetic field, whose variation is small throughout the observable atmospheric layers. This assumption, however, may not be applicable if the Lorentz force is related to, for example, the ambipolar diffusion. Nevertheless, our results provide an observational test to distinguish these effects.
As it was shown by @leblanc, the ambipolar diffusion is small for the weak field stars and increases in stars with the surface magnetic fields of about 10 kG and higher. It should be noted, however, that we have considered a relatively weak-field star ($B$$\approx$1 kG). Moreover, the [*inward directed*]{} Lorentz force predicted by the ambipolar diffusion theory is not supported by our observations, as we have found a much better agreement for the [*outward directed*]{} magnetic force. Nevertheless, we do not claim that our approach is the only way to address the problem of the generation of the Lorentz force in the atmospheres of CP stars. Before making final conclusion about the nature of the Lorentz force found in , alternative models should be applied to interpret our observational findings.
We thank J. Landstreet and G. Wade for useful discussions and their interest in this investigation. We also thankful to J. Braithwaite for useful comments. This work was supported by INTAS grant 03-55-652 to DS and Austrian Fonds zur Foerderung der wissenschaftolichen Forschung (P17890). GV and GG are grateful to the Korean MOST (Ministry of Science and Technology, grant M1-022-00-0005) and KOFST (Korean Federation of Science and Technology Societies) for providing them an opportunity to work at KAO through Brain Pool program. GV acknowledge the Russian Foundation for Basic Research for financial support (RFBR grant N 01-02-16808).
[100]{} Adelman, S. J., Pyper, D. M., Shore, S. N., White, R. E., & Warren, W. H. 1989, , 81, 221 Barklem, P. S., Piskunov, N., & O’Mara, B. J. 2000, , 363, 1091 Bagnulo, S., Landi Degl’Innocenti, M., Landolfi, M., & Mathys, G. 2002, , 394, 1023 Borra E. F., & Landstreet J. D. 1980, , 42, 421 Braithwaite, J., & Spruit, H. C. 2004, Nature, 431, 819 Carpenter, K. G. 1985, , 289, 660 Chandrasekhar, S. 1942, Principles of Stellar Dynamics, University of Chicago Press. Cowling, T. G. 1945, MNRAS, 105, 166 Galazutdinov, G.A. 1992, Prep. Spets. Astrophys. Obs., 92 Khan, S., & Shulyak, D. 2006a, , 448, 1153 Khan, S., & Shulyak, D. 2006b, , 454, 933 Kim, K. M., Jang, J. G., Chun, M. Y., et al. 2000, Publication of the Korean Astronomical Society, 15S, 119 (in Korean) Kochukhov, O., Khan, S., & Shulyak, D. 2005, , 433, 671 Kochukhov, O., & Bagnulo, S. 2006, , 450, 763 Kroll, R. 1989, 2, 194 Kurucz, R. L. 1993, Kurucz CD-ROM 13, Cambridge, SAO Kurucz, R. L. 1993, in Proc. IAU Coll. 138, Peculiar versus Normal Phenomena in A-type and Related Stars, eds. M. Dworetsky, F. Castelli, & R. Faraggiana, ASP Conf. Ser., 44, 87 Kupka, F., Piskunov, N., Ryabchikova, T. A., Stempels, H. C., & Weiss, W. W. 1999, , 138, 119 Kuschnig, R. 1998, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Vienna Landstreet, J. D. 1987, , 225, 437 Landstreet, J. D. 2001, in Magnetic Fields Across Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram, eds. G. Mathys, S.K. Solanki and D.T. Wickramasinghe, ASP Conf. Ser., 248, 277 LeBlanc, F., Michaud, G., & Babel, J. 1994, , 431, 388 Madej, J. 1983a, , 33, 1 Madej, J. 1983b, , 33, 253 Madej, J., Jahn, K., & Stȩpień, K. 1984, , 34, 419 Musielok, B., & Madej, J. 1988, , 202, 143 Peterson, D. M., & Theys, J. C. 1981, , 244, 947 Peterson, D. M., Hummel, C. A., Pauls, T. A., et al. 2006, , 440, 896 Pikelner, S. B. 1966, [*Principles of cosmic electrodynamics*]{}, (in Russian), Moscow: Nauka Piskunov, N. 1992, in Stellar Magnetism, ed. Yu. V. Glagolevskij, I. I. Romanyuk (St. Petersburg: Nauka), 92 Piskunov, N. E., Kupka, F., Ryabchikova, T. A., Weiss, W. W., & Jeffery, C. S. 1995, , 112, 525 Rice, J. B., & Wehlau, W. H. 1991, , 246, 195 Schluter, A. 1950, Zs.f. Naturforsch, 5a, 72 Shulyak, D., Tsymbal, V., Ryabchikova, T., Stütz Ch., & Weiss, W. W. 2004, , 428, 993 Stȩpień, K. 1978, , 70, 509 Tsymbal, V. V. 1996, in Model Atmospheres and Spectral Synthesis, eds. S. J. Adelman, F. Kupka & W. W. Weiss, ASP Conf. Ser., vol. 108, 198 Valyavin, G., Kochukhov, O., & Piskunov, N. 2004, , 420, 993 Valyavin, G., Kochukhov, O., Shulyak, D., Lee, B.-C., Galazutdinov, G., Kim. K.-M., & Han, I. 2005, JKAS, 38, 283 Wade, G. A., Donati, J.-F., Landstreet, J. D., & Shorlin, S.L.S. 2000, , 313, 851 Wrubel, M. H. 1952, , 116, 291
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Subtraction games are played with one or more heaps of tokens, with players taking turns removing from a single heap a number of tokens belonging to a specified *subtraction set*; the last player to move wins. We describe how to compute the set of winning heap sizes in single-heap subtraction games (for an input consisting of the subtraction set and maximum heap size $n$), in time $\tilde O(n)$, where the $\tilde O$ elides logarithmic factors. For multi-heap games, the optimal game play is determined by the *nim-value* of each heap; we describe how to compute the nim-values of all heaps of size up to $n$ in time $\tilde O(mn)$, where $m$ is the maximum nim-value occurring among these heap sizes. These time bounds improve naive dynamic programming algorithms with time $O(n|S|)$, because $m\le|S|$ for all such games. We apply these results to the game of subtract-a-square, whose set of winning positions is a maximal square-difference-free set of a type studied in number theory in connection with the Furstenberg–Sárközy theorem. We provide experimental evidence that, for this game, the set of winning positions has a density comparable to that of the densest known square-difference-free sets, and has a modular structure related to the known constructions for these dense sets. Additionally, this game’s nim-values are (experimentally) significantly smaller than the size of its subtraction set, implying that our algorithm achieves a polynomial speedup over dynamic programming.'
author:
- David Eppstein
bibliography:
- 'subtraction.bib'
title: Faster Evaluation of Subtraction Games
---
[Computer Science Department, University of California, Irvine]{}[[email protected]]{}[Supported in part by NSF grants CCF-1618301 and CCF-1616248.]{}
Introduction
============
*Subtraction games* were made famous by the French film *L’Année dernière à Marienbad* (1961), which showed repeated scenes of two men playing Nim. A subtraction game is played by two players, with some heaps of game tokens (such as coins, stones, or, in the film, matchsticks) between them. On each turn, a player may take away a number of tokens from a single heap. The tokens removed in each turn are discarded, and play continues until all the tokens are gone. Under the *normal winning convention*, the last player to move is the winner [@BerConGuy-SG-82]. In Nim, any number of tokens may be removed in a turn. This game has a simple analysis according to which it is a winning move to make the bitwise exclusive-or of the binary representations of the heap sizes become zero. If this bitwise exclusive-or is already zero, the player who just moved already has a winning position [@ONAG-11]. However, other subtraction games require the number of removed tokens to belong to a predetermined set of numbers, the *subtraction set* of the game. Different subtraction sets lead to different games with different strategies.[^1]
All subtraction games are *impartial*, meaning that the choice of moves on each turn does not depend on who is making the move. As such, with the normal winning convention, these games can be analyzed by the Sprague–Grundy theory, according to which each heap of tokens in a subtraction game has a *nim-value*, the size of an equivalent heap in the game of Nim [@Spr-Tohoku-35; @Gru-Eur-39; @ONAG-11]. The optimal play in any such game is to move to make the bitwise exclusive-or of the nim-values zero. The winning positions are the ones in which this bitwise exclusive-or is already zero. Unlike Nim itself, positions with a single nonempty heap of tokens may be winning for the player who just moved; this is true when the nim-value of the heap is zero. The heap sizes whose nim-values are zero are called “cold”, while the remaining heap sizes are called “hot”. In a game with a single heap of tokens, it is a winning move to take a number of tokens such that the remaining tokens form a cold position. If the position is already cold, the player who just moved already has a winning position, because the player to move must move to a hot position.
Every finite subtraction set leads to a game with periodic nim-values (depending only on the sizes of the heaps modulo a fixed number). Some natural choices of infinite subtraction set, such as the prime numbers, also do not lead to interesting subtraction games [@Gol-JCT-66]. However, a more complicated subtraction game, “subtract-a-square”, has the square numbers as its subtraction set. That is, on each move, each player may remove any square number of tokens from any single heap of tokens. The game of subtract-a-square was studied in 1966 by Golomb [@Gol-JCT-66], who calls it “remarkably complex”; Golomb credits its invention to Richard A. Epstein.[^2] Its sequence of nim-values, $$0, 1, 0, 1, 2, 0, 1, 0, 1, 2, 0, 1, 0, 1, 2, 0, 1, 0, 1, 2, 0, 1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 2, 3, 4, 5, 3, 2, 3, 4, 0,\dots$$ ([sequence A014586](https://oeis.org/A014586) in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, OEIS) displays no obvious patterns.
Subtract-a-square has another reason for interest, beyond investigations related to combinatorial game theory. The set $C$ of cold positions in this game, $$0,2,5,7,10,12,15,17,20,22,34,39,44, 52, 57, 62, 65, 67, 72, 85, 95,\dots$$ ([sequence A030193](https://oeis.org/A030193) in the OEIS) has the property that no two elements of $C$ differ by a square number. A sequence with this property is called a square-difference-free set. The cold positions of subtract-a-square are square-difference-free because, whenever $c$ is a cold position, and $i$ is a positive integer, $c+i^2$ must be hot, as one could win by moving from $c+i^2$ to $c$. The square-difference-free sets have been extensively investigated in number theory, following the work of Furstenberg [@Fur-JAM-77] and Sárközy [@Sar-AMASH-78], who showed that they have natural density zero. This means that, for all $\epsilon$, there exists an $N$ such that, for all $n>N$, the fraction of positive integers up to $n$ that belong to the set is at most $\epsilon$.
More strongly, the set $C$ of cold positions in subtract-a-square is a maximal square-difference-free set. Every positive integer that is not in $C$ (a hot position) has a move to a cold position, so it could not be added to $C$ without destroying the square-difference-free property. Every maximal square-difference-free subset of the range $[0,n]$ must have size at least $\Omega(\sqrt{n})$ (otherwise there would not be enough sums or differences of set elements and squares to prevent the addition of another number in this range)[^3] and size at most $$O\left(\frac{n}{(\log n)^{\frac{1}{4}\log\log\log\log n}}\right)$$ by quantitative forms of the Furstenberg–Sárközy theorem [@PinSteSze-JLMS-88]. In particular, these bounds apply to $|C\cap[0,n]|$, the number of cold positions of subtract-a-square up to $n$. However, it is not known whether these upper and lower bounds are tight or where the number of cold positions lies with respect to them. In the densest known maximal square-difference-free sets, the number of elements up to $n$ is $$\Omega\left(n^{(1+\log_{205}12)/2}\right)\approx n^{0.733412}.$$ The construction for these dense sets involves finding a square-difference-free set modulo some base $b$, and selecting the numbers whose base-$b$ representation has these values in its even digit positions and arbitrary values in its odd digit positions [@Ruz-PMH-84]. The bound given in the formula above comes from applying this method to a square-difference-free set of 12 values modulo 205 [@BeiGas-08; @Lew-EJC-15]. Plausibly, a greater understanding of the nim-values of subtract-a-square could lead to progress in this area of number theory.
Algorithmically, for a subtraction game in which the allowed moves are to take a number of tokens in a given set $S$, the nim-values can be computed by dynamic programming, using the recurrence $$\operatorname{nimvalue}(n)=\operatorname*{mex}_{i\in S, i\le n} \operatorname{nimvalue}(n-i).$$ Here, the “mex” operator (short for “minimum excludent” [@ONAG-11]) returns the smallest non-negative integer that cannot be represented by an expression of the given form. No separate base case is needed, because in the base case (when $n=0$), the set of available moves (numbers in $S$ that are at most $n$) is empty and the mex of an empty set of choices is zero. Evaluating this recurrence, for all heap sizes up to a given threshold $n$, takes time $O(n|S|)$. The set $C$ of cold positions can be determined within the same time bound, by applying this recurrence and then returning the set of positions whose nim-value is zero.
However, in the study of algorithms, many naive dynamic programming algorithms turn out to be suboptimal: they can be improved by more sophisticated algorithms for the same problem. Is that the case for this one? We will see that it is. We provide the following two results:
- We show how to compute the set of cold positions in a given subtraction game, for heaps of size up to a given threshold $n$, in time $\tilde O(n)$.
- We show how to compute the nim-values of a given subtraction game, for heaps of size up to a given threshold $n$, in time $\tilde O(mn)$.
In these time bounds, the $\tilde O$ notation elides logarithmic factors in the time bound, and the parameter $m$ refers to the maximum nim-value of any position within the given range.
Ignoring the logarithmic factors hidden in the $\tilde O$ notation, our time bounds are always at least as good as the $O(n|S|)$ time for naive dynamic programming, because for any subtraction game $m\le |S|$ (if there are only $|S|$ possible moves, the mex of their values can be at most $m$). But are they actually a significant improvement? To answer this, we need to know how quickly $m$ grows compared to the known growth rate of $|S|$.
To determine whether our algorithms provide a speedup for the game of subtract-a-square, we performed a sequence of computational experiments to determine the density of this game’s cold positions and the growth rate of its largest nim-values. We find experimentally that, up to a given $n$, the largest nim-value appears to grow as $O(n^{0.35})$, significantly more slowly than the $O(n^{1/2})$ growth rate of the subtraction set. The difference in the growth rates for these quantities shows that our algorithms are indeed an asymptotic improvement by a polynomial factor. Additionally, the number of cold positions appears to grow at least as quickly as $n^{0.69}$. That is, the cold positions of this game provide an unexpectedly large square-difference-free set, competitive with the best theoretical constructions for these sets. Examining the modular structure of the set of cold positions, we find that it appears to be similar to the structure of these theoretical constructions, with a square-difference-free set of digit values in even positions and arbitrary values in odd positions.
Algorithms
==========
Subtraction with hotspots
-------------------------
In order to evaluate subtraction games efficiently, it will be convenient to generalize them somewhat, to a class of *subtraction games with hotspots*. Given two sets $S$ and $H$ (of positive and non-negative integers respectively), we define a subtraction game with subtraction set $S$ and hotspot set $H$ as follows. The game starts with a single pile of some number of tokens, and the players alternate in choosing a number from $S$ and removing that number of tokens from the pile, as before. However, if any move leaves a pile whose remaining number of tokens belongs to $H$, then the player who made that move immediately loses. (This is not quite the same as allowing the other player to remove all the tokens from piles whose size belongs to $H$, because $H$ might contain the number zero, in which case removing all the tokens could be a losing move instead of a winning move.)
The presence of these hotspots makes defining a nim-value for these games problematic: they are not played by the normal winning convention, so what would happen if we played a game with multiple piles and one player moved to a hotspot? Nevertheless, a recurrence of the usual form suffices to determine the set of hot and cold positions of such a game: $$\operatorname{hot}(n)=n\in H \vee
\bigvee\limits_{i\in S, i\le n} \lnot\operatorname{hot}(n-i).$$
Finding the hotspots
--------------------
In a subtraction game (with subtraction set $S$, with or without hotspots), suppose that some set $C$ of positions has already been determined to be cold. Then all positions $H$ that can reach $C$ in a single move are automatically hot. We can formulate membership in this set of hot positions as a Boolean formula in conjunctive normal form (2-CNF): $$(i\in H) \Longleftrightarrow \bigvee\limits_{j+k=i} (j\in C)\wedge (k\in S).$$
Now suppose that $C$ and $S$ are both represented as bitvectors: arrays of binary values that are $0$ for non-members and $1$ for members of each set. Then the problem of computing the bitvector representation of $H$ from the above formula is a standard problem known as *Boolean convolution*, studied for its applications in string matching [@FisPat-CC-74; @MutPal-STOC-94; @Kal-SODA-02]. It is an instance of a more general class of convolution problems in which we compute $$C[i]=\mathop{\oplus}\limits_{j+k=i}A[j]\otimes B[j]$$ for an “addition” operation $\oplus$ and “multiplication” operation $\otimes$. In Boolean convolution, $\otimes$ is conjunction ($\wedge$), and $\oplus$ is disjunction ($\vee$).
If the input bitvectors have total length $n$, their Boolean convolution can be computed in $O(n\log n)$ time by replacing their Boolean values with the numbers $0$ and $1$ and computing a numerical convolution (with addition as $\oplus$ and multiplication as $\otimes$) using the fast Fourier transform algorithm.
Divide and conquer
------------------
We are now ready to describe our algorithm for finding the hot and cold positions of a subtraction game with hotspots. We assume that we are given as input a range $[x,y)$ of integer values to evaluate (following the Python convention for half-open integer ranges where the bottom delimiter is inside the range and the top delimiter is outside it), together with two sets: the subtraction set $S$ and a set $H$ of predetermined hotspots.
As a base case, if the range has zero or one values in it, we can solve the problem directly: each value in the range is hot or cold accordingly as it belongs or does not belong to $H$, respectively. Otherwise, we perform the following steps:
1. Find the midpoint $m=(x+y)/2$ of the range, and partition the range into the two subranges $[x,m)$ and $[m,y)$.
2. Recursively evaluate the lower subrange $[x,m)$, determining its hot and cold positions ($H_x$ and $C_x$ respectively).
3. Use Boolean convolution to find the positions $H_m$ in the upper subrange $[m,y)$ that are hot because they can be reached in a single step from a cold position $C_x$ in the lower subrange.
4. Recursively evaluate the upper subrange $[m,y)$, with hotspot set $H\cup H_m$, determining its hot and cold positions ($H_y$ and $C_y$ respectively).
5. Return the hot set $H_x\cup H_y$ and cold set $C_x\cup C_y$.
The time for this algorithm can be analyzed using the master method, as is standard for such divide-and-conquer algorithms, giving the following result:
We can determine which positions are hot and which are cold, in a range of $n$ positions of a subtraction game with hotspots, in time $O(n\log^2 n)$.
Nim-values
----------
We can reduce the computation of nim-values in a subtraction game to the computation of hot and cold positions in a subtraction game with hotspots, via the following lemma.
\[lem:hot-from-cold\] Let $S$ be a subtraction set, and let $H$ be the set of positions in the subtraction game for $S$ that have nim-value at most $t$. Then the positions that have nim-value $t+1$ are exactly the cold positions of the subtraction game with hotspots with subtraction set $S$ and hotspot set $H$.
A position has nim-value $t+1$ if it does not belong to $H$ (else it would have a smaller nim-value) and does not have a move to a smaller position with nim-value $t+1$ (else $t+1$ would not be one of its excluded values). But this is exactly the defining condition for the cold positions of the subtraction game with hotspots.
In any subtraction game with subtraction set $S$, we can determine the nim-values of the first $n$ positions in time $O(mn\log^2 n)$, where $m$ is the maximum nim-value of any of these positions.
We loop over the range of nim-values from $0$ to $s$, using to compute the set of positions having each successive nim-value in time $O(n\log^2 n)$ per nim-value. The loop terminates when all of the first $n$ positions have been assigned a nim-value.
The maximum nim-value of a subtraction game is $|S|$, so (except for the logarithmic factors) this time bound compares favorably with a naive $O(n|S|)$ dynamic programming algorithm for computing the nim-values of each position by finding the minimum excluded value among the other positions reachable from it.
Experiments
===========
To compare the performance of our Boolean convolution based evaluation algorithms to naive algorithms for subtract-a-square, we performed some computational experiments, which we describe here.
Maximum nim-value
-----------------
![The maximum nim-values $m$ seen among the first $n$ positions in subtract-a-square.[]{data-label="fig:sas"}](sas){width="85.00000%"}
plots (on a doubly logarithmic scale) the maximum nim-values $m$ seen among the first $n$ positions in subtract-a-square. Only the positions where a new maximum is attained are included in the plot.
We fitted a function of the form $cn^e$ (a monomial with constant coefficient $c$ and exponent $e$) to these points, by using Siegel’s repeated median estimator [@Sie-BM-82], a form of robust statistical regression that is insensitive to outliers (as would be expected to occur in the lower left parts of the plot). This estimator fits a line through a sample of points by, for each point, computing the median of the slopes formed by it and the other points, and then choosing the slope of the fit line to be the median of these medians. It similarly chooses the height of the fit line so that it passes above and below an equal number of points. We applied this to the points on our log-log plot, using the mblm library of the R statistical package, which implements this estimator, and then transformed the fit line back to a monomial over the original coordinates of the data points. The result is shown in red in the figure.
As the figure shows, the maximum nim-value $m$ among the first $n$ positions of subtract-a-square is accurately estimated by a function of the form $O(n^{0.351})$, well below the $O(n^{0.5})$ size of the subtraction set for this game. Therefore, we would expect our $O(mn\log^2 n)$-time convolution-based algorithm for computing the nim-values of this game to be asymptotically faster than the $O(n^{3/2})$ time for dynamic programming. However, even if we ignore the different constant factors in the running times of these two algorithms, $n$ needs to be approximately $10^{26}$ in order for $n^{1.35}\log_2^2n$ to be smaller than $n^{1.5}$, so we would not expect this speedup to be applicable to practically relevant ranges of $n$. Because of the simplicity and relative efficiency of the dynamic programming algorithm for small $n$, the values in (for $n$ up to $2^{24}$) were computed by dynamic programming rather than convolution.
Number of cold positions
------------------------
![The number of cold positions among the first $n$ positions in subtract-a-square.[]{data-label="fig:density"}](density){width="85.00000%"}
Our next experiment measures the number of cold positions among the first $n$ positions in subtract-a-square (). In order to provide more data points in the lower left part of the log-log plot than would be visible if we used uniform sampling of the range of values of $n$, the plot of shows the number of cold positions for each value of $n$ that is a perfect cube (that is, for the values $1,8,27,64,\dots$) up to $2^{30}$. As in the previous experiment, we fitted a monomial function to these points using Siegel’s repeated median estimator.
The number of cold positions does not directly affect the time bound for our convolution-based algorithm. However, it does affect the time for a different algorithm, for computing the set of cold positions (but not their nim-values) directly, in any subtraction game. This algorithm is analogous to the sieve of Eratosthenes, which finds prime numbers iteratively, for each one marking off the numbers that are not prime. To compute the cold positions among the first $n$ positions, it performs the following steps:
1. Initialize a Boolean array $H$ of length $n$ (indicating whether each position is hot) to be false in each cell.
2. For each position $i$ from $0$ to $n$, test whether $H[i]$ is still false. If it is, perform the following steps:
1. Output $i$ as one of the cold positions.
2. For each value $s$ in the subtraction set $S$, mark $i+s$ as hot by setting $H[i+s]$ to be true.
If the set of cold positions up to $n$ is $C$, and the subtraction set is $S$, then this sieving algorithm takes time $O(|C|\cdot|S|)$.
In some subtraction games, $C$ could be as small as $n/|S|$, in which case the sieving algorithm would take linear time. However, our experiments show that, for subtract-a-square, $C$ appears to grow more like $n^{0.7}$, giving the sieving algorithm a running time of approximately $n^{1.2}$, compared to the $O(n\log^2 n)$ time bound of the convolution based algorithm. Again ignoring the constant factors in the time bounds, $n$ would need to be approximately $10^{18}$ for the convolution-based algorithm to be faster than the sieving algorithm. Because it is simple to code and fast for smaller values of $n$, the results in were calculated using the sieving algorithm.
Modularity
----------
![The distribution of digit values among the three low-order base-5 digits of cold positions (for $n<2^{30}$) in subtract-a-square.[]{data-label="fig:mod5"}](mod5){width="85.00000%"}
![The distribution of digit values among the low-order base-7 and base-13 digits of cold positions (for $n<2^{30}$) in subtract-a-square.[]{data-label="fig:moremods"}](moremods){width="85.00000%"}
The high density of cold positions in subtract-a-square is surprising, especially in view of earlier conjectures in the theory of square-difference-free sets that the number of values up to $n$ in such a set could be at most $n^{1/2+o(1)}$ [@Sar-AUSB-78]. These conjectures were disproven by finding sets of numbers of a special form: numbers whose radix-$b$ representation, for a carefully chosen base $b$, use only base-$b$ digits from a square-difference-free set (modulo $b$) in their even digit positions [@Ruz-PMH-84; @BeiGas-08; @Lew-EJC-15]. Although the cold positions of subtract-a-square have somewhat lower density than these constructions, they arise more naturally, and it is of interest to investigate their modular structure and compare it to the structure of these other known dense square-difference-free sets.
The idea of considering the base-$b$ structure of these positions, for different choices of the base $b$, also arises from the consideration of a different subtraction game, described by Golomb [@Gol-JCT-66]. This game has as its subtraction set the Moser–de Bruijn sequence $$0, 1, 4, 5, 16, 17, 20, 21, 64, 65, 68, 69,\dots$$ of numbers that are sums of distinct powers of four. That is, when written in base 4, the numbers of the subtraction set have only 0 and 1 as their base-4 digits. The nim-value of any position $n$ may be obtained by writing $n$ in base 4, taking each digit modulo 2 (reducing it to 0 or 1), and then reinterpreting the resulting string of 0’s and 1’s as a binary number. Because of this simple formula for its nim-values, the Moser–de Bruijn subtraction game has both a maximum nim-value and a number of cold positions (among the first $n$ positions) proportional to $\Theta(\sqrt n)$. It subtraction set size, also $\Theta(\sqrt n)$, is comparable to that for subtract-a-square. In particular, for this game, convolution is neither asymptotically faster than dynamic programming nor than sieving, although all of these algorithms can be improved by using the formula instead. What makes subtract-a-square so different from the Moser–de Bruijn subtraction game?
To approach these questions, we performed more computational experiments studying the distribution of digit values for the cold positions in subtract-a-square, for various bases. This study follows the earlier work of Golomb [@Gol-JCT-66], who observed that the low-order base-5 digits of the cold positions among the first first 20,000 game positions were highly non-uniformly distributed, and of Bush [@Bus-sm-92], who extended this study to the first 40,000,000 game positions. shows an extension of this study to the first $2^{30}$ game positions, and to the three low-order base-5 digits of each cold position. As the figure shows, with a few exceptions, the ones digit of the cold positions lies within the square-difference-free set $\{0,2\}\pmod{5}$. The fives digit shows no significant non-uniformities, but the twentyfives digit is quite non-uniformly distributed, and is possibly heading towards the same square-difference-free set $\{0,2\}\pmod{5}$. In this way, the cold positions of subtract-a-square appear to be emulating the strategy of the known dense square-difference-free sets [@Ruz-PMH-84; @BeiGas-08; @Lew-EJC-15] of having a square-difference-free set of digits in even digit positions and all possible digits in odd positions modulo a base $b$. In this case $b=5$, and following this strategy perfectly for $b=5$ would lead to a set of size $n^{\log_{10} 25}\approx n^{0.71534}$. The slightly slower growth rate of the cold positions in subtract-a-square can be explained by the slow convergence of its higher-order base-5 digits to square-difference-free sets of digits.
What about other bases? shows the results of the same experiment (for the low-order digits only) for base 7 and base 13. Because 7 is 3 modulo 4, there are no nontrivial square-difference-free sets modulo 7: every two numbers modulo 7 differ by a square (mod 7). Perhaps because of this, the digit values in base 7 show no significant nonuniformities. However, modulo 13, the squares are $0$, $\pm 1$, $\pm 3$, and $\pm 4$. Because 13 is 1 modulo 4, each of the nonzero squares occurs four times among the squares of values mod 13; for instance, $\pm 3$ is the square of $4$, $6$, $7$, and $9$ (mod 13). As the figure shows, the low-order digits of the base-13 representations of the cold positions in subtract-a-square appear to be converging towards the square-difference-free set $\{0,2,7\}$ (mod 13). Perhaps subtract-a-square implements the modular strategy for finding dense square-difference-free sets in all prime bases (congruent to 1 mod 4) simultaneously?
Conclusions
===========
We have developed new convolution-based methods for evaluating arbitrary subtraction games (either to determine the set of cold positions or to evaluate the nim-value of each position). Our experiments on the subtract-a-square game show that its maximum nim-value is lower than the theoretical value for games with subtraction sets of the same size, and its number of cold positions is higher than the theoretical value. These results show that, asymptotically, our new algorithms are faster than alternative dynamic programming or sieving approaches for the same problems on this game. However, the breakeven point for the new algorithms is high enough that our convolution-based approach is not yet practical. It would be of interest to develop improved algorithms that are both asymptotically faster and more practical than existing approaches.
In an attempt to investigate why the cold positions of subtract-a-square produce a dense square-difference-free set, we investigated the base-$b$ representations of the cold positions for several small prime choices of $b$. Our tests found significant irregularities in the even positions of these base-$b$ representations, when $b$ is congruent to 1 mod 4. We leave the problem of finding a theoretical explanation for these patterns, and for the density of the cold positions in subtract-a-square, as open for future research.
[^1]: Golomb [@Gol-JCT-66] has considered an even more general class of games, in which the subtraction set specifies combinations of numbers of tokens that may be simultaneously removed from each pile.
[^2]: No relation.
[^3]: See Golomb [@Gol-JCT-66], Theorem 4.1.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The semi-classical data attached to stacks of algebroids in the sense of Kashiwara and Kontsevich are [Maurer-Cartan ]{}elements on complex manifolds, which we call extended Poisson structures as they generalize holomorphic Poisson structures. A canonical Lie algebroid is associated to each [Maurer-Cartan ]{}element. We study the geometry underlying these [Maurer-Cartan ]{}elements in the light of Lie algebroid theory. In particular, we extend [Lichnerowicz-Poisson ]{}cohomology and [Koszul-Brylinski ]{}homology to the realm of extended Poisson manifolds; we establish a sufficient criterion for these to be finite dimensional; we describe how homology and cohomology are related through the Evens-Lu-Weinstein duality module; and we describe a duality on [Koszul-Brylinski ]{}homology, which generalizes the Serre duality of Dolbeault cohomology.'
address:
- 'Tsinghua University, Department of Mathematics'
- 'Université Paris Diderot, Institut de Mathématiques de Jussieu'
- 'Pennsylvania State University, Department of Mathematics'
author:
- Zhuo Chen
- Mathieu Stiénon
- Ping Xu
title: |
Geometry of Maurer-Cartan Elements\
on Complex Manifolds
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction
============
Due to their close connection to mirror symmetry, noncommutative deformations of complex manifolds have recently generated increasing interest [@MR1855264; @Bondal]. Kashiwara-Kontsevich’s stacks of algebroids are one way of substantiating the abstract concept of quantum complex manifolds (or noncommutative deformations of complex manifolds) [@MR1855264; @MR1384750; @KS1; @KS2; @MR2348030; @Tsygan1; @Y1]. The quantization of the sheaf of holomorphic functions ${\mathcal{O}_{{\boldsymbol{X}}}}$ of a complex manifold ${\boldsymbol{X}}$ may no longer produce a sheaf of algebras but, instead, lead to a nonabelian gerbe over the complex manifold ${\boldsymbol{X}}$ [@MR2348030; @Y2] or, in Kontsevich’s terminology, a stack of algebroids. Roughly speaking, an algebroid *à la* Kontsevich consists of an open cover $\{U_i\}_{i\in I}$ of the complex manifold ${\boldsymbol{X}}$, a sheaf of associative unital algebras ${\mathscr{A}}_i$ on each $U_i$, an isomorphism of algebras $g_{ij}:{\mathscr{A}}_j|_{U_{ij}}\to{\mathscr{A}}_i|_{U_{ij}}$ for each nonempty intersection $U_{ij}$, and an invertible element $a_{ijk}\in \Gamma (U_{ijk}, {\mathscr{A}}_i^{\times} )$ for each triple intersection $U_{ijk}$. The isomorphisms $g_{ij}$ do not satisfy the usual cocycle condition. Instead, the equations $g_{ij}\circ g_{jk}\circ g_{ki}=\operatorname{Ad}_{a^{-1}_{ijk}}$ are satisfied as well as other compatibility conditions (among which a “tetrahedron equation”). In the terminology of [@LSX:adv], an algebroid *à la* Kontsevich would be described as an extension of a [Čech ]{}groupoid by algebras. A stack of algebroids can be thought of as a Morita equivalence class (see [@LSX:adv]) of algebroids. A canonical abelian category of coherent sheaves can be defined on a quantum complex manifold using its stack of algebroids description [@MR1855264; @MR1384750; @KS1; @KS2].
It is well known that the semi-classical data attached to quantum real manifolds (i.e. star-algebras) are Poisson structures [@MR0496157; @MR0496158]. The cotangent bundle of a real Poisson manifold $(M,\pi)$ is endowed with a canonical Lie algebroid structure denoted by $(T^*M)_{\pi}$. This Lie algebroid structure plays a central role in Poisson geometry. For instance, the Lichnerowicz-Poisson cohomology is simply the Lie algebroid cohomology of $(T^*M)_{\pi}$ with trivial coefficients. Evens-Lu-Weinstein discovered a procedure for constructing a canonical module over a given Lie algebroid. With the canonical module of $(T^*M)_{\pi}$ at hand, they interpreted Koszul-Brylinski homology as a Lie algebroid cohomology. According to Kontsevich’s formality theorem and Tsygan’s chain formality theorem, the Hochschild cohomology and Hochschild homology of a star algebra are isomorphic to the Lichnerowicz-Poisson cohomology and Koszul-Brylinski homology of the underlying Poisson manifold.
In the context of complex geometry, the semiclassical data associated to quantum complex manifolds are solutions of the Maurer-Cartan equation in the derived global sections $R{\Gamma( X,\wedge^\bullet {T{\boldsymbol{X}}}[1])}$ of the sheaf of graded Lie algebras $\wedge^\bullet {T{\boldsymbol{X}}}[1]$ of polyvector fields on ${\boldsymbol{X}}$, which, according to Kontsevich’s formality theorem, classify the deformations of stacks of algebroids up to gauge transformations [@MR1855264; @Y1; @MR2348030]. More precisely, a Maurer-Cartan element is an $$H=\pi+\theta+\omega
\in{\Omega^{0,0}}(\wedge^2 {T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}})\oplus{\Omega^{0,1}}(\wedge^1
{T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}})\oplus{\Omega^{0,2}}(\wedge^0 {T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}})$$ (where ${\Omega^{0,p}}(\wedge^q
{T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}}$) denotes the space of $\wedge^q{T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}}$-valued $(0,p)$-forms on ${\boldsymbol{X}}$) satisfying the following equations: $$\begin{aligned}
&{\bar{\partial}}\omega+{[\omega,\theta]}=0, &{\bar{\partial}}\pi + {[\theta,\pi]}=0, \\
&{\bar{\partial}}\theta+{[\omega,\pi]}+{\tfrac{1}{2}}{[\theta,\theta]}=0, &{[\pi,\pi]}=0.\end{aligned}$$
Holomorphic Poisson bivector fields are special cases of such [Maurer-Cartan ]{}elements, as are holomorphic $(0,2)$-forms. For this reason, complex manifolds endowed with such a [Maurer-Cartan ]{}element $H$ will be called extended Poisson manifolds. In a recent paper [@arXiv:0903.5065], one of the authors studied the Koszul-Brylinski homology of holomorphic Poisson manifolds, and established a duality on it using the general theory developed by Evens-Lu-Weinstein [@MR1726784].
In this paper, in order to study the geometry of extended Poisson manifolds, we apply the Evens-Lu-Weinstein theory to complex Lie algebroids. Indeed, considering Maurer-Cartan elements as Hamiltonian operators (in the sense of [@MR1472888]) deforming a Lie bialgebroid [@MR1262213], we define a complex Lie algebroid, which mimics the role played by the cotangent Lie algebroid in real Poisson geometry. It is not surprising that, for a holomorphic Poisson structure, this complex Lie algebroid is the derived Lie algebroid of the holomorphic cotangent Lie algebroid $({T^*{\boldsymbol{X}}})_{\pi}$, i.e. the matched pair ${{T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}\bowtie ({T^*{\boldsymbol{X}}})_{\pi}^{(1,0)}$ studied in [@MR2439547; @arXiv:0903.5065]. Using this complex Lie algebroid, we introduce a Lichnerowicz-Poisson cohomology and a Koszul-Brylinski homology for extended Poisson manifolds, and study the relation between them. We extend the notion of coisotropic submanifolds of holomorphic Poisson manifolds to the “extended” setting. We give a criterion on the ellipticity of the complex Lie algebroid (in the sense of Block [@math/0509284]) induced by a [Maurer-Cartan ]{}element. And in the elliptic case, we obtain a duality, which we call Evens-Lu-Weinstein duality, on the Koszul-Brylinski homology groups. As was pointed out in [@arXiv:0903.5065] for the holomorphic Poisson case, this duality generalizes the Serre duality on Dolbeault cohomology.
Note that, modulo gauge equivalences, our extended Poisson structures and Yekutieli’s Poisson deformations (see [@Y1]) are equivalent. It would be interesting to explore the connection between our results on Poisson homology and Berest-Etingof-Ginzburg’s [@MR2034924]. It would also be interesting to investigate if one can extend the method in this paper to study the Bruhat-Poisson structures of Evens-Lu on flag varieties [@EL:flag] and the toric Poisson structures of Caine [@Caine].
**Acknowledgments.** We would like to thank Penn State University (Chen), ETH Zurich (Xu) and Peking University (Stiénon and Xu) for their hospitality while work on this project was being done. We also wish to thank many people for useful discussions and comments, including Camille Laurent-Gengoux, Giovanni Felder, Jiang-Hua Lu, Pierre Schapira and Alan Weinstein.
Preliminaries
=============
Lie bialgebroids
----------------
A complex Lie algebroid [@arXiv:math/0601752] consists of a complex vector bundle ${A}\to M$, a bundle map ${a}:{A}\to T_{\mathbb{C}}M$ called anchor, and a Lie algebra bracket ${[\cdot,\cdot]}$ on the space of sections ${\Gamma({A})}$ such that ${a}$ induces a Lie algebra homomorphism from ${\Gamma({A})}$ to ${\mathfrak{X}}_{\mathbb{C}}(M)$ and the Leibniz rule $$\label{1} {[u,fv]}=\big({a}(u)f\big)v+f{[u,v]}$$ is satisfied for all $f\in{C^{\infty}(M,{\mathbb{C}})}$ and $u,v\in{\Gamma({A})}$.
It is well-known that a Lie algebroid $({A},{[\cdot,\cdot]},{a})$ is equivalent to a Gerstenhaber algebra $({\Gamma(\wedge{^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}{A})},\wedge,{[\cdot,\cdot]})$ [@MR1675117]. On the other hand, for a Lie algebroid structure on a vector bundle ${A}$, there is also a degree 1 derivation ${d}$ of the graded commutative algebra $({\Gamma(\wedge{^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}{{A}^*})},\wedge)$ such that ${d}^2=0$. The differential ${d}$ is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{m2} ({d}\alpha)(u_0,u_1,\cdots,u_n)=\sum_{i=0}^n (-1)^i
{a}(u_i) \alpha(u_0,\cdots,\widehat{u_i},\cdots,u_n) \\
+ \sum_{i<j} (-1)^{i+j}
\alpha({[u_i,u_j]},u_0,\cdots,\widehat{u_i},\cdots,\widehat{u_j},\cdots,u_n).\end{gathered}$$ Indeed, a Lie algebroid structure on ${A}$ is also equivalent to a differential graded algebra $({\Gamma(\wedge{^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}{{A}^*})},\wedge,{d})$.
Let ${A}\to M$ be a complex vector bundle. Assume that ${A}$ and its dual ${{A}^*}$ both carry Lie algebroid structures with anchor maps ${a}:{A}\to
T_{\mathbb{C}}M$ and ${{a}_*}:{{A}^*}\to T_{\mathbb{C}}M$, brackets on sections ${\Gamma({A})}\otimes_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\Gamma({A})}\to{\Gamma({A})}:u\otimes
v\mapsto{[u,v]}$ and ${\Gamma({{A}^*})}\otimes_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\Gamma({{A}^*})}\to{\Gamma({{A}^*})}:\alpha\otimes
\beta\mapsto{[\alpha,\beta]_*}$, and differentials ${d}:{\Gamma(\wedge^{\bullet}{{A}^*})}\to{\Gamma(\wedge^{\bullet+1}{{A}^*})}$ and ${{d}_*}:{\Gamma(\wedge^{\bullet}{A})}\to{\Gamma(\wedge^{\bullet+1}{A})}$.
This pair of Lie algebroids $({A},{{A}^*})$ is a Lie bialgebroid [@MR1362125; @MR1746902; @MR1262213] if ${{d}_*}$ is a derivation of the Gerstenhaber algebra $({\Gamma(\wedge{^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}{A})},\wedge,{[\cdot,\cdot]})$ or, equivalently, if ${d}$ is a derivation of the Gerstenhaber algebra $({\Gamma(\wedge{^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}{{A}^*})},\wedge,{[\cdot,\cdot]_*})$. Since the bracket ${[\cdot,\cdot]_*}$ (resp. ${[\cdot,\cdot]}$) can be recovered from the derivation ${{d}_*}$ (resp. ${d}$), one is led to the following alternative definition.
A Lie bialgebroid $({A},{{A}^*})$ is equivalent to a differential Gerstenhaber algebra structure on $({\Gamma(\wedge{^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}{A})},\wedge,{[\cdot,\cdot]},{{d}_*})$ (or, equivalently, on $({\Gamma(\wedge{^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}{{A}^*})},\wedge,{[\cdot,\cdot]}_*,{d})$).
Hamiltonian operators
---------------------
Let $({A},{{A}^*})$ be a complex Lie bialgebroid, and $H\in{\Gamma(\wedge^2{A})}$. We now replace the differential ${{d}_*}:{\Gamma(\wedge{^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}{A})}\to{\Gamma(\wedge^{\bullet+1}{A})}$ by a twist by $H$: $$\label{eq:dH}
{{{d}_*}^H}:{\Gamma(\wedge^\bullet{A})}\to{\Gamma(\wedge^{\bullet+1}{A})}, \qquad {{{d}_*}^H}u={{d}_*}u+{[H,u]}.$$ It follows from a simple verification that if $H$ satisfies the Maurer-Cartan equation: $$\label{eq:Maure} d_{*}H +{\tfrac{1}{2}}[H,H]=0,$$ then $({{{d}_*}^H})^2=0$ and $({\Gamma(\wedge{^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}{A})},\wedge,{[\cdot,\cdot]},{{{d}_*}^H})$ is again a differential Gerstenhaber algebra. Thus one obtains a Lie bialgebroid $({A},{{A}^*}_H)$. A solution $H\in{\Gamma(\wedge^{2}{A})}$ to Eq. is called a **Hamiltonian operator** [@MR1472888]. The Lie algebroid structure on ${{A}^*}_H$ can be described explicitly: the anchor and the Lie bracket are given, respectively, by $${{{a}_*}^H}={{a}_*}+{a}\circ{H{^{\sharp}}}$$ and $${[\alpha,\beta]^H_*} ={[\alpha,\beta]_*}+[\alpha,\beta]_{H} .$$ Here $$[\alpha,\beta]_{H} ={L }_{{H{^{\sharp}}}(\alpha)}\beta
-{L }_{{H{^{\sharp}}}(\beta)}\alpha-{{d}_*}{\langle {H{^{\sharp}}}(\alpha ) | \beta\rangle} ,$$ for all $\alpha,\beta\in{\Gamma({{A}^*})}$. We shall use ${{A}^*}_H$ to denote such a Lie algebroid and call it the $H$-twisted Lie algebroid of ${{A}^*}$. Thus we obtain the following theorem, which was first proved in [@MR1472888] by a different method.
If $({A},{{A}^*})$ constitutes a Lie bialgebroid, and $H\in{\Gamma(\wedge^2{A})}$ is a Hamiltonian operator, then $({A},{{A}^*}_H)$ is a Lie bialgebroid.
Maurer-Cartan elements
======================
The Lie bialgebroid stemming from a complex manifold
----------------------------------------------------
We fix a complex manifold ${\boldsymbol{X}}$ of complex dimension $n$ with almost complex structure $J$. We regard the tangent bundle ${T{\boldsymbol{X}}}$ as a real vector bundle over ${\boldsymbol{X}}$. The complexification of ${T{\boldsymbol{X}}}$ is denoted ${T_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}}$, namely: ${T_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}}={T{\boldsymbol{X}}}\otimes{\mathbb{C}}$. Similarly, ${T^*_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}}={T^*{\boldsymbol{X}}}\otimes{\mathbb{C}}$. Let ${\mathbb{J}}:{T_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}}\to{T_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}}$ be the ${\mathbb{C}}$-linear extension of the almost complex structure $J$, and ${{T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}$ and ${{T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}$ its $+{i}$ and $-{i}$ eigenbundles, respectively. We adopt the following notations: $${T^{p,q}{\boldsymbol{X}}}=\wedge^p{{T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}\otimes\wedge^q{{T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{X}}}},$$ $${(T^{p,q}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}=\wedge^p{{(T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}}\otimes\wedge^q{{(T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}}.$$
Consider the following two vector bundles which are obviously mutually dual: $$\label{Eqt:defnAbdAbds}
{A}={{T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}\oplus{{(T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}},\quad {{A}^*}={{T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}\oplus{{(T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}}.$$ We can endow $A$ with a complex Lie algebroid structure. The anchor is the projection onto the first component: $$a({{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial{z^{i}}}}})={{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial{z^{i}}}}} \qquad a(d{\overline{z_j}})=0 .$$ The bracket of two sections of ${{T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}$ is their bracket as vector fields; the bracket of any pair of sections of ${{(T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}}$ is zero; and the bracket of a holomorphic vector field (i.e. a holomorphic section of the holomorphic vector bundle ${{T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}$) and an anti-holomorphic 1-form (i.e. an anti-holomorphic section of the holomorphic vector bundle ${{(T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}}$) is also zero. Thus $$[{{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial{z^{i}}}}},{{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial{z^{j}}}}}]=0, \qquad [d{\overline{z_i}},d{\overline{z_j}}]=0, \quad \text{and} \quad [{{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial{z^{i}}}}},d{\overline{z_j}}]=0 .$$ Together with the Leibniz rule, the above three rules completely determine the bracket of any two arbitrary sections of $A$. Similarly, one endows ${{A}^*}$ with a complex Lie algebroid structure as well. It is simple to see that $({A},{{A}^*})$ constitutes a Lie bialgebroid. Indeed $A$ and $A^*$ are transversal Dirac structures of the Courant algebroid ${T_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}}\oplus{T^*_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}}$, for they are the eigenbundles of the generalized complex structure on ${\boldsymbol{X}}$ induced by its complex manifold structure [@MR2013140; @GualtieriThesis]. In the sequel we will use the symbols $${{T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}\bowtie{{(T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}}\quad \text{and} \quad {{T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}\bowtie{{(T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}}$$ to refer to ${A}$ and ${{A}^*}$ when seen as Lie algebroids [@MR2439547].
Moreover, one has $$\begin{gathered}
\wedge^k {A}\cong \bigoplus_{i+j=k} {T^{i,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}} \otimes {(T^{0,j}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*} ,\\
\wedge^k {{A}^*}\cong \bigoplus_{i+j=k} {T^{0,i}{\boldsymbol{X}}}\otimes {(T^{j,0}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*} .\end{gathered}$$
The Lie algebroid differentials associated to the Lie algebroid structures on ${{A}^*}$ and ${A}$ are the usual ${\bar{\partial}}$- and ${\partial}$-operators, respectively: $$\begin{gathered}
{{d}_*}={\bar{\partial}}:~ {\Omega^{0,j}} ({T^{i,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}}) \to {\Omega^{0,j+1}} ({T^{i,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}}) ,\\
{d}={\partial}:~ {\Omega^{j,0}} ({T^{0, i}{\boldsymbol{X}}}) \to {\Omega^{j+1,0}} ({T^{0, i}{\boldsymbol{X}}}) .\end{gathered}$$
Extended Poisson structures
---------------------------
An **extended Poisson manifold** $({\boldsymbol{X}},H)$ is a complex manifold ${\boldsymbol{X}}$ equipped with an $H\in{\Gamma(\wedge^2{A})}$ which is an Hamiltonian operator with respect to $({A},{{A}^*})$, i.e. $$\label{Eqt:ExtendedMC}
{\bar{\partial}}H+{\tfrac{1}{2}}{[H,H]}=0 .$$ In this case, $H$ is called an extended Poisson structure.
Any $H\in{\Gamma(\wedge^2{A})}$ decomposes as $$H=\pi+\theta+\omega ,$$ where $\pi\in{\Gamma({T^{2,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}})}$, $\theta\in{\Gamma({{T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}\otimes {{(T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}})}$ and $\omega\in{\Gamma({(T^{0,2}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*})}$. We will use the following notations to denote the bundle maps induced by natural contraction: $$\begin{aligned}
& \theta{^{\flat}}:~{{T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}\to{{T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}}},\\
& \theta{^{\sharp}}:~{{(T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}}\to{{(T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}},\\
& \pi{^{\sharp}}:~{{(T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}}\to{{T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}}},\\
& \omega{^{\flat}}:~{{T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}\to{{(T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\theta{^{\sharp}}=-(\theta{^{\flat}})^*$.
The following lemma is immediate.
An element $H=\pi+\theta+\omega$ is an extended Poisson structure if and only if the following equations are satisfied: $$\begin{aligned}
&{\bar{\partial}}\omega+{[\omega,\theta]}=0, \label{eq:omega}\\
&{\bar{\partial}}\theta+{[\omega,\pi]}+{\tfrac{1}{2}}{[\theta,\theta]}=0, \label{eq:theta}\\
&{\bar{\partial}}\pi + {[\theta,\pi]}=0, \label{eq:pi1}\\
&{[\pi,\pi]}=0. \label{eq:pi2}\end{aligned}$$
\[Lem:MCEqtSpellOut\]
When only one of the three terms of $H$ is not zero, we are left with one of the following three special cases:
1. $H=\pi$ is an extended Poisson if and only if $\pi$ is a holomorphic Poisson bivector field.
2. $H=\theta$ is an extended Poisson if and only if ${\bar{\partial}}\theta+{\tfrac{1}{2}}{[\theta,\theta]}=0$. Moreover, if ${\overline{\theta}{^{\flat}}}\circ\theta{^{\flat}}-\operatorname{id}$ is invertible, $\theta$ is equivalent to a deformed complex structure [@MR2109686].
3. $H=\omega$ is an extended Poisson if and only if ${\bar{\partial}}\omega=0$.
In fact, if ${[\omega,\pi]}=0$, Eq. implies that $\theta$ defines a deformed complex structure (under the assumption that ${\overline{\theta}{^{\flat}}}\circ\theta{^{\flat}}-\operatorname{id}$ is invertible). Then, according to Lemma \[Zurich\] below, Eq. is equivalent to $\bar{\partial}_\theta\omega=0$, where ${\bar{\partial}}_\theta={\bar{\partial}}+[\theta,\cdot]$, and Eqs. - mean that $\pi$ is a holomorphic Poisson tensor with respect to the deformed complex structure.
\[Cor:Hminus\] If $H=\pi+\theta+\omega$ is an extended Poisson structure, then so is $$\lambda\pi+\theta+\lambda{^{-1}}\omega ,$$ for any $\lambda\in{\mathbb{C}}^\times$. In particular, $$H^{\vee}=-\pi+\theta-\omega$$ is an extended Poisson structure.
Note that Maurer-Cartan elements as deformations of Lie bialgebroids or differential Gerstenhaber algebras were already considered by Cleyton-Poon [@CP] in their study of nilpotent complex structures on real six-dimensional nilpotent algebras.
A natural question is: when will $({A},{{A}^*}_H)$ arise from a generalized complex structure in the sense of Hitchin [@MR2013140; @GualtieriThesis]? Let us recall the following:
(Lemma 6.1 in [@arxivmath0702718]) The graph $\{H{^{\sharp}}\xi+\xi\in{A}\oplus {{A}^*}\}$ of $H$, which is clearly isomorphic to ${{A}^*}_H$ as a vector bundle, is the $+{i}$- (or $-{i}$-) eigenbundle of a generalized complex structure on ${\boldsymbol{X}}$ if and only if ${\overline{H}{^{\sharp}}}\circ {H{^{\sharp}}}-{\operatorname{id}_{{{A}^*}}}$ is invertible. Here the map ${\overline{H}{^{\sharp}}}:{A}\to{{A}^*}$ is defined by ${\overline{H}{^{\sharp}}}(u)=\overline{{H{^{\sharp}}}(\overline{u})}$, $\forall u\in{A}$.
Again we let $H=\pi+\theta+\omega$ be an extended Poisson structure on ${\boldsymbol{X}}$. Relatively to the direct sum decompositions \[eq3\] of ${A}$ and ${{A}^*}$, the endomorphisms ${H{^{\sharp}}}$ and ${\overline{H}{^{\sharp}}}$ are represented by the block matrices $${H{^{\sharp}}}= \left( \begin{matrix} \theta{^{\flat}}& \pi{^{\sharp}}\\
\omega{^{\flat}}& \theta{^{\sharp}}\end{matrix} \right)
\quad \text{and} \quad
{\overline{H}{^{\sharp}}}= \left( \begin{matrix} {\overline{\theta}{^{\flat}}}& {\overline{\pi}{^{\sharp}}}\\
{\overline{\omega}{^{\flat}}}& {\overline{\theta}{^{\sharp}}}\end{matrix} \right) .$$ In turn, we have $$\label{Eqt:overlineHsharpcircHsharp}
{\overline{H}{^{\sharp}}}{H{^{\sharp}}}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
{\overline{\theta}{^{\flat}}}\circ\theta{^{\flat}}+ {\overline{\pi}{^{\sharp}}}\circ\omega{^{\flat}}& {\overline{\theta}{^{\flat}}}\circ \pi{^{\sharp}}+{\overline{\pi}{^{\sharp}}}\circ\theta{^{\sharp}}\\
{\overline{\omega}{^{\flat}}}\circ \theta{^{\flat}}+{\overline{\theta}{^{\sharp}}}\circ
\omega{^{\flat}}& {\overline{\omega}{^{\flat}}}\circ\pi{^{\sharp}}+
{\overline{\theta}{^{\sharp}}}\circ \theta{^{\sharp}}\end{matrix} \right).$$
Given an extended Poisson manifold $({\boldsymbol{X}},H)$, let ${A}={{T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}\bowtie{{(T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}}$. Then ${{A}^*}_H$ is the $(\pm{i})$-eigenbundle of a generalized complex structure if and only if ${\overline{H}{^{\sharp}}}{H{^{\sharp}}}-{\operatorname{id}_{{{A}^*}}}$ is invertible.
If $H=\pi$ (i.e. H is a holomorphic Poisson bivector field) or $H=\omega$, it is clear that ${\overline{H}{^{\sharp}}}{H{^{\sharp}}}$ is zero. Hence, in these two situations, the extended Poisson structure on ${\boldsymbol{X}}$ is actually a generalized complex structure.
Here is a simple example of extended Poisson structure, which does not arise from a generalized complex structure.
\[Ex:realtorus\] Consider the torus $\mathbf{T}={\mathbb{C}}/({\mathbb{Z}}+{i}{\mathbb{Z}})$ with its standard complex structure. Let $z$ be the standard coordinate on $\mathbf{T}$. Obviously, any $$\label{Eq:thetafddzdbarz}
\theta=f(z,\bar{z})\tfrac{d}{dz}\wedge d\bar{z},$$ where $f$ is a smooth ${\mathbb{C}}$-valued function, is an extended Poisson structure. In this case, ${\overline{H}{^{\sharp}}}{H{^{\sharp}}}={\left\vertf\right\vert}^2{\operatorname{id}_{}}$. Hence ${{A}^*}_\theta$ does not stem from a generalized complex structure provided that ${\left\vertf\right\vert}=1$.
Elliptic Lie algebroids
-----------------------
As in [@math/0509284], we say that a complex Lie algebroid ${B}$ is **elliptic** if $\operatorname{Re}\circ{{a}_{{B}}}:{B}\to{T{\boldsymbol{X}}}$ is surjective. Here ${{a}_{{B}}}:{B}\to{T_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}}$ is the anchor map of ${B}$ and $\operatorname{Re}:~{T_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}}\to{T{\boldsymbol{X}}}$ is the projection onto the real part.
\[extremely\] If ${B}$ is an elliptic Lie algebroid over a compact complex manifold ${\boldsymbol{X}}$, and $E$ a finite rank complex vector bundle with a $B$-action as in [@MR1726784], then all cohomology groups ${\mathrm{H}^{\bullet}}(B,E)$ are finite dimensional.
It is therefore natural to ask when ${{A}^*}_H$ is elliptic. An easy calculation shows the following:
\[Vienna\] Let $a_*^H$ denote the anchor of ${{A}^*}_H$ and $\operatorname{C}:{{T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}\to{{T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}$ the complex conjugation. The bundle maps $\operatorname{Re}{\circ}a_*^H$ and $$\label{Paris}
{F}=(\operatorname{C}+\theta{^{\flat}})\oplus\pi{^{\sharp}}:{{T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}\oplus{{(T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}}\to{{T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}}},$$ and the isomorphism of real vector bundles $\operatorname{Re}:{{T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}\to{T{\boldsymbol{X}}}$ fit into the commutative diagram $$\label{Diagram:alternateMapanchorRealCommute}
\xymatrix{ & {{T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}\oplus {{(T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}}\ar[dl]_{{F}}\ar[dr]^{\operatorname{Re}{\circ}a_*^H} \\
{{T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}\ar[rr]^{\operatorname{Re}} & & {T{\boldsymbol{X}}}. }$$ As a consequence, ${{A}^*}_H$ is an elliptic Lie algebroid if and only if ${F}$ is surjective.
When $H=\pi$, or $\omega$, it is clear that ${{A}^*}_H$ is elliptic. On the other hand, if we consider the torus ${\boldsymbol{T}}$ endowed with the bivector field $\theta$ of Example \[Ex:realtorus\], the Lie algebroid ${{A}^*}_H$ is elliptic if and only if $f$ is not identically $1$.
Poisson cohomology
------------------
Given an extended Poisson manifold $({\boldsymbol{X}},H)$, the cohomology of the Lie algebroid ${{A}^*}_H$ is called the **Poisson cohomology** of the extended Poisson structure, and denoted ${\mathrm{H}^{\bullet}}
({\boldsymbol{X}},H)$. In other words, it is the cohomology of the cochain complex: $$\label{eq:H}
\cdots {\xrightarrow{{\bar{\partial}^H}}} {\Gamma(\wedge^{k}{A})} {\xrightarrow{{\bar{\partial}^H}}} {\Gamma(\wedge^{k+1}{A})} {\xrightarrow{{\bar{\partial}^H}}} \cdots
,$$ where ${\Gamma(\wedge^k{A})}=\oplus_{i+j=k}{\Omega^{0, j}}({T^{i,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}})$ and ${\bar{\partial}^H}={\bar{\partial}}+{[H,\cdot]}$.
Poisson cohomology is also called tangent cohomology by Kontsevich [@MR2062626].
As an immediate consequence of Theorem \[extremely\] and Proposition \[Vienna\], we have
If $H$ is an extended Poisson structure on a compact complex manifold ${\boldsymbol{X}}$ and the map ${F}$ (given by Eq. ) is surjective, then all Poisson cohomology groups are finite dimensional.
When $H$ is a holomorphic Poisson bivector field $\pi$, the cochain complex is the total complex of the double complex as discussed in Corollary 4.26 in [@MR2439547].
On the other hand, if $H=\theta\in{\Omega^{0,1}}({T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}})$ is a Maurer-Cartan element such that ${\overline{\theta}{^{\flat}}}\circ\theta{^{\flat}}-\operatorname{id}$ is invertible, then $\theta$ defines a new complex structure on ${\boldsymbol{X}}$ according to Kodaira [@MR2109686].
The following lemma can be verified directly.
\[Zurich\] Let $H=\theta\in{\Omega^{0,1}}({T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}})$ be a Maurer-Cartan element such that ${\overline{\theta}{^{\flat}}}\circ\theta{^{\flat}}-{\operatorname{id}_{}}$ is invertible. Then the Lie algebroid ${{A}^*}_H$ is isomorphic to $T^{1,0}_\theta{\boldsymbol{X}}\bowtie(T^{0,1}_\theta{\boldsymbol{X}})^*$, where $T^{1,0}_\theta{\boldsymbol{X}}$ and $T^{0,1}_\theta{\boldsymbol{X}}$ are, respectively, the $+{i}$ and $-{i}$ eigenbundles of the deformed almost complex structure $J_\theta:{T{\boldsymbol{X}}}\to{T{\boldsymbol{X}}}$. As a consequence, the differential operator ${{{d}_*}^H}$ in Eq. is equal to ${\bar{\partial}}_\theta$, the new ${\bar{\partial}}$-operator of the deformed complex structure.
Thus we have
If $H=\theta\in{\Omega^{0,1}}({T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}})$ is a Maurer-Cartan element such that ${\overline{\theta}{^{\flat}}}\circ\theta{^{\flat}}-{\operatorname{id}_{}}$ is invertible, then $${\mathrm{H}^{k}}({\boldsymbol{X}},H)\cong\oplus_{i+j=k}{\mathrm{H}^{i}}({\boldsymbol{X}},\wedge^j T_\theta{\boldsymbol{X}}) ,$$ where $T_\theta{\boldsymbol{X}}$ denotes the holomorphic tangent bundle of the deformed complex manifold ${\boldsymbol{X}}$.
Coisotropic submanifolds
------------------------
Suppose that ${\boldsymbol{Y}}\subseteq {\boldsymbol{X}}$ is a complex submanifold [@MR2109686]. Set $$\begin{gathered}
{N^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{Y}}}={\left\{\xi\in({{T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}|_{{\boldsymbol{Y}}})^* {\;\text{s.t.}\;}{\langle \xi | Y\rangle}=0,\;\forall Y\in{T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{Y}}}\right\}} ,\end{gathered}$$ and consider the subbundle ${K}={T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{Y}}}\oplus{N^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{Y}}}$ of ${{A}^*}$.
A complex submanifold ${\boldsymbol{Y}}$ of ${\boldsymbol{X}}$ is called **coisotropic** if $H(u,v)=0$, for all $u,v\in{K}$.
If $H=\pi$ is a holomorphic Poisson bivector field, then ${\boldsymbol{Y}}$ is coisotropic if and only if it is coisotropic in the usual sense, i.e. ${\pi}{(\xi_1,\xi_2)}=0$, $\forall\xi_1,\xi_2\in{N^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{Y}}}$, or $\pi{^{\sharp}}({N^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{Y}}})\subseteq{T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{Y}}}$.
If $H=\omega$, then ${\boldsymbol{Y}}$ is coisotropic if and only if $\iota^*\omega=0$, where $\iota:{\boldsymbol{Y}}\to{\boldsymbol{X}}$ is the embedding map.
If $H=\theta$, then ${\boldsymbol{Y}}$ is coisotropic if and only if $\theta{^{\flat}}({T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{Y}}})\subseteq{T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{Y}}}$.
It is well known that given a coisotropic submanifold $C$ of a real Poisson manifold $(P,\pi)$, the conormal bundle $NC={\left\{\xi\in T_c^*P {\;\text{s.t.}\;}c\in C;\; {\langle \xi | X\rangle}=0,\;\forall X\in T_c C\right\}}$ is a Lie subalgebroid of the cotangent Lie algebroid $(T^*P)_\pi$ [@MR959095]. The following proposition can be considered as an analogue of this fact in the extended Poisson setting.
Let ${\boldsymbol{Y}}$ be a coisotropic submanifold of the extended Poisson manifold $({\boldsymbol{X}},H)$. Then the vector subbundle ${K}={T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{Y}}}\oplus{N^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{Y}}}$ is a Lie subalgebroid of ${{A}^*}_H$. That is, $a_*^H$ maps ${K}$ into $T_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{Y}}$ and for any smooth extensions $\widetilde{u},\widetilde{v}\in{\Gamma({{A}^*}_H)}$ to ${\boldsymbol{X}}$ of any two sections $u,v\in{\Gamma({K})}$, the restriction to ${\boldsymbol{Y}}$ of ${[\widetilde{u},\widetilde{v}]^H_*}$ is a section of ${K}$ which does not depend on the choice of extensions.
Poisson relations
-----------------
Following Weinstein [@MR959095], we introduce the following
Let $({\boldsymbol{X}}_1,H_1)$ and $({\boldsymbol{X}}_2,H_2)$ be extended Poisson manifolds. A Poisson relation from $({\boldsymbol{X}}_2,H_2)$ to $({\boldsymbol{X}}_1,H_1)$ is a coisotropic submanifold of the product manifold ${\boldsymbol{X}}_1\times{\boldsymbol{X}}_2^{\vee}$ (i.e. ${\boldsymbol{X}}_1\times{\boldsymbol{X}}_2$ endowed with the extended Poisson structure $(H_1, H_2^{\vee})$, see Corollary \[Cor:Hminus\]).
We call a holomorphic map $f:{\boldsymbol{X}}_2\to{\boldsymbol{X}}_1$ between extended Poisson manifolds $({\boldsymbol{X}}_1,H_1)$ and $({\boldsymbol{X}}_2,H_2)$ an **extended Poisson map** if its graph $$G_f={\left\{(f(x),x) {\;\text{s.t.}\;}x\in{\boldsymbol{X}}_2\right\}}\subset{\boldsymbol{X}}_1\times{\boldsymbol{X}}_2^{\vee}$$ is a Poisson relation.
Let $({\boldsymbol{X}}_1,H_1)$ and $({\boldsymbol{X}}_2,H_2)$ be extended Poisson manifolds, where the extended Poisson structures decompose as $H_i=\pi_i+\theta_i+\omega_i$ ($i=1,2$). Then a holomorphic map $f:{\boldsymbol{X}}_2\to{\boldsymbol{X}}_1$ is an extended Poisson map if and only if $f_*\pi_2=\pi_1$; $f^*\omega_1=\omega_2$; and $f_*\circ\theta{^{\flat}}_2=\theta{^{\flat}}_1\circ f_*$.
The proof is a direct verification and is left to the reader. As a consequence, we have
The composition of two extended Poisson maps is again an extended Poisson map.
Koszul-Brylinski Poisson homology
=================================
In this section we will introduce homology groups for extended Poisson manifolds based on the Evens-Lu-Weinstein module of a Lie algebroid.
Koszul-Brylinski cochain complex
--------------------------------
First we recall the notion of Clifford algebras and spin representation. Let $V$ be a vector space of dimension $n$ endowed with a non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form ${(\cdot,\cdot)}$. Its Clifford algebra ${\mathcal{C}(V)}$ is defined as the quotient of the tensor algebra $\oplus_{k=0}^n V^{\otimes k}$ by the relations $x\otimes y+y\otimes x=2{(x,y)}$, with $x,y\in V$. It is naturally an associative ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-graded algebra. Up to isomorphisms, there exists a unique irreducible module $S$ of ${\mathcal{C}(V)}$ called spin representation [@MR1636473]. The vectors of $S$ are called spinors.
An operator $O$ on $S$ is called even (or of degree 0) if $O(S^i)\subset S^{i}$ and odd (or of degree 1) if $O(S^i)\subset
S^{i+1}$. Here $i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_2$. If $O_1$ and $O_2$ are operators of degree $d_1$ and $d_2$ respectively, then their commutator is the operator $${\lfloor O_1,O_2\rfloor}= O_1\circ O_2-(-1)^{d_1 d_2}O_2\circ O_1 .$$
\[translagr\] Let $W$ be a vector space of dimension $r$. We can endow $V=W\oplus
W^*$ with the non-degenerate pairing $$\label{5} {(u_1+\xi_1,u_2+\xi_2)}={\tfrac{1}{2}}\big(\xi_1(u_2)+
\xi_2(u_1)\big) ,$$ where $u_1,u_2\in W$ and $\xi_1,\xi_2\in W^*$. The representation of ${\mathcal{C}(V)}$ on $S=\oplus_{k=0}^r \wedge^k W$ defined by $u\cdot w=u\wedge w$ and $\xi\cdot w={\iota_{\xi}}w$, where $u\in W$, $\xi\in W^*$ and $w\in S$, is the spin representation. Note that $S$ is ${\mathbb{Z}}$- and thus also ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-graded.
Recall that ${\boldsymbol{E}}={T_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}}\oplus{T^*_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}}$ admits the standard pseudo-metric $${(X_1+\xi_1,X_2+\xi_2)}= {\tfrac{1}{2}}\big({\langle \xi_1 |
X_2\rangle}+{\langle \xi_2 | X_1\rangle}\big) ,$$ where $X_i\in{T_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}}$ and $\xi_i\in{T^*_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}}$. The corresponding Clifford bundle ${\mathcal{C}({\boldsymbol{E}})}$ can be identified with the vector bundle $(\wedge^\bullet{T_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}})\otimes(\wedge^\bullet{T^*_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}})$, under which the Clifford action of ${\mathcal{C}({\boldsymbol{E}})}$ on the spinor bundle $$\wedge^\bullet{T^*_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}}=\bigoplus_{p,q}{(T^{p,q}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}$$ is given by $$(W\otimes \xi ){\cdot}{\lambda}=
(-1)^{\frac{w(w-1)}{2}}{\iota_{W}}(\xi \wedge {\lambda}) .$$ Here $W\in \wedge^w {T_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}}$, $\xi , {\lambda}\in \wedge^\bullet
{T^*_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}}$, and the symbol ${\iota_{W}}$ denotes the standard contraction $${\langle {\iota_{W}}\xi | X\rangle}={\langle \xi | W\wedge X\rangle} ,$$ for $\xi\in\wedge^p{T^*_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}}$ and $X\in\wedge^{p-w}{T_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}}$ with $p\geq w$.
Let $({\boldsymbol{X}},H)$ be an extended Poisson manifold of complex dimension $n$. Then ${{A}^*}_H$ is a Lie algebroid and the **Evens-Lu-Weinstein module** [@MR1726784] of ${{A}^*}_H$ is the complex line bundle $${Q_{{{A}^*}_H}}=\wedge^{2n}{{A}^*}_H\otimes\wedge^{2n}{T^*_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}}.$$ The representation of ${{A}^*}_H$ on ${Q_{{{A}^*}_H}}$ is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Eqn:RepELW}
{\nabla^H}_{\alpha}(\alpha_1\wedge\cdots\wedge\alpha_{2n}\otimes\mu)
=\sum_{i=1}^{2n}\big(\alpha_1\wedge\cdots\wedge{[\alpha,\alpha_i]_*^H}
\wedge\cdots\wedge\alpha_{2n}\otimes\mu\big) \\
+\alpha_1\wedge\cdots\wedge\alpha_{2n}\otimes{L_{{{{a}_*}^H}(\alpha)}}\mu,\end{gathered}$$ where $\alpha,~\alpha_1,\cdots ,\alpha_{2n}\in{\Gamma({{A}^*}_H)}$, $\mu\in {\Gamma(\wedge^{2n} {T^*_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}})}$.
A simple computation yields that ${Q_{{{A}^*}_H}}\cong\wedge^{n}{{(T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}}\otimes\wedge^{n}{{(T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}}$. Accordingly, $${\mathscr{L}}={Q^{{\tfrac{1}{2}}}_{{{A}^*}_H}}\cong\wedge^n{{(T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}}={(T^{n,0}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}$$ is also an ${{A}^*}_H$-module and we use ${\nabla^H}$ again to denote the representation. Equivalently, we have an operator $$\label{Eqt:DDH}
{{\mathcal{D}}^H}:~{\Gamma({\mathscr{L}})}\to{\Gamma({A}\otimes{\mathscr{L}})},$$ such that $${\iota_{\alpha}}{{\mathcal{D}}^H}s={\nabla^H}_{\alpha}s,\quad\forall\alpha\in{\Gamma({{A}^*})}, s\in{\Gamma({\mathscr{L}})} ,$$ which allows us to define a differential operator $${{\breve{{d}}}_*^H}:{\Gamma(\wedge^k{A}\otimes{\mathscr{L}})}\to{\Gamma(\wedge^{k+1}{A}\otimes{\mathscr{L}})}$$ by $$\label{Eqt:bdeesHuotimess}
{{\breve{{d}}}_*^H}(u\otimes s)=({\bar{\partial}^H}u)\otimes s+(-1)^{k}u\wedge{{\mathcal{D}}^H}s,$$ for all $u\in{\Gamma(\wedge^k{A})}$ and $s\in{\Gamma({\mathscr{L}})}$.
The following lemma is needed later.
The relation $${\tau}(X \otimes s) = X{\cdot}s ,$$ where in the r.h.s. $X\in\wedge^k{A}$ is regarded as an element of the Clifford algebra ${\mathcal{C}({\boldsymbol{E}})}$ and $s\in{\mathscr{L}}$ is regarded as an element in $\wedge^\bullet{T^*_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}}$, defines an isomorphism of vector bundles $${\tau}:\wedge^k{A}\otimes{\mathscr{L}}\to\bigoplus_{i-j=n-k}{(T^{i,j}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*} .$$
Equivalently, $${\tau}\big((W\wedge\xi)\otimes s\big)=(-1)^{\frac{w(w-1)}{2}}{\iota_{W}}(\xi\wedge s)
=(-1)^{\frac{w(w-1)}{2}+n(k-w)}({\iota_{W}}s)\wedge\xi ,$$ for $W\in{T^{w,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}}$, $\xi\in{(T^{0, k-w}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}$ and $s\in {\mathscr{L}}$.
We define the inner product of $H\in{\Gamma(\wedge^2{A})}$ with ${\lambda}\in{\Gamma(\wedge^\bullet{T^*_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}})}$ as $${\iota_{H}}{\lambda}= -H {\cdot}{\lambda}.$$ This coincides with the usual inner product of bivector fields with differential forms. Introduce $${\lfloor {\partial},{\iota_{H}}\rfloor}= {{\partial}}\circ
{{\iota_{H}}}-{{\iota_{H}}}\circ {{\partial}}
:~{\Gamma(\wedge^\bullet {T^*_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}})}\to
{\Gamma(\wedge^\bullet {T^*_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}})} .$$
Let us denote ${\Omega^{i,j}({\boldsymbol{X}})}={\Gamma({(T^{i,j}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*})}$. The following theorem is the main result in this section.
\[Thm:main1\] The diagram $$\label{Diagram:stdIso}
\xymatrix{ {\Gamma(\wedge^k{A}\otimes{\mathscr{L}})} \ar[rr]^{{{\breve{{d}}}_*^H}} \ar[d]_{{\tau}} & &
{\Gamma(\wedge^{k+1}{A}\otimes{\mathscr{L}})} \ar[d]^{{\tau}} \\
\bigoplus_{i-j=n-k} {\Omega^{i,j}({\boldsymbol{X}})} \ar[rr]_{{\bar{\partial}}+{\lfloor {\partial},{\iota_{H}}\rfloor}} & & \bigoplus_{i-j=n-k-1} {\Omega^{i,j}({\boldsymbol{X}})} }$$ commutes.
The cohomology of the cochain complex $(\bigoplus_{i-j=n-k}{\Omega^{i,j}({\boldsymbol{X}})},{\bar{\partial}}+{\lfloor {\partial},{\iota_{H}}\rfloor})$ is called the **Koszul-Brylinski Poisson homology** of the extended Poisson manifold $({\boldsymbol{X}},H)$, and denoted ${\mathrm{H}_{\bullet}}({\boldsymbol{X}},H)$.
1. If $H=\pi$ is a holomorphic Poisson bivector field, the cochain complex $(\bigoplus_{i-j=n-k}{\Omega^{i,j}({\boldsymbol{X}})},{\bar{\partial}}+{\lfloor {\partial},{\iota_{H}}\rfloor})$ is the total complex of a double complex. Its cohomology is the usual Koszul-Brylinski Poisson homology of a holomorphic Poisson manifold, as studied in detail by one of the authors [@arXiv:0903.5065].
2. If $H=\omega\in{\Omega^{0,2}({\boldsymbol{X}})}$ with $\bar{\partial}\omega=0$, the complex $(\bigoplus_{i-j=n-k}{\Omega^{i,j}({\boldsymbol{X}})},{\bar{\partial}}+{\lfloor {\partial},{\iota_{H}}\rfloor})$ becomes $(\bigoplus_{i-j=n-k}{\Omega^{i,j}({\boldsymbol{X}})},{\bar{\partial}}+({\partial}\omega)\wedge)$. Its cohomology is the twisted Dolbeault cohomology.
3. If $H=\theta\in\Omega^{0,1}({T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}})$ is a Maurer-Cartan element such that ${\overline{\theta}{^{\flat}}}\circ\theta{^{\flat}}-\operatorname{id}$ is invertible, then $\theta$ defines a new complex structure on ${\boldsymbol{X}}$. According to Lemma \[Zurich\], the cochain complex $(\bigoplus_{i-j=n-k}{\Omega^{i,j}({\boldsymbol{X}})},{\bar{\partial}}+{\lfloor {\partial},{\iota_{H}}\rfloor})$ is isomorphic to $(\bigoplus_{i-j=n-k}\Omega_\theta^{i,j}({\boldsymbol{X}}),\;\bar{\partial}_\theta)$, where $\bar{\partial}_\theta$ is the $\bar{\partial}$-Dolbeault operator of the deformed complex structure. As a consequence, we have ${\mathrm{H}_{k}}({\boldsymbol{X}},\theta){\cong}\oplus_{j-i=n-k}{\mathrm{H}^{i,j}}_\theta({\boldsymbol{X}})$, where ${\mathrm{H}^{i,j}}_\theta({\boldsymbol{X}})$ is the Dolbeault cohomology of the deformed complex structure.
Evens-Lu-Weinstein duality
--------------------------
Consider a compact complex (and therefore orientable) manifold ${\boldsymbol{X}}$ with $\dim_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}=n$, a complex Lie algebroid $B$ over ${\boldsymbol{X}}$ with $\operatorname{rk}_{{\mathbb{C}}}B=r$. According to [@MR1726784], the complex line bundle ${Q_{{B}}}=\wedge^r B\otimes\wedge^{2n}{T^*_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\boldsymbol{X}}}$ is a module over the complex Lie algebroid $B$. If ${{Q_{{B}}}^{{\frac{1}{2}}}}$ exists as a complex vector bundle, ${{Q_{{B}}}^{{\frac{1}{2}}}}$ becomes a $B$-module as well. There is a natural map $$\phi: {\Gamma(\wedge^k B^*\otimes{{Q_{{B}}}^{{\frac{1}{2}}}})}
\otimes {\Gamma(\wedge^{r-k} B^*\otimes{{Q_{{B}}}^{{\frac{1}{2}}}})}
\to {\Gamma(\wedge^r B^*\otimes{Q_{{B}}})}
{\cong}{\Gamma(\wedge^{2n}T^*_{\mathbb{C}}{\boldsymbol{X}})}$$
Integrating, we get the pairing $$\label{eq:pairing}
{\Gamma(\wedge^k B^*\otimes{{Q_{{B}}}^{{\frac{1}{2}}}})} \otimes
{\Gamma(\wedge^{r-k} B^*\otimes{{Q_{{B}}}^{{\frac{1}{2}}}})}\to{\mathbb{C}}, \qquad
\xi\otimes\eta\mapsto\int_{{\boldsymbol{X}}}\phi(\xi\otimes\eta)
.$$
The following result is essentially due to Evens-Lu-Weinstein [@MR1726784] for the pairing, and to Block [@math/0509284] for the non-degeneracy (see also [@arXiv:0903.5065]).
\[Beijing\] For a complex Lie algebroid $B$, with $\operatorname{rk}_{{\mathbb{C}}}B=r$, over a compact manifold ${\boldsymbol{X}}$, the pairing induces a pairing $${\mathrm{H}^{k}}(B,{{Q_{{B}}}^{{\frac{1}{2}}}})\otimes{\mathrm{H}^{r-k}}(B,{{Q_{{B}}}^{{\frac{1}{2}}}})\to{\mathbb{C}}.$$ Moreover, if $B$ is an elliptic Lie algebroid, this pairing is non-degenerate.
Let $({\boldsymbol{X}},H)$ be a compact extended Poisson manifold of complex dimension $n$. Consider the Lie algebroid $B=({{T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}\bowtie{{(T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}})_H$. Applying Theorem \[Beijing\] and Proposition \[Vienna\], we obtain
\[thm:1\] Let $({\boldsymbol{X}},H)$ be a compact extended Poisson manifold of complex dimension $n$, with $H=\pi+\theta+\omega$. Then the map $${\Omega^{{i,j}}({\boldsymbol{X}})}\otimes{\Omega^{{k,l}}({\boldsymbol{X}})}\to{\mathbb{C}}:
\zeta\otimes\eta\mapsto\int_{{\boldsymbol{X}}}(\zeta\wedge\eta)^{top}$$ induces a pairing on the Koszul-Brylinski Poisson homology: $$\label{eq:pairingPoisson}
{\mathrm{H}_{k}}({\boldsymbol{X}},H)\otimes{\mathrm{H}_{2n-k}}({\boldsymbol{X}},H)\to{\mathbb{C}}.$$ Moreover, if the bundle map ${F}=(\operatorname{C}+\theta{^{\flat}})\oplus\pi{^{\sharp}}$ maps ${{T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}\oplus{{(T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}}$ surjectively onto ${{T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}$, then all homology groups ${\mathrm{H}_{\bullet}}({\boldsymbol{X}},H)$ are finite dimensional vector spaces and the pairing is non-degenerate.
Proof of Theorem \[Thm:main1\]
------------------------------
The following lemmas are needed.
For any $u\in {\Gamma(\wedge^p{A})}$, ${\lambda}\in
{\Omega^{\cdot,\cdot}({\boldsymbol{X}})}$, one has $$\label{Eqt:barpdulambda}
{\bar{\partial}}(u{\cdot}{\lambda})=({\bar{\partial}}u){\cdot}{\lambda}+ (-1)^p u{\cdot}{\bar{\partial}}{\lambda}.$$
For any $u\in{\Gamma(\wedge^p{A})}$, $v\in
{\Gamma(\wedge^q{A})}$, the Schouten bracket ${[u,v]}$ is determined by $$\label{uvSchouten}
{[u,v]}{\cdot}{\lambda}=(-1)^{q+1
}{\lfloor u,{\lfloor v,{\partial}\rfloor}\rfloor}
{\lambda},\quad\forall {\lambda}\in {\Omega^{\bullet,\bullet}({\boldsymbol{X}})}.$$
Both lemmas can be proved by induction; this is left to the reader.
\[lem:pdiHulambdaproperty\] For any $u\in{\Gamma(\wedge^i{A})}$ and ${\lambda}\in{\Omega^{\bullet,\bullet }({\boldsymbol{X}})}$, one has $$\label{Eqt:iHpdulambdaproperty}
{\lfloor {\partial},{\iota_{H}}\rfloor}(u{\cdot}{\lambda})
={[H,u]}{\cdot}{\lambda}+(-1)^{i}u{\cdot}({\lfloor {\partial},{\iota_{H}}\rfloor}{\lambda})
.$$ In particular, for any smooth function $f\in{C^{\infty}({\boldsymbol{X}},{\mathbb{C}})}$, one has $$\label{Eqt:iHpdfproperty}
{\lfloor {\partial},{\iota_{H}}\rfloor}(f{\lambda})
={[H,f]}{\cdot}{\lambda}+f{\lfloor {\partial},{\iota_{H}}\rfloor}{\lambda}.$$
According to Eq. , we have $$\begin{aligned}
{[H,u]}{\cdot}{\lambda}=& (-1)^{i+1} {\lfloor H,{\lfloor u,{\partial}\rfloor}\rfloor}{\lambda}\\
=& (-1)^i(u{\cdot}{\partial}(H{\cdot}{\lambda})
-H{\cdot}u{\cdot}({\partial}{\lambda}))
+(H{\cdot}({\partial}(u{\cdot}{\lambda}))
-{\partial}(u{\cdot}H{\cdot}{\lambda})) \\
=& (-1)^i (u{\cdot}{\partial}(H{\cdot}{\lambda})
-u{\cdot}H{\cdot}({\partial}{\lambda}))
+(H{\cdot}({\partial}(u{\cdot}{\lambda}))
-{\partial}(H{\cdot}u{\cdot}{\lambda})) \\
=& -(-1)^{i} u{\cdot}({\lfloor {\partial},{\iota_{H}}\rfloor}{\lambda}) +{\lfloor {\partial},{\iota_{H}}\rfloor}(u{\cdot}{\lambda}) .\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
A straightforward (though lengthy) computation shows the following:
\[Lem:localstrAbdsH\] Suppose that $(z^1,\dots,z^n)$ is a local holomorphic chart and $H=\pi+\theta+\omega$ is given by $$\label{Eqt:Hlocally}
H= {\pi^{i,j}}{{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial{z^{i}}}}}\wedge{{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial{z^{j}}}}}
+{\theta^{p}_{q}}{{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial{z^{p}}}}}\wedge{d \bar{z}^{q}}
+{\omega_{k,l}}{d \bar{z}^{k}}\wedge{d \bar{z}^{l}}
,$$ where ${\pi^{i,j}}$, ${\theta^{p}_{q}}$, and ${\omega_{k,l}}$ are complex valued smooth functions on ${\boldsymbol{X}}$. Then the $H$-twisted Lie algebroid structure on ${{A}^*}_H\cong{{T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{X}}}}\oplus{{(T^{1,0}{\boldsymbol{X}})^*}}$ can be expressed by: $$\begin{gathered}
{{{a}_*}^H}({{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial{\bar{z}^{i}}}}})={{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial{\bar{z}^{i}}}}}-{\theta^{p}_{i}}{{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial{z^{p}}}}},
\qquad {{{a}_*}^H}({d z^{i}})=2{\pi^{i,q}}{{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial{z^{q}}}}}, \label{align:anchorsHlocal} \\
{[{{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial{\bar{z}^{i}}}}},{{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial{\bar{z}^{j}}}}}]^H_*}=2{\partial}{\omega_{i,j}},
\quad {[{d z^{i}},{d z^{j}}]^H_*}=2{\partial}{\pi^{i,j}},
\quad {[{d z^{j}},{{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial{\bar{z}^{i}}}}}]^H_*}={\partial}{\theta^{j}_{i}}. \label{align:basHlocal}\end{gathered}$$
Making the same assumptions as in Lemma \[Lem:localstrAbdsH\], consider the local section $$\label{Eqt:s} s={d z^{1}}\wedge\cdots\wedge{d z^{n}}$$ of ${\mathscr{L}}={Q^{{\tfrac{1}{2}}}_{{{A}^*}_H}}$. The representation of ${{A}^*}_H$ on ${\mathscr{L}}$ is given by $$\label{Eqt:RepHs}
{\nabla^H}_{{{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial{\bar{z}^{i}}}}}}s=-\tfrac{\partial{\theta^{p}_{i}}}{\partial z^p}s ,
\qquad {\nabla^H}_{{d z^{i}}}s=2\tfrac{\partial{\pi^{i,p}}}{\partial z^p}s
.$$
Using Eq. , we compute $$\label{eqt:ldanchorsHonAbd}
\begin{aligned}
{L_{{{{a}_*}^H}({{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial{\bar{z}^{i}}}}})}}{{d z^{j}}} &= -d{\theta^{j}_{i}}, &
{L_{{{{a}_*}^H}({{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial{\bar{z}^{i}}}}})}}{{d \bar{z}^{j}}} &= 0, \\
{L_{{{{a}_*}^H}({d z^{i}})}}{{d z^{j}}} &= 2 d{\pi^{i,j}}, &
{L_{{{{a}_*}^H}({d z^{i}})}}{{d \bar{z}^{j}}} &= 0.
\end{aligned}$$
Write $$s^2=({{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial{\bar{z}^{1}}}}}\wedge\cdots\wedge{{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial{\bar{z}^{n}}}}}\wedge{d z^{1}}\wedge\cdots\wedge{d z^{n}})
\otimes({d z^{1}}\wedge\cdots\wedge{d z^{n}}\wedge{d \bar{z}^{1}}\wedge\cdots\wedge {d \bar{z}^{n}}) .$$ Then, using Eqs. and , one obtains $${\nabla^H}_{{{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial{\bar{z}^{i}}}}}}s^2=-2\tfrac{\partial{\theta^{p}_{i}}}{\partial z^p} s^2,
\qquad {\nabla^H}_{{d z^{i}}}s^2=4\tfrac{\partial{\pi^{i,p}}}{\partial z^p}s^2 .$$ The conclusion thus follows immediately.
Locally, the operator ${{\mathcal{D}}^H}$ in Eq. is given by $$\label{Eqt:DDHslocal}
{{\mathcal{D}}^H}s=(2\tfrac{\partial{\pi^{i,p}}}{\partial z^p}{{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial{z^{i}}}}}
-\tfrac{\partial{\theta^{p}_{i}}}{\partial z^p}{d \bar{z}^{i}})\otimes s
,$$ where $s$ is defined in Eq. .
We are now ready to prove Theorem \[Thm:main1\].
We adopt an inductive approach. First we prove the commutativity of Diagram for $k=0$.
Note that for any $f\in{C^{\infty}({\boldsymbol{X}},{\mathbb{C}})}$, $u\in{\Gamma(\wedge^k{A})}$ and $s\in{\Gamma({\mathscr{L}})}$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
{\tau}{{\breve{{d}}}_*^H}(f u\otimes s) &= {\tau}\big(f{{\breve{{d}}}_*^H}(u\otimes s)
+(({\bar{\partial}}f+{[H,f]})\wedge u)\otimes s\big) & \text{by Eq.~\eqref{Eqt:bdeesHuotimess}} \\
&= f{\tau}{{\breve{{d}}}_*^H}(u\otimes s)+({\bar{\partial}}f+{[H,f]}){\cdot}{\tau}(u\otimes s) . &\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, if we write ${\lambda}={\tau}(u\otimes s)$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
& ({\bar{\partial}}+{\lfloor {\partial},{\iota_{H}}\rfloor}){\tau}(fu\otimes s) & \\
=& ({\bar{\partial}}+{\lfloor {\partial},{\iota_{H}}\rfloor})(f{\lambda}) & \\
=& {\bar{\partial}}f\wedge{\lambda}+f{\bar{\partial}}{\lambda}+{[H,f]}{\cdot}{\lambda}+f{\lfloor {\partial},{\iota_{H}}\rfloor}{\lambda}& \text{by Eq.~\eqref{Eqt:iHpdfproperty}} \\
=&f({\bar{\partial}}+{\lfloor {\partial},{\iota_{H}}\rfloor}){\tau}(u\otimes s)
+({\bar{\partial}}f+{[H,f]}){\cdot}{\tau}(u\otimes s). &\end{aligned}$$
It thus follows that the map ${\tau}\circ{{\breve{{d}}}_*^H}-({\bar{\partial}}+{\lfloor {\partial},{\iota_{H}}\rfloor})\circ{\tau}$ is ${C^{\infty}({\boldsymbol{X}})}$-linear. Take a local holomorphic chart $(z^1,\dots,z^n)$ and write $H$ locally as in Eq. in Lemma \[Lem:localstrAbdsH\]. Again take $s$ as in Eq. . For $k=0$, we have ${{\breve{{d}}}_*^H}s={{\mathcal{D}}^H}s$, which is given locally by Eq. . Then, we compute $$\begin{aligned}
{\tau}({{\breve{{d}}}_*^H}s) =& (2\tfrac{\partial{\pi^{i,p}}}{\partial z^p}{{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial{z^{i}}}}} -\tfrac{\partial{\theta^{p}_{i}}}{\partial z^p}{d \bar{z}^{i}}){\cdot}({d z^{1}}\wedge\cdots\wedge{d z^{n}}) \\
=& 2\sum_{i=1}^n(-1)^{i+1}\tfrac{\partial{\pi^{i,p}}}{\partial z^p} {d z^{1}}\wedge\cdots\wedge\widehat{{d z^{i}}}\wedge\cdots\wedge{d z^{n}}
-\tfrac{\partial{\theta^{p}_{i}}}{\partial z^p}{d \bar{z}^{i}}\wedge{d z^{1}}\wedge\cdots\wedge{d z^{n}}
.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we have $$\begin{aligned}
({\bar{\partial}}+{\lfloor {\partial},{\iota_{H}}\rfloor})s =& {\partial}{\iota_{H}}({d z^{1}}\wedge\cdots\wedge{d z^{n}}) \\
=& {\partial}\Big(2\sum_{i<j}(-1)^{i+j-1}{\pi^{i,j}}{d z^{1}}\wedge\cdots\wedge
\widehat{{d z^{i}}}\wedge\cdots\wedge\widehat{{d z^{j}}}\wedge\cdots\wedge{d z^{n}} \\
& \quad +\sum_{p=1}^n(-1)^{p+1}{\theta^{p}_{i}}{d \bar{z}^{i}}
\wedge{d z^{1}}\wedge\cdots\wedge\widehat{{d z^{p}}}\wedge\cdots\wedge{d z^{n}} \\
& \quad -{\omega_{k,l}}{d \bar{z}^{k}}\wedge{d \bar{z}^{l}}\wedge
{d z^{1}}\wedge\cdots\cdots\wedge{d z^{n}}\Big) \\
=& {\tau}({{\breve{{d}}}_*^H}s)
.\end{aligned}$$ It thus follows that Diagram indeed commutes when $k=0$.
Now assume that we have proved the commutativity of Diagram when $k\leq m$ (where $0\leq m\leq 2n-1$). To prove the $k=m+1$ case, we consider a section $(u\wedge w)\otimes s\in{\Gamma(\wedge^{m+1}{A}\otimes{\mathscr{L}})}$, where $u\in{\Gamma({A})}$, $w\in{\Gamma(\wedge^m{A})}$ and $s\in{\Gamma({\mathscr{L}})}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
& ({\bar{\partial}}+{\lfloor {\partial},{\iota_{H}}\rfloor}){\tau}((u\wedge w)\otimes s) & \\
=& ({\bar{\partial}}+{\lfloor {\partial},{\iota_{H}}\rfloor})(u{\cdot}{\lambda})
& \text{where }{\lambda}=w{\cdot}s \\
=& {\bar{\partial}}u{\cdot}{\lambda}-u{\cdot}{\bar{\partial}}{\lambda}+{[H,u]}{\cdot}{\lambda}-u{\cdot}({\lfloor {\partial},{\iota_{H}}\rfloor}{\lambda})
& \text{by Eqs.~\eqref{Eqt:barpdulambda} and~\eqref{Eqt:iHpdulambdaproperty}} \\
=& {\bar{\partial}^H}u{\cdot}{\lambda}-u{\cdot}({\bar{\partial}}+{\lfloor {\partial},{\iota_{H}}\rfloor}){\lambda}\\
=& {\tau}\big(({\bar{\partial}^H}u\wedge w)\otimes s\big)-u{\cdot}{\tau}{{\breve{{d}}}_*^H}(w\otimes s)
& \text{by assumption} \\
=& {\tau}{{\breve{{d}}}_*^H}((u\wedge w)\otimes s) . &\end{aligned}$$ This concludes the proof.
Modular classes
---------------
The modular class of a Lie algebroid was introduced by Evens-Lu-Weinstein [@MR1726784]. The following version for complex Lie algebroids appeared in the arXiv version `dgga/9610008` of [@MR1726784] but not in the published paper. It is also implied in [@math/0703298]. The presentation which we give below was communicated to us by Camille Laurent-Gengoux [@LaurentLetter].
Let $B$ be a complex Lie algebroid over a real manifold $M$, with $\operatorname{rk}_{{\mathbb{C}}}B=r$ and $\dim M=m$. Its Evens-Lu-Weinstein module is ${Q_{{B}}}=\wedge^{r}B\otimes\wedge^{m}T^*_{\mathbb{C}}M$.
Consider the complex of sheaves $$\label{Rome} {\mathcal{\widetilde{S}}^{0} }
\stackrel{\tilde{d}_B}{\longrightarrow} {\mathcal{S}^{1} }
\stackrel{{d}_B}{\longrightarrow} {\mathcal{S}^{2} } \cdots
\stackrel{{d}_B}{\longrightarrow} {\mathcal{S}^{r} },$$ where ${\mathcal{\widetilde{S}}^{0} }$ is the sheaf of nowhere vanishing smooth complex valued functions on $M$; ${\mathcal{S}^{\bullet} }$ is the sheaf of sections of $\wedge^\bullet B^*$; ${\mathrm{d}_{{B}}}$ is the usual Lie algebroid cohomology differential; and ${\mathrm{\widetilde{d}}_{{B}}}f={\mathrm{d}_{{B}}}\log f=\tfrac{{\mathrm{d}_{{B}}}f}{f}$, for all $f\in{C^{\infty}(U,{\mathbb{C}}^{\times})}$, where $U$ is an arbitrary open subset of $M$. We denote its hypercohomology by ${\mathrm{\widetilde{H}}^{\bullet}}(B,{\mathbb{C}})$. Note that in Eq. , if we replace ${\mathcal{\widetilde{S}}^{0} }$ by ${\mathcal{S}^{0} }$, the sheaf of smooth complex valued functions on $M$, and $\tilde{d}_B$ by the usual Lie algebroid differential $d_B$, the hypercohomology of the resulting complex of sheaves $$\label{Athens} {\mathcal{S}^{0} }
\stackrel{d_B}{\longrightarrow} {\mathcal{S}^{1} }
\stackrel{d_B}{\longrightarrow} {\mathcal{S}^{2} } \cdots
\stackrel{d_B}{\longrightarrow} {\mathcal{S}^{r} },$$ is isomorphic to the usual Lie algebroid cohomology ${\mathrm{H}^{\bullet}}(B,{\mathbb{C}})$ of the complex Lie algebroid $B$ with trivial coefficients ${\mathbb{C}}$ since each ${\mathcal{S}^{\bullet} }$ is a soft sheaf. The exponential sequence $$0\to{\mathbb{Z}}\to{\mathcal{S}^{} }\to{\mathcal{\widetilde{S}}^{} }\to 0 ,$$ where ${\mathcal{S}^{} }$ (resp. ${\mathcal{\widetilde{S}}^{} }$) stands for the the complex of sheaves (resp. ) and the locally constant sheaf ${\mathbb{Z}}$ is regarded as a complex of sheaves concentrated in degree $0$, induces the long exact sequence $$\cdots\to{\mathrm{H}^{i}}(M,{\mathbb{Z}})\to{\mathrm{H}^{i}}(B,{\mathbb{C}})
\to{\mathrm{\widetilde{H}}^{i}}(B,{\mathbb{C}})\to{\mathrm{H}^{i+1}}(M,{\mathbb{Z}})\to\cdots$$
Note that ${\mathrm{\widetilde{H}}^{\bullet}}(B,{\mathbb{C}})$ can be computed as the total cohomology of the Čech double complex $$\label{Diagram:CechLsNonzero}
\xymatrix{
\cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \\
{\check{C}^{2}({\mathcal{U}};{{\mathcal{\widetilde{S}}^{0} }})} \ar[r]^{{\mathrm{\widetilde{d}}_{{B}}}} \ar[u]^{{\delta}} &
{\check{C}^{2}({\mathcal{U}};{{\mathcal{S}^{1} }})} \ar[r]^{{\mathrm{d}_{{B}}}} \ar[u]^{{\delta}} &
{\check{C}^{2}({\mathcal{U}};{{\mathcal{S}^{2} }})} \ar[r]^{{\mathrm{d}_{{B}}}} \ar[u]^{{\delta}} & \cdots \\
{\check{C}^{1}({\mathcal{U}};{{\mathcal{\widetilde{S}}^{0} }})} \ar[r]^{{\mathrm{\widetilde{d}}_{{B}}}} \ar[u]^{{\delta}} &
{\check{C}^{1}({\mathcal{U}};{{\mathcal{S}^{1} }})} \ar[r]^{{\mathrm{d}_{{B}}}} \ar[u]^{{\delta}} &
{\check{C}^{1}({\mathcal{U}};{{\mathcal{S}^{2} }})} \ar[r]^{{\mathrm{d}_{{B}}}} \ar[u]^{{\delta}} & \cdots \\
{\check{C}^{0}({\mathcal{U}};{{\mathcal{\widetilde{S}}^{0} }})} \ar[r]^{{\mathrm{\widetilde{d}}_{{B}}}} \ar[u]^{{\delta}} &
{\check{C}^{0}({\mathcal{U}};{{\mathcal{S}^{1} }})} \ar[r]^{{\mathrm{d}_{{B}}}} \ar[u]^{{\delta}} &
{\check{C}^{0}({\mathcal{U}};{{\mathcal{S}^{2} }})} \ar[r]^{{\mathrm{d}_{{B}}}} \ar[u]^{{\delta}} & \cdots
}$$ where ${\mathcal{U}}={\left\{U_{i}\right\}}_{i\in I}$ is a good open cover of $M$ and ${\delta}$ is the usual Čech coboundary operator.
Let $(U_i)_{i\in I}$ be a good open cover of $M$, and $\omega_i$ a nowhere vanishing section of ${Q_{{B}}}$ over $U_i$. For all $i,j\in I$, there exists a unique nowhere vanishing function $f_{ij}\in{C^{\infty}(U_{ij},{\mathbb{C}}^\times)}$ such that $\omega_i=f_{ij}\omega_j$. It is clear from the construction that $$f_{ij} f_{jk} f_{ki}=1 .$$ Let $\xi_i\in{\Gamma(B^*|_{U_i})}$ be the modular $1$-form on ${U_i}$ corresponding to $\omega_i$. That is, we have $\nabla_X\omega_i={\langle \xi_i | X\rangle}\omega_i$ for all $X\in{\Gamma(B|_{U_i})}$, where $\nabla$ denotes the canonical representation of $B$ on $Q_B$ of [@MR1726784]. It thus follows that $$\xi_i=\xi_j+\tfrac{d_B f_{ij}}{f_{ij}}=\xi_j+\tilde{d}_B f_{ij} .$$ As a consequence, $(\xi_i,f_{ij})$ is a 1-cocycle of the double complex , and therefore defines a class in ${\mathrm{\widetilde{H}}^{1}}(B,{\mathbb{C}})$.
The class in ${\mathrm{\widetilde{H}}^{1}}(B,{\mathbb{C}})$ defined by $[(\xi_i,f_{ij})]$ is called the *modular class* of the complex Lie algebroid $B$, and denoted $\operatorname{mod}(B)$.
\[Tokyo\] Consider the long exact sequence $$\cdots \to {\mathrm{H}^{1}}(B,{\mathbb{C}}) \to {\mathrm{\widetilde{H}}^{1}}(B,{\mathbb{C}})
{\xrightarrow{\tau}} {\mathrm{H}^{2}}(M,{\mathbb{Z}}) \to \cdots$$ The image of the modular class $\operatorname{mod}(B)$ under $\tau$ is the first Chern class $c_1({Q_{{B}}})$ of ${Q_{{B}}}$. When $c_1({Q_{{B}}})=0$, the modular class $\operatorname{mod}(B)$ is the image of a class in ${\mathrm{H}^{1}}(B,{\mathbb{C}})$, which is defined exactly in the same way using a global nowhere vanishing section, as the usual modular class in [@MR1726784].
A complex Lie algebroid $B$ is said to be **unimodular** if its modular class vanishes. The following result follows immediately from Lemma \[Tokyo\].
A complex Lie algebroid $B$ is unimodular if and only if $c_1({Q_{{B}}})=0$ and for any fixed nowhere vanishing section $\omega\in{\Gamma({Q_{{B}}})}$, the modular section $\xi\in{\Gamma(B^*)}$ defined by, $$\nabla_X\omega={\langle \xi | X\rangle}\omega \qquad(\forall X\in{\Gamma(B)})$$ is a coboundary, i.e. $\xi={\mathrm{d}_{{B}}}f$ for some $f\in{C^{\infty}(M,{\mathbb{C}})}$.
As a consequence, a complex Lie algebroid $B$ is unimodular if and only if ${Q_{{B}}}$ is isomorphic to the trivial module ${\mathbb{C}}$.
When $B=T^{0,1}{\boldsymbol{X}}\bowtie{A}^{1,0}$ is the derived complex Lie algebroid [@MR2439547; @arXiv:0903.5065] of a holomorphic Lie algebroid ${A}$ over ${\boldsymbol{X}}$, $B$ is a unimodular complex Lie algebroid if and only if ${A}$ is a unimodular holomorphic Lie algebroid, i.e. $Q_{A}$ is trivial as a holomorphic line bundle and there exists a holomorphic global section $\omega$ of $Q_{A}$ such that $\nabla_X\omega=0$ for all $X\in{A}$.
An extended Poisson manifold $({\boldsymbol{X}},H)$ is unimodular if its corresponding complex Lie algebroid ${{A}^*}_H$ is unimodular.
According to Theorem \[Thm:main1\], we have
An extended Poisson manifold $({\boldsymbol{X}},H)$ is unimodular if and only if there exists a nowhere vanishing $(n,0)$-form $\omega\in{\Omega^{n,0}({\boldsymbol{X}})}$ such that $${\bar{\partial}}\omega+{\lfloor {\partial},{\iota_{H}}\rfloor}\omega={\bar{\partial}}\omega+{\partial}{\iota_{H}}\omega=0 .$$
It is clear that, when $H=0$, $({\boldsymbol{X}},H)$ is unimodular means that ${\boldsymbol{X}}$ is Calabi-Yau. Thus one can consider a unimodular extended Poisson manifold $({\boldsymbol{X}},H)$ as a generalized Calabi-Yau manifold.
As an immediate consequence of the discussion above, we have
For any unimodular extended Poisson manifold $({\boldsymbol{X}},H)$ of complex dimension $n$, we have $${\mathrm{H}_{k}}({\boldsymbol{X}},H)\cong{\mathrm{H}^{2n-k}}({\boldsymbol{X}},H) .$$
[^1]: Research partially supported by NSFC grant 10871007.
[^2]: Research partially supported by NSF grants DMS-0605725 and DMS-0801129.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Recent work has shown how to train Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) rapidly on large image datasets[@Akiba2017], then transfer the knowledge gained from these models to a variety of tasks[@ImageNetTransfer2018]. Following [@Radford2017], in this work, we demonstrate similar scalability and transfer for Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) for Natural Language tasks.
By utilizing mixed precision arithmetic and a 32k batch size distributed across 128 NVIDIA Tesla V100 GPUs, we are able to train a character-level 4096-dimension multiplicative LSTM (mLSTM) [@Krause2016] for unsupervised text reconstruction over 3 epochs of the 40 GB Amazon Reviews dataset [@McAuley2015] in four hours. This runtime compares favorably with previous work taking one month to train the same size and configuration for one epoch over the same dataset[@Radford2017].
Converging large batch RNN models can be challenging. Recent work has suggested scaling the learning rate as a function of batch size, but we find that simply scaling the learning rate as a function of batch size leads either to significantly worse convergence or immediate divergence for this problem. We provide a learning rate schedule that allows our model to converge with a 32k batch size.
Since our model converges over the Amazon Reviews dataset in hours, and our compute requirement of 128 Tesla V100 GPUs, while substantial, is commercially available, this work opens up large scale unsupervised NLP training to most commercial applications and deep learning researchers[^1]. A model can be trained over most public or private text datasets overnight.
author:
-
-
-
-
bibliography:
- 'HPML.bib'
title: 'Large Scale Language Modeling: Converging on 40GB of Text in Four Hours'
---
Introduction
============
In recent years, deep learning has been successfully applied to many problems. The successful use of transfer learning for computer vision problems has enabled many applications: large CNNs such as VGG [@Simonyan2014] and ResNets [@He2015] are pre-trained on a large image dataset such as ImageNet [@Deng2009; @Russakovsky2014] and then utilized as the backbone for other computer vision tasks. These models are able to extract meaningful features for new tasks without needing to be trained from scratch for each task [@DeCAF; @CNNTransfer; @MaskRCNN; @ImageNetTransfer2018].
Recent work has shown promising results from unsupervised language modeling, followed by transfer learning to natural language tasks [@Radford2017], [@Radford2018]. However, neural language models have not benefited from scale and transfer learning in the same way as convolutional image models. Historically, natural language leverages large scale transfer learning through the use of word embedding pretraining on large corpora [@Turian2010; @Mikolov2013; @Pennington2014]. Transferring only the embeddings limits the scope of the transfer, since word embeddings do not capture sequential information in a section of text. We would like to transfer whole NLP models capable of processing a text sequence.
However, transfer learning in this context is difficult because of the time it takes to train large language models on large datasets. Several recent publications seek to address long training times by leveraging distributed data parallelism and increasing the effective batch size during training [@Goyal2017; @Akiba2017; @You2017a; @You2017b; @Ott2018], taking advantage of advances in distributed deep learning and improvements in the memory size and compute capability of available high performance computing (HPC) resources. This work often focuses on computer vision and rarely on natural language tasks, let alone RNN-based language models, which are numerically difficult to train and suffer from poor parallelization due to their sequential nature. We do have evidence that RNNs for language modeling, speech recognition, and neural machine translation continue to provide accuracy improvements as they are trained on larger datasets [@Hestness2017]. Accordingly, techniques for efficiently training large RNN models will lead to improved accuracy on many natural language tasks.
We focus on training a single-layer 4096 neuron multiplicative LSTM-based character language model [@Krause2016] on the Amazon Reviews dataset, one of the largest publicly-available NLP datasets, and transfer the model to the downstream tasks of sentiment classification on the Binary Stanford Sentiment Treebank (SST) and IMDB movie review datasets. We train our recurrent models with mixed precision FP16/FP32 arithmetic, which speeds up training on a single V100 by 4.2X over training in FP32.
We then train the mixed precision model using a 32k batch size via distributed data parallelism across 128 GPUs. This achieves a 109x increase in training data throughput relative to the single GPU case. However, with such a large batch size, we require additional epochs to train the model to a similar level of accuracy, bringing the total training time to 4 hours.
In addition, we train a 8192 neuron mLSTM capable of beating state of the art performance in Amazon review language modeling with a bits per character (BPC) of 1.038 and SST classification accuracy of 93.8%.
We analyze how distributed data parallelism scales with larger models. While utilizing distributed data parallelism for training RNNs, we observe some problems common to training with large batches. We investigate the relationship between dataset size, batch size, and learning rate schedule to investigate how to effectively use large batch training to train models on commonly available large NLP datasets.
Language Model Pretraining and Transfer
=======================================
Separately trained word embeddings[@Turian2010; @Mikolov2013; @Pennington2014] are commonly used to transfer learning from large datasets to specific tasks. However, word embeddings function only as a lookup table for in-vocabulary words. They do not transfer well to multi-word sequences and contexts.
Works such as Semi-supervised Sequence Learning [@Dai2015], context2vec [@Melamud2016], Contextualized Word Vectors (CoVe) [@McCann2017], and Deep Contextualized Word Representations (ELMo) [@Peters2018] seek to remedy this by computing embeddings of words in a sequence using a pretrained recurrent neural language model. In these approaches, the surrounding words provide context which is used to produce an embedding that represents the meaning of a given word. These works approach the transfer learning problem with a whole neural language model capable of modeling the compositional nature of language rather than a lookup table that considers all words independently.
This pretraining and transfer work has motivated follow on works trying to increase the scope of neural language model pretraining and transfer [@Radford2017; @Howard2018; @Subramanian2018; @Cer2018; @Liu2018; @Radford2018], in which the authors explore new types of language models, multiple types of language model pretraining, and the effect these two have on a wide variety of down stream language tasks. A common theme between these different research efforts, however, is that downstream transfer success is predicated on the pretraining corpus size. Larger text corpora produce more powerful language models, which then improve transfer learning.
Pretraining Tasks and Datasets
------------------------------
As part of pretraining there are three components that determine pretraining success: the task used for pretraining, pretraining dataset quality, and pretraining dataset size.
The former requires careful consideration as it affects the other two. A number of language pretraining tasks can be considered generative pretraining tasks, where the language models are trained to generate some language as output. Some of these include sequence to sequence (Seq2Seq) tasks such as Skip-Thought pretraining [@Kiros2015; @Subramanian2018] and Neural Machine Translation [@Ramachandran2016; @Subramanian2018]. However, we instead choose to focus on unsupervised text reconstruction as our pretraining task: predict the next character of text, given the previous characters. Text reconstruction captures the fundamental components of sequence modeling required by other language modeling tasks.
With text reconstruction, the data provides its own labels, and given the data has undergone reasonable cleaning, we can focus on dataset size rather than dataset type or quality. Several corpora successfully utilized for unsupervised text pretraining in prior work are the BooksCorpus [@Zhu2015], GigaWord [@Parker2011], 1-Billion Word [@Chelba2013], and Amazon Reviews [@McAuley2015] datasets. Similar to [@Radford2017; @Gray2017], we focus our pretraining efforts on the largest of the four datasets (see Fig. \[tab:dataset\_size\]), by training a mLSTM on an aggressively deduplicated copy of the Amazon Reviews dataset totaling 82 million reviews (40GB). The generality of our task and the size of our dataset allow the insights developed in this work to be applied to other large scale language tasks.
**Dataset** **corpus size (GBs)**
------------------------ -----------------------
1-Billion Word 3
BooksCorpus 5
GigaWord 26
Amazon Reviews Dataset 41
Large Batch Training {#sec:large_methods}
====================
Given the size of the Amazon corpus, pretraining a large state of the art neural language model is a time consuming process. Running such a workload on a single GPU is not practical, as state of the art models tend to be large and can only fit a modest training batch size per GPU. In order to enable effective pretraining and transfer of large language models, we employ multi-GPU parallelism. We focus on scaling to multiple GPUs with data parallelism, meaning that we partition the batch during training across multiple GPUs. We don’t use model parallelism, which partitions the neural network itself across multiple processors, because it’s less flexible and places more constraints on software, although it remains an interesting avenue for further parallelism.
We use synchronous data parallelism, where a large batch is distributed evenly amongst all participating worker processes, at which point the worker processes run forward and backward propagation, communicate the resulting gradients with each other, and update the model before receiving a new data batch. Depending on model size and communication latency, data parallelism allows for near linear speed up by scaling batch size linearly with respect to the number of available GPUs. Taking advantage of such scaling, the Computer Vision community has been able to reduce the training time of AlexNet and ResNet-50 models on the ImageNet benchmark from hours to the order of minutes [@Goyal2017; @Akiba2017; @You2017a; @You2017b].
However, these projects have focused on convolutional networks for image classification, and comparatively less work has been published on large batch training of language models. Ott et. al [@Ott2018] employ data parallelism to speed up Seq2Seq neural machine translation. However, similar to prior work, Ott et. al train convolutional models with large batches.
In order to enable large batch pretraining of an arbitrary language model it is important to explicitly analyze the effects of large batch training with RNN-based language models. The sequential nature of recurrent neural networks makes the training landscape difficult to optimize, due to saddle points, local minima, and numerical instabilities in the RNN computation itself [@LeCun2012; @Pascanu2012; @Karpathy2015]. These complexities necessitate analysis of large batch training with RNNs.
Large batch training is itself not without difficulties. Identical hyperparameters at different batch sizes regularly produce models which generalize differently. Recent work analyzes the relationship between large batch size, learning rates, and generalization, showing how to achieve similar evaluation results when training across different batch sizes [@Smith2017a; @Smith2017b; @Goyal2017].
By analyzing the noise scale of gradient-descent optimization, these methods modify learning rate $\epsilon$ proportionally to batch size $B$, with a linear scaling rule $\epsilon \propto B$ provided that $B \ll N$, where $N$ is the dataset size. The authors find that learning rate scaling leads to models that generalize well across various batch sizes. Additionally, Smith et. al [@Smith2017a; @Smith2017b] proposed scaling momentum as a function of batch size; however, we do not investigate such scaling in this work.
In order to enable large batch training of RNN language models, we explore the effects of this linear scaling rule as well as a softer square root scaling rule $\epsilon \propto \sqrt{B}$ proposed by Hoffer et. al [@Hoffer2017].
Additionally, we investigate the scalability of data parallelism with different interconnects and model sizes, so as to assess the effectiveness of data parallelism for an arbitrary neural language model.
Distributed Deep Learning Setup {#DDL_setup}
===============================
We use NVIDIA DGX1-V systems built from 16 GB Tesla V100 GPUs. For intra-node and inter-node communication we leverage the [NCCL]{}2 (NVIDIA Collective Communications) library which uses the DGX1-V’s underlying NVLink and InfiniBand connections for GPU to GPU communication.
We do not use a central parameter server for managing gradient reduction and updating the model. In order to efficiently perform updates to the model, the group of worker processes perform a ring reduce of the gradients, and each worker independently updates the model parameters. Crucial to reducing the necessary communication bandwidth, the library also supports communication of FP16 values natively with no FP16 emulation overhead when reducing FP16 parameter gradients across GPUs.
Mixed Precision Training {#ssec:fp16_methods}
========================
FP16 is not only useful for reducing communication overhead, it also plays a key role in directly accelerating training on processors like the V100 that support higher throughput mixed-precision arithmetic. The V100 provides 15.6 TFlops in single precision, but 125 TFlops with mixed-precision arithmetic (FP16 storage and multiplication, FP32 accumulation). Using FP16 reduces the dynamic range and precision of the computations being performed. This presents a unique set of training difficulties, which, if not addressed, lead to convergence issues while training.
Drawing from [@Micikevicius2017; @AutoLossScale], we use automatic loss scaling to effectively increase the dynamic range of the training process. Automatic loss scaling seeks to ameliorate numerical underflow by multiplying the training loss by a scalar “loss scale” factor $\alpha>1$, performing backpropagation with all intermediary gradients multiplied by $\alpha$, and dividing the final weight gradients by $\alpha$. This multiplication shifts small gradient values into the range permitted by FP16, thereby ensuring that they do not vanish during back propagation.
We choose $\alpha$ dynamically by starting at a large value, performing backpropagation, and checking for an overflow in the weight gradients. If an overflow is detected, then the weight update for the batch is skipped, and $\alpha$ is halved. After the algorithm finds a suitable $\alpha$, it tries to increase $\alpha$ after a sufficient number of iterations have passed without overflow, and again backs off if overflow occurs. The algorithm repeats this process throughout training, iteratively updating the loss scale, hence the name automatic loss scaling.
Without automatic loss scaling, we found that our models did not train to convergence. Although the computationally intensive parts of training were performed in mixed precision, a minority of the work still remained in FP32 in order to converge properly:
- Gradients are accumulated into a “master” FP32 copy of the parameters. The division by $\alpha$ occurs on the gradients of these master copies.
- Reductions are performed in FP32; it only takes a few large values to cause an overflow in FP16.
- Accumulation of the summation in the $\ell$2 norm computation required by weight normalization should be done in FP32 to avoid overflow. The final norm value is output in FP16.
- Softmax loss is computed in FP32, operating on FP32 logits in order to avoid numerical issues when exponentiating FP16 values.
These techniques working in conjunction allowed for successful training of the mLSTM language model in mixed precision.
Experiments
===========
All experiments are set up following [@Radford2017] and run with Pytorch’s v0.4 release [@PyTorch]. The Amazon Reviews dataset is shuffled and split into training, validation, and test sets. The model is trained using truncated backpropagation through time (TBTT) [@Sutskever2013] on sequences of 256 characters. We persist hidden state across each minibatch during training and evaluation.
Data Sharding
-------------
In order to create the training, validation, and test sets, the dataset is split proportionally by a ratio of 1000, 1, and 1 allocated for train, validation, and test sets respectively. Within these sets we create batch size $B$ number of shards for evaluation, and $max(1000,B)$ shards for training. A shard is defined as a subset of strings sampled without replacement from one of the dataset splits; this subset is concatenated together into one large string to form a shard. These shards are used for all training epochs with no further shuffling. Hidden state is initialized to zero at the beginning of a shard and persisted throughout the shard.
When constructing a minibatch $D_{i_j}$, data is sampled such that between two consecutive minibatches $i$ and $i+1$, minibatch index $j$ contains contiguous subsequences from within a shard. This contiguity across minibatches enables hidden state persistence across truncated subsequences in TBTT.
Weight Normalization
--------------------
In order to aid with convergence during training time, we applied weight normalization [@Salimans2016] to the LSTM parameters only, following [@Radford2017]. This includes the 4 hidden$\rightarrow$hidden and input$\rightarrow$hidden parameters of the multiplicative LSTM. Weight normalization was not applied to the bias terms.
Optimization and Learning Rate (LR) schedule
--------------------------------------------
As in [@Radford2017], Adam [@Kingma2014] is utilized for optimization, along with a learning rate schedule that decays linearly to zero over the course of training. For a global batch size of 128 a learning rate of 5e-4 is used, and is scaled up according to the batch size using either the linear or square root scaling rule.
Evaluation
----------
Two metrics for evaluating training are considered:
1. A bits per character (BPC) metric calculated on the immediate task of predicting the next character given the current character on the Amazon Reviews test set. We calculate the average BPC across 16 random shards of the test set by using an evaluation batch size $B$ of 16. Since our model operates directly on character-level tokens, calculation of BPC is simply $l\cdotp \log_2e$ where $l$ is the softmax cross entropy loss averaged over the entire sequence.
2. Accuracy from the downstream tasks of binary sentiment classification on the Binary SST, and IMDB Movie Review datasets. To perform transfer the model weights are taken at the end of Amazon training, frozen, and used to featurize text samples from the classification dataset. A simple binary logistic regression classifier from scikit-learn [@scikit-learn] is trained to classify these text features as having positive or negative sentiment. The transfer process is negligible computationally because of the simple model we use on the downstream task.
Analysis of Mixed Precision vs FP32 training {#sec:f16_analysis}
============================================
![) Training curves for mixed precision (MP) and single precision (SP) training ) Test set evaluation comparison of single precision vs mixed precision training w.r.t. the Amazon BPC and binary sentiment classification accuracy baselines set by Radford et. al [@Radford2017][]{data-label="tab:fp16_fp32"}](fp16_fp32.png){width="\columnwidth"}
**Type** **Batch** **LR** **Time** **BPC** **SST** **IMDB**
---------- ----------- ---------- ------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
**SP** **128** **5e-4** **1 month** **1.12** **91.9** **92.8**
SP 1024 1.2e-3 73.8 hr 1.104 90.8 92.5
MP 1024 1.2e-3 24.2 hr 1.108 91.5 91.7
MP 2048 2e-3 17.4 hr 1.117 90.2 91.9
Mixed precision training allows for faster computation as well as a 2x increase in effective batch size during training, because FP16 storage is 2x smaller. In this section we analyze performance gains and convergence for training networks with mixed precision arithmetic, comparing it to single precision training. This allows us to validate the correctness of the remaining experiments, which are all trained in mixed precision.
Using the techniques described in section \[DDL\_setup\] & \[ssec:fp16\_methods\], we train a model on the Amazon Reviews dataset using a full DGX1-V node with 8 GPUs. We initially begin with a batch size of 128 per GPU, for a global batch size of 1024, and compare the relative speedup granted by mixed precision arithmetic. Next, we quantify the benefits of the reduced memory footprint by doubling the batch size to 256 per GPU (2048 global) in order to better saturate the GPU. Additionally, we utilize the softer square root scaling rule [@Hoffer2017] to modify the learning rate as a function of batch size.
Figure \[tab:fp16\_fp32\] shows that training in mixed precision and single precision both produce similar training curves and converge to similar numbers for both language modeling and transfer evaluation. We find that moving to mixed precision not only achieves similar training results, but it also provides a 3x speedup in training. By taking advantage of the reduced memory footprint of FP16 storage, we increase the batch size two-fold to 256 per GPU, better saturating the GPU, and achieve an additional speedup of 40% on top of our original speedup. This provides approximately a 4.2x speedup when switching from single precision arithmetic to mixed precision.
Overall, this yields a speed up from one month of training as in [@Radford2017] to 18 hours. We have accomplished this using 8 Tesla V100 GPUs, larger batch size, and mixed precision arithmetic.
Distributed Data Parallel Scaling {#sec:DDP_scale}
=================================
To train a language model in hours, not in days, we further parallelize the training process by using multiple nodes and additional data parallelism. We first analyze the effect of communication overhead on the scalability of multi-GPU training at various batch sizes and processor counts.
The model is trained in mixed precision on 1, 8, 16, 32, 64, and 128 GPUs with a local batch size of 256 batches/GPU and 8 GPUs/DGX1-V node. In Fig. \[tab:gpu\_scale\] we observe that NCCL2 provides near linear scaling with minimal overhead when scaling from 1 to 8 GPUs within a node. Infiniband efficiently handles inter-node communication for the 4096 neuron mLSTM with effectively constant overhead with respect to the number of participating nodes. This allows for a total speedup of 109x when scaling to 128 GPUs across 16 DGX1-V Nodes. More concretely, we complete one epoch of training on the Amazon reviews dataset in only 1.2 hours.
![) Training time for 1 epoch of Amazon Reviews exhibits linear scaling relative to the single GPU case. ) Average per iteration times and relative speedup for distributed data parallel training with (and without) Infiniband.[]{data-label="tab:gpu_scale"}](DDP.png){width="\columnwidth"}
----- ------------ ----------- ------------ ----------- ------------ -----------
**s/iter** **speed** **s/iter** **speed** **s/iter** **speed**
1 .81 1x .81 1x 2.01 1x
8 .85 7.6x .85 7.6x 2.02 7.9x
16 1.09 14.3x .91 13.6x 2.08 15.5x
32 1.11 23.4x .91 27.2x 2.05 31.4x
64 1.13 55.7x .93 55.7x 2.10 61.3x
128 1.12 92.6x .91 109x 2.13 120.8x
----- ------------ ----------- ------------ ----------- ------------ -----------
Scaling Large Model Training
----------------------------
Not every problem calls for training a 4096-d mLSTM. Smaller models will train faster and may converge to a good enough BPC, while larger models may be necessary for state of the art performance. To illustrate this, we train an mLSTM with hidden state sizes of 256, 1024, 4096, and 8192 and a global training batch size of 2048 split across 1 DGX1-V node and learning rate of 2e-3. In the case of the 8192-d hidden state mLSTM we use a per GPU batch size of 96 (768 total) due to memory constraints. In this experiment, we use a learning rate of 7.8e-4 that observes the square root scaling rule. In Fig. \[fig:large\_run\] we can see the benefit of training larger models, with the 8192-d mLSTM achieving state of the art language modeling comparable to [@Gray2017], albeit at the cost of additional compute and memory.
We investigate the scalability of a larger 8192-d mLSTM model compared to the baseline 4096-d mLSTM model in Fig. \[tab:gpu\_scale\]. The 8192-d model has 0.72 GB of parameters in FP16, while the 4096-d model has 0.18 GB of parameters. While training the 8192-d model on 128 GPUs, we see a speedup factor of 120.8x across 128 GPUs. Even though the larger model has correspondingly larger gradients, it is also more computationally intensive, leading to better scaling than the baseline model on the same hardware.
![Training progress over one epoch of Amazon Reviews for mLSTM models at a particular dimension and batch size. Dashed lines indicate the evaluation BPC after one epoch of training, with State Of The Art (SOTA) evaluation results set by Gray et. al [@Gray2017].[]{data-label="fig:large_run"}](large_run.png){width="\columnwidth"}
Analysis of Large Batch training
================================
Distributed data parallel training allows for near linear scalability with respect to available GPUs by increasing the batch size. However, as seen already in this work (see section \[sec:f16\_analysis\]), training with large batches may run faster than training with small batches, but it may not converge to the same validation accuracy. Using the same setup as section \[sec:DDP\_scale\] and 8, 16, 32, 64, and 128 GPUs we take a look at how the learning rate schedule affects convergence.
Learning Rate Scaling {#ssec:lr_scale_analysis}
---------------------
Former work in this space trained a 4096-d mLSTM with an initial learning rate of 5e-4, batches of 128, and a linear learning rate that decays to zero over one epoch of training [@Radford2017]. As expected and shown in Fig. \[tab:lr\_scale\], keeping this same learning rate schedule as we increase batch size leads to worse accuracy, or a higher BPC[^2].
Recent work scaling image CNN models with SGD suggest that learning rates could be scaled linearly as batch size increases without a noticeable loss in model accuracy[@Smith2017a]. However, we found that our mLSTM model, optimized with Adam, diverged for large batches when we scaled up the 5e-4 initial learning rate with either a linear or a square root rule, as we increased the batch size.
We observed that for batch sizes of 2k-8k, the model converged reasonably well with an initial learning rate of 3e-3 decayed to zero over one epoch. Thus we kept 3e-3 as the initial learning rate for all other experiments.
**Batch** **Iters** **Rule** **LR** **BPC** **SST** **IMDB**
----------- ----------- ---------- -------- --------- --------- ----------
linear 8e-3 1.280 79.4 77.6
sqrt 2e-3 1.117 90.2 91.9
- 5e-4 1.130 89.1 90.8
- 3e-3 1.110 89.0 92.1
linear 1.6e-2 1.275 78.3 77.6
sqrt 2.8e-3 1.122 89.6 91.0
- 5e-4 1.146 89.3 90.9
- 3e-3 1.119 89.2 91.8
linear 3.2e-2 1.476 65.4 67.3
sqrt 4e-3 1.133 89.7 90.8
- 5e-4 1.175 87.3 89.6
- 3e-3 1.132 89.5 91.4
linear 6.4e-2 Div - -
sqrt 5.8e-3 Div - -
- 5e-4 1.254 85.1 86.4
- 3e-3 1.162 89.0 90.1
linear 1.3e-1 Div - -
sqrt 8e-3 Div - -
- 5e-4 1.380 75.2 74.8
- 3e-3 1.218 87.1 87.9
Learning Rate Schedule {#ssec:lr_schedule}
----------------------
When training to convergence, we used the same learning rate schedule for all batch sizes:
- Set an initial learning rate of 3e-3.
- Linearly decay learning rate to zero over 100,000 iterations.
- Stop training at 3 epochs over the dataset, if fewer than 100,000 iterations.
This schedule, constant across all batch sizes, avoided the divergence observed in Fig. \[tab:lr\_scale\], from scaling learning rate too much, but it also performed better than if we had instead kept the initial 5e-4 learning rate constant across batch sizes.
Using this learning rate schedule for the model with different batch sizes, Fig. \[long\_run\] shows that large batch training for this problem can converge to a similar evaluation BPC as smaller batch training given a good training schedule. However, adjusting the learning rate schedule is not as simple as modifying the learning rate according to batch size. In our experiments we found that controlling the steepness of decay was also required.
![) Training progress as a function of time for a 3e-3 initial learning rate decaying to zero over 100k iterations. Various batch sizes are trained with distributed data parallelism with a batch size of 256 per GPU. ) Comparison of model convergence, hardware used, time taken, and iterations and epochs (Ep) trained for a particular batch size. Batch sizes that have not reached 100k iterations after 3 epochs did not fully decay their learning rate and may benefit from more training.[]{data-label="long_run"}](long_run.png){width="\columnwidth"}
**Batch** **GPU** **Iters** **Ep** **hrs** **BPC** **SST** **IMDB**
----------- --------- ----------- -------- --------- --------- --------- ----------
2048 8 100k 1.4 23.7 1.102 90.6 92.1
4096 16 100k 2.7 25.3 1.090 90.6 92.7
8192 32 55k 3.0 14.0 1.104 91.2 92.3
16384 64 28k 3.0 7.1 1.116 90.3 92.3
32768 128 14k 3.0 3.5 1.132 90.1 90.4
Discussion
==========
We were able to converge our model in mixed precision, to a similar value as the FP32 baseline. This speeds up training, and substantially reduces our memory footprint, without a measurable change in accuracy, as shown in Fig. \[tab:fp16\_fp32\]. We further speed up training by saturating up to 128 GPUs with distributed data parallelism, which we can do with a near-linear scaling factor Fig. \[tab:gpu\_scale\].
However, as batch size increases from 128 in [@Radford2017] to 32k, the model needs more training steps to converge, and it does not converge to to quite as good a validation BPC as the low-batch model Fig. \[long\_run\].
With longer training: 3 epochs of the Amazon Reviews dataset rather than 1, we do converge the 32k batch model close to the small batch model, doing so in a few hours instead of days or weeks. We also show that downstream task transfer to sentiment extraction is comparable when using converged large batch models (Fig. \[long\_run:table\]).
Smith et. al [@Smith2017a] suggest that to scale the learning rate without a loss in generalization quality, given a batch size $B$ and total amount of data $N$, $B$ must be sufficiently large so that $N\gg B$. It is possible that a batch size $\geq$ 32k and the amount of available Amazon data do not satisfy this requirement since the Amazon Reviews dataset is reduced to fewer than $5000$ iterations when we scale up to a 32k batch size. This observation opens up new research questions for future work.
Future Work
===========
We have shown that distributed data parallelism scales for large RNN text models. However, we start to see diminishing returns on wall time convergence at very large batches, possibly because each epoch is reduced to a small number of training iterations. Now that we can train a language model on the 40 GB Amazon reviews dataset in hours, a next step could be to train on larger text datasets. Orders of magnitude larger text datasets could be constructed by collecting web pages, news articles, Reddit comments, and tweets, for example.
In addition to larger text datasets, we could further improve Amazon Reviews BPC (and presumably accuracy on transfer tasks) with some of the following:
- Training for more than 3 epochs.
- Data shuffling between epochs.
- Larger RNN models, with more layers and larger hidden states.
- Alternative language models, such as the Transformer network [@Transformer2017].
- Hyper-parameter search for an ideal large batch learning rate schedule.
As shown in Fig. \[long\_run:table\], our best large batch training runs did not decay the learning rate to zero by the end of 3 epochs. As long as the initial learning rate is low enough not to cause training divergence, it may be possible to keep the learning rate high through several epochs of training. Recent language modeling work with the Transformer network has shown that triangular learning rate warmup and non-linear learning rate decay (cosine annealing) can lead to a better learning rate schedule with the Adam optimizer[@Radford2018]. We showed that a simple learning rate schedule can work for large batch training, but further work on learning rate schedules will likely improve convergence.
Increasing the mLSTM size from 4096 to 8192-d reduces the per-GPU batch size by a factor of four. Using gradient checkpointing [@checkpointing] would allow training larger models with larger batches without being constrained by memory capacity.
In order to get maximal text understanding from these larger models, we could modify the unsupervised task to include additional objectives, along with language modeling. Auxiliary tasks may include predicting a review’s star rating, the title or topic of a piece of text, or any other freely available structural text label. Since the purpose of unsupervised training is to build a model with deep conceptual understanding of the text, auxiliary tasks that leverage metadata available with the text could provide additional understanding.
Conclusion
==========
We set out to investigate large scale training for recurrent models in the Natural Language domain. With mixed precision training we can successfully converge a model 4.2x faster with double the batch size compared to FP32 training. By leveraging distributed deep learning with NCCL2, NVLINK, and Infiniband interconnect, we achieve near linear scaling of 109x with 128 GPUs, as we grow the batch size proportionately to the number of available machines.
In addition to pushing wall time scalability by decreasing the time needed to converge a language model on the Amazon Reviews dataset, we analyze the convergence of models trained with large batches. We find that training with very large batches leads to somewhat worse generalization, requiring more data to converge to a similar validation BPC and transfer accuracy as small batch training. Learning rate schedule modifications are necessary to help with convergence. Without such techniques evaluation quality begins to decline as batch size increases, or the model fails to converge if the learning rate is scaled too high.
With further modification to the learning rate schedule and additional training it is possible to train models with large batches comparable to models trained with smaller batches. Our experiments lead to two insights:
- The relationship between batch size and learning regime is complex and learning rate scaling alone is not always enough to converge a model.
- Even with the largest public text corpus available, it may not be feasible to satisfy the $B \ll N$ batch size requirement needed to effectively train with the largest batches that modern hardware allows.
We look forward to more work investigating large scale language model training and using it in transferred tasks to solve difficult natural language problems.
[^1]: Our code is publicly available: https://github.com/NVIDIA/sentiment-discovery
[^2]: We train our models to convergence, not for one epoch, but results over one epoch are representative, and easier to compare.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper we construct unstable shocks in the context of 2D isentropic compressible Euler in azimuthal symmetry. More specifically, we construct initial data that when viewed in self-similar coordinates, converges asymptotically to the unstable $C^{\frac15}$ self-similar solution to the Burgers’ equation. Moreover, we show the behavior is stable in $C^8$ modulo a two dimensional linear subspace. Under the azimuthal symmetry assumption, one cannot impose additional symmetry assumptions in order to isolate the corresponding unstable manifold: rather, we rely on modulation variable techniques in conjunction with a Newton scheme.'
author:
- '[ [^1] ]{}'
- '[[^2] ]{}'
bibliography:
- 'euler.bib'
title: '[**Formation of unstable shocks for 2D isentropic compressible Euler** ]{}'
---
Introduction
============
Setup of Compressible Euler under azimuthal symmetry
----------------------------------------------------
In this paper we study asymptotically self-similar formation of unstable shocks for the 2D isentropic compressible Euler equations under azimuthal symmetry. The 2D isentropic compressible Euler equations take the form
\[eq:Euler\] $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t (\rho u) + {\ensuremath{\mathrm{div\,}}}(\rho\, u \otimes u) + \nabla p(\rho) &= 0 \,, \label{eq:momentum} \\
\partial_t \rho + {\ensuremath{\mathrm{div\,}}}(\rho u)&=0 \,, \label{eq:mass}\end{aligned}$$
where $u :\mathbb{R}^2 \times \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}^2 $ is the velocity of the fluid, $\rho: \mathbb{R}^2 \times \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} _+$ is the density, and $p: \mathbb{R}^2 \times \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} _+$ is the pressure defined by the ideal gas law $$p(\rho) := \tfrac{1}{\gamma} \rho^\gamma\,, \qquad \gamma >1 \,.$$ The associated sound speed $\sigma$ is given by $\sigma=\rho^\lambda$ where $\lambda=\frac{\gamma-1}{2}$.
It was shown in [@BuShVi2019], that if one imposes the following azimuthal symmetry $$\label{e:symmetry}
u(x,t)\cdot \frac{x}{{\left|x\right|}}= r a(\theta,t), \quad u(x,t)\cdot \frac{x^{\perp}}{{\left|x\right|}}=r b(\theta,t),\quad \rho=r^{\frac2{\gamma-1}} P(\theta,t),$$ where $(r,\theta)$ are the usual polar coordinates, then the equations reduce to the 1D system of equations
\[eq:Euler:polar3\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g3_a_evo}
\left(\partial_t + b\partial_{\theta}\right) a + a^2-b^2+ \lambda^{-1} P^{2 \lambda } &=0 \\ \label{g3_b_evo}
\left(\partial_t + b\partial_{\theta}\right)b+2a b+ P^{ 2 \lambda -1}\partial_\theta P&=0 \\ \label{g3_P_evo}
\left(\partial_t + b\partial_{\theta}\right) P+ \tfrac{\gamma}{ \lambda } a P+ P {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\theta b &=0 \, .\end{aligned}$$
An important difference between Euler under azimuthal rather than radial symmetry is that azimuthal symmetry allows for the presence of non-trivial vorticity. We remark that it was shown in [@BuShVi2019], that the system is locally well-posed in $C^n$ for any $n\geq 1$.
In order to avoid issues regarding the irregularity at the origin $r=0$, and in order to ensure finite kinetic-energy, following [@BuShVi2019], we can exploit locality and restrict the solution to the push forward of an annulus under the flow induced by $u$. To be more precise, define $A _{\underline{r},\overline{r}}$ to be the annular region $$\begin{aligned}
A _{\underline{r},\overline{r}}= \{ x\in\mathbb R^2 \colon \underline{r} < {\left|x\right|} < \overline{r} \} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Fixing $0< r_0 < r_1$; then, if $\eta_u$ is the solution to ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_t \eta_u = u \circ \eta_u$ for $t>t_0$ with $\eta_u(x,t_0)=x$, define the time dependent domain $$\label{Omega}
\Omega(t)= \eta_u(A_{r_0,r_1},t)\,.$$ Now set $0< R_0 < r_0 < r_1 <R_0$ and let $K>0$. Assuming that ${\left|u\right|}\leq K$ for all $(x,t)\in A _{R_0,R_1}\times [t_0,T_*)$, then it follows that $$\Omega(t)\subset A_{R_0,R_1} \quad \text{ for } \quad t \in [t_0,T_*]\,,$$ so long as ${\left|T_*-t_0\right|}$ is assumed to be sufficiently small (depending or $r_0$, $r_1$, $R_0$, $R_1$ and $K$). Then given a solution $(a,b,P)$ to the system , we relate these to solutions to via the transformation , restricted to the domain $\Omega$ given in .
Brief historical overview
-------------------------
The formation of shocks is a classical problem in hyperbolic PDE. The first rigorous proof of shock formation is due to the pioneering work of Lax [@Lax1964] that employed invariants devised by Riemann [@Ri1860] and the method of characteristics. The work of Lax was further generalized and refined by John [@John1974], Liu [@Li1979], and Majda [@Ma1984] (cf. [@Da2010]).
In the multi-dimensional setting, Sideris in [@Si1997] demonstrated using a virial type argument the existence of solutions that form singularities in finite time. The method of proof does not however lead to a classification of the type of singularity produced. The first proof of shock formation in the multi-dimensional setting was given by Christodoulou [@Ch2007], whereby he proved shock formation in the irrotational, relativistic setting. The work was later generalized to non-relativistic, irrotational setting [@ChMi2014], and then further extended by Luk and Speck to the 2D setting with non-trivial vorticity [@LuSp2018]. It is important to note that while the cited work are capable of proving shock formation (or simply singularity formation in the case of Sideris), the methods of proof are incapable of distinguishing precise information on the shock’s profile. For example, none of the cited work determine whether the shock occurs at one specific location or whether multiple shocks occur simultaneously. In the recent work by the first author, Shkoller and Vicol [@BuShVi2019], it was shown than in 2D under the azimuthal symmetry one can prove the existence of stable shocks (stable with respect to perturbations that preserve the azimuthal symmetry) whose self-similar profile can be precisely described. This work in [@BuShVi2019b] was extended to 3D in the absence of any symmetry assumption, and further extended to the non-isentropic case in [@BuShVi2019c]. In a different direction, we would like to also bring to attention of the remarkable recent works of Merle, Raphael, Rodnianski, and Szeftel, [@MRRS1], [@MRRS2], which demonstrated the existence of radially symmetric imploding solutions to the isentropic Euler equation – a completely new form of singularity for the Euler equations.
Unstable shocks for the Burgers’ equation {#s:burgers}
-----------------------------------------
Before we state a rough version of the main theorem, let us first review the concept of an *unstable shock* in the context of the 1D Burgers’ equation: $$\label{eq:Burgers}
{\ensuremath{\partial}}_t w+ w {\ensuremath{\partial}}_y w = 0\,\quad\mbox{for }y\in\mathbb R\,.$$ The Burgers’ equation satisfies the following four invariances:
1. Galilean symmetry: If $w(y,t)$ is solves then $w(y-v,t)+v$ solves for any $v\in\mathbb R$.
2. Temporal rescaling: If $w(y,t)$ is solves then $\lambda w(y,\lambda t)$ solves for any $\lambda>0$.
3. Translation invariance: If $w(y,t)$ is solves then $w(y-y_0, t)$ solves for any $y_0\in\mathbb R$.
4. Spatial rescaling: If $w(y,t)$ is solves then $\lambda^{-1} w(\lambda y,t)$ solves for any $\lambda>0$.
Any initial data $w_0$ with a negative slope at some point $y_0$ will shock in finite time. Let us assume that $w_0$ has a global minimum slope. By temporal rescaling and translation invariance, without loss of generality, we may assume the global minimum slope is $-1$, occurring at $y=0$. Let us take the initial time to be $t=-1$. By Galilean symmetry, without loss of generality, we may further assume $w_0(0)=0$, then by methods of characteristics that the solution $w$ will shock at $(y,t)=(0,0)$.
If in addition $w'''_0(0) =\nu> 0$, then the solution $w$ will convergence asymptotically at the blow up to a self-similar profile ${\overline}W_1$; in particular, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{limit:1}
\lim_{t\rightarrow 0} (-t)^{-\frac12}w(x(-t)^{-\frac32},t)= \left(\frac{\nu}{6}\right)^{-\frac12}{\overline}{W}_1\left(\left(\frac{\nu}{6}\right)^{\frac12}x\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ for any $x\in\mathbb R$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{explicit:1}
{\overline}{W}_1(x) = \left(- \frac x2 + \left(\frac{1}{27} + \frac{x^2}{4}\right)^{\frac 12}\right)^{\frac 13} - \left( \frac x2 + \left(\frac{1}{27} + \frac{x^2}{4}\right)^{\frac 12} \right)^{\frac 13} \,.\end{aligned}$$
Note one can fix $\nu$ by making use of of the spacial rescaling invariance of Burgers’ equation.
The shock profile is stable in the sense that given any initial data in a suitably small $C^4$ neighborhood of $w_0$, the resulting solution will satisfy modulo the invariances of Burgers’ equation. The profile ${\overline}W_1$ (together its $\nu$ rescaling given on the right hand side of ) satisfy the following self-similar Burgers’ equation $$-\frac{1}{2i} {\overline}W_1 + \left( \frac{3}{2}x + {\overline}W_1 \right) \partial_x {\overline}W_1=0\,.$$ In addition to ${\overline}{W}_1$ defined above, the Burgers’ equation admits a countable family of smooth self-similar profiles [@Fontelos]. For each $i\in\mathbb N$, there exists a unique non-trivial analytic profile $W_i$ satisfying the ODE $$-\frac 1{2i} {\overline}{W}_i + \left( \frac{(2i+1)x}{2i} + {\overline}{W}_i \right) \partial_x {\overline}{W}_i = 0\,.$$ such that $$w_i(x,t)=(-t)^{\frac1{2i}}{\overline}{W}_i(x(-t)^{\frac{2i+1}{2i}})\,,$$ defines a self-similar solution to the Burgers’ equation. Unlike ${\overline}{W}_1$, the solutions ${\overline}{W}_{i}$ for $i>1$ are unstable: generic small perturbations of initial data $w_i(\cdot,0)$ lead to singularities described by the stable self-similar profile ${\overline}W_1$. Indeed a generic smooth perturbation of $w_i(x,0)$ leads to initial data with a global minimum at a point where the third derivative is positive, which by the discussion above leads to a shock with asymptotic profile ${\overline}W_1$.
The profiles ${\overline}{W}_{i}$ for $i>1$ are nevertheless stable modulo a finite co-dimension of initial data: Suppose we are given initial data $w_0$ with a global minimum, as a consequence of the invariances of Burgers’ equation, we may further assume $w(0)=0$ and $w_0'(0)=-1$. If we further assume that $w_0^{(n)}=0$ for $n=2,\dots,2i $ and that $w_0^{(2i+1)}=\nu>0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{limit:2}
\lim_{t\rightarrow 0} (-t)^{-\frac1{2i}}w(x(-t)^{-\frac{2i+1}{2i}},t)= \left(\frac{\nu}{(2i+1)!}\right)^{-\frac1{2i}}{\overline}{W}_i\left(\left(\frac{\nu}{(2i+1)!}\right)^{\frac1{2i}}x\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ for all $x\in\mathbb R$. Thus the initial data leading to the unstable shock profiles ${\overline}W_i $ for $i>1$ are described by an unstable manifolds of finite codimension.
Our main objective in this work is to identify an analogous unstable manifold, $\mathcal{M}_U$, for the compressible Euler equations which lead to unstable blowup dynamics according to the profile ${\overline}{W}_2$. Unlike the case for Burgers described above, the specification of $\mathcal{M}_U$ is not as explicit as that described above, and must be found via very careful Newton scheme.
Rough statement of main theorem
-------------------------------
In this paper, we prove the existence of asymptotically self similar solutions to 2D isentropic compressible Euler equations under azimuthal symmetry that under the appropriate self-similar transformations are described by the self-similar Burgers’ profile ${\overline}W_2$:
There exists initial data $(a_0,b_0, P_0)$ in $C^8$ for which the corresponding solutions $(a,b,P)$ to develop a $C^{\frac15}$-cusp singularity in finite time. At blow-up, the solutions $(a,b,P)$ form singularity at a unique angle; moreover, the singularities may be described in terms of the self-similar Burgers’ profile ${\overline}W_2$ in a manner made precise in Theorem \[thm:general\]. The behavior described is stable in $C^8$ with regards to the initial data modulo a two dimensional linear subspace.
We note that analogous results exist for the Burger’s equation with traversal viscosity [@CoGhMa2018], the Prandtl equations [@CoGhIbMa18; @CoGhMa19] and the Burgers-Hilbert equation [@yang2020shock]. We also note that the formation of *unstable* shocks (defined and discussed below) in the context of Bourgain-Wang solutions to NLS was obtained in [@MR3086066] through virial type identities and backwards integration techniques. These papers however rely on a symmetry to constrain the position of the singularity which leads to a comparatively simple classification of initial data leading to unstable blow up profiles. Isentropic Euler does not satisfy analogous symmetries leading us to develop a new shooting method in order to describe initial data leading to unstable blowup. We believe that techniques developed are suitably malleable and could find potential use in proving the existence of unstable blowup for other PDE.
Statement of main theorem
=========================
Riemann invariants
------------------
Before we can state our main theorem, we must first introduce the concept of Riemann invariants, since it is our aim to show that we can prescribe initial data such that one of the Riemann invariants shocks according to the self-similar profile ${\overline}W_1$.
As was done in [@BuShVi2019], in order to diagonalize the system - and isolate the Burgers-like behavior of the shock development, we will rewrite - in terms of the Riemann invariants $$w= b+ {\frac{1}{\lambda }} P^\lambda \,, \qquad z= b- {\frac{1}{\lambda }} P^\lambda \,,$$ and the wave speeds $$\Lambda_1= b - P^\lambda= \frac{1- \lambda }{2} w + \frac{1+ \lambda }{2} z \,, \qquad \Lambda_2= b+ P^ \lambda = \frac{1+ \lambda }{2} w + \frac{1- \lambda }{2} z\,.$$ With these substitutions we obtain the following system of nonlinear transport equations
\[eq:euler:wza\] $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t w +\left(w+\tfrac{1-\lambda}{1+\lambda}z\right)\partial_{\theta}w
&= -a \left(\tfrac{1-2\lambda}{1+\lambda} z+ \tfrac{3+2\lambda}{1+\lambda} w\right)
\label{eq:w:evo} \,,\\
\partial_t z +\left(z+\tfrac{1-\lambda}{1+\lambda}w\right)\partial_{\theta}z
&= -a \left( \tfrac{1-2\lambda}{1+\lambda} w+ \tfrac{3+2\lambda}{1+\lambda} z\right)
\label{eq:z:evo} \,, \\
\partial_t a +\tfrac{1}{1+\lambda} (w+z) \partial_{\theta}a
&=-\tfrac{2}{1+\lambda}a^2+\tfrac{1}{2(1+\lambda)}(w+z)^2 - \tfrac{\lambda}{2(1+\lambda)}(w-z)^2 \,.
\label{eq:a:evo}\end{aligned}$$
Initial data assumptions {#ss:initial}
------------------------
In this section we will describe the initial data used to construct unstable shock solutions. We introduce a large constant $M$ which will be used to bound certain implicit constants appearing in the paper. We also let $\eps>0$ be a small constant which will parameterize the slope of the initial data.
We will denote the initial data at initial time $t=-\eps$ by $$w(\theta,-\eps)=w_0,\quad z(\theta,-\eps)=z_0, \quad a(\theta,-\eps)=a_0\,.$$ The initial will be assumed to satisfy the follow support assumptions $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{supp\,}}}(w_0-\kappa_0)\cup {\ensuremath{\mathrm{supp\,}}}(z_0)\cup{\ensuremath{\mathrm{supp\,}}}(a_0) \subset\left[ -\frac{M\eps}{2} ,\frac{M\eps}{2}\right]\,,$$ where $\kappa_0>0$ will be a predetermined constant.
We will further decompose $w_0$ as a sum $$\begin{aligned}
\label{datum:0}
w_0=\underbrace{\kappa_0+\eps^{\frac14} {\overline}{W_2}\left(\eps^{-\frac54}\theta\right) \chi(\eps^{-1}\theta) + \eps^{\frac 1 4} {\widehat}{W}_0(\eps^{- \frac 5 4} \theta)}_{=: \check w_0(\theta)}+ \eps^{\frac 1 4} \Big(\alpha (\eps^{- \frac 5 4} \theta)^2+\beta (\eps^{- \frac 5 4} \theta)^3 \Big) \chi(\eps^{- \frac 5 4} \theta)\,. \end{aligned}$$ for some smooth fixed cut-off, $\chi$, satisfying $\chi(x) = 1$ for $|x| \le 1$ and is supported in a ball of radius $2$. Above the constants $\alpha, \beta$ are determined by ${\widehat}W_0$ and are not free parameters that we choose as part of the data. The perturbation ${\widehat}W_0$ will be assumed to satisfy the following $$\begin{aligned}
{\left \| {\widehat}W_0 \right\|}_{C^8\left(\left[ -\frac{M\eps}{2} ,\frac{M\eps}{2}\right]\right)} &\leq \eps^2\label{eq:C8:bnd}
\\
{\widehat}W_0^{(n)}(0)&=0,\quad\mbox{for } n=0,1,4, 5\label{eq:W0:diff}\\ \label{est:hatW:in}
{\left|{\widehat}W_0^{(n)}(0)\right|}&\leq \eps,\quad\mbox{for } n=2, 3 \,.\end{aligned}$$ We also assume the following bounds on $z$ and $a$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\left \| z_0 \right\|}_{C^8} + {\left \| a_0 \right\|}_{C^8} &\leq \eps^2\,.\end{aligned}$$
Main theorem
------------
We now state our main theorem:
\[thm:general\] Let $\gamma>1$ be given and set $ \lambda = {\tfrac{\gamma-1}{2}}$. Then there exists a sufficiently large $\kappa_0 = \kappa_0(\lambda) > 0$, sufficiently large $M = M(\lambda,\kappa_0) \geq 1$, and sufficiently small $\eps = \eps(\lambda,\kappa_0,M) \in (0,1)$ such that the following holds:
Let $(w_0,z_0,a_0)$ be initial data satisfying the assumptions stipulated in Section \[ss:initial\], with the constants $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are left to be chosen. Then, there exists $\alpha$, $\beta$ satisfying ${\left|\alpha\right|}+{\left|\beta\right|}\leq \eps^{\frac{9}{10}}$ and a corresponding solution $(a,z,w) \in C([-\eps,T_*); C^8({{\mathbb T}}))$ to satisfying the following properties:
- The solution forms a singularity at a computable time $T_*$ and angle $\theta_*$.
- $\sup_{t\in[-\eps, T_*)} \left( \| a\|_{ W^{1, \infty }({{\mathbb T}})} + \| z\|_{ W^{1, \infty} ({{\mathbb T}})} + \| w\|_{ L^\infty({{\mathbb T}})} \right) \leq C_M,$
- $\lim_{t \to T_*} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\theta w(\xi(t),t) = -\infty $ and $\frac{1}{2(T_*-t)} \leq {\left \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\theta w(\cdot,t) \right\|}_{L^\infty} \leq \frac{2}{T_*-t}$ as $t \to T_*$,
- $w( \cdot , T_*)$ has a cusp singularity of Hölder $C^ {\sfrac{1}{5}} $ regularity
Moreover, $w$ blows up in an asymptotically self-similar manner described by the profile ${\overline}{W}_2$. Specifically, there exists a $\nu>0$ and $\kappa_*$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{t\rightarrow 0} (-t)^{-\frac1{4}}\left(w(x(-t)^{-\frac{5}{4}},t)-\kappa_*\right)= \left(\frac{\nu}{120}\right)^{-\frac14}{\overline}{W}_2\left(\left(\frac{\nu}{120}\right)^{\frac14}x\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\nu=\lim_{t \to T_*} (T_*-t)^{-8}w^{(5)}(\xi(t),t)$ and $\kappa_*=\lim_{t \to T_*} \kappa(t) $ are explicitly computable, satisfying ${\left|\nu-120\right|}\leq \eps^{\frac 3 4}$ and ${\left|\kappa_0-\kappa_*\right|}\leq \eps$.
As a corollary, we show that Theorem is stable modulo a two dimensional linear subspace of initial data:
\[c:open\] There exists an open set $\Xi$ of initial data $(\check w_0,z_0,a_0)$ in the $C^8$ for which we have the following: for every $(\check w_0,z_0,a_0)\in \Xi$ there exists $\alpha,\beta\in \mathbb R$ such that if we define $w_0$ by then the conclusion of Theorem \[thm:general\] holds for initial data $(w_0,z_0,a_0)$.
Modulation variables and unstable ODEs at $x = 0$
-------------------------------------------------
In order to isolate the self-similar profile, we will need to introduce modulated self-similar variables. These modulation variables allow one to control the time, location, and amplitude of the eventual shock. The idea of using modulation variables is by now classical (cf. [@Merle96; @MeZa97; @MeRa05]). We give the precise definitions of our self-similar variables and modulation variables in Section \[sec:var\], but to facilitate the forthcoming discussion, let us consider the self-similar quantities $(W, Z, A)$ defined through $w(\theta, t) = e^{- \frac{s}{4}} W(x, s) + \kappa(t), z(\theta, t) = Z(x, s)$ and $a(\theta, t) = A(x, s)$, where we rescale time via $s =- \log( \tau - t)$ and space via $x = \frac{\theta - \xi(t)}{(\tau - t)^{\frac 5 4}}$.
In our case, we introduce the dynamical modulation variables $\tau, \xi, \kappa$ found in , to enable us to constrain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{const:intro}
W(0, s) = 0, \qquad {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x W(0, s) = -1, \qquad {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x^4 W(0, s) = 0\,, \end{aligned}$$ where the final constraint is notably different than in the works [@BuShVi2019; @BuShVi2019b; @BuShVi2019c], and reflects the different nature of the self-similar profile ${\overline}{W}_2$.
In so doing, we obtain from - the system that we ultimately analyze, which $$\begin{aligned}
\label{W:0:i}
({\ensuremath{\partial}}_ s- \frac 1 4) W + (g_W + \frac{5}{4}x ) {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x W &= -e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \frac{\dot{\kappa}}{1 - \dot{\tau}} + F_W, \\ \label{Z:0:i}
{\ensuremath{\partial}}_s Z + (g_Z + \frac 5 4 x ) {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x Z &= F_Z\,, \\ \label{A:0:i}
{\ensuremath{\partial}}_s A + (g_A + \frac 5 4 x) {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x A &= F_A\,. \end{aligned}$$ Above, the quantities $g_W, g_Z, g_A$ are transport speeds, and $F_W, F_Z, F_A$ are forcing terms that we also leave unspecified for the purposes of this discussion. The reader may find the precise definitions in - and - .
In addition, we control the evolution of $\tau, \xi, \kappa$ through ODEs obtained by restricting to the constrains, . Importantly the three modulation variables enable us to constrain only the three quantities appearing in . However, a feature of with $i \ge 2$ is that $W^{(2)}(0, s)$ and $W^{(3)}(0, s)$ need to be zero in the limit as $s \rightarrow \infty$. This in turn cannot be enforced by the introduction of further modulation variables due to the lack of further symmetries in the compressible Euler equations, and so must be enforced by the choice of the unstable manifold, $\mathcal{M}_U$.
The equations describing the second and third derivatives of $W$ at $x = 0$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{super:1}
&({\ensuremath{\partial}}_s - \frac 3 4) W^{(2)}(0, s) = \text{rapidly decaying forcing terms}\,, \\ \label{super:2}
&({\ensuremath{\partial}}_s - \frac{1}{2}) W^{(2)}(0, s) = \text{rapidly decaying forcing terms}\,.\end{aligned}$$ One can see the instability of the manifold due to the negative damping coefficients appearing on the left-hand side of - . Indeed, negatively damped ODEs such as - generically grow as $s \rightarrow \infty$, but certain data (as determined by the right-hand side) can lead to decaying solutions.
In the context of the Euler equations, the right-hand sides above themselves depend on other elements of the system (such as the modulation variables, and other derivatives of $(W, Z, A)$). For this reason, we are led to develop a Newton scheme which identifies this unstable manifold.
An iterative scheme to search for unstable solutions
----------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we briefly discuss the Newton scheme that can be used to identify an unstable manifold of initial data which leads to a globally decaying solution to - . For the present discussion, we focus on a model ODE problem. We consider $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ODE:model}
({\ensuremath{\partial}}_s - \frac 12) u_{\alpha} = g + \eps f(u_{\alpha}), \qquad u_\alpha(0) = \alpha\,. \end{aligned}$$
We assume for now that the forcing, $g$, has sufficiently strong decay and the nonlinearity, $f$, is an explicit quadratic nonlinearity via $$\begin{aligned}
\label{as:setup}
|g| \lesssim e^{- \gamma s}, \qquad f(u) = u^2, \qquad \gamma > 0\,. \end{aligned}$$
For general data, $\alpha$, writing the solution to via the Duhamel formula yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aloha:1}
u_\alpha(s) = e^{\frac s 2} \alpha + e^{\frac s 2} \int_0^s e^{- \frac{s'}{2}} g(s') {\,\mathrm{d}}s' + \eps e^{\frac s 2} \int_0^s e^{- \frac{s'}{2}} u_\alpha(s')^2 {\,\mathrm{d}}s'\,. \end{aligned}$$ From , it is that even under the assumption of $g$ decaying exponentially one cannot expect the solution $u_\alpha$ to decay to zero as $s \rightarrow \infty$ for *generic data*, $\alpha$. Thus, to obtain decaying solutions to , one needs to find an unstable manifold of data. In the case of this ODE, this amounts to finding a *particular value* of $\alpha$ which ensures a globally decaying solution.
To illustrate how to find this choice of $\alpha$, we now consider the linear version of (setting $\eps = 0$ in ). Upon setting $\eps = 0$ in , sending $s \rightarrow \infty$, and demanding the asymptotic behavior $u_\alpha(s) \rightarrow 0$ as $s \rightarrow \infty$, we obtain the following relation $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_0 + \int_0^\infty e^{- \frac{s'}{2}} g(s') {\,\mathrm{d}}s' = 0\,,\end{aligned}$$ which links the choice of data, $\alpha_0$, to the forcing, $g$, and guarantees the solution $|u_\alpha(s)| \lesssim e^{- \gamma s}$ inherits the decay of $g$.
We would now like to modify the choice of data, $\alpha_0$, by an $\eps$ perturbation in order to account for the nonlinear effects when $\eps > 0$ in . The overall strategy will be to fix a sequence of times $\{s_n\}$ for $n \in \mathbb{N}$ with the property that $s_n \rightarrow \infty$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$, and a corresponding sequence of data choices $\{ \alpha_n\}$ for $n \in \mathbb{N}$ so that $u_{\alpha_n}(s_n) = 0$. With suitably strong estimates, we will show that $\alpha_n \rightarrow \alpha_\infty$ and correspondingly $u_{\alpha_\infty}(s) \rightarrow 0$ as $s \rightarrow \infty$. To compute the iterate of $\alpha_{n+1}$ requires an application of the Implicit Function Theorem, which in turn requires sufficiently strong estimates on the solution.
Let us now take the particular selection of times, $s_n = n$. To initiate the induction, we will choose $\alpha_0 = 0$, and $u_0(s)$ the corresponding solution (clearly, $u_0(s_0) = u_0(0) = \alpha_0 = 0$). We describe now the $n \rightarrow n+1$ step of the iteration. We now assume inductively that there exists a choice of $\alpha_n$ so that $u_{\alpha_n}(s_{n}) = 0$ and describe the choice of $\alpha_{n+1}$, which is achieved through the Implicit Function Theorem.
We define now the map $\mathcal{T}_n$ given by $\mathcal{T}_n(\alpha) := u_{\alpha}(s_{n+1})$. We now seek an $\alpha_{n+1}$ in a small neighborhood, $\mathcal{B}_n$, of $\alpha_n$ so that $\mathcal{T}_{n}(\alpha_{n+1}) = 0$. According to a Taylor expansion of $\mathcal{T}_n$ in $\alpha$, we obtain for some $\alpha_\ast$ satisfying $|\alpha_\ast - \alpha_n| \le |\alpha_n - \alpha_{n+1}|$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{T}_n(\alpha_{n+1}) = \mathcal{T}_n(\alpha_n) + (\alpha_{n+1} - \alpha_n) \frac{{\ensuremath{\partial}}\mathcal{T}_n}{{\ensuremath{\partial}}\alpha}(\alpha_n) + \frac 1 2 (\alpha_{n+1} - \alpha_n)^2 \frac{{\ensuremath{\partial}}^2 \mathcal{T}_n}{{\ensuremath{\partial}}\alpha^2}(\alpha_\ast)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Accordingly, we may apply the Implicit Function Theorem to identify a $\alpha_{n+1}$ so that the left-hand side is zero if we can obtain three estimates: an upper bound on $| \mathcal{T}_n(\alpha_n)|$, a lower bound on $ \frac{{\ensuremath{\partial}}\mathcal{T}_n}{{\ensuremath{\partial}}\alpha}(\alpha_n)$, and an upper bound over $\sup_{\alpha_\ast \in \mathcal{B}_n} |\frac{{\ensuremath{\partial}}^2 \mathcal{T}_n}{{\ensuremath{\partial}}\alpha^2}|$.
We thus define the *error at the next time scale* created by this solution as $E_n := u_{\alpha_{n}}(s_{n+1})$, which the new choice of $\alpha_{n+1}$ must rectify in order to achieve the condition $u_{\alpha_{n+1}}(s_{n+1}) = 0$. The first main estimate in the scheme is thus careful control of this error, $E_n$, throughout the iteration. Specifically, using backwards integration from $s_n$, we may obtain the decay estimate $$\begin{aligned}
|E_n| = |\mathcal{T}_n(\alpha_n)| \lesssim e^{- \gamma s_n}\,. \end{aligned}$$
Lower bounds on $\frac{{\ensuremath{\partial}}\mathcal{T}_n}{{\ensuremath{\partial}}\alpha}$ are achieved by differentiating the forward integration formula, in $\alpha$, as this formula importantly holds for all $\alpha$. A simple inspection shows that we may expect $\frac{{\ensuremath{\partial}}\mathcal{T}_n}{{\ensuremath{\partial}}\alpha} \sim e^{\frac s 2}$. Third, an upper bound of $\sup_{\alpha_\ast \in [\alpha_n, \alpha_{n+1}]} |\frac{{\ensuremath{\partial}}^2 \mathcal{T}_n}{{\ensuremath{\partial}}\alpha^2}|$ can also be computed by differentiating twice in $\alpha$.
Notational Conventions
----------------------
We now discuss some notational conventions that we will be using throughout the analysis. First, for a function $f = f(x, s)$, we use $\| f \|_\infty = \sup_{x} |f(s, x)|$, that is $L^\infty$ refers to in the $x$ variable only. Next, we define the bracket notation $\langle x \rangle := \sqrt{1 + x^2}$. Lastly, we will often use $A \lesssim B$ to mean $A \le CB$, where $C$ is a universal constant independent of $M, \eps, \kappa_0$. We will use $A \lesssim_M B$ to mean $A \le CB$ where $C$ is a constant that can depend on $M$.
Preliminaries to the analysis
=============================
Self-similar variables and derivation of equations {#sec:var}
--------------------------------------------------
We will employ the notation $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{\tau}=\frac{1}{1-\dot\tau},\quad\beta_1=\frac{1}{1+\lambda},\quad\beta_2=\frac{1-\lambda}{1+\lambda},\quad\beta_3=\frac{1-2\lambda}{1+\lambda},\quad\beta_4=\frac{3+2\lambda}{1+\lambda},\quad\beta_5=\frac{\lambda}{2+2\lambda}\,.\end{aligned}$$
We now introduce the change of coordinates that we work in and the relevant modulation variables. We define our self-similar temporal and spacial variables as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sec3:1}
s =- \log( \tau - t), \qquad x = \frac{\theta - \xi(t)}{(\tau - t)^{\frac 5 4}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ We record the following identities $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{{\ensuremath{\partial}}s}{{\ensuremath{\partial}}t} = (1 - \dot{\tau}) e^s, \qquad \frac{{\ensuremath{\partial}}x}{{\ensuremath{\partial}}t} = \frac{5}{4} (1 - \dot{\tau}) x e^s - \dot{\xi} e^{\frac 5 4 s}, \qquad \frac{{\ensuremath{\partial}}x}{{\ensuremath{\partial}}\theta} = e^{\frac 5 4 s}\,.\end{aligned}$$ We now introduce the new unknowns, $W, Z, A$ which are defined through the following relations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sec3:2}
w(\theta, t) = e^{- \frac{s}{4}} W(x, s) + \kappa(t), \qquad z(\theta, t) = Z(x, s), \qquad a(\theta, t) = A(x, s)\,. \end{aligned}$$ In order to solve for the three modulation variables $\kappa$, $\tau$ and $\xi$, we enforce the following constraints $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:constraints}
W(0, s) = 0, \qquad {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x W(0, s) = - 1, \qquad {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x^4 W(0, s) = 0\,.\end{aligned}$$
We now record the following calculations $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\partial}}_t w= & - \frac{1-\dot{\tau}}{4} e^{\frac{3}{4}s} W + (1-\dot{\tau}) e^{\frac{3s}{4}} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_s W + \dot{\kappa} \label{BUDS:1}
+ \frac{5}{4}(1 - \dot{\tau}) x e^{\frac{3}{4}s} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x W - \dot{\xi} e^{s} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x W\,, \\ \label{BUDS:2}
{\ensuremath{\partial}}_\theta w = & e^{ s} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x W\,. \end{aligned}$$
Next, we record the calculations $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\partial}}_t z
= (1 - \dot{\tau}) e^s {\ensuremath{\partial}}_s Z + (\frac 5 4 (1 - \dot{\tau}) x e^s - \dot{\xi} e^{\frac 5 4 s}) {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x Z\label{whilk:miskey:1} ,\quad
{\ensuremath{\partial}}_\theta z= e^{\frac 5 4 s} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x Z\,. \end{aligned}$$ and similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\partial}}_t a = (1 - \dot{\tau}) e^s {\ensuremath{\partial}}_s A + (\frac 5 4 (1 - \dot{\tau}) x e^s - \dot{\xi} e^{\frac 5 4 s}) {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x A, \label{whilk:miskey:4}\quad
{\ensuremath{\partial}}_\theta a= \ e^{\frac 5 4 s} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x A\,.\end{aligned}$$
Then in self-similar variables becomes $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&({\ensuremath{\partial}}_s - \frac 1 4) W + \left(\frac 5 4 x - \beta_\tau (\dot{\xi} - \kappa) e^{\frac 1 4 s} +\beta_{\tau}(\beta_2 e^{\frac 1 4 s} Z+ W)\right){\ensuremath{\partial}}_x W \\
&\quad= - \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s}\dot{\kappa} - \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} A \Big( \beta_3 Z + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4}W + \kappa) \Big)\,.\label{eq:W:0}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we rewrite as $$\begin{aligned}
&{\ensuremath{\partial}}_s Z + \left(\frac 5 4 x+ \beta_{\tau}(e^{\frac 1 4 s}(\beta_2\kappa-\dot{\xi} +Z)+\beta_2 W)\right) {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x Z \label{eq:Z:0}
= - \beta_\tau e^{-s} A \Big(\beta_3(e^{- \frac s 4}W+ \kappa) + \beta_4Z\Big)\,,\end{aligned}$$ and as $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&{\ensuremath{\partial}}_s A + \left(\frac 5 4 x+ \beta_{\tau}(e^{\frac 1 4 s}(\beta_1\kappa-\dot{\xi} +\beta_1Z)+\beta_1W)\right) {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x A \\
&\quad= - 2\beta_\tau\beta_1e^{-s} A^2 + \frac{1}{2}\beta_\tau\beta_1 e^{-s} \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa + Z \Big)^2 \label{eq:A:0}
- \beta_\tau\beta_5 e^{-s} \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa - Z \Big)^2\,.\end{aligned}$$
We now compactify the above equations by introducing the following transport speeds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gw:def}
&g_W :=\beta_{\tau}W- \beta_\tau (\dot{\xi} - \kappa) e^{\frac 1 4 s} + \beta_{\tau}\beta_2e^{\frac 1 4 s} Z
=:\beta_{\tau}W+G_W\,,\\ \label{gz:def}
&g_Z :=\beta_{\tau}\beta_2W+ \beta_{\tau}e^{\frac 1 4 s}(\beta_2\kappa-\dot{\xi} +Z)
=:\beta_{\tau}\beta_2W+G_Z \,,\\ \label{ga:def}
&g_A := \beta_{\tau}\beta_1W+ \beta_{\tau}e^{\frac 1 4 s}(\beta_1\kappa-\dot{\xi} +\beta_1Z)=:
\beta_{\tau}\beta_1W+G_A \,, \end{aligned}$$
and forcing terms $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:FW}
F_W &:=-\beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} A \Big( \beta_3 Z +\beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4}W + \kappa) \Big)\,,\\ \label{def:FZ}
F_Z& := - \beta_\tau e^{-s} A \Big(\beta_3(e^{- \frac s 4}W+ \kappa) + \beta_4Z\Big)\,,\\ \label{def:FA}
F_A&:= - 2\beta_\tau\beta_1e^{-s} A^2 + \frac{1}{2}\beta_\tau\beta_1 e^{-s} \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa + Z \Big)^2- \beta_\tau\beta_5 e^{-s} \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa - Z \Big)^2\,.\end{aligned}$$ We note that the quantities $G_W, G_Z, G_A$ are defined through the second equalities in - .
With these definitions, our equations become $$\begin{aligned}
\label{W:0}
({\ensuremath{\partial}}_ s- \frac 1 4) W + (g_W + \frac{5}{4}x ) {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x W &= -e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \frac{\dot{\kappa}}{1 - \dot{\tau}} + F_W\,, \\ \label{Z:0}
{\ensuremath{\partial}}_s Z + (g_Z + \frac 5 4 x ) {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x Z &= F_Z\,, \\ \label{A:0}
{\ensuremath{\partial}}_s A + (g_A + \frac 5 4 x) {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x A &= F_A\,. \end{aligned}$$
Further, it will be convenient to introduce the notation $$\mathcal V_W:=g_W + \frac{5}{4}x,\qquad
\mathcal V_Z:=g_Z + \frac{5}{4}x,\qquad
\mathcal V_A:=g_A + \frac{5}{4}x\,.$$ so that we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{basic:w}
({\ensuremath{\partial}}_ s- \frac 1 4) W + \mathcal V_W {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x W &= -e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \frac{\dot{\kappa}}{1 - \dot{\tau}} + F_W\,, \\ \label{basic:z}
{\ensuremath{\partial}}_s Z + \mathcal V_Z {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x Z &= F_Z\,, \\ \label{basic:a}
{\ensuremath{\partial}}_s A + \mathcal V_A {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x A &= F_A\,. \end{aligned}$$
We define now the combination $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:mu}
\mu :=- \beta_{\tau} (\dot{\xi} - \kappa)e^{\frac s 4} +\beta_{\tau}\beta_2e^{\frac14 s}Z(0,s) = G_W(s, 0)\,. \end{aligned}$$
An unstable self-similar solution to Burgers’ equation {#s:burgers}
------------------------------------------------------
Here we develop properties of the self-similar Burgers profile, ${\overline}{W}:= {\overline}{W}_2$, which solves the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Burger:1}
- \frac 1 4 {\overline}{W} + ({\overline}{W} + \frac 5 4 x) {\overline}{W}_x = 0\,. \end{aligned}$$
According to [@Fontelos], has an implicit solution $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:implicit:eq}
x = - {\overline}{W} - {\overline}{W}^{5}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Differentiating yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:w1:implicit}
{\overline}{W}^{(1)}=-\frac{1}{1+5{{\overline}W}^4}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $ {\overline}{W}^{(1)}\leq 0$ and thus since ${\overline}{W}(0)=0$ we attain that ${\overline}{W}\leq 0$ for $x\geq 0$. By Young’s inequality and applied to , we have $$\begin{aligned}
x \leq - {\overline}{W} -{\overline}{W}^{5} \leq -\frac{{\overline}{W}^{5} }{5x^4}+-{{\overline}W}^5+\frac{4x}{5}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Rearranging, we obtain $$-{{\overline}W}^5\geq \frac{x^5}{5(5+x^4)}\,.$$ This lower bound combined with yields $$\label{bound:bar:W:1}
{\left| {\overline}{W}^{(1)}\right|}\leq (1+x^4)^{-\frac15}\,.$$ Similarly, using Young’s inequality and we have $$- {\overline}{W}^{5}\leq 5x+1\,,$$ from which we obtain the estimate $${\left|{\overline}{W}\right|}\leq \frac32 (1+x^4)^{\frac1{20}}\,.$$ Finally, differentiating $5$ times, we obtain $$\label{W5:non}
W^{(5)}(0)=120\,.$$
We now define the weight function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{weight:eta}
\eta_\gamma := (1 + x^4)^\gamma, \text{ for any } \gamma \in \mathbb{R}\,.\end{aligned}$$
We now record the following lemma, which summarizes the properties of ${\overline}{W}$ that we will be using
Let $\ell$ be sufficiently small relative to universal constants. For $n = 2, 3, 4$ at $x=0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fifth:deriv:bar:W}
&{\overline}{W}(0) = 0\,, \quad {\overline}{W}^{(1)}(0) = -1\,, \quad {\overline}{W}^{(n)}(0) = 0\,, \quad {\overline}{W}^{(5)}(0) = 120 \,.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, for $n \ge 2$, ${\overline}W$ satisfies the estimates $$\begin{gathered}
\label{decay:bar:2}
|{\overline}{W}| \le \frac 3 2 \eta_{\frac{1}{20}}\,, \quad|{\overline}{W}^{(1)}| \le \eta_{- \frac 1 5}\,, \quad |{\overline}{W}^{(n)}| \le C_k \eta_{- \frac 1 5 - \frac{n}{4}} \,,\\ \label{truth:1}
-1 + \frac{l^7}{50} \le {\overline}{W}^{(1)} \le 0 \quad\text{ for } |x| \ge \ell\,.\end{gathered}$$
Higher order $x$ derivatives
----------------------------
In this section we list the higher order derivatives of $(W,Z,A)$. It will be convenient to introduce the notation: $$\begin{aligned}
f^{(n)}(s, x) := {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x^n f(s, x)\,. \end{aligned}$$
We will derive now up to eight derivatives of the above system. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{W:n}
\Big( {\ensuremath{\partial}}_s + \frac 1 4 (- 1 + 5n) + \beta_{\tau}(n+1_{n> 1}) W^{(1)} \Big) W^{(n)} +\mathcal V_W {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x W^{(n)} &= F_{W,n}\,, \\ \label{Z:n}
({\ensuremath{\partial}}_s + \frac{5n}{4} + n\beta_{\tau}\beta_2 W^{(1)}) Z^{(n)} + \mathcal V_Z {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x Z^{(n)} &= F_{Z, n}\,, \\ \label{A:n}
({\ensuremath{\partial}}_s + \frac 5 4 n + n\beta_{\tau}\beta_1 W^{(1)} ) A^{(n)} +\mathcal V_A{\ensuremath{\partial}}_x A^{(n)} &= F_{A,n}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the forcings are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{F.W.n}
&F_{W,n} := F_W^{(n)} - 1_{n \ge 3}\beta_\tau \sum_{j = 2}^{n-1} \binom{n}{j} W^{(j)} W^{(n+1 - j)} - \sum_{j = 1}^n \binom{n}{j} G_W^{(j)} W^{(n+1-j)}\,, \\ \label{F.Z.n}
&F_{Z, n} := F_Z^{(n)} - 1_{n \ge 2}\beta_\tau \beta_2 \sum_{j = 2}^{n} \binom{n}{j} W^{(j)} Z^{(n+1 - j)} - \sum_{j = 1}^n \binom{n}{j} G_Z^{(j)} Z^{(n+1-j)}\,, \\ \label{F.A.n}
&F_{A,n} := F_A^{(n)} -1_{n \ge 2} \beta_\tau \beta_1\sum_{j = 2}^{n} \binom{n}{j} W^{(j)} A^{(n+1 - j)}- \sum_{j = 1}^n \binom{n}{j} G_A^{(j)} A^{(n+1-j)}\,.\end{aligned}$$
For repeated future reference, we record here the following expressions which are obtained by differentiating (for $n \ge 1$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FW:to:the:n}
F_W^{(n)} = &- \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} A^{(j)} \Big( \beta_3 Z^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa)^{(n-j)} \Big)\,, \\
F_{Z}^{(n)} = &- \beta_\tau e^{-s} \sum_{j = 0}^{n} \binom{n}{j} A^{(j)} \Big(\beta_3 (e^{- \frac s 4}W+ \kappa)^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 Z^{(n-j)}\Big) \label{def:FZn}
\,, \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}F_A^{(n)} = & - 2 \beta_\tau \beta_1 e^{-s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} A^{(j)} A^{(n-j)} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& + \frac 1 2 \beta_\tau \beta_1 e^{-s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} (e^{- \frac s 4}W + \kappa + Z)^{(j)} (e^{- \frac s 4}W + \kappa + Z)^{(n-j)} \\ \label{okey:1}
& - \beta_\tau \beta_1 e^{-s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} (e^{- \frac s 4}W + \kappa - Z)^{(j)} (e^{- \frac s 4}W + \kappa - Z)^{(n-j)}\,.\end{aligned}$$
By combining with , we obtain the expression $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}F_{W,n} = & - \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} A^{(j)} \Big( \beta_3 Z^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa)^{(n-j)} \Big) \\ \label{F.W.n.bot}
& - 1_{n \ge 3}\beta_\tau \sum_{j = 2}^{n-1} \binom{n}{j} W^{(j)} W^{(n+1 - j)} - \sum_{j = 1}^n \binom{n}{j} G_W^{(j)} W^{(n+1-j)}\,.\end{aligned}$$
By combining with , we obtain the final expression $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}F_{Z,n} = & - \beta_\tau e^{-s} \sum_{j = 0}^{n} \binom{n}{j} A^{(j)} \Big(\beta_3 (e^{- \frac s 4}W+ \kappa)^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 Z^{(n-j)}\Big) \\
& - 1_{n \ge 2}\beta_\tau \beta_2 \sum_{j = 2}^{n} \binom{n}{j} W^{(j)} Z^{(n+1 - j)} \label{F.Z.n.bot}
- \sum_{j = 1}^n \binom{n}{j} G_Z^{(j)} Z^{(n+1-j)}\,.\end{aligned}$$
We now derive the first five constrained ODEs. First, we introduce an important piece of notation to describe the purely $s$-dependent quantities at $x = 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{q:def:q}
q^{(n)}(s) := W^{(n)}(0, s)\,. \end{aligned}$$ From the equations and , evaluating $W^{(n)}$, for $n=0,\dots,4$ at $x = 0$ and using the constraints , we obtain the following system of five ODEs in the $s$ variable $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ODE:1}
&- \frac{\mu}{\beta_\tau} + e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \dot{\kappa} = \frac{1}{\beta_\tau} F_W(0, s)\,, \\ \label{eq:ODE:2}
&\dot{\tau} -\frac{1}{\beta_\tau} G^{(1)}_W(0, s) + \frac{\mu}{\beta_\tau} q^{(2)}(s) =\frac{1}{\beta_\tau} F_{W}^{(1)}(0, s)\,, \\ \label{eq:ODE:3}
&({\ensuremath{\partial}}_s + \frac 9 4 ) q^{(2)} - 3 \beta_\tau q^{(2)} + \mu q^{(3)} + 2 G_W^{(1)}(0, s) q^{(2)} = F_W^{(2)}(0, s) + G_W^{(2)}(0, s)\,, \\ \label{eq:ODE:4}
&({\ensuremath{\partial}}_s + \frac{14}{4}) q^{(3)} - 4 \beta_\tau q^{(3)} + 3 G_W^{(1)}(0, s) q^{(3)} + 3 \beta_\tau |q^{(2)}|^2+ \sum_{j = 2}^3 \binom{3}{j} G_W^{(j)}(0, s) q^{(4-j)}= F_W^{(3)}(0, s)\,, \\ \label{eq:ODE:5}
&q^{(5)} \mu + 10 \beta_\tau q^{(2)} q^{(3)} + \sum_{j = 2}^4 \binom{4}{j} G_W^{(j)}(0, s) q^{(5-j)} = F_W^{(4)}(0, s)\,.\end{aligned}$$ In addition, we will need the evolution equation of $W^{(5)}$ at $x=0$, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ODE:6}
&\partial_s q^{(5)}= - \mu q^{(6)} + (1 - \beta_\tau) q^{(5)} - 10 |q^{(3)}|^2 - \sum_{j = 1}^{5} \binom{5}{j} G_W^{(j)}(0, s) q^{(6-j)} + F_W^{(5)}(0, s)\,. \end{aligned}$$
We also derive the following equation for the difference ${\widetilde}W:=W-{\overline}W$: $$\begin{aligned}
&({\ensuremath{\partial}}_ s- \frac 1 4+\beta_\tau {\overline}W^{(1)}) {\widetilde}W +\mathcal V_W {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x {\widetilde}W = -\beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \dot{\kappa} + F_{ W}+((\beta_\tau -1){\overline}W-G_W){\ensuremath{\partial}}_x {\overline}W:={\widetilde}F_W\label{diff:eq0}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The equation for the higher order derivatives $W^{(n)}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&{\ensuremath{\partial}}_s {\widetilde}{W}^{(n)} + \Big( \frac 1 4 (-1 + 5n) + \beta_{\tau}\left({\overline}W^{(1)}+ nW^{(1)} \right) \Big) {\widetilde}{W}^{(n)} + \mathcal V_W {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x {\widetilde}{W}^{(n)} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&\qquad= F_{W}^{(n)} - 1_{n \ge 2}\beta_\tau \sum_{j = 2}^{n-1} \binom{n}{j} W^{(j)} {\widetilde}W^{(n+1 - j)}- \sum_{j = 1}^n \binom{n}{j} \left(\beta_\tau {\overline}W^{(j+1)}{\widetilde}W ^{(n-j)}+G_W^{(j)}{\widetilde}W ^{(n+1-j)}\right) \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& \qquad \qquad + (\beta_\tau - 1) \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} {\overline}{W}^{(j)} {\overline}{W}^{(n+1-j)} - \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} G_W^{(j)} {\overline}{W}^{(n+1-j)} \\ \label{diff:eq}
& \qquad =: {\widetilde}{F}_{W,n}\,.\end{aligned}$$
$\nabla_{\alpha, \beta}$ derivatives
------------------------------------
We introduce the following notation to compactify the forthcoming equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{c:deriv}
f_{c} := {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c} f, \qquad c \in \{ \alpha, \beta \}\,,\end{aligned}$$ for any function $f$.
### $\nabla_{\alpha, \beta}$ derivatives of $Z$
We first take ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c$ of equation which produces $$\begin{aligned}
\label{every:time:1}
{\ensuremath{\partial}}_s Z_c + \mathcal{V}_Z {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x Z_c = {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_Z - Z^{(1)} \Big( \dot{\tau}_c \beta_\tau^2 \beta_2 W + \beta_\tau \beta_2 W_{c} + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_Z \Big) =: F_{Z,0}^{c}\,.\end{aligned}$$ We now use to evaluate the ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_Z$ term appearing above via $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pcFz:0}
{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_Z = \dot{\tau}_c \beta_\tau F_Z - \beta_\tau e^{-s} A_c ( \beta_3 (e^{- \frac s 4}W + \kappa) + \beta_4 Z) - \beta_\tau e^{-s} A(\beta_3 (e^{- \frac s 4} W_c + \kappa_c) + \beta_4 Z_c)\end{aligned}$$
We next compute ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_x^n$ of equation to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&({\ensuremath{\partial}}_s + \frac 5 4 n + n \beta_\tau \beta_2 W^{(1)}) Z_c^{(n)} + \mathcal{V}_Z {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x Z_c^{(n)} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&\quad= {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_Z^{(n)} - \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} \dot{\tau}_c \beta_\tau^2 \beta_2 Z^{(j+1)} W^{(n-j)} - \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau \beta_2 Z^{(j+1)} W_c^{(n-j)}\\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&\qquad - \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} Z^{(1+j)} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_Z^{(n-j)} - 1_{n \ge 1} \sum_{j = 1}^n \binom{n}{j} G_Z^{(j)} Z_c^{(n+1-j)} \\ \label{Midterms:1}
&\qquad - 1_{n \ge 2} \sum_{j = 2}^n \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau \beta_2 W^{(j)} Z^{(n-j+1)}_c =: F_{Z,n}^{c}\,. \end{aligned}$$
We now compute the expression for ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_Z^{(n)}$ by computing ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_x^n$ of which yields $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_Z^{(n)} = & \dot{\tau}_c \beta_\tau F_Z^{(n)} - \beta_\tau e^{-s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} A_c^{(j)} \Big( \beta_3 ( e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa)^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 Z^{(n-j)} \Big) \\ \label{Midterms:2}
& - \beta_\tau e^{-s} \sum_{j =0}^n \binom{n}{j} A^{(j)} \Big( \beta_3 ( e^{- \frac s 4} W_c + \kappa_c)^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 Z_c^{(n-j)} \Big)\,.\end{aligned}$$
### $\nabla_{\alpha, \beta}$ derivatives of $A$
We compute ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c$ of the basic equation for $A$, , which yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{socialite:1}
{\ensuremath{\partial}}_s A_c + \mathcal{V}_A {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x A_c = {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_A - \Big( \dot{\tau}_{c} \beta_\tau^2 \beta_1 W + \beta_\tau \beta_1 W_c + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_A \Big) A^{(1)} =: F_{A,0}^{c}\,. \end{aligned}$$
Computing now the expression ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_A$ by differentiating , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_A = & \dot{\tau}_{c} \beta_\tau F_A + \beta_\tau \beta_1 e^{-s} \Big( e^{- \frac s 4}W + \kappa + Z \Big) \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W_c + \kappa_c + Z_c \Big) \\ \label{pcFa}
&- 2 \beta_\tau \beta_5 e^{-s} \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa - Z \Big) \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W_c + \kappa_c - Z_c \Big)\,.\end{aligned}$$
We now compute ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_x^n$ of equation which produces $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&({\ensuremath{\partial}}_s + \frac{5n}{4} + n \beta_\tau \beta_1 W^{(1)} ) A_c^{(n)} + \mathcal{V}_{A} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x A_c^{(n)} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}= & {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_A^{(n)} - 1_{n \ge 1} \sum_{j = 1}^n \binom{n}{j} G_A^{(j)} A_c^{(n+1-j)} - 1_{n \ge 2} \sum_{j = 2}^n \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau \beta_1 W^{(j)} A_c^{(n+1-j)} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& - \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} \dot{\tau}_c \beta_\tau^2 \beta_1 W^{(j)} A^{(n+1-j)} - \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau \beta_1 W_c^{(j)} A^{(n+1-j)} \\ \label{Midterms:3}
& - \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_A^{(j)} A^{(n+1-j)} =: F_{A,n}^{c}\,. \end{aligned}$$
We now compute ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_x^n$ of the expression for ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_A$ in which yields $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_A^{(n)} =& \dot{\tau}_c \beta_\tau F_A^{(n)} + \beta_\tau \beta_1 e^{-s}\sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa + Z \Big)^{(j)} \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W_c + \kappa_c + Z_c\Big)^{(n-j)} \\ \label{Midterms:4}
& - 2 \beta_\tau \beta_5 e^{-s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa - Z \Big)^{(j)} \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W_c+ \kappa_c - Z_c \Big)^{(n-j)}\,.\end{aligned}$$
### $W$ Quantities
For the $W$ equations, we separately write down the $n = 0$ system. Differentiating in $c$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&({\ensuremath{\partial}}_s - \frac 1 4 + \beta_\tau W^{(1)}) {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W + \mathcal{V}_W {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W \\
&\qquad= - e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \beta_\tau {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\kappa} - e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \dot{\kappa} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\tau} \beta_\tau^2 - {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W W^{(1)} - W^{(1)} \dot{\tau}_{c} \beta_\tau^2 W + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_W\,. \label{eq.dcw.0}
\end{aligned}$$
By differentiating in ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_W = &- {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\tau} \beta_\tau^2 e^{- \frac 3 4 s} A \Big( \beta_3 Z + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4}W + \kappa) \Big) - \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c A \Big( \beta_3 Z + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa) \Big) \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& - \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} A \Big( \beta_3 {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c Z + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \kappa) \Big) \\ \label{dc.FW}
= & \dot{\tau}_c \beta_\tau F_W - \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} A_c \Big( \beta_3 Z + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4}W + \kappa) \Big) - \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} A \Big( \beta_3 Z_c + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4}W_c + \kappa_c) \Big).
\end{aligned}$$
We combine with to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:C:W}
({\ensuremath{\partial}}_s - \frac 1 4 + \beta_\tau W^{(1)}) {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W + \mathcal{V}_W {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W = F_{W,0}^{c}\,, \end{aligned}$$
where the forcing is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}F_{W,0}^{c} := & \dot{\tau}_c \beta_\tau F_W - \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} A_c \Big( \beta_3 Z + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa) \Big) - {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W W^{(1)} - W^{(1)} \dot{\tau}_{c} \beta_\tau^2 W \\ \label{dc.FW:0}
& - \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} A \Big( \beta_3 Z_c + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4} W_c + \kappa_c) \Big) - e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \beta_\tau {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\kappa} - e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \dot{\kappa} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\tau} \beta_\tau^2 \,.
\end{aligned}$$
We now take ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_x^n$ of equation . This produces, for $n \ge 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&({\ensuremath{\partial}}_s + \frac{5n-1}{4} +(n+1) \beta_\tau W^{(1)}) {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W^{(n)} + \mathcal{V}_W {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W^{(n)} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}=& - 1_{n \ge 1} \sum_{j = 1}^n \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau W^{(1+j)} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W^{(n-j)} - 1_{n \ge 2} \sum_{j = 0}^{n-2} \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau W^{(n-j)} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W^{(j+1)} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& - 1_{n \ge 1} \sum_{j = 0}^{n-1} \binom{n}{j} G_W^{(n-j)} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W^{(j+1)} - \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W^{(j)} W^{(n-j+1)} \\ \label{trek:mix}
& - \dot{\tau}_c \beta_\tau^2 \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} W^{(1+j)} W^{(n-j)} + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x^n F_W =: F_{W, n}^{c}\,.
\end{aligned}$$
We now use the expression compute $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_W^{(n)} = & \dot{\tau}_c \beta_\tau F_W^{(n)} - \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c A^{(j)} \Big( \beta_3 Z^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa)^{(n-j)} \Big) \\ \label{dcbcFwn}
& - \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} A^{(j)} \Big( \beta_3 {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c Z^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \kappa)^{(n-j)} \Big)\,.\end{aligned}$$
Combining now with the expression , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}F_{W,n}^{c} := & \dot{\tau}_c \beta_\tau F_W^{(n)} - \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c A^{(j)} \Big( \beta_3 Z^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa)^{(n-j)} \Big) \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& - \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} A^{(j)} \Big( \beta_3 {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c Z^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \kappa)^{(n-j)} \Big) \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& - \sum_{j = 1}^n \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau W^{(1+j)} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W^{(n-j)} - 1_{n \ge 2} \sum_{j = 0}^{n-2} \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau W^{(n-j)} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W^{(j+1)} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& - 1_{n \ge 1} \sum_{j = 0}^{n-1} \binom{n}{j} G_W^{(n-j)} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W^{(j+1)} - \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W^{(j)} W^{(j+1)} \\ \label{Fncw.fin.2}
& - \dot{\tau}_c \beta_\tau^2 \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} W^{(1+j)} W^{(n-j)}\,.\end{aligned}$$
$\nabla_{\alpha, \beta}^2$ derivatives
--------------------------------------
### $\nabla_{\alpha, \beta}^2$ derivatives of $W$
We compute ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2}$ of which results in $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&({\ensuremath{\partial}}_s - \frac 1 4 + \beta_\tau W^{(1)}) W_{c_1 c_2} + \mathcal{V}_W {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x W_{c_1 c_2} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}=& {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_W - \beta_\tau W^{(1)}_{c_2} W_{c_1} - \beta_\tau^2 \dot{\tau}_{c_2} W^{(1)} W_{c_1} - \Big( \beta_\tau^2 \dot{\tau}_{c_2} W + \beta_\tau W_{c_2} + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2} G_W \Big) W^{(1)}_{c_1} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& - \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \beta_\tau^2 W W^{(1)}_{c_2} - \dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} \beta_\tau^2 W W^{(1)} - 2 \beta_\tau^2 \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \dot{\tau}_{c_2} W W^{(1)} - \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \beta_\tau^2 W^{(1)} W_{c_2} - \mathcal{M}^{c_1, c_2} \\ \label{HAIM:1}
=:& F_{W,0}^{c_1, c_2}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the modulation terms have been grouped into $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Mod:Mod:1}
\mathcal{M}^{c_1, c_2} := e^{- \frac 3 4 s}\Big( \beta_\tau \dot{\kappa}_{c_1 c_2} + \beta_\tau^2 (\dot{\tau}_{c_2} \dot{\kappa}_{c_1} + \dot{\kappa}_{c_2} \dot{\tau}_{c_1}) + \dot{\kappa} \dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} \beta_\tau^2 + 2 \beta_\tau^2 \dot{\kappa} \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \dot{\tau}_{c_2} \Big)\,.\end{aligned}$$
Similarly we compute ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_{x}^n$ of which results in the following system for $n \ge 1$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&\Big( {\ensuremath{\partial}}_s + \frac{5n-1}{4} + (n+1) \beta_\tau W^{(1)} \Big) W_{c_1, c_2}^{(n)} + \mathcal{V}_W {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x W^{(n)}_{c_1, c_2} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}= & {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_W^{(n)} - \sum_{i \in \{1, 2\}} \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau^2 \dot{\tau}_{c_i} W^{(1+j)} W^{(n-j)}_{c_{i'}} - \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau W^{(j)}_{c_1} W^{(n+1-j)}_{c_2} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& - 1_{n \ge 1} \sum_{j = 1}^n \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau W^{(1+j)} W^{(n-j)}_{c_1 c_2} - \sum_{i = \{1, 2\}} \sum_{j = 0}^{n} \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau^2 \dot{\tau}_{c_{i'}} W^{(j)} W^{(n+1-j)}_{c_i} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&- \sum_{j = 0}^{n} \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau W^{(n+1-j)}_{c_1} W^{(j)}_{c_2} - 1_{n \ge 2} \sum_{j = 2}^{n} \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau W^{(j)} W^{(n+1-j)}_{c_1 c_2} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& - \sum_{j = 0}^{n} \binom{n}{j} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2}G_W^{(j)} W^{(n+1-j)}_{c_1} - 1_{n \ge 1} \sum_{j = 1}^{n} \binom{n}{j} G_W^{(j)} W_{c_1 c_2}^{(n-j+1)} \\
& - \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} \left(\dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2}+2\dot{\tau}_{c_1} \dot{\tau}_{c_2} \right) \beta_\tau^2 W^{(j)} W^{(n+1-j)} =: F_{W,n}^{c_1, c_2}\,. \label{Bernie:1}\end{aligned}$$
We shall now compute the following identity by differentiating $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}{\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_W = &- \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \Big( A_{c_1 c_2} ( \beta_3 Z + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4}W + \kappa) ) + A_{c_1} ( \beta_3 Z_{c_2} + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s4} W_{c_2} + \kappa_{c_2}) ) \Big) \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& - \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \Big( A_{c_2} (\beta_3 Z_{c_1} + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4} W_{c_1} + \kappa_{c_1})) + A (\beta_3 Z_{c_1 c_2} + \beta_4 ( e^{- \frac s 4}W_{c_1 c_2} + \kappa_{c_1 c_2})) \Big) \\ \label{find:1}
& + \dot{\tau}_{c_2} \beta_\tau {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1} F_W + \dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} \beta_\tau F_W + \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \beta_\tau {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2} F_W\,. \end{aligned}$$
Similarly, computing ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_x^n$ of the above expression, we record for $n \ge 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}{\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_W^{(n)} = & - \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} \Big( A_{c_1 c_2}^{(j)} (\beta_3 Z^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4}W+ \kappa)^{(n-j)}) \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad + A_{c_1}^{(j)} (\beta_3 Z_{c_2}^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4} W_{c_2} + \kappa_{c_2}) ^{(n-j)}) \Big) \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& - \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} \Big( A_{c_2}^{(j)} (\beta_3 Z_{c_1}^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4}W_{c_1} + \kappa_{c_1})^{(n-j)}) \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad + A^{(j)} (\beta_3 Z_{c_1 c_2}^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4} W_{c_1 c_2} + \kappa_{c_1 c_2})^{(n-j)} ) \Big) \\ \label{Fwn:c1:c2:exp}
& + \dot{\tau}_{c_2} \beta_\tau {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1} F_W^{(n)} + \dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} \beta_\tau F_W^{(n)} + \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \beta_\tau {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2} F_W^{(n)}\,.\end{aligned}$$
### $\nabla_{\alpha, \beta}^2$ derivatives of $Z$
A calculation of ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2}$ of equation results in $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}{\ensuremath{\partial}}_s Z_{c_1 c_2} + \mathcal{V}_Z {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x Z_{c_1 c_2} = & {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_Z - \sum_{i \in \{1, 2 \}} Z_{c_i}^{(1)} \Big( \dot{\tau}_{c_{i'}} \beta_\tau^2 \beta_2 W + \beta_\tau \beta_2 W_{c_{i'}} + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_{i'}} G_Z \Big) \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& - Z^{(1)} \Big( \dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} \beta_\tau^2 \beta_2 W + 2 \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \dot{\tau}_{c_2} \beta_\tau^2 \beta_2 W + \sum_{i \in \{1, 2\}}\dot{\tau}_{c_i} \beta_\tau^2 \beta_2 W_{c_{i'}} \\
& + \beta_\tau \beta_2 W_{c_1 c_2} + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} G_Z \Big) =: F_{Z,0}^{c_1, c_2}\,.\label{Lauv:1}\end{aligned}$$
Computing ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_x^n$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&\Big( {\ensuremath{\partial}}_s + \frac 5 4 n + n \beta_\tau \beta_2 W^{(1)} \Big) Z_{c_1 c_2}^{(n)} + \mathcal{V}_Z {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x Z_{c_1 c_2}^{(n)} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}= & - 1_{n \ge 2} \sum_{j = 2}^n \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau \beta_2 W^{(j)} Z_{c_1 c_2}^{(n-j+1)} - 1_{n \ge 1} \sum_{j = 1}^n \binom{n}{j} G_Z^{(j)} Z_{c_1 c_2}^{(n-j+1)} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& - \sum_{j = 0}^n \sum_{i \in \{1, 2 \}} \binom{n}{j} Z_{c_i}^{(j+1)} \Big( \dot{\tau}_{c_{i'}} \beta_\tau^2 \beta_2 W^{(n-j)} + \beta_\tau \beta_2 W_{c_{i'}}^{(n-j)} + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_{i'}}G_Z^{(n-j)} \Big) \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& - \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} Z^{(j+1)} \Big( \dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} \beta_\tau^2 \beta_2 W^{(n-j)} + 2 \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \dot{\tau}_{c_2} \beta_\tau^2 \beta_2 W^{(n-j)} + \beta_\tau \beta_2 W_{c_1 c_2}^{(n-j)} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad + \sum_{i \in \{1, 2\}} \dot{\tau}_{c_i} \beta_\tau^2 \beta_2 W_{c_{i'}}^{(n-j)} + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2}G_Z^{(n-j)} \Big) \\
& + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_Z^{(n)} =: F_{Z,n}^{c_1, c_2}\,. \label{Lauv:2}\end{aligned}$$
We now record the expression for $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}{\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2 c_1} F_Z = &- \beta_\tau e^{-s}\Big( A ( \beta_3 ( e^{- \frac s 4} W_{c_1 c_2} + \kappa_{c_1 c_2} ) + \beta_4 Z_{c_1 c_2} ) + A_{c_1 c_2} (\beta_3 (e^{- \frac s 4}W + \kappa) + \beta_4 Z) \Big) \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& - \beta_\tau e^{-s} \sum_{i \in \{1, 2 \}} A_{c_i} \Big( \beta_3 (e^{- \frac s 4} W_{c_{i'}} + \kappa_{c_{i'}}) + \beta_4 Z_{c_{i'}} \Big) + \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \beta_\tau {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2} F_Z + \dot{\tau}_{c_2} \beta_\tau {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1} F_Z \\ \label{Lauv:3}
& + \dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} \beta_\tau F_Z\,. \end{aligned}$$
Next, we compute ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_x^n$ of the above expression to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}{\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2 c_1} F_Z^{(n)} = & - \beta_\tau e^{-s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} A^{(j)} \Big( \beta_3 (e^{- \frac s 4} W_{c_1 c_2} + \kappa_{c_1 c_2})^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 Z_{c_1 c_2}^{(n-j)} \Big) \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& - \beta_\tau e^{-s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} A_{c_1 c_2}^{(j)} \Big( \beta_3 (e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa)^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 Z^{(n-j)} \Big) \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& - \beta_\tau e^{-s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \sum_{i \in \{1, 2\}} \binom{n}{j} A_{c_i}^{(j)} \Big( \beta_3( e^{- \frac s 4} W_{c_{i'}} + \kappa_{c_{i'}})^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 Z_{c_{i'}}^{(n-j)} \Big) \\ \label{Lauv:4}
&+ \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \beta_\tau {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2} F_Z^{(n)} + \dot{\tau}_{c_2} \beta_\tau {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1} F_Z^{(n)} + \dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} \beta_\tau F_Z^{(n)}\,.\end{aligned}$$
### $\nabla_{\alpha, \beta}^2$ derivatives of $A$
We compute ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2}$ of equation to obtain the equation to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}{\ensuremath{\partial}}_s A_{c_1 c_2} + \mathcal{V}_A {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x A_{c_1 c_2} = & {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_A - \sum_{i = \{1, 2\}} A^{(1)}_{c_{i'}} \Big( \dot{\tau}_{c_i} \beta_\tau^2 \beta_1 W + \beta_\tau \beta_1 W_{c_i} + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_i} G_A \Big) \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& - A^{(1)} \Big( \dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} \beta_\tau^2 \beta_1 W + 2 \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \dot{\tau}_{c_2} \beta_1 \beta_\tau^3 W + \beta_\tau \beta_1 W_{c_1 c_2} + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2}G_A \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& \qquad \qquad + \sum_{i = \{1, 2\}} \beta_\tau^2 \beta_1 \dot{\tau}_{c_i} W_{c_{i'}} \Big)\\ \label{Lauv:5}
=: & F_{A,0}^{c_1, c_2}\,. \end{aligned}$$ By computing ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_x^n$ of the above equation, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&\Big( {\ensuremath{\partial}}_s + \frac 5 4 n + n \beta_\tau \beta_1 W^{(1)} \Big) A_{c_1 c_2}^{(n)} + \mathcal{V}_A {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x A_{c_1 c_2}^{(n)} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&\quad= - 1_{n \ge 2} \sum_{j = 2}^n \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau \beta_1 W^{(j)} A_{c_1 c_2}^{(n-j+1)} - 1_{n \ge 1} \sum_{j = 1}^n \binom{n}{j} G_A^{(j)} A_{c_1 c_2}^{(n-j+1)} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& \qquad- \sum_{i = \{1, 2\}} \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} A^{(j+1)}_{c_{i'}} \Big( \dot{\tau}_{c_i} \beta_\tau^2 \beta_1 W^{(n-j)} + \beta_\tau \beta_1 W_{c_{i}}^{(n-j)} + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_i} G_A^{(n-j)} \Big) \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&\qquad - \sum_{i = \{1, 2 \}} \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} A^{(j+1)} \Big( \dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} \beta_\tau^2 \beta_1 W^{(n-j)} + 2 \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \dot{\tau}_{c_2} \beta_1 \beta_\tau^3 W^{(n-j)} + \beta_\tau \beta_1 W_{c_1 c_2}^{(n-j)} \\ \label{Lauv:6}
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad + \sum_{i \in \{1, 2 \}} \beta_\tau^2 \beta_1 \dot{\tau}_{c_i} W_{c_{i'}}^{(n-j)} + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} G_A^{(n-j)}\Big) + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_A^{(n)} =: F_{A,n}^{(c_1, c_2)}\,. \end{aligned}$$
We next differentiate equation to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}{\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_A = & \beta_\tau \beta_1 e^{-s} \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W_{c_2} + \kappa_{c_2} + Z_{c_2} \Big) \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W_{c_1} + \kappa_{c_1} + Z_{c_1} \Big) \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& + \beta_\tau \beta_1 e^{-s} \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa + Z \Big) \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W_{c_1 c_2} + \kappa_{c_1 c_2} + Z_{c_1 c_2} \Big) \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& - 2 \beta_\tau \beta_5 e^{-s} \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W_{c_2} + \kappa_{c_2} - Z_{c_2} \Big) \Big( e^{- \frac s4} W_{c_1} + \kappa_{c_1} - Z_{c_1} \Big) \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& - 2 \beta_\tau \beta_5 e^{-s} \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa - Z \Big) \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W_{c_1 c_2} + \kappa_{c_1 c_2} - Z_{c_1 c_2} \Big) \\ \label{Lauv:7}
&+ \dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} \beta_\tau F_A + \dot{\tau}_{c_2} \beta_\tau {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1}F_A + \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \beta_\tau {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2}F_A\,.\end{aligned}$$
By computing ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_x^n$ of the above, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}{\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_A^{(n)} = & \beta_\tau \beta_1 e^{-s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W_{c_2} + \kappa_{c_2} + Z_{c_2} \Big)^{(j)} \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W_{c_1} + \kappa_{c_1} + Z_{c_1} \Big)^{(n-j)} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}+& \beta_\tau \beta_1 e^{-s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa + Z \Big)^{(j)} \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W_{c_1 c_2} + \kappa_{c_1 c_2} + Z_{c_1 c_2} \Big)^{(n-j)} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}-& 2 \beta_\tau \beta_5 e^{-s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W_{c_2} + \kappa_{c_2} - Z_{c_2} \Big)^{(j)} \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W_{c_1} + \kappa_{c_1} - Z_{c_1} \Big)^{(n-j)} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}-& 2 \beta_\tau \beta_5 e^{-s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa - Z \Big)^{(j)} \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W_{c_1 c_2} + \kappa_{c_1 c_2} - Z_{c_1 c_2} \Big)^{(n-j)} \\ \label{Lauv:8}
+ & \dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} \beta_\tau F_A^{(n)} + \dot{\tau}_{c_2} \beta_\tau {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1}F_A^{(n)} + \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \beta_\tau {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2} F_A^{(n)}\,. \end{aligned}$$
Initial data
============
We assume the data is of the form $$\label{guitar:or:band}
W_0={\overline}{W} \chi(\eps^{\frac 1 4} x) + {\widehat}W_0+\alpha x^2 \chi(x)+\beta x^3 \chi(x)\,,$$ where $\chi$ is a smooth cut-off function satisfying $\chi(x)=1$ for ${\left|x\right|}\leq 1$ and with support contained in the ball of radius $2$.
On the perturbation ${\widehat}{W}_0$, we shall assume $$\begin{aligned}
\label{assume:1}
{\left|\eta_{\frac 1 5} {\widehat}{W}_0^{(n)}(x)\right|} &\le \eps \,,&&\mbox{ for } {\left|x\right|}\leq \eps^{-\frac14} \mbox{ and } n = 0,...,8\,, \\
|{\widehat}{W}_0^{(n)}(0)| &\le \eps\,, &&\text{ for } n = 2, 3\,, \\
{\widehat}{W}_0^{(n)}(0) &= 0 \,,&&\text{ for } n = 0,1, 4, 5, 6\,. \end{aligned}$$
For $Z_0(x) := Z(s_0, x)$, and $A_0(x) = A(s_0, x)$, we assume $$\begin{aligned}
\| Z_0^{(n)} \|_\infty &\le \eps^{\frac 3 2}\,,\\
\| A_0^{(n)} \|_\infty &\le \eps^{\frac 3 2} \,.\end{aligned}$$ for $n=0,\dots, 8$.
Furthermore, we will assume the following support assumption on the initial data $(W_0,Z_0,A_0)$ $$\label{blue:grass}
{\ensuremath{\mathrm{supp\,}}}({W}_0)\cup {\ensuremath{\mathrm{supp\,}}}({Z}_0)\cup {\ensuremath{\mathrm{supp\,}}}({A}_0) \subset [- \frac M 2 \eps^{- \frac 1 4}, \frac M 2 \eps^{-\frac 1 4}] \,.$$
We will now describe the iteration.
The quantities $W_{\alpha, \beta}, Z_{\alpha, \beta}, A_{\alpha, \beta}$ solve the system - with initial data $W_{0}$ given by for $W_{\alpha, \beta}$.
We now describe the inductive hypotheses. First, we define the time step via $$\begin{aligned}
\label{time:step}
s_N := - \log(\eps) + N, \qquad N \in \mathbb{N}\,. \end{aligned}$$
The inductive hypotheses we make are the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{induct:1}
W^{(2)}_{\alpha_N, \beta_N}(s_N) = 0, \qquad W_{\alpha_N, \beta_N}^{(3)}(s_N) = 0\,, \end{aligned}$$ To initialize the induction, we take $$\begin{aligned}
\label{zero:param}
\alpha_0 = - \frac 1 2 {\widehat}{W}_0^{(2)}(0), \qquad \beta_0 = - \frac 1 6 {\widehat}{W}_0^{(3)}(0)\,. \end{aligned}$$ Note that is satisfied for $N = 0$, which is the first step of the iteration, according to , due to which implies that $$\begin{aligned}
W^{(2)}_{0, 0}(0, s_0) &= {\overline}{W}^{(2)}(0) + {\widehat}{W}_0^{(2)}(0) - {\widehat}{W}_0^{(2)}(0) = 0 \,,\\
W^{(3)}_{0,0}(0, s_0) &= {\overline}{W}^{(3)}(0) + {\widehat}{W}_0^{(3)}(0) - {\widehat}{W}_0^{(3)}(0) = 0\,. \end{aligned}$$
Bootstrap assumptions {#section:Bootstraps}
=====================
In this section we delineate all of our bootstrap assumptions. First, recall the weight function $\eta_\gamma$ defined in . Let us also specify the hierarchy of three small parameters, where $\eps$ is significantly smaller than any power of $M^{-1}$, and in turn $M^{-1}$ is significantly smaller than any power of $\ell$. For the sake of precision, we make the following selections $$\begin{aligned}
\label{choice:M}
\ell^{-1} = \log \log(M)\,. \end{aligned}$$
Parameter assumptions
---------------------
We will first specify bootstrap assumptions on the parameters, $(\alpha, \beta)$, appearing in the specification of the initial data in . Throughout the analysis, our parameters $(\alpha, \beta)$ will be contained in the rectangle set $\mathcal{B}_N$, which is defined via $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:BN}
\mathcal{B}_N = \left\{ |\alpha -\alpha_{N} | \leq M^{30} \eps^{-\frac34}e^{-\frac74s_{N}} + \eps^{-\frac 3 {10}} e^{- \frac32s_{N}} ,
{\left|\beta - \beta_{N}\right|} \leq M^{30} \eps^{-\frac12}e^{- \frac32 s_{N}} \right\}\,.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, since $s_0=-\log\eps$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{apple:1}
|\alpha | \leq 2 M^{30}\eps , \qquad {\left|\beta\right|} \leq 2 M^{30}\eps\,. \end{aligned}$$
Note that the bootstrap in this parameter region will be verified in - . Moreover, notice that due to , is valid for the initial choice of $(\alpha, \beta) = (\alpha_0, \beta_0)$, defined in .
We will now drop the subscript $W_{\alpha, \beta}$ as it is understood that $\alpha, \beta$ are fixed, and arbitrary elements of the set $\mathcal{B}_N(\alpha_N, \beta_N)$.
Note that we only assume (and therefore prove) the below bootstraps on the time interval $-\log \eps \le s \le s_{N+1}$. We now state the main inductive proposition we will be proving using these bootstrap estimates. The proof of this proposition will take place in Subsection \[subsection:proof\].
\[induct:prop\] Fix $N \in \mathbb{N}$, the parameters $(\eps, M, \ell)$ through . Let $s_N$ be given by . Assume $(\alpha_N, \beta_N)$ are given so that is valid for choice of data , satisfying conditions - . Then there exists $(\alpha_{N+1}, \beta_{N+1})$ so that is valid for $s_{N+1}$ for data given again by .
Bootstrap estimates on $(W^{(n)},Z^{(n)},A^{(n)})$ and modulation variables {#subsection:base}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will assume the following bootstraps on the support of the solutions: $$\label{e:support}
{\ensuremath{\mathrm{supp\,}}}W(s) \cup {\ensuremath{\mathrm{supp\,}}}Z(s) \cup {\ensuremath{\mathrm{supp\,}}}A(s) \subset B(M \eps e^{\frac54 s} ) =: B_f\,,$$ where $B(r)$ is the ball centered at the origin of radius $r$. We give the name $B_f$ to the above ball to compactify notation, as we will frequently write indicator functions on this ball.
We will assume the following global in $x$ bootstrap assumptions on $W$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\left|W\right|}&\leq \ell \log M \eta_{\frac1{20}} \label{W:boot:0}\,,\\
|W^{(1)}| &\le \ell \log M \eta_{- \frac 15} \label{e:uniform:W1}\,,
\\ \label{weds:1}
|W^{(n)}|&\leq M^{n^2} \eta_{- \frac 1 5} \quad\text{ for } n = 2,\dots,8 \,,\end{aligned}$$ As a consequence of $\eqref{W:boot:0}$ and , we have that $$\begin{aligned}
|W| \le \ell \log(M) \eta_{\frac{1}{20}} \lesssim \ell \log(M) \langle x \rangle^{\frac 1 5} \lesssim \ell \log(M) \langle M \eps e^{\frac 5 4 s} \rangle^{\frac 1 5} \lesssim \ell \log(M) (1 + M^{\frac 1 5} \eps^{\frac 15} e^{\frac s 4})\,, \end{aligned}$$ and thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est:W:good}
e^{- \frac s 4} |W| \le 1\,,\end{aligned}$$ which we shall use repeatedly.
On $Z$ and $A$ we will assume the following bootstraps: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Z:boot:0}
\| Z \|_\infty &\le \eps^{\frac 5 4}\,, &\| Z^{(n)} \|_\infty &\le M^{2n^2} e^{- \frac 5 4 s} \,, \\ \label{A:boot:9}
\| A \|_\infty &\le M\eps\,, &\| A^{(n)} \|_\infty &\le M^{2n^2} e^{- \frac 5 4 s}\,, \end{aligned}$$ for $n=1,\dots 8$.
For the difference, ${\widetilde}{W}$, we make the following bootstrap assumptions on ${\widetilde}{W}$ and ${\widetilde}{W}^{(1)}$ in the region ${\left|x\right|}\leq \eps^{-\frac14} $ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{thurs:1}
|{\widetilde}{W}| &\le \eps^{\frac{3}{20}} \eta_{\frac{1}{20}}\,,\\
|{\widetilde}{W}^{(1)}| &\le \eps^{\frac{1}{20}} \eta_{- \frac 1 5}\,. \label{e:Wtilde:1:bootstrap}
\end{aligned}$$ For the higher order derivatives of ${\widetilde}{W}$, we will assume the following local in $x$ bootstraps in the region $|x| \le \ell$ $$\begin{aligned}
|{\widetilde}{W}^{(n)}| &\le {\left|x\right|}^{6-n}\eps^{\frac{1}{5}}+\eps^{\frac12}\leq 2{\left|\ell\right|}^{6-n}\eps^{\frac{1}{5}},\quad \mbox{for } 0\leq k \leq 5 \label{e:Wtilde:bootstrap} \\
|{\widetilde}{W}^{(6)}| &\le \eps^{\frac{1}{5}},\label{e:W6:bootstrap}\\ \label{gerrard:1}
|{\widetilde}{W}^{(7)}| & \le M \eps^{\frac 1 5} \,, \\ \label{gerrard:2}
|{\widetilde}{W}^{(8)}| &\le M^3 \eps^{\frac 1 5} \end{aligned}$$
We now make the following crucial bootstrap assumptions, which display decay in $s$ for the unconstrained quantities $q^{(2)}, q^{(3)}$ (recall the notation defined in ), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{boot:decay}
|q^{(2)}| \le \eps^{\frac{1}{10}} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} , \qquad |q^{(3)}| \le M^{40} e^{- s}\,, \end{aligned}$$ and the following smallness estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{boot:W:5:0}
|{\widetilde}{W}^{(5)}(0,s)| \le \eps^{\frac12} \text{ for } -\log \eps \le s \le s_{n+1}\,, \end{aligned}$$ which in particular, when coupled with , ensures that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{moon}
|q^{(5)}| \ge 120 - \eps^{\frac 1 2} \ge 100\,. \end{aligned}$$
We also have crucially the following estimate $${\left|W^{(1)}\right|}\leq 1+ e^{-\frac 3 4 s}\label{eq:W1:bnd:1}\,.$$
Finally, we have the bootstraps on the modulation variables: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:GW0}
&|\mu| \le \eps^{\frac 1 6} e^{-\frac 3 4 s}\,, && |\dot{\tau}| \le \eps^{\frac 1 6} e^{- \frac 3 4 s}\,, && |\dot{\kappa}| \le \eps^{\frac 1 8}\,, \\ \label{mod:sub}
&|\kappa- \kappa_0| \le \eps \,, && |\dot{\xi}| \le 3 \kappa_0\,.\end{aligned}$$ As a consequence we have $${\left|1-\beta_{\tau}\right|}\leq 2 \eps^{\frac 1 6} e^{- \frac 3 4 s}\,,\label{e:1beta:bnd}$$ which will be employed repeatedly in the forthcoming estimates.
$\nabla_{\alpha, \beta}$ bootstraps
-----------------------------------
We now provide the bootstrap assumptions we make on the $(\alpha, \beta)$ derivatives of the quantities appearing in Subsection \[subsection:base\]. The first bootstraps we provide are for the modulation variables, for which we notably do not distinguish between $\alpha$ and $\beta$ derivative (recall ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \in \{{\ensuremath{\partial}}_\alpha, {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\beta \}$ from ). $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mako:1}
&|{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \mu| \le M^{33} \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 4}\,, && |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\tau}| \le \eps^{\frac 1 2}\,, && |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\kappa}| \le \eps^{\frac 1 4} e^{\frac 1 2 s}\,, \\ \label{Baba:O:1}
&|{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \kappa| \le \eps^{\frac 1 2}\,, && |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\xi}| \le M \eps^{\frac 1 2} \,.\end{aligned}$$
Next, we provide the bootstrap assumptions on ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_\alpha Z, {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\beta Z, {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\alpha A, {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\beta A$, and higher derivatives thereof. We again note that we do not distinguish between $\alpha$ and $\beta$ derivatives for these quantities. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mako:2}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c Z \|_\infty &\le \eps^{\frac 1 2} \,, & \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c A \|_\infty &\le \eps^{\frac 1 2}\,, \\ \label{mako:3}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c Z^{(n)} \|_\infty &\le M^{2n^2} \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{-\frac12 s}\,, & \|{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c A^{(n)}\|_\infty &\le M^{2n^2} \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{-\frac12 s}\,,\end{aligned}$$ for $n=1,\dots,7$.
Next, we provide the bootstrap assumptions for the elements of the $2 \times 2$ $s$-dependent matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\alpha q^{(2)}(s) && {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\beta q^{(2)}(s) \\ {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\alpha q^{(3)}(s) && {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\beta q^{(3)}(s) \end{pmatrix}\,.\end{aligned}$$ For these quantities, we need to distinguish between $\alpha$ and $\beta$ derivatives carefully, which we do via $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mako:4}
&\frac 1 2 \eps^{\frac34}e^{\frac 3 4 s} \le {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\alpha q^{(2)} \le 4 \eps^{\frac34}e^{\frac 3 4 s }\,, &&|{\ensuremath{\partial}}_\alpha q^{(3)}| \le \eps e^{\frac s 2 }\,, \\ \label{mako:5}
&|{\ensuremath{\partial}}_\beta q^{(2)}| \le \eps e^{\frac 3 4 s}\,, &&\frac 1 2 \eps^{\frac12} e^{\frac 1 2 s} \le {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\beta q^{(3)} \le 4 \eps^{\frac12}e^{\frac 1 2 s}\,.\end{aligned}$$
In addition, we will need the enhanced constrained bootstrap $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hotel:motel}
|{\widetilde}{q}^{(5)}_c(s)| \le \eps^{\frac 3 8} e^{\frac 1 8 s}\,. \end{aligned}$$
Next, we will assume the following bootstrap bounds on ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W$ and higher derivatives thereof. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pc:W0}
\|{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W \|_\infty &\le M^{4} \eps^{\frac34} e^{\frac 3 4 s}\,, \\ \label{mako:6}
\|{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W^{(n)} \eta_{\frac{1}{20}} \|_\infty &\le M^{(n+2)^2} \eps^{\frac34}e^{\frac 3 4 s} \,.\end{aligned}$$ for $n=1,\dots,7$. Finally, we assume the following localized bounds on the region $|x| \le \ell$ which are stronger than - $$\begin{aligned}
\label{warrior:1}
|W_c^{(n)}| &\le \ell^{\frac 1 2} M \eps^{\frac34}e^{\frac 3 4 s} \qquad\text{ for }0 \le n \le 6 \,,\\ \label{warrior:2}
|W_c^{(7)}| &\le M \eps^{\frac34}e^{\frac 3 4 s}\,.\end{aligned}$$
$\nabla_{\alpha, \beta}^2$ bootstraps
-------------------------------------
We now provide the bootstrap assumptions on two parameter ($\alpha, \beta$) derivatives of the quantities in Subsection \[subsection:base\]. For these highest order bootstraps, we do not need to distinguish between $\alpha$ and $\beta$ derivatives. Recall that ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1c_2}$ means $c_i \in \{\alpha, \beta\}$. We impose the following bootstrap assumptions for $0\le n\le 6$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{posty:1}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} Z^{(n)} \|_\infty& \le M^{2j^2} \eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{\frac s 4} \,, \\ \label{posty:2}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} A^{(n)} \|_\infty &\le M^{2j^2} \eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{\frac s 4} \,, \\ \label{buddy:1}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} W^{(n)} \|_\infty &\le M^{(k+5)^2} \eps^{\frac32 }e^{\frac 3 2 s} \,.\end{aligned}$$
We will also need bootstraps on the second derivative of the modulation variables $$\begin{aligned}
\label{group:1}
&|\mu_{c_1 c_2}| \le M \eps^{\frac54}e^{\frac 5 4 s}\,, && | \dot{\kappa}_{c_1 c_2}| \le M^2 \eps^{\frac54}e^{2s}\,, && |\dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2}| \le \eps e^{\frac 3 4 s}\,, \\ \label{group:2}
&|\kappa_{c_1 c_2}| \le M^3 \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^s\,, && |\dot{\xi}_{c_1 c_2}| \le M^4 \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^s\,. \end{aligned}$$
Preliminary estimates
=====================
In order to analyze the equations - and their higher order spatial derivative counterparts, - , as well as their higher order parameter derivative counterparts, we first provide estimates on the forcing terms appearing in - . These are performed in Subsection \[subsection:Forcing\]. Controlling these forcing terms requires in turn controlling the transport speeds, $G_W, G_Z, G_A$, which is achieved in Subsection \[GW:control\]. The final subsection in this section, Subsection \[subsect:trajectory\], collects estimates on the trajectories associated to the transport structure of equations - .
Transport speed estimates {#GW:control}
-------------------------
We now provide estimates on the transport speeds, which are defined in - . We begin with the following estimates.
\[l:GW\] Let $-1 \leq r \leq 0$, and $n \ge 1$. Then the following estimates are valid on the transport speeds, - . $$\begin{aligned}
\label{GW:transport:est}
\| G_W \eta_{\frac r 4} \|_{\infty}& \lesssim \eps^{\frac 1 6} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} + M^{3+r}\eps^{(1+r)} e^{\frac{1+5r}{4}s}, && \| G_W^{(n)} \|_\infty \les M^{2n^2} e^{-s}\,, \\ \label{Z:transport:1}
\| G_Z +(1-\beta_2)e^{\frac s4}\kappa_0\|_\infty &\lesssim e^{\frac s 4}\,, && \| G_Z^{(n)} \|_\infty \lesssim M^{2n^2} e^{-s}\,, && \\
\| G_A +(1-\beta_1)e^{\frac s4}\kappa_0 \|_\infty &\lesssim e^{\frac s 4}\,, && \| G_A^{(n)} \|_\infty \lesssim M^{2n^2} e^{-s}\label{A:transport:1}\,.\end{aligned}$$
We record the following identity: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:GW:e}
G_W(x, s) = \mu(s) + G_{W,e}(x, s), \qquad G_{W,e}(x, s) := \beta_\tau \beta_2 e^{\frac s 4} \int_0^x Z^{(1)}(x', s) {\,\mathrm{d}}x'\,, \end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked definition for $G_W$ and subsequently for the quantity $\mu(s)$. We estimate for $j \ge 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Gw:j:est}
\| G_W^{(j)} \|_\infty = \| \beta_\tau \beta_2 e^{\frac 1 4 s} Z^{(j)} \|_\infty \le 2 e^{\frac 1 4 s} M^{2j^2} e^{- \frac 5 4 s}\,. \end{aligned}$$
Using , we estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| G_W\eta_{\frac r 4} \|_\infty \lesssim &|\mu| + \| G_{W,e} \eta_{\frac r 4} \|_\infty \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\lesssim & \eps^{\frac 1 6} e^{- \frac 3 4 s}+ \| \langle x \rangle^r \int_0^{x} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x G_W(x') {\,\mathrm{d}}x' \|_\infty \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\lesssim & \eps^{\frac 1 6} e^{- \frac 3 4 s}+ \| \langle x \rangle^r \int_0^{x} \langle x' \rangle^{-1-r} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x G_W(x') \langle x' \rangle^{1+ r} {\,\mathrm{d}}x' \|_\infty \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\lesssim & \eps^{\frac 1 6} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} + \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x G_W \langle x \rangle^{1+r} \|_\infty \\{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\lesssim& \eps^{\frac 1 6} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} + e^{\frac 1 4 s} \| Z^{(1)} \langle x \rangle^{1+r} \|_\infty \\ \label{hardy:1}
\lesssim & \eps^{\frac 1 6} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} + M^{3+r}\eps^{(1+r)} e^{\frac{1+5r}{4}s}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Above, we have invoked estimate for the estimate on $\mu$, the definition to calculate ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_x G_W$, estimate on $Z^{(1)}$, and the estimate to translate spatial weights to growth in $s$.
The above calculation, , works when $r < 0$, but at $r = 0$ does not quite work due to having to integrate $\langle x \rangle^{-1}$. However, in that case, we may estimate via $$\begin{aligned}
\| G_W \|_\infty \lesssim |\mu| + \| G_{W,e} \|_\infty \lesssim \eps^{\frac 1 6} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} + \| \langle x \rangle G_W^{(1)} \|_\infty \lesssim \eps^{\frac 1 6} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} + M^2 e^{-s} (M \eps e^{\frac 5 4 s})\,, \end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked for the estimate on $\mu$, with $j = 1$, and the estimate on the support.
We now move to the transport speed $G_Z$. First, for the lowest order quantity, we use the definition and the bootstrap assumptions to estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\| G_Z + (1-\beta_2)e^{\frac s4}\kappa_0 \|_\infty \lesssim e^{\frac s 4} (1 + \eps + \eps^{\frac 5 4}) \lesssim \eps^{\frac s 4}\,. \end{aligned}$$
According to the definition , we estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\| G_Z^{(n)} \|_\infty \lesssim e^{\frac 1 4 s} \| Z^{(n)} \|_\infty \lesssim M^{2n^2} e^{- s}\,, \end{aligned}$$
where we have invoked the bootstrap, . For the transport speed $G_A$, we invoke the definition to perform the exact same calculation.
Let $c \in \{ \alpha, \beta \}$. For $0 < r \le 1$ and $1\leq n\leq 7$, the following estimates are valid on the transport speeds, - $$\begin{aligned}
\label{r:est:1}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W \eta_{- \frac r 4} \|_\infty &\lesssim \eps^{\frac 1 2} + M^{3-r} \eps^{\frac 3 2 - r} e^{\frac{4 - 5r}{4} s}\,, && \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W^{(n)} \|_\infty \lesssim M^{2n^2} \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 4}\,, \\ \label{r:est:2}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_Z \|_\infty &\lesssim \eps^{\frac 1 4} e^{\frac s 4}\,, && \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_Z^{(n)} \|_\infty \lesssim M^{2n^2} \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 4}\,,\\ \label{r:est:3}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_A \|_\infty &\lesssim \eps^{\frac 1 4} e^{\frac s 4}\,, && \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_A^{(n)} \|_\infty \lesssim M^{2n^2} \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 4} \,.\end{aligned}$$
We differentiate in $c$ to yield $$\begin{aligned}
\label{coolie}
{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W = {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \mu + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_{W,e} = {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \mu + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\tau} \beta_\tau^2 \beta_2 e^{\frac s 4} \int_0^x Z^{(1)}(x', s) {\,\mathrm{d}}x' + \beta_\tau \beta_2 e^{\frac s 4} \int_0^x {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c Z^{(1)} {\,\mathrm{d}}x'\,. \end{aligned}$$
Multiplying now by a weight of $\eta_{- \frac r 4}$, we obtain for every $r > 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W \eta_{- \frac r 4} \|_\infty \lesssim & |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \mu| + |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\tau}| e^{\frac s 4} \| Z^{(1)} \eta_{\frac{1-r}{4}} \|_\infty + e^{\frac s 4} \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c Z^{(1)} \eta_{\frac{1-r}{4}} \|_\infty \\
\lesssim & M^{33} \eps^{\frac 1 2}e^{-\frac s4} + \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{\frac s 4} (M^2 e^{- \frac 5 4 s}) (M\eps e^{\frac 5 4 s})^{1-r} + e^{\frac s 4} (M^2 \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 2}) (M\eps e^{\frac 5 4 s} )^{1 - r}{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\\
\lesssim& \eps^{\frac 1 2} + M^{3-r} \eps^{\frac 3 2 - r} e^{\frac{4 - 5r}{4} s}{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked for the modulation variables, and for the $Z$ quantities, and to estimate $\eta_{\frac{1-r}{4}}$ in the support of $Z^{(1)}$ and hence ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c Z^{(1)}$.
We first differentiate $G_W$ to order $n\geq 1$ in $x$ via and then take ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c$ of the result to produce $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W^{(n)} = {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\tau} \beta_\tau^2 \beta_2 e^{\frac s 4} Z^{(n)} + \beta_2 \beta_\tau e^{\frac s 4} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c Z^{(n)}\,,\end{aligned}$$
which upon estimating yields $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W^{(n)} \|_\infty \lesssim &|{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\tau}| e^{\frac s 4} \| Z^{(n)} \|_\infty + e^{\frac s 4} \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c Z^{(n)} \|_\infty \\
\lesssim & M^{2n^2} \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- s} + e^{\frac s 4} M^{2n^2} \eps^{\frac 12} e^{- \frac s2} \lesssim M^{2n^2} \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 4}\,,{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked for the modulation variables, and for the $Z$ quantities.
By differentiating in ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c$, we obtain the identities $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Sam:smith:1}
{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_Z = & \dot{\tau}_c \beta_\tau G_Z + \beta_\tau e^{\frac s 4} (\beta_2 \kappa_c - \dot{\xi}_c + Z_c) \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}= & {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\tau} \beta_\tau^2 e^{\frac s 4} (\beta_2 \kappa - \dot{\xi} + Z) + \beta_\tau e^{\frac s 4} (\beta_2 {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \kappa - {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\xi} + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c Z) \\ \label{Sam:smith:2}
{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_Z^{(n)} = & \dot{\tau}_c \beta_\tau G_Z^{(n)} + \beta_\tau e^{\frac s 4} Z_c^{(n)}\,. \end{aligned}$$
By estimating we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_Z \|_\infty \lesssim & |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\tau}| e^{\frac s 4} (|\kappa| + |\dot{\xi}| + \| Z \|_\infty) + e^{\frac s 4} (|{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \kappa| + |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\xi}| + \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c Z \|_\infty) \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\lesssim & \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{\frac s 4} (1 + \eps^{\frac 5 4}) + e^{\frac s 4} (\eps^{\frac 1 4} + \eps^{\frac 1 4} + \eps^{\frac 1 2}) \lesssim \eps^{\frac 1 4} e^{\frac s 4}, \end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked both - for the ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c$ of the modulation variables, - for the modulation variables themselves, and finally and for the $Z$ quantities, with $j \ge 1$.
By estimating we obtain for $1 \le n \le 7$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_Z^{(n)} \|_\infty \lesssim & |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\tau}| e^{\frac s 4} \| Z^{(n)} \|_\infty + e^{\frac s 4} \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c Z^{(n)} \|_\infty \\
\lesssim & e^{\frac s 4} \eps^{\frac 1 2} M^{2 n^2} e^{- \frac 5 4 s} + e^{\frac s 4} M^{2n^2} \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 2} \lesssim M^{2n^2} \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 4}, \end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked for the ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\tau}$ term, and then and for $Z^{(n)}$ and ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c Z^{(n)}$, respectively.
For ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_A$, we perform essentially the same estimate as for ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_Z$.
Let $c_i \in \{ \alpha, \beta \}$ for $i = 1, 2$, and fix any $0 < r \le 1$. Then the following estimates are valid for the transport speeds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{spin:1}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} G_W \eta_{- \frac r 4} \|_\infty& \lesssim M \eps^{\frac54}e^{\frac 5 4 s} +M^{3-r} \eps^{\frac{13}{8}-r } e^{\frac {7-5r} 4 s}\,, &&\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} G_W^{(n)} \|_\infty \lesssim M^{2n^2} \eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{\frac s 2}\,, \\ \label{spin:2}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} G_Z \|_\infty &\lesssim M^4 \eps^{\frac54}e^{\frac 5 4 s} \,, &&\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} G_Z^{(n)} \|_\infty \lesssim M^{2n^2} \eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{\frac s 2}\,, \\ \label{spin:3}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} G_A \|_\infty &\lesssim M^4 \eps^{\frac54}e^{\frac 5 4 s} \,, &&\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} G_A^{(n)} \|_\infty \lesssim M^{2n^2} \eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{\frac s 2}\,, \end{aligned}$$ or $1\leq n\leq 7$
We differentiate in ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2}$ which generates the identities $$\begin{aligned}
&{\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} G_W = \mu_{c_1 c_2} + \beta_\tau \beta_2 e^{\frac s 4} \int_0^x Z^{(1)}_{c_1 c_2} + \beta_\tau^2 \beta_2 \dot{\tau}_{c_i} e^{\frac s 4} \int_0^x Z^{(1)}_{c_{i'}} {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\\\label{myoo}
& \qquad \qquad \qquad + (\dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} + 2 \beta_\tau \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \dot{\tau}_{c_2}) \beta_\tau^2 \beta_2 e^{\frac s 4} \int_0^x Z^{(1)}\,, \\ \label{myoo:2}
&{\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} G_W^{(n)} = \beta_\tau \beta_2 e^{\frac s 4} Z^{(n)}_{c_1 c_2} + \beta_\tau^2 \beta_2 \dot{\tau}_{c_i} e^{\frac s 4} Z^{(n)}_{c_{i'}} + (\dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} + 2 \beta_\tau \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \dot{\tau}_{c_2}) \beta_\tau^2 \beta_2 e^{\frac s 4} Z^{(n)}\,,\end{aligned}$$ for $ n \ge 1$. Estimating the right-hand side of yields $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} G_W \eta_{- \frac r 4} \|_\infty \lesssim & |\mu_{c_1 c_2}| + e^{\frac s 4} \| Z_{c_1 c_2}^{(1)} \eta_{\frac{1-r}{4}} \|_\infty + |\dot{\tau}_{c_i}| e^{\frac s 4} \| Z^{(1)}_{c_{i'}} \eta_{\frac{1-r}{4}} \|_\infty + (|\dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2}| + |\dot{\tau}_{c}|^2) e^{\frac s 4} \| Z^{(1)} \eta_{\frac{1-r}{4}} \|_\infty \\{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\lesssim & M \eps^{\frac 54}e^{\frac 5 4 s} + M^{3-r}\eps^{\frac{13}{8}-r} e^{\frac {7-5r} 4 s} + \eps^{2-r} e^{\frac s 4} M^{3-r} e^{(1+\frac 5 4 r)s} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&+ ( \eps e^{\frac 3 4 s} + \eps) M^{3-r} \eps^{1-r} e^{-\frac {1+5r} 4s} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Above, we have used for the $\mu_{c_1 c_2}, \dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2}$ terms, for the $Z^{(1)}_{c_1 c_2}$ term, for the $Z^{(1)}_c$ term, for the $Z^{(1)}$ term, for the $\dot{\tau}_c$ terms, and finally for the estimation of $\eta$ in the presence of $Z$.
Estimating the right-hand side of yields for $j \ge 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} G_W^{(n)} \|_\infty \lesssim e^{\frac s 4} \| Z_{c_1 c_2}^{(n)} \|_\infty + |\dot{\tau}_c| e^{\frac s 4} \| Z^{(n)}_c \|_\infty + (|\dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2}| + |\dot{\tau}_c|^2) e^{\frac s 4} \| Z^{(n)} \|_\infty \lesssim M^{2n^2} \eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{\frac s 2}\,. \end{aligned}$$ We have invoked for the $Z_{c_1 c_2}^{(j)}$ term, for the $\dot{\tau}_c$ term, for the $Z_c$ term, for the $Z^{(j)}$ term, and for the $\dot{\tau}_{c_1c_2}$ term.
Next, we differentiate - in ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2}$ to arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lose:1}
&{\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} G_Z = \dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} \beta_\tau G_Z + \dot{\tau}_{c_i} \beta_\tau {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_{i'}}G_Z + \beta_\tau e^{\frac s 4} \Big( \beta_2 \kappa_{c_1 c_2} -\dot{\xi}_{c_1 c_2} + Z_{c_1 c_2} \Big)\,, \\ \label{lose:2}
&{\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} G_Z^{(n)} = \dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} \beta_\tau G_Z^{(n)} + \dot{\tau}_{c_i} \beta_\tau {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_{i'}} G_Z^{(n)} + \beta_\tau e^{\frac s 4} Z_{c_1 c_2}^{(n)}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Estimating the right-hand side gives via $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} G_Z \|_\infty \lesssim & |\dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2}| \| G_Z \|_\infty + |\dot{\tau}| \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_Z \|_\infty + e^{\frac s 4} \Big( |\kappa_{c_1 c_2}| + |\dot{\xi}_{c_1 c_2}| + \| Z_{c_1 c_2} \|_\infty \Big) \\
\lesssim & \eps e^{s} + \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{\frac s 4} + e^{\frac s 4} \Big( M^3 \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{s} + M^4 \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{s} + \eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{\frac s 4} \Big){\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ Above we have invoked and for the $G_Z$ and ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_Z$ terms, respectively. We have also invoked - for the second derivatives of the modulation variables and for the $Z_{c_1 c_2}$ term.
For the right-most estimate in , we estimate the right-hand side of , $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} G_Z^{(n)} \|_\infty \lesssim & |\dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2}| \| G_Z^{(n)} \|_\infty + |\dot{\tau}_c| \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_Z^{(n)} \|_\infty + e^{\frac s 4} \| Z^{(n)}_{c_1 c_2} \|_\infty \\
\lesssim & M^{2n^2} \eps e^{-\frac{s}{4}} + M^{2n^2} \eps e^{- \frac s 4} + M^{2n^2}\eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{\frac s 2} \lesssim M^{2n^2} \eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{\frac s 2}\,, \end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked and for the $G_Z^{(n)}$ and ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_Z^{(n)}$ terms, respectively.
A nearly identical estimate is valid for .
Forcing estimates {#subsection:Forcing}
-----------------
In this subsection, we will provide pointwise estimates on the forcing terms $F_W, F_Z, F_A$, defined in - as well as their various derivatives (spatial and parameter).
### Forcing estimates for $(W,Z,A)$ and its derivatives
We now provide estimates on the forcing of $(W,Z,A)$ and their spatial derivatives.
For the forcing quantities defined in - and , the following estimates are valid $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FW:est:1}
\| F_W \|_\infty &\le \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{- \frac 3 4 s}, &\| F_W^{(n)} \|_\infty &\le \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{-s} \qquad \text{ for } 1\leq n \leq 8 \\ \label{FW:est:2}
\| {\widetilde}{F}_W \|_\infty &\le e^{- \frac 3 4 s}\,, &\| {\widetilde}{F}_{W,1} \eta_{\frac 1 4} \|_\infty &\le \eps^{\frac{1}{10}}\,, \\ \label{FW:est:3}
\| F_{W,n} \eta_{\frac 1 5} \|_\infty &\les M^{n^2 - 1} \quad \text{ for } 2 \le n \le 8\,, & \| F_{W}^{(1)} \eta_{\frac 1 4} \|_\infty &\le e^{- \frac 1 2 s}\,, \\ \label{Motor:1}
\| F_{W,1} \eta_{\frac 1 5} \|_\infty &\lesssim e^{- \frac 1 2 s} \end{aligned}$$
We use definition to estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| F_W \|_\infty \lesssim &e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \| A \|_\infty (\| Z \|_\infty + \| e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa \|_\infty) \lesssim e^{- \frac 3 4 s} M \eps (\eps^{\frac 5 4} +M) \lesssim_M \eps e^{- \frac 3 4 s}\,, \end{aligned}$$ which establishes the first inequality in .
We now want to estimate ${\widetilde}{F}_W$, for which we use definition to bound $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| {\widetilde}{F}_W \|_\infty \le & |\beta_\tau| e^{- \frac 3 4 s}|\dot{\kappa}| + \| F_W \|_\infty + |\beta_\tau - 1| \| {\overline}{W} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x {\overline}{W} \|_\infty + \| G_W \eta_{- \frac 1 5} \|_\infty \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x {\overline}{W} \eta_{\frac 1 5} \|_\infty \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\lesssim & e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \eps^{\frac 1 8} + \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} + \eps^{\frac 1 6} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} + M^{\frac{11}{5}} \eps^{\frac1 5} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\lesssim & \eps^{\frac 1 8} e^{- \frac 3 4 s}\,, \end{aligned}$$
which establishes the first inequality in . Above, we have invoked estimate for the $\dot{\kappa}$ term, the previously established estimate on $\| F_W \|_\infty$ in , for the $\beta_\tau - 1$ quantity, and estimate for the $G_W$ term, with $r = - \frac 4 5$.
Estimating the expression , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| F_W^{(n)} \|_\infty \lesssim &e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \sum_{j = 1}^{n -1} \| A^{(j)} \|_\infty \Big( \| Z^{(n-j)} \|_\infty + e^{- \frac s 4} \|W^{(n-j)} \|_\infty \Big) \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& + e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \|A^{(n)} \|_\infty \| e^{- \frac s 4}W \mathbbm{1}_{B_f} + \kappa \|_\infty + e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \| A \|_\infty (\| Z^{(n)} \|_\infty + e^{- \frac s 4} \| W^{(n)} \|_\infty) \\ \label{Fwn:est:s:dec}
\lesssim & M e^{- 2 s} (e^{- \frac 5 4 s} + e^{- \frac s 4}) + e^{- 2 s} + \eps e^{- \frac 3 4 s} (e^{- \frac 5 4 s} + e^{- \frac s 4}) \les_M \eps e^{-s} \,,\end{aligned}$$
which establishes the second inequality in . To estimate , we have invoked and estimates - .
We now turn to the second inequality in . For this, we appeal to the definition $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| F_W^{(1)} \eta_{\frac 1 4} \|_\infty \lesssim &e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \| A^{(1)} \eta_{\frac 1 4} \|_\infty \Big( \| Z \|_\infty + \| e^{- \frac s 4} W \mathbbm{1}_{B_f} + \kappa \|_\infty \Big) + e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \|A \|_\infty \| Z^{(1)} \eta_{\frac 1 4 } \|_\infty \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& + e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \| A \eta_{\frac{1}{20}} \|_\infty \Big( \| {\overline}{W}^{(1)} \eta_{\frac 1 5} \|_\infty + \| {\widetilde}{W}^{(1)} \eta_{\frac 1 5} \|_\infty \Big) \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\lesssim & M^2 e^{-2s} (M \eps e^{\frac 5 4 s}) ( \eps^{\frac 5 4} + M ) + M^4 \eps^2 e^{- \frac 3 4 s}+ M e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \eps^{\frac 5 4} (M\eps e^{\frac 5 4 s})^{\frac 1 5} \ell \log M \\ \label{spoke:2}
\lesssim & \eps^{\frac 1 8 } e^{- \frac 1 2 s}\,, \end{aligned}$$ where above we have used the inequality $\eta_{\frac r 4} \lesssim (M\eps e^{\frac 5 4 s})^{r}$ in the support of $A, Z$, as well as estimates - and and for the spatial decay property of ${\overline}{W}^{(1)}$.
We now arrive at the second estimate in . An appeal to gives $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\|{\widetilde}{F}_{W,1} \eta_{\frac 1 4}\|_\infty \lesssim & \| F_W^{(1)} \eta_{\frac 1 4} \|_\infty + \| {\overline}{W}^{(2)} {\widetilde}{W} \eta_{\frac 1 4}\|_\infty + \| G_W^{(1)} {\widetilde}{W}^{(1)} \eta_{\frac 1 4} \| + | \beta_\tau - 1| \Big(\| {\overline}{W} ~{\overline}{W}^{(2)} \eta_{\frac 1 4} \|_\infty \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& \qquad + \| {\overline}{W}^{(1)} \eta_{\frac 1 8}| \| {\overline}{W}^{(1)} \eta_{\frac 1 8} \|_\infty\Big) + \| G_W {\overline}{W}^{(2)} \eta_{\frac 1 4} \|_\infty + \| G_W^{(1)} {\overline}{W}^{(1)} \eta_{\frac 1 4} \|_\infty\\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\lesssim & \| F_W^{(1)} \eta_{\frac 1 4} \|_\infty + \| {\overline}{W}^{(2)} \eta_{\frac{9}{20}} \|_\infty \| {\widetilde}{W} \eta_{- \frac{1}{20}} \|_\infty + (M\eps e^{\frac 5 4 s})^{\frac 1 5} \| G^{(1)}_W \|_\infty \| {\widetilde}{W}^{(1)} \eta_{\frac 1 5} \|_\infty \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& + \eps^{\frac 1 6} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} + \| {\overline}{W}^{(2)} \eta_{\frac{9}{20}} \|_\infty \| G_W \eta_{- \frac 1 5} \|_\infty + (M\eps e^{\frac 5 4 s})^{\frac 1 5} \| G_W^{(1)} \|_\infty \| {\overline}{W}^{(1)} \eta_{\frac 1 5} \|_\infty \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\lesssim & \eps^{\frac 18}e^{-\frac s 2}+ \eps^{\frac{3}{20}} + \eps^{\frac 1 6} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} + \eps^{\frac 1 4} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} + \eps^{\frac 1 6} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} +M^{\frac {11} 5} \eps^{\frac 1 5} e^{- \frac 3 4 s}
\lesssim \eps^{\frac{3}{20}}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Above, we have used the bootstrap estimates and on ${\widetilde}W$, the bound regarding the decay of ${\overline}{W}^{(2)}$, as well as estimate , which has already been established. We have moreover invoked the previously established estimates on the $G_W$ quantity with $r = - \frac 4 5$ and the $G_W^{(1)}$ quantity.
To prove , we first recall the definition , according to which if we pair with estimate yields $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| F_{W,1} \eta_{\frac 1 5} \|_\infty \le &\| F_{W}^{(1)} \eta_{\frac 1 5} \|_\infty + \| G_W^{(1)} \|_\infty \| W^{(1)} \eta_{\frac 1 5} \|_\infty \les \eps^{\frac18}e^{- \frac 1 2 s} + \ell M^3\log M e^{-s}\les \eps^{\frac18}e^{- \frac 1 2 s} \, , \end{aligned}$$ where we have also invoked estimate , and the bootstrap .
We now appeal to the definition to perform the third estimate, . We estimate also with the help of $$\begin{aligned}
\| F_W^{(n)} \eta_{\frac 1 5} \|_\infty \lesssim& \eps^{\frac 34} e^{-s} (M\eps e^{\frac 5 4s})^{\frac 4 5} = M^{\frac 4 5} \eps^{\frac 7 4}\,, \\
\Big\| 1_{n \ge 3}\beta_\tau \sum_{j = 2}^{n-1} \binom{n}{j} W^{(j)} W^{(n+1 - j)} \eta_{\frac 1 5}\Big\|_\infty \lesssim & \sum_{j = 2}^{n-1} M^{j^2} M^{(n+1-j)^2} \lesssim M^{n^2 - 1} \\
\Big\| \sum_{j = 1}^n \binom{n}{j} G_W^{(j)} W^{(n+1-j)} \eta_{\frac 1 5}\Big\|_\infty \lesssim &\sum_{j = 1}^n M^{2j^2} e^{-s} M^{(n+1-j)^2} \le \eps^{\frac 1 2}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Above we have invoked the elementary inequality $j^2 + (n+1 - j)^2 \le - 1 + n^2$ for $n \ge 3$, and $2 \le j \le n-1$, as well as the estimates on $G_W^{(j)}$ in , and estimates on $W^{(n)}$.
We now state a lemma regarding localized estimates, on $|x| \le \ell$, which have an enhanced scaling.
The following estimates are valid: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:FW6:decay}
\sup_{|x| \le \ell} |{\widetilde}{F}_{W,6}| \les {\ell \eps^{\frac 1 5}}\,, && \sup_{|x| \le \ell} |{\widetilde}{F}_{W,7}| \le { \eps^{\frac 1 5}}\,, &&& \sup_{|x| \le \ell} |{\widetilde}{F}_{W,8}| \les {M \eps^{\frac 1 5}}\,. \end{aligned}$$
We use the definition to estimate via $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\sup_{|x| \le \ell } | {\widetilde}{F}_{W,6} | \lesssim &\|F_W^{(6)} \|_\infty + \sum_{j = 2}^{5} \sup_{|x| \le \ell} | {\widetilde}{W}^{(7-j)} | + \sum_{j = 1}^6 \sup_{|x| \le \ell} | {\widetilde}{W}^{(6-j)} | + \eps^{\frac 1 2} \eps^{\frac 1 5} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& + \eps^{\frac 1 6} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} + \sum_{j = 1}^6 M^{2j^2} e^{-s} + \eps^{\frac 1 2} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\lesssim & \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{-s} + \ell \eps^{\frac 1 5} + \eps^{\frac 1 2} \eps^{\frac 1 5} + \eps^{\frac 1 6} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} + \eps^{\frac 1 2} \les \ell \eps^{\frac 1 5}\,, \end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked estimates with $n = 6$, and .
The identical argument applies to the estimate of ${\widetilde}{F}_{W,7}$ and ${\widetilde}{F}_{W,8}$.
For $F_Z$ defined in , the following estimates are valid $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Z:0:order}
\| F_Z \|_\infty \le & \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{-s}\,, \\ \label{FZ:est:1}
\| F_{Z,1} \| \le & \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac 5 4 s} I(s) + e^{- \frac 3 2 s}\,, \\ \label{my:generation}
\| F_Z^{(n)} \|_\infty \le & \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{- \frac 5 4 s} \,,\\ \label{gen:n:FZ:est}
\| F_{Z, n} \|_\infty \les & {M^{2n^2-1}} e^{- \frac 5 4 s}\,.\end{aligned}$$ for $2 \le n \le 8$, where $I(s)$ is an integrable function of $s$ satisfying the bound $\int_{s_0}^s |I(s')| ds' < 1$.
For estimate , we use the definition to estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\|F_Z \|_\infty \lesssim e^{-s} \|A \|_\infty \Big( \| e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa \|_\infty + \| Z \|_\infty \Big) \lesssim M^2\eps e^{-s}\,, \end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked , as well as .
To estimate $F_Z^{(n)}$, we recall definition , which requires us to estimate the following four types of terms $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j = 1}^n \| \beta_\tau e^{-s} A^{(j)} (e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa)^{(n-j)} \|_\infty &\lesssim e^{-s} \| A^{(j)} \|_\infty \| e^{- \frac s 4} W \mathbbm{1}_{B_f} + \kappa \| \lesssim M e^{-s} e^{- \frac 5 4 s}\,, \\
\sum_{j = 1}^n \| \beta_\tau e^{-s} A^{(j)} Z^{(n-j)} \|_\infty &\lesssim e^{-s} \| A^{(j)} \|_\infty \| Z \| \lesssim M \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{- \frac 9 4s}\,, \\
\| \beta_\tau e^{-s} A \beta_3 e^{- \frac s 4} W^{(n)} \|_\infty & \lesssim_M \eps e^{- \frac 5 4 s}\,, \\
\| \beta_\tau e^{-s} A \beta_4 Z^{(n)} \|_\infty & \lesssim_M \eps e^{- \frac 9 4 s}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Again, we have used estimates - , as well as estimates for derivatives of $W$.
We now provide the estimate . Recall the definition . For this, when coupled with , we need to estimate further the following two terms $$\begin{aligned}
\| 1_{n \ge 2} \beta_\tau \beta_2 \sum_{j = 2}^{n} \binom{n}{j} W^{(j)} Z^{(n+1-j)} \|_\infty &\lesssim M^{2 n^2 - 1} 1_{n \ge 2} e^{- \frac 5 4 s}\,, \\
\| \sum_{j = 1}^n G_Z^{(j)} Z^{(n+1-j)} \|_\infty &\lesssim_M e^{- \frac 9 4 s}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Above, we have invoked estimates for derivatives of $W$, for $Z$, as well as for the $G_Z^{(j)}$ terms.
For estimate , we estimate all of the terms above by $e^{- \frac 3 2 s}$ with the exception of $$\begin{aligned}
|\beta_\tau \beta_3 e^{- \frac 54 s} A W^{(1)} \circ \Phi_Z| \le 10 \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{- \frac 5 4 s} |\eta_{- \frac 1 5} \circ \Phi_Z| \le \eps e^{- \frac 5 4 s} I(s)\,,{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked the trajectory estimate .
\[phone:1\] For $F_A$ defined in , the following estimates are valid $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A:0:order}
\| F_A \|_\infty &\les M^{\frac 1 2} e^{-s}\,,\\ \label{FA:est:1}
\| F_{A,1} \|_\infty &\le e^{- \frac 5 4 s} I(s)\,, \\ \label{myA:generation}
\| F_A^{(n)} \|_\infty &\lesssim M^{n^2} e^{- \frac 5 4 s}, \text{ for } 2 \le n \le 8\,, \\ \label{gen:n:FA:est}
\| F_{A, n} \|_\infty &\les {M^{2n^2-1}} e^{- \frac 5 4 s} \text{ for } 2 \le n \le 8\,, \end{aligned}$$ where $I(s)$ is an integrable function of $s$ satisfying the bound $\int_{s_0}^s |I(s')| ds' < M$.
First, we estimate $F_A$ via the definition in $$\begin{aligned}
\|F_A \|_\infty \lesssim e^{-s} \|A\|_\infty^2 + e^{-s} \| e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa + Z \|_\infty^2 + e^{-s} \| e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa - Z \|_\infty^2 \les M^{\frac12 }e^{-s}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used estimate , , , and , coupled with the fact that $M$ is large relative to $\kappa_0$.
We now turn to , for $n \ge 1$, for which we consider . $$\begin{aligned}
\| F_A^{(n)} \|_\infty \lesssim & e^{-s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \|A^{(j)} \|_\infty \| A^{(n-j)} \|_\infty + e^{-s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \Big( \| (e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa)^{(j)}\|_\infty + \| Z^{(j)} \|_\infty \Big) \times \\
& \Big( ( \| (e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa)^{(n-j)}\|_\infty + \| Z^{(n - j)} \|_\infty \Big) \\
\lesssim & M^{n^2} e^{- \frac 5 4 s}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Above, we have invoked - as well as and .
The remaining two estimates, and , follow in the same manner as - .
### $\nabla_{a,b}$ forcing estimates
We now develop estimates regarding the ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_\alpha$ and ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_\beta$ derivatives of the forcing terms $F_W, F_Z, F_A$. We start with the quantities ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_\alpha F_W$ and ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_\beta F_W$ in the following lemma.
\[L:N:F\] Let $n \ge 1$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Fwc.est.ult:0}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_W \|_\infty &\lesssim M \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{- \frac s 4} \,, & \| F_{W,0}^{c} \|_\infty &\lesssim \eps^{\frac 1 8} \,,\\ \label{Fwc.est.ult}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_W^{(n)} \|_\infty &\lesssim \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{-\frac s 4}\,, & \| F_{W,n}^{c} \eta_{\frac{1}{20}} \|_\infty &\lesssim M^{-1} M^{(n+2)^2} \eps^{\frac34} e^{\frac 3 4 s}\,. \end{aligned}$$
First, we use equation to estimate the first quantity in . We proceed in order, starting with $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_W \|_\infty \lesssim & \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\tau} \beta_\tau^2 e^{- \frac 3 4 s} A \Big( \beta_3 Z + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4}W + \kappa) \Big) \|_\infty + \| \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c A \Big( \beta_3 Z + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa) \Big) \|_\infty \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& + \| \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} A \Big( \beta_3 {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c Z + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \kappa) \Big) \|_\infty \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\lesssim & |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\tau}| e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \| A \|_\infty \Big( \| Z \|_\infty + \| e^{- \frac s 4}W \mathbbm{1}_{B_f} + \kappa \|_\infty \Big) + e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c A \|_\infty \Big( \| Z \|_\infty + \| e^{- \frac s 4}W \mathbbm{1}_{B_f}+ \kappa \|_\infty \Big) \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& + e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \| A \|_\infty \Big( \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c Z \|_\infty + \| e^{- \frac s 4} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W \|_\infty + |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \kappa| \Big) \\
\lesssim &M \eps^{\frac 3 2} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \Big( \eps^{\frac 5 4} + M \Big) + e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \eps^{\frac 1 2} \Big( \eps^{\frac 5 4} + M \Big) + M\eps e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \Big( \eps^{\frac 1 2} +\eps e^{- \frac 3 4 s} + \eps^{\frac 3 8} \Big)\,.{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ Above, we have invoked repeatedly estimates - , as well as - .
Next, we use equation to estimate the second quantity in via $$\begin{aligned}
\| e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \beta_\tau {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\kappa}+ e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \dot{\kappa} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\tau} \beta_\tau^2 \|_\infty &\lesssim e^{- \frac 3 4 s} |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\kappa}| + e^{- \frac 3 4 s} |\dot{\kappa}| |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\tau}| \lesssim \eps^{\frac 1 4 } e^{-\frac s 4 } + e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \eps^{\frac 5 8}\,, \\
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W W^{(1)} \|_\infty &\le \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W \eta_{- \frac 1 5} \|_\infty \| W^{(1)} \eta_{\frac 1 5} \|_\infty \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 1 2}\,, \\
\| W^{(1)} \dot{\tau}_c W \|_\infty &\le |\dot{\tau}_c| \| W^{(1)} \eta_{\frac 1 5} \|_{\infty} \| W \eta_{- \frac{1}{20}} \|_\infty \lesssim \eps^{\frac 1 2} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked the bootstrap bounds , , and for the second line above we have invoked with $r = \frac 4 5$.
Next, we use equation to estimate the first quantity in . Specifically, $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_W^{(n)} \|_\infty \lesssim & \Big\| \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\tau} \beta_\tau^2 e^{- \frac 3 4 s} A^{(j)} \Big( \beta_3 Z^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa)^{(n-j)} \Big) \Big\|_\infty \\
& + \Big\| \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c A^{(j)} \Big( \beta_3 Z^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa)^{(n-j)} \Big) \Big\|_\infty \\
& + \Big\| \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} A^{(j)} \Big( \beta_3 {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c Z^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \kappa)^{(n-j)} \Big) \Big\|_\infty \\
=: & \mathcal{O}_1 + \mathcal{O}_2 + \mathcal{O}_3\,. \end{aligned}$$
Bounding $ \mathcal{O}_1$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{O}_1 &\lesssim \sum_{j = 1}^{n-1} |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\tau}| e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \| A^{(j)} \|_\infty \Big( \| Z^{(n-j)} \|_\infty + \| e^{- \frac s 4} W^{(n-j)} \|_\infty \Big) \\
& \qquad + |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\tau}| e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \|A \|_\infty \Big( \| Z^{(n)} \|_\infty + \| e^{- \frac s 4} W^{(n)} \|_\infty \Big) + |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\tau}| e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \| A^{(n)} \|_\infty \\
& \qquad \times \Big( \| Z \|_\infty + \| e^{- \frac s 4} W \mathbbm{1}_{B_f}+ \kappa \|_\infty \Big) \\
& \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- 2 s} ( e^{- \frac 5 4 s} + e^{- \frac s 4} ) + \eps^{\frac 3 2} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} ( e^{- \frac 5 4 s} + e^{- \frac s4} ) + \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- 2 s} ( \eps^{\frac 5 4} + 1 ) \\
&\lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{-s},\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked estimates - , as well as .
We now bound $ \mathcal{O}_2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{O}_2 &\lesssim \sum_{j = 1}^{n-1} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c A^{(j)} \|_\infty \Big( \| Z^{(n-j)} \|_\infty + e^{- \frac s 4} \| W^{(n-j)} \|_\infty \Big) \\
&\qquad + e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c A \|_\infty \Big( \| Z^{(n)} \|_\infty + e^{- \frac s 4} \| W^{(n)} \|_\infty \Big) + e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c A^{(n)} \|_\infty \\
& \qquad \times \Big( \| Z \|_\infty + \| e^{- \frac s 4} W \mathbbm{1}_{B_f}+ \kappa \|_\infty \Big) \\
& \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac 5 4 s} ( e^{- \frac 5 4 s} + e^{- \frac s 4} ) + e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \eps^{\frac 1 2} ( e^{- \frac 5 4 s} + e^{- \frac s 4} ) + \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac 5 4 s} ( \eps^{\frac 5 4} + 1) \\
&\lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{-s}.\end{aligned}$$ We have invoked estimates - , as well as .
Finally, we estimate $\mathcal{O}_3$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{O}_3 &\lesssim \sum_{j = 1}^{n-1} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \|A^{(j)} \|_\infty \Big( \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c Z^{(n-j)} \|_\infty + e^{- \frac s 4} \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W^{(n-j)} \|_\infty \Big) \\
& \qquad + e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \| A \|_\infty \Big( \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c Z^{(n)} \|_\infty + e^{- \frac s 4} \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W^{(n)} \|_\infty \Big) + e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \| A^{(n)} \|_\infty \\
& \qquad \times \Big( \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c Z \|_\infty + e^{- \frac s 4} \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W \|_\infty + | {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \kappa | \Big) \\
&\lesssim_M e^{- 2 s} ( \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac 1 2 s} + \eps^{\frac 3 4 }e^{ \frac s 2} ) + e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \eps ( \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 2} + \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{\frac s 2} ) + e^{- 2 s} ( \eps^{\frac 1 2} +\eps^{\frac34}e^{\frac 3 4 s} + \eps^{\frac 3 8} ) \\
&\lesssim_M \eps e^{- \frac s 4}.\end{aligned}$$ We have used the bootstrap bounds - , as well as and - .
We now remark that, according to , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{born:2}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_W^{(n)} \eta_{\frac{1}{20}} \|_\infty \lesssim \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{- \frac s 4} (M\eps e^{\frac 5 4 s})^{\frac{1}{5}} = M^{\frac 1 5} \eps^{\frac {19} {20}}\,. \end{aligned}$$
Finally, we use equation to estimate the second quantity in . In addition to estimate , we need to estimate the following two quadratic quantities in $W$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{truck:0}
\| \sum_{j = 1}^n \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau W^{(1+j)} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W^{(n-j)} \eta_{\frac{1}{20}} \|_\infty &\lesssim M^{(1+j)^2} M^{(n-j+2)^2} \eps^{\frac34}e^{\frac 3 4 s} \lesssim M^{-1} M^{(n+2)^2} \eps^{\frac34}e^{\frac 3 4 s},
\end{aligned}$$ and similarly $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| 1_{n \ge 2} \sum_{j = 0}^{n-2} \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau W^{(n-j)} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W^{(j+1)} \eta_{\frac{1}{20}} \|_\infty & \lesssim 1_{n \ge 2} \sum_{j = 0}^{n-2} \| W^{(n-j)}\eta_{\frac{1}{20}} \|_\infty \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W^{(j+1)} \|_\infty \\ \label{truck:-1}
& \lesssim M^{(n-j)^2} M^{(j+3)^2} \eps^{\frac34}e^{\frac 3 4 s}\lesssim M^{-1} M^{(n+2)^2} \eps^{\frac34}e^{\frac 3 4 s}\,.\end{aligned}$$ For both of the above estimates, and , we have invoked and - .
Next, using again , we need to estimate the following two quantities $$\begin{aligned}
\label{truck:1}
\| 1_{n \ge 1} \sum_{j = 0}^{n-1} \binom{n}{j} G_W^{(n-j)} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W^{(j+1)}\eta_{\frac{1}{20}} \|_\infty &\lesssim 2 M^{2(n-j)^2} e^{-s} M^{(j+2)^2} \eps^{\frac34}e^{\frac 3 4 s} \les_M \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{- \frac s 4}\,, \\ \label{truck:2}
\| \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W^{(j)} W^{(n-j+1)}\eta_{\frac{1}{20}} \|_\infty &\lesssim \sum_{j = 0}^n \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W^{(j)} \eta_{- \frac{3}{20}} \|_\infty \| W^{(n-j+1)} \eta_{\frac 1 5} \|_\infty \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 9 {10}} e^{\frac s 4}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Above, we have appealed to estimates with $r = \frac 3 5$ and on $G_W$ and ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W$.
Finally, according to , we need to estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{backer:2}
\|\sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} \dot{\tau}_c \beta_\tau^2 \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} W^{(1+j)} W^{(n-j)}\eta_{\frac{1}{20}} \|_\infty \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 1 2}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Above, we have used the elementary inequality $$\begin{aligned}
(1 + j)^2 + (n - j+2)^2 \le -1 + (n+2)^2 \text{ for } n \ge 1, 1 \le j \le n\,, \end{aligned}$$ and we have invoked estimates , , . Combining - , we obtain the right-most estimate in .
We now establish enhanced localized estimates for the bottom order derivatives.
The following estimates are valid $$\begin{aligned}
\label{better:1}
\sup_{|x| \le \ell} |F_{W,7}^{c}| \le {M \ell^{\frac 1 5} \eps^{\frac34}e^{\frac 3 4 s}}\,. \end{aligned}$$
An inspection of the proof Lemma \[L:N:F\] shows that only terms and need to be estimated, with $n = 7$. Accordingly, we estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& \| \sum_{j = 1}^7 \binom{7}{j} \beta_\tau W^{(1+j)} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W^{(7-j)} \eta_{\frac{1}{20}} \|_\infty + \| \sum_{j = 0}^{5} \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau W^{(7-j)} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W^{(j+1)} \eta_{\frac{1}{20}} \|_\infty \lesssim \ell^{\frac 1 2} M \eps^{\frac34}e^{\frac 3 4 s}\,, \end{aligned}$$ upon invoking the localized bootstraps and .
\[lemma:j:1\] The following estimates are valid $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Force:Z:pc:1}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_Z \|_\infty &\le \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{- \frac s 2}\,, &\| F^{c}_{Z,0} \|_\infty &\le \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 2} \,,\\ \label{Force:Z:pc:n}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_Z^{(n)} \|_\infty &\lesssim \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{- \frac s 2}\,, &\| F^{c}_{Z,n} \|_\infty &\les {M^{2n^2-1} }\eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 2}\,,\end{aligned}$$ for $1\leq n\leq 7$
First, we use expression to estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_Z \|_\infty &\lesssim |\dot{\tau}_c| \| F_Z \|_\infty + e^{-s} \| A_c \|_\infty \Big( \| e^{- \frac s 4}W + \kappa \|_\infty + \| Z \|_\infty \Big) + e^{-s} \| A \|_\infty \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} \| W_c \|_\infty + | \kappa_c| + \| Z_c \|_\infty \Big) \\ \label{teq:1}
&\lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{-s} + \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac 3 2s} \Big(1 + \eps^{\frac 5 4} \Big) + \eps e^{-s} \Big( \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{\frac s 2} + \eps^{\frac 3 8} + \eps^{\frac 12} \Big) \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 7 8} e^{- \frac s 2}\,. \end{aligned}$$ where above we have also invoked estimate for the $F_Z$ term together with the bootstrap estimates , , , , , and . The first estimate in follows from upon bringing $\eps$ small relative to $M$.
Next, we use the identity to estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| F^{c}_{Z,0} \|_\infty &\lesssim_M \| Z^{(1)} \|_\infty \Big( |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\tau}| \| W \|_\infty + \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W \|_\infty + \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_Z \|_\infty \Big) + \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_Z \|_\infty \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&\lesssim_M e^{- \frac 5 4 s} \Big( \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{\frac s 4} + \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{\frac 3 4 s} + \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{\frac s 4} \Big) + \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{- \frac s 2} \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 3 4 } e^{- \frac s 2}\,, \end{aligned}$$ from which the second estimate in follows again by bringing $\eps$ small relative to $M$.
We now use expression to estimate the first quantity in via $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_Z^{(n)} \|_\infty \lesssim &| \dot{\tau}_c | | \beta_\tau | \| F_Z^{(n)} \|_\infty + | \beta_\tau| e^{-s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \| A_c^{(j)} \Big( \beta_3 ( e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa)^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 Z^{(n-j)} \Big) \|_\infty \\
&+ | \beta_\tau | e^{-s} \sum_{j =0}^n \| A^{(j)} \Big( \beta_3 ( e^{- \frac s 4} W_c + \kappa_c)^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 Z_c^{(n-j)} \Big) \|_\infty \\
\lesssim & \eps^{\frac 3 2} e^{- \frac 5 4 s} + \eps^{\frac 1 4} e^{-s} + \eps e^{- \frac s 2}\,, \end{aligned}$$ where above we have invoked the forcing estimate, .
Next, in order to complete the estimate of the quantity $\| F_{Z,n}^{c} \|_\infty$, we need to estimate the remaining five terms in . The second, third, and sixth terms from the right-side of are estimated via $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j = 0}^n |\dot{\tau}_c| \| Z^{(j+1)} \|_\infty \| W^{(n-j)} \|_\infty &\lesssim \sum_{j = 0}^n M^{2(j+1)^2} \eps^{\frac 12} e^{- \frac 5 4 s} M^{(n-j)^2} e^{\frac s 4}\,, \\
\sum_{j = 0}^n \| Z^{(j+1)} \|_\infty \| W_c^{(n-j)} \|_\infty &\lesssim \sum_{j = 0}^n M^{2(j+1)^2} e^{- \frac 5 4 s} M^{(n-j)^2} \eps^{\frac34}e^{\frac 3 4 s}\,, \\
\sum_{j = 2}^n \| W^{(j)} \|_\infty \| Z_c^{(n-j+1)} \|_\infty &\lesssim M^{j^2} \eps^{\frac 1 2} M^{2 (n-j+1)^2} e^{- \frac s 2} \lesssim M^{-1 + 2n^2} \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 2}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Above, we have invoked , , and .
The fourth and fifth terms from the right-side of are estimated via $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j = 0}^n \| Z^{(j+1)} \|_\infty \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_Z^{(n-j)} \|_\infty & \lesssim \sum_{j = 0}^n M^{2(j+1)^2} \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{-s} \\
\sum_{j = 1}^n \| G_Z^{(j)} \|_\infty \| Z_c^{(n+1-j)} \|_\infty &\lesssim M^{2j^2} M^{(n+1-j)^2} \eps e^{- \frac 3 4 s},\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked the estimates on $G_Z$ and ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_Z$ from and . Above we have also used the elementary inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{elem:2}
j^2 + 2 (n+1-j)^2 \le -1 + 2 n^2 \quad\text{ for } n \ge 2 \mbox{ and } 2 \le j \le n\,. \end{aligned}$$
The following estimates are valid $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Force:A:pc:1}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_A \|_\infty &\le \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 2}\,, &&\| F^{c}_{A,0} \|_\infty \le \eps^{\frac 1 2 } e^{- \frac s2}\,, \\ \label{Force:A:pc:n}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_A^{(n)} \|_\infty &\le \eps^{\frac 12} e^{- \frac s 2} ,&&\| F^{c}_{A,n} \|_\infty {\les M^{2n^2-1} \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 2} }\,,\end{aligned}$$ for $ 1 \le n \le 7$
We appeal to the expression to estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_A \|_\infty &\lesssim |\dot{\tau}| \| F_A \|_\infty + e^{-s} \Big( \| e^{- \frac s 4}W + \kappa \|_\infty + \|Z \|_\infty \Big) \Big( \| e^{- \frac s 4} W_c + \kappa_c \|_\infty + \|Z_c \|_\infty \Big) \\
&\lesssim M^{\frac 1 2} \eps^{\frac 1 6} e^{- \frac 7 4 s} + e^{-s} ( M^4 \eps^{\frac34}e^{\frac 1 2 s}+ \eps^{\frac 1 2} + \eps^{\frac 1 2})\,.{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ Above, we have invoked , , , , , and finally for the $F_A$ contribution.
Next, we appeal to the expression to estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| F_{A,0}^{c}\circ \Phi_A^{x_0} \|_\infty \lesssim & \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_A \circ \Phi_A^{x_0}\|_\infty + \|A^{(1)} \|_\infty \Big( |\dot{\tau}_c| \|W\|_\infty + \| W_c \|_\infty + \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_A \|_\infty \Big) \\
\lesssim & \eps^{\frac 12} e^{- \frac s 2} + M^2 e^{- \frac 5 4 s} \Big( \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{\frac s 4} +M^4 \eps^{\frac34}e^{\frac 3 4 s} + \eps^{\frac 1 4} e^{\frac s 4} \Big)\,,{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ where we have appealed to estimates , as well as bootstrap assumptions , , , , and for the ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_A$ contribution.
Next, we appeal to the expression of to estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_A^{(n)} \|_\infty &\lesssim |\dot{\tau}_c| \| F_A^{(n)} \|_\infty + e^{-s} \sum_{j = 0}^n (\| (e^{- \frac s 4} W^{(j)}+\kappa)^{(j)}\|_{\infty} + \| Z^{(j)} \|_\infty ) \times \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& \qquad (\|(e^{- \frac s 4} W_c +\kappa_c)^{(n-j)}\|_\infty + \| Z_c^{(n-j)} \|_\infty) \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&\lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{-s} + e^{-s} ( 1 + \eps^{\frac 12} + \eps^{\frac 5 4} ) ( \eps^{\frac34}e^{\frac s 2 }+ \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 2} ) \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{- \frac s 2}\,, \end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked estimates , , , - , as well as .
The final estimate in requires an estimate of the remaining terms in , which is identical to that of Lemma \[lemma:j:1\].
### $\nabla_{a,b}^2$ forcing estimates
For $1 \le n \le 6$, the following estimates are valid $$\begin{aligned}
\label{disclosure:1}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_W \|_\infty &\le \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{\frac s 2}\,, && \| F_{W,0}^{c_1, c_2} \|_\infty \le M^{14} \eps^{\frac32}e^{\frac 3 2 s}\,, \\ \label{disclosure:2}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_W^{(n)} \|_\infty &\les \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{\frac s 2}\,, && \| F_{W,n}^{c_1, c_2} \|_\infty \le M^{(n+5)^2 - 1} \eps^{\frac32}e^{\frac 3 2 s}\,.\end{aligned}$$
For the computation of ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_W$, we recall the definition of , and proceed to estimate systematically $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&\| \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} A_{c_1 c_2} ( \beta_3 Z + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4}W + \kappa) ) \|_\infty \\
& \qquad \lesssim e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \| A_{c_1 c_2 } \|_\infty (\| Z \|_\infty + \| e^{- \frac s 4}W + \kappa \|_\infty) \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{- \frac s 2} (\eps^{\frac 5 4} + 1) \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{- \frac s 2}\,,{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ and next $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&\| \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} A_{c_1} ( \beta_3 Z_{c_2} + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s4} W_{c_2} + \kappa_{c_2}) ) \|_\infty \\
& \qquad \lesssim e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \| A_{c} \|_\infty (\| Z_{c} \|_\infty + e^{- \frac s 4} \| W_c \|_\infty + | \kappa_c |) \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} ( \eps^{\frac 1 2} + \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{\frac s 2} + \eps^{\frac 1 4} ) \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{- \frac s 4}\,.{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ Above, we have invoked bootstrap assumptions as well as - , and - .
The first term on the second line of is estimated in an identical fashion, while the second term is estimated via $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&\| \beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} A (\beta_3 Z_{c_1 c_2} + \beta_4 (e^{- \frac s 4}W_{c_1 c_2} + \kappa_{c_1 c_2})) \|_\infty \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& \qquad \lesssim e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \| A \|_\infty (\| Z_{c_1 c_2} \|_\infty + e^{- \frac s 4} \| W_{c_1 c_2} \|_\infty + |\kappa_{c_1 c_2}|) \\
& \qquad \lesssim_M \eps e^{- \frac 3 4 s} ( \eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{\frac s 4} + \eps^{\frac 3 2} e^{\frac 5 4 s} + \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^s) \lesssim_M \eps e^{\frac s 2}\,,{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ where again we have invoked bootstrap assumptions as well as - , and - .
Finally, the last line of is estimated via $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&\| \dot{\tau}_{c_2} \beta_\tau {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1} F_W + \dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} \beta_\tau F_W + \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \beta_\tau {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2} F_W \|_\infty \\
& \qquad \lesssim |\dot{\tau}_c| \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_W \|_\infty + |\dot{\tau}_{c_1c_2}| \| F_W \|_\infty \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{- \frac s 4} + \eps^{\frac 3 2} \lesssim_M \eps\,,{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked the estimates and .
Next, to estimate the remaining quantity in , we recall definition , according to which we define the following two auxiliary quantities: $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{L}_1 := \beta_\tau W^{(1)}_{c_2} W_{c_1} - \beta_\tau^2 \dot{\tau}_{c_2} W^{(1)} W_{c_1} - \Big( \beta_\tau^2 \dot{\tau}_{c_2} W + \beta_\tau W_{c_2} + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2} G_W \Big) W^{(1)}_{c_1} \\
&\mathcal{L}_2 := - \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \beta_\tau^2 W W^{(1)}_{c_2} - \dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} \beta_\tau^2 W W^{(1)} - 2 \beta_\tau^2 \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \dot{\tau}_{c_2} W W^{(1)} - \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \beta_\tau^2 W^{(1)} W_{c_2},\end{aligned}$$ so that we have the identity $$\begin{aligned}
F_{W,0}^{c_1, c_2} = {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_W + \mathcal{L}_1 + \mathcal{L}_2 - \mathcal{M}^{c_1, c_2}\,, \end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{M}^{c_1, c_2}$ has been defined in .
We first estimate $\mathcal{L}_1$ via $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| \mathcal{L}_1 \|_\infty \lesssim & (1 + |\dot{\tau}_c|) \| W^{(1)}_c \|_\infty \| W_c \|_\infty + |\dot{\tau}_c| \| W \|_\infty \|W^{(1)}_c \|_\infty + \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W \eta_{- \frac{1}{20}} \|_\infty \| W^{(1)}_c \eta_{\frac{1}{20}} \|_\infty \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\lesssim & (1 + \eps^{\frac 1 2}) M^{13} \eps^{\frac32}e^{\frac 3 2 s} + \eps^{\frac 1 2} M^4 \eps^{\frac32}e^{\frac 3 2 s} + {M^{12}} \eps^{\frac {41} {20}}e^{\frac 3 2 s} {+ M^9 \eps^{\frac 54} e^{\frac 3 4s} }\\
\lesssim & M^{13} \eps^{\frac32}e^{\frac 3 2 s}\,.{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ Note that for the estimation of the final term above, we have used crucially the spatial decay of $W_c^{(1)}$, as guaranteed by the bootstrap assumption , and we have also applied estimate with $r = \frac{1}{5}$.
Next, we estimate $\mathcal{L}_2$ via $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| \mathcal{L}_2 \|_\infty &\lesssim |\dot{\tau}_c| \| W \|_\infty \| W^{(1)}_c \|_\infty +( |\dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} | + |\dot{\tau}_c|^2 ) \| W \eta_{-\frac{1}{20}} \|_\infty \| W^{(1)} \eta_{\frac{1}{20}} \|_\infty + |\dot{\tau}_c| \| W^{(1)} \|_\infty \| W_c \|_\infty \\
&\lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{\frac s 4} + (\eps e^{\frac 3 4 s} + \eps) + \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{\frac 3 4 s} \lesssim_M \eps e^{\frac 34 s}\,,{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ where we invoke the bootstrap assumptions - , - , , and .
Next, we estimate $\mathcal{M}^{c_1, c_2}$ via $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}|\mathcal{M}^{c_1, c_2}| &\lesssim e^{- \frac 3 4 s}\Big( | \dot{\kappa}_{c_1 c_2}| + |\dot{\kappa}_{c}| |\dot{\tau}_{c}| + |\dot{\kappa}| |\dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2}| + |\dot{\kappa}| | \dot{\tau}_{c}|^2 \Big) \\
&\lesssim_M e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \Big( \eps^{\frac 54} e^s + \eps^{\frac 34} + \eps^{\frac 9 8} e^{\frac 3 4 s} + \eps^{\frac 5 8}\Big) \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{\frac s 4}\,,{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked the bootstrap assumptions on the second (parameter) derivatives of the modulation variables, - .
We now move to the $1 \le n \le 6$ estimates, for which we first recall the expression of ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_W^{(n)}$ from . The estimate of this is identical to the estimate of ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2}F_W$ (the $n = 0$ case above), and so we omit it. We now proceed to estimate all of the remaining terms in . $$\begin{aligned}
\| \sum_{j = 1}^n \beta_\tau^2 \dot{\tau}_{c_i} W^{(1+j)} W^{(n-j)}_{c_{i'}} \|_\infty &\lesssim \sum_{j = 1}^n |\dot{\tau}_c| \| W^{(1+j)} \|_\infty \| W^{(n-j)}_c \|_\infty \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{\frac 3 4 s} \,,\\
\| \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau W_{c_1}^{(j)} W_{c_2}^{(n+1-j)} \|_\infty &\lesssim \sum_{j = 0}^n \|W_{c}^{(j)}\|_\infty \| W_c^{(n+1-j)} \|_\infty \lesssim \sum_{j = 0}^n M^{(j+2)^2} M^{(n-j+3)^2} \eps^{\frac 3 2} e^{\frac 3 2 s}.\end{aligned}$$ We have invoked the bootstrap assumptions on derivatives of $W$, , as well as . We now appeal to the elementary inequality $$\begin{aligned}
(j+1)^2 + (n-j+3)^2 \le (n+5)^2 - 1 \text{ for } 0 \le j \le n, \qquad n \ge 1\,. \end{aligned}$$
We continue with $$\begin{aligned}
\| \sum_{j =1}^n \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau W^{(1+j)} W^{(n-j)}_{c_1 c_2} \|_\infty \lesssim \sum_{j = 1}^n \| W^{(1+j)} \|_\infty \|W_{c_1 c_2}^{(n-j)} \|_\infty \lesssim \sum_{j = 1}^n M^{(1+j)^2} M^{(n-j+5)^2} \eps^{\frac 3 2} e^{\frac 3 2 s}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and again appeal to an elementary inequality $$\begin{aligned}
(1 + j)^2 + (n-j+5)^2 \le -1 + (n+5)^2 \text{ for } 1 \le j \le n, \qquad n \ge 1\,. \end{aligned}$$
The fifth term on the right-hand side of is formally the same as the second term, with the exception of the $j = 0$ case, which we estimate via $$\begin{aligned}
\| \beta_\tau^2 \dot{\tau}_{c_{i'}} W W_{c_i}^{(n+1)} \|_\infty \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{\frac s 4} e^{\frac 3 4 (s - s_0)} \lesssim_M {\eps^{\frac 5 4} e^s}\,. \end{aligned}$$
We now move to the term $$\begin{aligned}
\| \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2} G_W^{(j)} W_{c_1}^{(n+1-j)} \|_\infty &\lesssim \sum_{j = 0}^n \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2} G_W^{(j)} \eta_{- \frac{1}{20}} \|_\infty \| W_{c_1}^{(n+1-j)} \eta_{\frac{1}{20}} \|_\infty\\
&\lesssim_M \eps^{\frac {33} {20} } e^{\frac 3 2 s} + {\eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{\frac 3 4s}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Above we have invoked with $r = \frac 1 5$.
We now move to the final three terms, which are easily estimated via $$\begin{aligned}
\| \sum_{j = 1}^n G_W^{(j)} W_{c_1 c_2}^{(n-j+1)} \|_\infty &\lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 3 2} e^{\frac s 2}, \\
\| \sum_{j = 0}^n \beta_\tau^2 (\dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} + 2 \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \dot{\tau}_{c_2}) W^{(j)} W^{(n+1-j)} \|_\infty &\lesssim_M \eps e^{\frac 3 4 s} + \eps,\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked for derivatives of $W$, for $j \ge 1$ for the $G_W$ contribution, and , for ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c$ and ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c}^2$ of $\dot{\tau}$.
\[Lemma:ka\] For $1 \le n \le 6$, the following estimates are valid $$\begin{aligned}
\label{jay:1}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_Z \|_\infty &\le \eps e^{\frac s 4}\,, && \| F_{Z,0}^{c_1, c_2} \|_\infty \le \eps e^{\frac 1 4 s}\,, \\ \label{jay:2}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_Z^{(n)} \|_\infty &\le \eps e^{\frac s 4}\,, && \| F_{Z,n}^{c_1, c_2} \|_\infty \les M^{2n^2 -1} \eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{\frac 1 4 s}\,.\end{aligned}$$
First, we turn to the estimation of ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_Z^{(n)}$, for which we appeal to the expression given in and estimate term by term via $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&\| \beta_\tau e^{-s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} A^{(j)} \Big( \beta_3( e^{- \frac s 4} W_{c_1 c_2} + \kappa_{c_1 c_2})^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 Z_{c_1 c_2}^{(n-j)} \Big) \|_\infty \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&\qquad \lesssim e^{-s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \| A^{(j)} \|_\infty \Big( \| e^{- \frac s 4}W_{c_1 c_2}+ \kappa_{c_1 c_2})^{(n-j)}\|_{\infty} + \| Z^{(n-j)}_{c_1 c_2}\|_\infty \Big) \\
&\qquad \lesssim_M \eps e^{-s} \Big( \eps^{\frac 3 2} e^{\frac 5 4 s}+ \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^s + \eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{\frac s 4} \Big) \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{\frac s 4}\,.{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ Above, we have invoked estimates , , , and .
Next, the second term from is estimated via $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&\| \beta_\tau e^{-s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} A_{c_1 c_2}^{(j)} \Big( \beta_3 (e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa)^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 Z^{(n-j)} \Big) \|_\infty \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& \qquad \lesssim e^{-s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \| A^{(j)}_{c_1 c_2} \|_\infty \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} \|W^{(n-j)} \|_\infty + |\kappa| + \| Z^{(n-j)} \|_\infty \Big) \\
& \qquad \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} ( 1+ \eps^{\frac 5 4} )\,,{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked , , , and .
Next, the third term from is estimated via $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& \| \beta_\tau e^{-s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \sum_{i \in \{1, 2\}} \binom{n}{j} A_{c_i}^{(j)} \Big( \beta_3( e^{- \frac s 4} W_{c_{i'}} + \kappa_{c_{i'}})^{(n-j)} + \beta_4 Z_{c_{i'}}^{(n-j)} \Big) \|_\infty \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& \qquad \lesssim e^{-s} \sum_{j = 0}^n \| A_c^{(j)} \|_\infty \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} \| W_c^{(n-j)} \|_\infty + |\kappa_c| + \| Z_c^{(n-j)} \|_\infty \Big) \\
& \qquad \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{-s}\Big( \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{\frac s 2}+ \eps^{\frac 1 4} + \eps^{\frac 1 2} \Big) \lesssim_M \eps e^{- \frac s 2}\,,{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked , - , and
We now move to the final terms from which evaluate to $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&\| \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \beta_\tau {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2} F_Z^{(n)} + \dot{\tau}_{c_2} \beta_\tau {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1} F_Z^{(n)} + \dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} \beta_\tau F_Z^{(n)} \|_\infty \\
& \qquad \lesssim |\dot{\tau}_c| |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_Z^{(n)}| + |\dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2}| \| F_Z^{(n)} \|_\infty \lesssim \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{- \frac s 2} + \eps^2 e^{- \frac s 4}\,, {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked the estimates - , as well as estimates and .
We now turn to equation for the form of $F_{Z,n}^{c_1, c_2}$. We will estimate term by term, starting with $$\begin{aligned}
\| 1_{n \ge 2} \sum_{j = 2}^n \binom{n}{j} \beta_\tau \beta_2 W^{(j)} Z_{c_1 c_2}^{(n-j+1)} \|_\infty &\lesssim 1_{n \ge 2} M^{j^2} M^{2(n-j+1)^2} \eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{\frac s 4} \lesssim M^{-1 + 2n^2} \eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{\frac s 4}\,, \\
\| 1_{n \ge 1} \sum_{j = 1}^n \binom{n}{j} G_Z^{(j)} Z_{c_1 c_2}^{(n-j+1)} \|_\infty& \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{- \frac 3 4 s}\,, \end{aligned}$$ where for the first estimate above we have invoked the elementary inequality , and for the second estimate we have invoked .
Next, we continue by estimating $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&\| \sum_{j = 0}^n \sum_{i \in \{1, 2 \}} \binom{n}{j} Z_{c_i}^{(j+1)} \Big( \dot{\tau}_{c_{i'}} \beta_\tau^2 \beta_2 W^{(n-j)} + \beta_\tau \beta_2 W_{c_{i'}}^{(n-j)} + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_{i'}}G_Z^{(n-j)} \Big) \|_\infty \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& \qquad \lesssim \sum_{j = 0}^n \| Z^{(j+1)}_c \|_\infty \Big(|\dot{\tau}_c| \| W^{(n-j)} \|_\infty + \| W_c^{(n-j)} \|_\infty + \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_Z^{(n-j)} \|_\infty \Big) \\
& \qquad \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 2} \Big( \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{\frac s 4} + \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{\frac 3 4} + \eps^{\frac 1 4} e^{\frac s 4} \Big) \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{\frac s 4},{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked the bootstrap assumptions , , - , , as well as on the ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_Z$ term.
We return to , and address the third and fourth lines by estimating $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& \| \sum_{j = 0}^n \binom{n}{j} Z^{(j+1)} \Big( \dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} \beta_\tau^2 \beta_2 W^{(n-j)} + 2 \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \dot{\tau}_{c_2} \beta_\tau^2 \beta_2 W^{(n-j)} + \beta_\tau \beta_2 W_{c_1 c_2}^{(n-j)} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad + \sum_{i \in \{1, 2\}} \dot{\tau}_{c_i} \beta_\tau^2 \beta_2 W_{c_{i'}}^{(n-j)} + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2}G_Z^{(n-j)} \Big) \|_{\infty} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& \lesssim \sum_{j = 0}^n \| Z^{(j+1)} \|_\infty \Big( |\dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2}| \| W^{(n-j)} \|_\infty + |\dot{\tau}_c|^2 \| W^{(n-j)} \|_\infty + \| W_{c_1 c_2}^{(n-j)} \|_\infty \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad + |\dot{\tau}_c| \| W_c^{(n-j)} \|_\infty + \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} G_Z^{(n-j)} \|_\infty \Big) \\
& \lesssim_M e^{- \frac 5 4 s} \Big( \eps e^s + \eps e^{\frac s 4} + \eps^{\frac 3 2} e^{\frac 3 2 s} + \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{\frac 3 4 s} + \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{\frac 5 4 s} \Big) \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{\frac s 4}\,.{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ Above, we have invoked , , , , , , as well as for the ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} G_Z$ contribution.
This concludes the treatment of the terms from and hence the proof of the lemma.
For $1 \le n \le 6$, the following estimates are valid $$\begin{aligned}
\label{found:me:1}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_A \|_\infty &\le \eps e^{\frac s 4}\,, && \| F_{A,0}^{c_1, c_2} \|_\infty \le \eps e^{\frac 1 4 s}\,, \\ \label{found:me:2}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_A^{(n)} \|_\infty &\le \eps e^{\frac s 4}\,, && \| F_{A,n}^{c_1, c_2} \|_\infty \les M^{2n^2 -1} \eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{\frac 1 4 s}\,.\end{aligned}$$
First, we use expression to produce the estimates $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| \beta_\tau \beta_1 e^{-s} \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W_{c_2} + \kappa_{c_2} + Z_{c_2} \Big)\Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W_{c_1} + \kappa_{c_1} + Z_{c_1} \Big) \|_\infty &\le \eps^{\frac 3 2} e^{\frac s 4}\,, \\
\| \beta_\tau \beta_1 e^{-s}\Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W + \kappa + Z \Big) \Big( e^{- \frac s 4} W_{c_1 c_2} + \kappa_{c_1 c_2} + Z_{c_1 c_2} \Big) \|_{\infty} &\le \eps^{\frac 5 4}e^{\frac s 4} , {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked estimates , , , , , , and .
For the last line from expression , we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&\| \dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} \beta_\tau F_A + \dot{\tau}_{c_2} \beta_\tau {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1}F_A + \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \beta_\tau {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2}F_A \| \lesssim |\dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2}| \| F_A \|_\infty + |\dot{\tau}_c| \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_A \|_\infty \lesssim M \eps e^{- \frac s 4} + \eps e^{- \frac s 2} \,, {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked the forcing estimates and . This contribution is clearly bounded by $\eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{- \frac s 4}$ by bringing $\eps$ small relative to $M$.
Next, we move to the second estimate in , for which we appeal to the expression . However, these estimates are exactly analogous to those of Lemma \[Lemma:ka\], estimate , and so we omit repeating these estimates. The estimates for general $n$, also follow analogously to Lemma \[Lemma:ka\].
Trajectory estimates {#subsect:trajectory}
--------------------
In this subsection, we provide estimates on the trajectories associated with the transport structure of the equations - . We now define these trajectories via $$\begin{aligned}
&{\ensuremath{\partial}}_s \Phi^{x_0}_W(s) = \mathcal{V}_W \circ \Phi_{W}^{x_0}\,, & \Phi^{x_0}_{W}(s_0) &= x_0\,, \\
&{\ensuremath{\partial}}_s \Phi^{x_0}_Z(s) = \mathcal{V}_Z \circ \Phi_{Z}^{x_0}\,, & \Phi^{x_0}_{Z}(s_0) &= x_0\,, \\
&{\ensuremath{\partial}}_s \Phi^{x_0}_A(s) = \mathcal{V}_A \circ \Phi_{A}^{x_0}\,, & \Phi^{x_0}_{A}(s_0) &= x_0\,. \end{aligned}$$
\[l:support\] Let $\Phi(s)$ denote either $\Phi^{x_0}_W$, $\Phi^{x_0}_Z(s)$ or $\Phi^{x_0}_A$, then for ${\left|x_0\right|}\leq \frac M 2 \eps^{- \frac 1 4}$ we have $$\label{upp:Z:t}
|\Phi^{x_0}(s) | \leq \frac{2M}{3}e^{\frac 5 4 s}\,.$$ As a consequence we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{assume:cpct:supp:ZA}
{\ensuremath{\mathrm{supp\,}}}W(s)\cup{\ensuremath{\mathrm{supp\,}}}Z(s) \cup {\ensuremath{\mathrm{supp\,}}}A(s) \subset B\left(\frac{3}{4} M \eps e^{\frac 5 4 s}\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ which verifies the bootstrap assumption
We restrict to the case $\Phi=\Phi^{x_0}_W$. The cases $\Phi=\Phi^{x_0}_Z$ and $\Phi=\Phi^{x_0}_A$ will follow in an analogous fashion. Recall that for $\Phi=\Phi^{x_0}_W$ we have $${\ensuremath{\partial}}_s \Phi = \frac 5 4 \Phi+ \beta_\tau W\circ \Phi+ G_W\circ \Phi\,.$$ As a consequence of , and , we have $$\label{e:pelican}
{\left \| W \right\|}_{\infty}+{\left \| G_W \right\|}_{\infty}\les M^{\frac15}\eps^{\frac15} e^{\frac s4}+e^{\frac s4}\les e^{\frac s4}\,.$$ Thus by Grönwall we obtain we obtain .
The support bound follows directly from , the defining equations -, together with .
Let $\Phi(s)$ denote either $\Phi^{x_0}_Z(s)$ or $\Phi^{x_0}_A$, then for ${\left|x_0\right|}\leq \frac M 2 \eps^{- \frac 1 4}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{traj:large:z}
|\Phi^{x_0}(s)| &\ge \text{min} (e^{\frac s 4}, e^{\frac s 4} - e^{\frac{s_\ast}{4}}) \text{ for some } s_\ast \ge s_0\,. \end{aligned}$$
We first show that if $\Phi (s) \leq e^{\frac s 4}$, then we have the inequality $$\label{e:PhiZA:left}
\frac{{\ensuremath{\partial}}}{{\ensuremath{\partial}}s} \Phi(s) \le - e^{\frac s 4}\,.$$ For notational purposes, we set $(j,GZ)=(2,G_Z)$ or $(j,GZ)=(1,G_A)$ for the cases $\Phi(s)=\Phi^{x_0}_Z(s)$ or $\Phi(s)=\Phi^{x_0}_A$, respectively. We then have the ODE $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}{\ensuremath{\partial}}_s \Phi = & \frac 5 4 \Phi+ \beta_\tau\beta_j W\circ \Phi+ G\circ \Phi\,.\end{aligned}$$ Note that since $\alpha>1$, then ${\left|\beta_j\right|}<1$. Assuming $\eps$ to be sufficiently small (dependent on $\alpha$), then applying yields $\beta_{\tau}\beta_{j}\leq 1$. Then if $\Phi (s) \leq e^{\frac s 4}$, we have from , and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\ensuremath{\partial}}}{{\ensuremath{\partial}}s} \Phi(s) &\le \frac 5 4 e^{\frac s4}+2\eta_{\frac{1}{20}}\circ\Phi(s)-(1-\beta_j)\kappa_0e^{\frac s4}+\eps^{\frac 1 2}e^{\frac s4}{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\\
&\le \frac 5 4 e^{\frac s4}-(1-\beta_j)\kappa_0e^{\frac s4}+\eps^{\frac 1 2}e^{\frac s4}\,,
\notag \end{aligned}$$ where we used . Since $(1-\beta_j)>0$, then assuming $\kappa_0$ is sufficiently large, dependent of $\alpha$, we obtain .
We now split the proof of into two subcases:
1. \[case:Tokaji1\] Either $\Phi(s)> e^{\frac s4}$ for all $s\in[s_0,\infty)$, or $x_{0}\leq 0$.
2. \[case:Tokaji2\] We have $x_0>0$ and there exists a smallest $s_1\in[s_0,\infty)$ such that $0<\Phi(s_1)\leq e^{\frac {s_1}4}$.
Consider first Case \[case:Tokaji1\]. Note that $\Phi_1(s)> e^{\frac s4}$ directly implies . If $x_0\leq 0$, then implies that $
\Phi(s)\leq -e^{\frac s 4}+\eps^{-\frac14} $ and hence is satisfied for $s_{*}=-\log\eps$.
Now consider Case \[case:Tokaji2\]. The estimate implies that $
\frac{d}{ds}\Phi(s)\leq -e^{\frac s4}$ for all $s\geq s_0$. Thus by continuity, there exists a unique $s_*>s_0$ such that $\Phi(s_*)=0$. By continuity, there exists $s_*>s_1$ such that $\Phi(s_*)=0$. Then as a consequence of , by following trajectories forwards and backwards in time from $s_*$ we conclude that $${\left|\Phi(s)\right|}\geq {\left|e^{\frac s4}-e^{\frac{s_*}{4}}\right|}\,,$$ for all $s\in[s_1,\infty)$. For the case $s_1\neq s_0$, then if $s\in [s_0,s_1)$ we have by definition that ${\left|\Phi(s)\right|}\geq e^{\frac s4}$. Thus we have .
For any ${\left|x_0\right|}\geq \ell$ and $s_0\geq -\log\eps$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:escape:from:LA}
\Phi_W^{x_0} \ge |x_0|\eps^{\frac15} e^{\frac{s}{5}}\,.\end{aligned}$$
Using $W(0,s)=0$, , , and we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal V_W x&= \frac{5}{4}x^2+x\beta_{\tau} W+G_W x\\
&\geq x^2\left(\frac{5}{4}-\beta_{\tau}{\left \| W^{(1)} \right\|}_{\infty}-{\left|G_W ^{(1)}\right|}\right)-{\left|\mu\right|}\\&\geq x^2\left(\frac{1}{4}-2e^{-\frac34 s}\right)-\eps^{\frac16}e^{-\frac34 s}\geq \frac15\,,\end{aligned}$$ where inequality we used that ${\left|x\right|}\geq\ell\geq \eps^{\frac14}$ and $s_0$ is taken to be sufficiently large.
Thus we obtain $$\frac{d}{ds} \left(\Phi_W^{x_0}\right)^2=2\mathcal V_W(\Phi_W^{x_0}) \Phi_W^{x_0}\geq \frac{2 (\Phi_W^{x_0})^2}{5}\label{e:escape:from:New:York}\,.$$ and hence follows by Grönwall.
Analysis of modulation variables
================================
In this section we close all bootstraps related to the modulation variables $\kappa$, $\xi$ and $\tau$, together with the quantity $\mu$.
Modulation variables and their time derivatives
-----------------------------------------------
The following lemma verifies the bootstraps .
The following estimates are valid $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mod:1}
|\kappa - \kappa_0| \lesssim \eps^{\frac 9 8}, \qquad |\dot{\xi} - \kappa_0| \lesssim \eps\,.\end{aligned}$$
We integrate $$\begin{aligned}
|\kappa(t) - \kappa_0| \le \int_{1-\eps}^t |\dot{\kappa}| {\,\mathrm{d}}t' \lesssim \eps^{\frac 9 8}\,, \end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked .
For $\dot{\xi}$, we rearrange to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_\tau \dot{\xi} = \beta_\tau \kappa - e^{- \frac s 4} \mu + \beta_\tau \beta_2 Z(0, s)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Estimating the right-hand side and using that $\beta_\tau \ge \frac 1 2$ on the left-hand side yields $$\begin{aligned}
|\dot{\xi} - \kappa_0| \lesssim |\kappa - \kappa_0| + e^{- \frac s 4} |\mu| + \| Z \|_\infty \lesssim \eps^{\frac 9 8} + \eps^{\frac 1 6} e^{- s} + \eps^{\frac 5 4}\,, \end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked the bootstrap bounds and .
The following lemma verifies the bootstraps on $\dot{\tau}$, the second estimate of .
The following estimates are valid, $$\begin{aligned}
|\dot{\tau}| \les M^2 e^{-s}\,.\end{aligned}$$
We rearrange the first ODE equation, , to obtain the following estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}|\dot{\tau}| \le & |(1 - \dot{\tau})| |G_W^{(1)}(s, 0)| - |(1 - \dot{\tau})| | \mu| | W^{(2)}(s, 0)| + |(1 - \dot{\tau})| | F_W^{(1)}(s, 0)| \\
\les & M^{2} e^{-s} + \eps^{\frac 4 {15}} e^{-\frac 32 s} + \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{-s} \,,{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$
where we have invoked the second estimate in , the bootstrap bounds , , and the second estimate in to estimate the forcing.
The following verifies the bootstraps on $\mu$, the first estimate on .
The following estimates are valid, $$\begin{aligned}
|\mu| \lesssim_M e^{-s}. \end{aligned}$$
We rearrange for $\mu(s)$, yielding $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gW:eq}
q^{(5)} \mu(s) = &- 10 \beta_\tau q^{(2)} q^{(3)} - \sum_{j = 2}^4 \binom{4}{j} G_W^{(j)}(0, s) q^{(5-j)} + F_W^{(4)}(s, 0)\,.
\end{aligned}$$
We use the bootstrap that $| q^{(5)}(s)| \ge \frac 1 2$, , to estimate from below the denominators. We then estimate the right-hand side via $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}|\mu| &\lesssim |q^{(2)}| |q^{(3)}| + \sum_{j = 2}^3 \binom{4}{j} |G_W^{(j)}(0, s)| | q^{(5-j)}| + |G_W^{(4)}(0, s)| + |F_W^{(4)}(0, s)| \\
& \lesssim_M e^{- \frac 3 2 s} + e^{-\frac 7 4 s} + e^{-s} + \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{-s} \lesssim_M e^{-s} \,,{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked with $j = 4$, and for the $F_W^{(4)}$ term, as well as the decay bootsraps on $q^{(2)}, q^{(3)}$.
The following lemma verifies the bootstrap on $\dot{\kappa}$.
The following estimates are valid, $$\begin{aligned}
|\dot{\kappa}| \le \frac{\eps^{\frac 1 8}}{2}\,. \end{aligned}$$
We rearrange equation to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}|\dot{\kappa}| \le & |(1 - \dot{\tau})| e^{\frac 3 4 s} |\mu| + |(1 - \dot{\tau})| e^{\frac 3 4 s} |F_W(0, s)| \le 2 \eps^{\frac 1 6} + \eps^{\frac 3 4} \le M \eps^{\frac 1 6}\,, \end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked bootstrap for the $\mu$ estimate, and for the estimate on $F_W$.
$\nabla_{\alpha, \beta}$ derivatives of modulation variables
------------------------------------------------------------
The following lemma verifies the bootstraps in .
Let $c \in \{ \alpha, \beta \}$. Then the following estimates are valid $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cor:mod}
|\kappa_{c}| \lesssim \eps^{\frac 3 4}, \qquad |\dot{\xi}_{c}| \le \frac M 2 \eps^{\frac 1 2}\,.\end{aligned}$$
First, we have for every $- \eps \le t \le 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
|{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \kappa(t)| = |\int_{ -\eps}^{t} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \dot{\kappa}(t') {\,\mathrm{d}}t' | \le \int_{-\eps}^t \eps^{\frac 1 4} e^{\frac 1 2 s(t')} {\,\mathrm{d}}t' \le \int_{s_0}^\infty \eps^{\frac 1 4} e^{\frac 1 2 s'} e^{-s'} {\,\mathrm{d}}s' \lesssim \eps^{\frac 3 4},\end{aligned}$$
where we have used that ${\,\mathrm{d}}s = e^{-s} {\,\mathrm{d}}t$, and the bootstrap assumption on $\dot{\kappa}_c$ in .
We now compute ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c$ of equation to obtain the identity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{free:folk:1}
\mu_c = \dot{\tau}_c \beta_\tau \mu - e^{\frac s 4} \dot{\xi}_c \beta_\tau + e^{\frac s 4} \kappa_c \beta_\tau + \beta_\tau \beta_2 e^{\frac s 4} Z_c(s, 0)\,, \end{aligned}$$ which upon rearranging for $\dot{\xi}_c$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
|\dot{\xi}_c| \lesssim e^{- \frac s 4}|\mu_c| + e^{- \frac s 4} |\dot{\tau}_c| |\mu| + |\kappa_c| + \| Z_c \|_\infty \lesssim {M^{33}} \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 2} + \eps^{\frac 2 3} e^{- s}+ \eps^{\frac 1 2} + \eps^{\frac 1 2} \le \frac M 2 \eps^{\frac 1 2}\,,{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ where above we have invoked the bootstrap assumptions for ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c$ of the modulation variables, and for ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c Z$.
The following verifies the first bootstrap in .
Let $c \in \{ \alpha, \beta \}$. Then the following estimates are valid $$\begin{aligned}
|\mu_c| \le \frac{{M^{33}}}{2} \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 4}.\end{aligned}$$
We take ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c$ of equation which produces the identity $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}q^{(5)} \mu_c = &- q_c^{(5)} \mu - 10 \dot{\tau}_c \beta_\tau^2 q^{(2)} q^{(3)} - 10 \beta_\tau (q^{(2)}_c q^{(3)} + q^{(2)} q^{(3)}_c) \\ \label{deriv:gW}
&- \sum_{j = 2}^4 \binom{4}{j} (G_W^{(j)}(0, s) q_c^{(5-j)} + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W^{(j)}(0, s) q^{(5-j)}) + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_W^{(4)}(0, s)\,, \end{aligned}$$ where we recall that $q^{(j)}(s) := W^{(j)}(0, s)$, according to . We now estimate each of the terms on the right-hand side above. $$\begin{aligned}
|\mu_c| &\lesssim | q^{(5)}_c | |\mu| + |\dot{\tau}_c| |q^{(2)}| |q^{(3)}| + |q^{(2)}_c| |q^{(3)}| + |q^{(2)}| |q^{(3)}_c| \\
&\qquad + \sum_{j = 2}^4 (|G_W^{(j)}(s, 0)| \| q^{(5-j)}_c \|_\infty + \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W^{(j)} \|_\infty |q^{(5-j)}|) + \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_cF_W^{(4)} \|_\infty \\
&\lesssim \eps^{\frac {13} {24}} e^{- \frac 5 8 s} + \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac 3 2 s} + M^{40}\eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{- \frac s 4} + \eps^{\frac35}e^{-\frac{s}{4}} +M^{18} \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{-\frac 1 4 s} + M^{32} \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 4} + \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{- \frac s 4}\les M^32\eps^{\frac12}e^{-\frac s4}\,,
\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked estimates , for the $G_W^{(j)}$ contributions, and for the forcing term, and to estimate $\mu$ and $ \dot \tau_c$, as well as the estimates , , , to bound the terms involving q. We have also invoked bootstrap .
The following verifies the second bootstrap in .
Let $c \in \{ \alpha, \beta \}$. Then the following estimates are valid $$\begin{aligned}
|\dot{\tau}_c| \le \frac 1 2 \eps^{\frac 1 2}\,.\end{aligned}$$
We take ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c$ of equation to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Ipso:1}
\beta_\tau (1 + \beta_\tau \dot{\tau}) \dot{\tau}_c = {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G^{(1)}_W(0, s) - \mu_c q^{(2)} - \mu q^{(2)}_c + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F^{(1)}_W(0, s)\,. \end{aligned}$$
We now estimate the right-hand side above via $$\begin{aligned}
| \eqref{Ipso:1} | \lesssim & \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W^{(1)} \|_\infty + |\mu_c| |q^{(2)}| + |\mu| |q^{(2)}_c| + \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_W^{(1)} \|_\infty \\
\lesssim & M^{2j^2} \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 4} +{M^{33}}\eps^{\frac 3 5} e^{- s } + \eps^{\frac{11}{12}} + \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{- \frac s 4} \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 3 4},\end{aligned}$$ where above, we have invoked estimate for the ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W^{(1)}$ contribution, bootstraps , for the $\mu, \mu_c$ estimates respectively, bootstraps , for the $q^{(2)}, q^{(2)}_c$ contributions respectively, and finally for the ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_W^{(1)}$ estimate.
Finally, to conclude, we estimate the prefactor on the left-hand side of from below $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_\tau (1 + \beta_\tau \dot{\tau}) \ge \frac 7 8( 1 - \beta_\tau |\dot{\tau}|) \ge \frac 3 4\,. \end{aligned}$$
The following verifies the third bootstrap in .
Let $c \in \{ \alpha, \beta \}$. Then the following estimates are valid $$\begin{aligned}
|\dot{\kappa}_c| < \frac 12 \eps^{\frac 14} e^{\frac s 2}\,.\end{aligned}$$
We compute ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c$ of equation to obtain the identity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{identity:kappa:c1}
\beta_\tau \dot{\kappa}_c = e^{\frac 3 4 s} \mu_c - \dot{\kappa} \beta_\tau^2\dot{\tau}_c + e^{\frac 3 4 s} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_W(0, s)\,, \end{aligned}$$ upon which estimating yields $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}| \dot{\kappa}_c| \lesssim & e^{\frac 3 4 s} | \mu_c| + |\dot{\kappa}| |\dot{\tau}_c| + e^{\frac 3 4 s} \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_W \|_\infty \lesssim {M^{33}}e^{\frac 1 2 s} \eps^{\frac 1 2} + \eps^{\frac 5 8} + M \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{ \frac s 2} \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{\frac s 2}, \end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked the bootstraps on the modulation variables, , , as well as the forcing estimate .
$\nabla_{\alpha, \beta}^2$ derivatives of modulation variables
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following verifies the bootstraps in .
Let $c_i \in \{ \alpha, \beta \}$ for $i = 1,2$. Then the following estimates are valid $$\begin{aligned}
|\kappa_{c_1 c_2}| \le M^{\frac 5 2} \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^s, \qquad |\dot{\xi}_{c_1 c_2}| \le M^{\frac 7 2} \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{s}.\end{aligned}$$
We have to integrate $$\begin{aligned}
|\kappa_{c_1 c_2}| = | \int_{1-\eps}^{t} \dot{\kappa}_{c_1 c_2}| \lesssim \int_{s_0}^s M^2 \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{2s'} e^{-s'} {\,\mathrm{d}}s' = M^2 \eps^{\frac 5 4} (e^s - e^{s_0}),\end{aligned}$$ where above we have invoked the bootstrap assumption on $\dot{\kappa}_{c_1 c_2}$.
Next, we want to obtain an expression for $\dot{\xi}_{c_1 c_2}$. For this, we differentiate the expression which produces the identity $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{c_1 c_2} = \beta_\tau \dot{\tau}_{c_2} \mu_{c_1} + \beta_\tau \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \mu_{c_2} + \dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} \beta_\tau \mu - e^{\frac s 4} \beta_\tau \dot{\xi}_{c_1 c_2} + e^{\frac s 4} \beta_\tau \kappa_{c_1 c_2} + \beta_\tau \beta_2 e^{\frac s 4} Z_{c_1 c_2}(s, 0),\end{aligned}$$ which rearranging for $\dot{\xi}_{c_1 c_2}$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}|\dot{\xi}_{c_1 c_2}| \lesssim & e^{- \frac s 4}( |\mu_{c_1 c_2}| + |\dot{\tau}_c| |\mu_c| + |\dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2}| |\mu|) + |\kappa_{c_1 c_2}| + \| Z_{c_1 c_2} \|_\infty \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\lesssim & e^{- \frac s 4} (M \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{\frac 5 4 s} + {M^{33}} \eps e^{- \frac s 4} + \eps^{\frac 7 6}) + M^3 \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^s + M^{2j^2} \eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{\frac s 4} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\lesssim & M^3 \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^s\,, \end{aligned}$$ where above we have invoked - for the second derivatives of the modulation variables, for the $\dot{\tau}_c$ term, for the $\mu$ term, and for the $Z_{c_1 c_2}$ contribution.
The following verifies the bootstraps in on $\mu$.
Let $c_i \in \{ \alpha, \beta \}$ for $i = 1,2$. Then the following estimates are valid $$\begin{aligned}
| \mu_{c_1 c_2}| \le \frac{ M}{2} \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{\frac 5 4 s}.\end{aligned}$$
We differentiate equation in ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2}$ to get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bird:1}
q^{(5)} \mu_{c_1 c_2} = & - q^{(5)}_{c_2} \mu_{c_1} - q^{(5)}_{c_1 c_2} \mu - 10 ( \dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} + 2 \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \dot{\tau}_{c_2} ) \beta_\tau^2 q^{(2)} q^{(3)} - 10 \beta_\tau^2 \dot{\tau}_{c_{i'}} (q^{(2)}_{c_i} q^{(3)} + q^{(2)} q^{(3)}_{c_i}) \\ \label{bird:2}
& - 10 \beta_\tau (q^{(3)}_{c_i} q^{(2)}_{c_{i'}} + q^{(2)}_{c_1 c_2} q^{(3)} + q^{(2)} q^{(3)}_{c_1 c_2}) - \sum_{j = 2}^4 \binom{4}{j} ({\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2}G_W^{(j)}(s, 0) q_{c_1}^{(5-j)} \\ \label{bird:3}
& + G_W^{(j)}(s, 0) q_{c_1 c_2}^{(5-j)} + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1}G_W^{(j)}(s, 0) q_{c_2}^{(5-j)} + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} G_W^{(5-j)}(s, 0) q^{(5-j)} ) + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_W^{(4)}(s, 0)\,. \end{aligned}$$
We now estimate all of the terms above, line by line, starting with $$\begin{aligned}
| \eqref{bird:1} |& \lesssim \| W^{(5)}_c \|_\infty |\mu_c| + \| W^{(5)}_{c_1 c_2} \|_\infty |\mu| + ( |\dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2}| + |\dot{\tau}_c|^2) |q^{(2)}| |q^{(3)}| + |\dot{\tau}_c| ( |q^{(2)}_c| |q^{(3)}| + |q^{(2)}| |q^{(3)}_c| ) \\
&\lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{\frac s 2}+ \eps^{\frac 5 3} e^{\frac 3 4 s} + ( \eps e^{\frac 3 4 s} + \eps )\eps^{\frac1{10}} e^{-\frac 7 4s} + \eps^{\frac12}(\eps^{\frac34}e^{-\frac s4}+\eps^{\frac 3{5}}e^{-\frac s4 })\les_{M} \eps^{\frac54} e^{\frac34 s}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Above, we have invoked , for the $W^{(5)}_c, W^{(5)}_{c_1 c_2}$ contributions, respectively, , and for the estimates on the modulation variable, for the decay estimates on $q^{(2)}, q^{(3)}$, and finally and for $q^{(2)}_c, q^{(3)}_c$ estimates.
Next, we bound the terms in $$\begin{aligned}
|\eqref{bird:3}| \lesssim & |q_c^{(3)}| |q^{(2)}_c| + |q^{(3)}| |q^{(2)}_{c_1 c_2}| + |q^{(2)}| |q^{(3)}_{c_1 c_2}| + \sum_{j = 2}^4 |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W^{(j)}(s, 0)| \| W_c^{(5-j)}\|_{\infty} \\
\lesssim &\eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{\frac 5 4 s} +\eps^{\frac 3 2} e^{\frac s 2 }+\eps^{\frac85 }e^{\frac34s} + M^{18}\eps^{\frac54}e^{-\frac s2}\les \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{\frac 5 4 s}
\,,\end{aligned}$$ where above we have invoked estimate for the transport term, as well as the bootstraps , , , for the $q^{(2)}, q^{(3)}$ quantities (and their derivatives in $c$).
Lastly, we estimate the terms in $$\begin{aligned}
\| \eqref{bird:3} \|_\infty &\lesssim \sum_{j = 2}^4 (\| G_W^{(j)} \|_\infty \| q_{c_1 c_2}^{(5-j)} \|_\infty + \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W^{(j)} \|_\infty \| W_c^{(5-j)} \|_\infty + \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2}G_W^{(j)} \|_\infty ) + \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_W^{(4)} \|_\infty \\
&\lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 3 2} e^{\frac s 2} + \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{\frac s 2} + \eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{\frac s 2} + \eps e^{\frac s 2},\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked estimates , , , and .
The following verifies the bootstraps on $\dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2}$.
Let $c_i \in \{ \alpha, \beta \}$ for $i = 1,2$. Then the following estimates are valid $$\begin{aligned}
|\dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2}| \le \frac{1}{2} \eps e^{\frac 3 4 s}.\end{aligned}$$
We take ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2}$ of equation to obtain the identity $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\beta_\tau (1 + \beta_\tau \dot{\tau}) \dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2} = & - \beta_\tau^2 (1 + \beta_\tau \dot{\tau}) \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \dot{\tau}_{c_2} - \beta_\tau^3 \dot{\tau} \dot{\tau}_{c_2} \dot{\tau}_{c_1} - \beta_\tau^2 \dot{\tau}_{c_2} \dot{\tau}_{c_1} - {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} G_W^{(1)}(0, s) \\ \label{bravo:1}
&- \mu_{c_1 c_2} q^{(2)} - \mu_{c_i} q^{(2)}_{c_{i'}} - \mu q^{(2)}_{c_1 c_2} + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_W^{(1)}(0,s)\,. \end{aligned}$$ We now estimate each of the terms on the right-hand side above via $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}|\dot{\tau}_{c_1 c_2}| &\lesssim |\dot{\tau}_c|^2 + (|\dot{\tau}| + 1) |\dot{\tau}_c|^2 + \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} G_W^{(1)} \|_\infty + |q^{(2)}| |\mu_{c_1 c_2}| + |\mu_c| |q^{(2)}_c| \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&\qquad + |\mu| \| W^{(2)}_{c_1 c_2} \|_\infty + \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_W^{(1)} \|_\infty \\
&\lesssim_M \eps + \eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{\frac s 2} + \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{\frac s 2} + \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{\frac s 2} + \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{\frac 3 4 s} + \eps e^{\frac s 2}\,,{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked estimates for the $G_W^{(1)}$ term above and for the $F_W^{(1)}$ term. We have also invoked , - for the modulation variables, and .
The following verifies the bootstraps on $\dot{\kappa}_{c_1 c_2}$, the second estimate in .
Let $c_i \in \{ \alpha, \beta \}$ for $i = 1,2$. Then the following estimates are valid $$\begin{aligned}
|\dot{\kappa}_{c_1 c_2}| \le \frac{M^2}{2} \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{2s}\,.\end{aligned}$$
We compute ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_2}$ of equation to get to $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}|\beta_\tau \dot{\kappa}_{c_1 c_2}| =& |- \beta_\tau^2 \dot{\tau}_{c_i} \dot{\kappa}_{c_{i'}} + e^{\frac 3 4 s} \mu_{c_1 c_2} - 2 \dot{\kappa} \beta_\tau^2 \dot{\tau}_{c_1} \dot{\tau}_{c_2} + e^{\frac 3 4s} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2}F_W(0, s)| \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\lesssim & \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{\frac s 2} + M \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{2s} + \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{\frac s 2} + \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{\frac 5 4 s} \lesssim M \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{2s}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked estimates for the first derivative of the modulation variables in $c$, for the $\mu_{c_1 c_2}$ term, and estimate for the ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} F_W$ term.
Analysis of $Z$ and $A$
=======================
For this section, we consider the equations for $Z$ and $A$ given by and . We begin with the lowest order estimate, for which there is no damping, in which we verify the first bootstrap assumption in .
The quantities $(Z, A)$ satisfy the following bounds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{feel:1}
&\| Z \|_\infty \le \frac 3 4 \eps^{\frac 5 4}\,, && \| Z^{(n)} \|_{\infty} \le \frac{M^{2n^2}}{2} e^{- \frac 5 4 s} \text{ for } 1 \le n \le 8\,, \\ \label{feel:2}
&\| A \|_\infty \le \frac 3 4 M \eps\,, && \| A^{(n)} \|_{\infty} \le \frac{M^{2n^2}}{2} e^{- \frac 5 4 s} \text{ for } 1 \le n \le 8\,, \end{aligned}$$ which thereby verifies the bootstraps and .
An application of the Grönwall lemma coupled with estimate yields the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| Z(\Phi_Z(s, x), s) \|_\infty \le & \| Z(x, s_0) \|_\infty + \int_{s_0}^s \| F_Z(\Phi_Z(s', x), s') \|_\infty ds' \\
\le & \frac 1 2 \eps^{\frac 5 4} + \int_{s_0}^s \eps^{\frac 3 4 } e^{- s'} {\,\mathrm{d}}s' \le \frac 3 4 \eps^{\frac 5 4}\,,{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$
which establishes the desired bound upon invoking that $\Phi_Z(\cdot, x)$ is a diffeomorphism for all $s \ge s_0$.
According to , we calculate $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
e^{-\int_{s_0}^s \Big( \frac{5n}{4} + n \beta_\tau \beta_2 W^{(1)} \Big) \circ \Phi_Z {\,\mathrm{d}}s'} = & e^{- \frac{5n}{4}(s - s_0)} e^{- \int_{s_0}^s n \beta_\tau \beta_2 W^{(1)} \circ \Phi_Z} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\le & e^{- n \beta_\tau \beta_2 \int_{s_0}^s \eta_{- \frac 1 5} \circ \Phi_Z }e^{- \frac{5n}{4}(s - s_0)} \\
\le &C_n e^{- \frac{5n}{4}(s - s_0)}\,.{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$
Using this estimate, coupled with , the Grönwall lemma, we estimate for $n \ge 2$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}|Z^{(n)}(\Phi_Z(x, s), s)| \le & C_n |e^{-\frac{10}{4} (s - s_0)} Z^{(n)}(s_0, x)| + C_n \int_{s_0}^s |e^{-\frac{10}{4}(s - s')} F_{Z,n} \circ \Phi_Z |{\,\mathrm{d}}s' \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\le & C_n \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{- \frac 5 4 (s - s_0)} + C_n \int_{s_0}^s e^{- \frac{10}{4} (s - s')}M^{2n-1} e^{- \frac 5 4 s'} {\,\mathrm{d}}s' \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\le & \frac{M^{2n}}{2} e^{- \frac 5 4 s}\,.\end{aligned}$$
We now perform a similar calculation for $n = 1$, using estimate in place of . For the $A$ estimates, the identical arguments apply using Lemma \[phone:1\].
For $1 \le n \le 7$, we have the following estimates on $Z$ and $A$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c Z \|_\infty \le \frac 1 2 \eps^{\frac 1 2}\,, && \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c Z^{(n)} \|_\infty \le \frac 1 2 M^{2k^2} \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 2}\,, \\
&\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c A \|_\infty \le \frac 1 2 \eps^{\frac 1 2}\,, && \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c A^{(n)} \|_\infty \le \frac 1 2 M^{2k^2} \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 2}\,, \end{aligned}$$ which thereby verifies the bootstraps - .
This follows immediately from Grönwall, upon invoking the two right-most estimates in - for $Z$, and similarly - for $A$.
For $0 \le n \le 6$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} Z^{(n)} \|_\infty \le \frac 1 2 M^{2n^2} \eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{\frac s 4}\,, && \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} A^{(n)} \|_\infty \le\frac 1 2 M^{2n^2} \eps^{\frac 5 8} e^{\frac s 4},\end{aligned}$$ which therefore verifies the bootstrap assumptions - .
This follows immediately from Grönwall, upon invoking the two right-most estimates in - for $Z$, and similarly - for $A$.
Analysis of $W$ at $x = 0$ {#s:wx:at:0}
==========================
In this section, we analyze $W$ and higher order derivatives of $W$ at $x = 0$. While $q^{(0)}(s), q^{(1)}(s), q^{(4)}(s)$ are constrained from , the quantities $q^{(2)}, q^{(3)}$ and $q^{(5)}$ are not constrained and therefore must be determined through ODEs in $s$ that they obey.
ODE analysis of $q^{(2)}, q^{(3)}$
----------------------------------
In this series of estimates, we use the crucial inductive assumption, , in order to integrate *backwards* the flow. First, we rewrite the ODEs in the following way: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mika}
({\ensuremath{\partial}}_s - \frac 3 4 )q^{(2)} = & \mathcal{F}^{(2)}(s), \qquad ({\ensuremath{\partial}}_s - \frac 1 2) q^{(3)} = \mathcal{F}^{(3)}(s)\,. \end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{back:2}
&\mathcal{F}^{(2)} := 3(\beta_\tau - 1) q^{(2)} - \mu q^{(3)} - 2 G_W^{(1)}(0, s) q^{(2)} - G_W^{(2)}(0, s) + F_W^{(2)}(0, s)\,, \\ \label{back:3}
&\mathcal{F}^{(3)} := 4(\beta_\tau - 1) q^{(3)} - 3 G^{(1)}_W(0, s) q^{(3)} -3 \beta_\tau |q^{(2)}|^2 - 3 G_W^{(2)}(0, s) q^{(2)} - G_W^{(3)}(0, s) + F_W^{(3)}(0, s)\,.\end{aligned}$$ and we recall the notation $q^{(n)}=W^{(n)}(0)$ specified in .
We first prove lemmas for the particular quantities $W_{\alpha_{N}, \beta_{N}}^{(2)}(0, s)$ and $W_{\alpha_{N}, \beta_{N}}^{(3)}(0, s)$.
Assume that $W^{(2)}_{\alpha_N, \beta_N}(0, s_N) = 0$ and $W^{(3)}_{\alpha_N, \beta_N}(0, s_N) = 0$. Then, for all $s_0 \le s \le s_{N+1}$, the following estimates hold: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{britney:spears:1}
|\mathcal{F}^{(2)}| \lesssim M^8 e^{-s} , \qquad |\mathcal{F}^{(3)}| \le M^{18} e^{-s}, \qquad s_0 \le s \le s_{N+1}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and in particular, this implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2:3:W0}
|W^{(2)}_{\alpha_N, \beta_N}(0, s)| \le \frac{M^9}{2} e^{-s} , \qquad |W^{(3)}_{\alpha_N, \beta_N}(0, s)| \le \frac{M^{19}}{2} e^{-s}, \qquad s_0 \le s \le s_{N+1}\,. \end{aligned}$$
The decay estimates follow upon writing the Duhamel formula associated to the evolution of , and crucially using the vanishing at $s_{N}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{frankie:1}
W^{(2)}_{\alpha_N, \beta_N}(0, s) = & \int^s_{s_{N}} e^{\frac 3 4 (s - s')} \mathcal{F}^{(2)}(s') {\,\mathrm{d}}s', \qquad W^{(3)}_{\alpha_N, \beta_N}(0, s) = \int^s_{s_{N}} e^{\frac 12 (s - s')} \mathcal{F}^{(3)}(s') {\,\mathrm{d}}s'\,.\end{aligned}$$ We will thus focus on proving estimates , starting with $$\begin{aligned}
|\mathcal{F}^{(2)}| \lesssim & |\beta_\tau - 1| |q^{(2)}| + |\mu| |q^{(3)}| + \| G_W^{(1)} \|_\infty |q^{(2)}| + \| G_W^{(2)} \|_\infty + \|F_W^{(2)} \|_\infty \\
\lesssim & \eps^{\frac 4 {15}} e^{- \frac 3 2 s} + M^{40} \eps^{\frac 1 6} e^{-\frac 7 4 s} + M^{2}\eps^{\frac1{10}}e^{-\frac 7 4 s} + M^{8} e^{-s} + \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{-s} \lesssim M^{8} e^{-s},\end{aligned}$$ where above we have used estimates for the transport terms $G_W$, and the estimates for the $F_W^{(2)}$ term. We have also invoked , , and .
We now move to $$\begin{aligned}
| \mathcal{F}^{(3)} | \lesssim & |\beta_\tau - 1| |q^{(3)}| + \| G_W^{(1)} \|_\infty |q^{(3)}| + |q^{(2)}|^2 + \| G_W^{(2)} \|_\infty |q^{(2)}| + \| G_W^{(3)} \|_\infty + \|F_W^{(3)}\|_\infty \\
\lesssim & M^{40} \eps^{\frac 16} e^{- \frac 7 4 s} + M^{42} e^{-2s} + \eps^{\frac15} e^{-\frac 3 2 s} + M^{8}\eps^{\frac1{10}} e^{-\frac 7 4 s} + M^{18} e^{-s} + \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{-s} \\
\lesssim & M^{18} e^{-s},\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked estimates for the $q^{(2)}, q^{(3)}$ quantities, for the $|\beta_\tau - 1|$ estimate, for the estimate of $G_W^{(1)}, G_W^{(2)}, G_W^{(3)}$, and for the forcing estimate.
To establish , we appeal to (which holds for all values of $s$) $$\begin{aligned}
|W^{(2)}_{\alpha_N, \beta_N}(0, s)| \lesssim \int^s_{s_N} e^{\frac 3 4 (s - s')} M^8 e^{-s'} {\,\mathrm{d}}s' \lesssim
M^8e^{\frac34 s}\left(e^{-\frac74 s}+e^{-\frac74 s_N}\right) \lesssim M^8 e^{-{s}},\end{aligned}$$ for all $s_0 \le s \le s_{N+1}$, where we have used that $s_{N+1} - s_N = 1$ to estimate $e^{s_{N+1}}e^{-s_{N}}\leq e$.
A similar argument applies to $W^{(3)}_{\alpha_N, \beta_N}(s, 0)$.
We now verify the bootstrap assumptions , which apply to every $(\alpha, \beta) \in \mathcal{B}_N(\alpha_N, \beta_N)$.
The following estimates are valid uniformly in the parameter set $\mathcal{B}_N$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
|W^{(2)}(0, s)| \le \frac 1 2 \eps^{\frac{1}{10}} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} , \qquad |W^{(3)}(0, s)| \le \frac{M^{40}}{2} e^{- s}\,, \end{aligned}$$
We use the fundamental theorem of calculus in the space of parameters via $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}|W_{\alpha, \beta}^{(2)}(0, s)| \le & |W^{(2)}_{\alpha_{N}, \beta_{N}}(0, s)| + |\alpha - \alpha_{N}| \sup_{\alpha \in \mathcal{B}_N} |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_\alpha W^{(2)}(0, s)| + |\beta - \beta_{N}| \sup_{\beta \in \mathcal{B}_N} |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_\beta W^{(2)}(0, s)| \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\le & M^9 e^{-s}+ \Big( M^{30} e^{-s_N} e^{- \frac 3 4 (s_N - s_0)} + \eps^{\frac 1 5} e^{-s_N} e^{- \frac 1 2 (s_N - s_0)} \Big) 4 e^{\frac 3 4 (s - s_0)} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& + M^{30} e^{-s_N} e^{- \frac 1 2 (s_N - s_0)} \eps^{\frac 1 4} e^{\frac 3 4 (s - s_0)} \\
\le & \frac12 \eps^{\frac{1}{10}} e^{- \frac 3 4 s}\,,{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ where above we have used that $s_{N+1} - s_N = 1$, coupled with the particular estimates , the two left-most bootstrap bounds in - , and the assumed size of the parameter rectangle in .
Similarly, for the quantity $W^{(3)}_{\alpha, \beta}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}|W_{\alpha, \beta}^{(3)}(0,s)| \le & |W_{\alpha_N, \beta_N}^{(3)}(0, s)| + |\alpha - \alpha_{N}| \sup_{\alpha \in \mathcal{B}_N} |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_\alpha W^{(3)}(0, s)| + |\beta - \beta_N| \sup_{\beta \in \mathcal{B}_N} |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_\beta W^{(3)}(0, s)| \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\le & M^{19} e^{-s} + \Big( M^{30} e^{-s_N} e^{- \frac 3 4 (s_N - s_0)} + \eps^{\frac 1 5} e^{-s_N} e^{- \frac 1 2 (s_N - s_0)} \Big) \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{\frac 1 2 (s - s_0)} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& + M^{30} e^{- s_N} e^{- \frac 1 2 (s_N - s_0)} 4 e^{\frac 1 2 (s - s_0)} \\
\le & \frac{M^{40}}{2} e^{-s}\,.{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ Again, we have invoked the particular bound , the two right-most estimates in - , as well as the size of the parameter rectangle in .
Finally, we are left at estimating $W^{(5)}(0, s)$, and in particular to verify the bootstrap assumption . As a result, we write the ODE evolution for this quantity, equation , as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{calvin:1}
&{\ensuremath{\partial}}_s {\widetilde}{q}^{(5)} = \mathcal{F}^{(5)}\,, \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{calvin:2}
&\mathcal{F}^{(5)} := - \mu q^{(6)} + (1 - \beta_\tau) q^{(5)} - 10 |q^{(3)}|^2 - \sum_{j = 1}^5 \binom{5}{j} G_W^{(j)}(0, s) q^{(6-j)} + F_W^{(5)}(0, s)\,.\end{aligned}$$
We now verify the bootstrap assumptions .
The following estimate is valid for the quantity ${\widetilde}{q}^{(5)}(s)$ $$\label{fifth:deriv:W:0}
{\left|{\widetilde}{q}^{(5)}\right|}\les \eps^{\frac 7 8}\,.$$
We use to integrate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:bluebottle}
{\widetilde}{q}^{(5)}(s) = {\widetilde}{q}^{(5)}(s_0) + \int_{s_0}^s \mathcal{F}^{(5)}(s') {\,\mathrm{d}}s'\,, \end{aligned}$$ and we estimate the $\mathcal{F}^{(5)}$ term on the right-hand side via $$\begin{aligned}
|\mathcal{F}^{(5)}| \lesssim & \eps^{\frac{11}{30} } e^{- \frac 3 4 s'} + \eps^{\frac 1 8} e^{- \frac 3 4 s'}+ 10 M^{36}e^{-2s'} + e^{-\frac{9}{10}s'} + \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{-s'} \lesssim \eps^{\frac 18} e^{- \frac 3 4 s'}. \label{e:bluebottle2}\end{aligned}$$ Above, we have used the bootstraps on $\mu$, invoked estimate to control the forcing term, to control the transport terms, $G_W^{(j)}$, to estimate the $1 - \beta_\tau$ term, estimates for the $q^{(2)}, q^{(3)}$ terms, and finally for the $q^{(6)}$ term, coupled with the fact that ${\overline}{W}^{(6)}(0) = 0$ so $q^{(6)} = {\widetilde}{q}^{(6)}$.
Next, we estimate the initial data via appealing to the specific form of and also the parameter bootstraps, $$\begin{aligned}
|{\widetilde}{q}^{(5)}(s_0)| = | {\widehat}{W}_0^{(5)}(0) + \alpha{\ensuremath{\partial}}_x^5 (x^2 \chi(|x|))(0) + \beta {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x^5 (x^3 \chi(|x|) )(0) | \lesssim |\alpha| + |\beta| \lesssim_M \eps\,.\end{aligned}$$
[ODE analysis of $\nabla_{\alpha, \beta} q^{(n)}$ for $n = 2, 3, 5$]{}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We start with the two formulas, which importantly, are valid for all values of the parameters $(\alpha, \beta) \in \mathcal{B}_n$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{W2:ab}
&q^{(2)}(s) = W^{(2)}(0, s) = e^{\frac 34 (s - s_0)} \alpha + \int_{s_0}^s e^{\frac 34 (s - s')} \mathcal{F}^{(2)}(s') {\,\mathrm{d}}s'\,, \\ \label{W3:ab}
&q^{(3)}(s) = W^{(3)}(0, s) = e^{\frac 12 (s - s_0)} \beta + \int_{s_0}^s e^{\frac 12 (s - s')} \mathcal{F}^{(3)}(s') {\,\mathrm{d}}s'\,, \end{aligned}$$
where the forcing terms are defined in , . We differentiate the above expressions in $\alpha$, recalling the notation that $q_\alpha := {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\alpha q$ and $q_\beta := {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\beta q$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{forward:1}
&{ q^{(2)}_\alpha} = e^{\frac 3 4 (s - s_0)} + \int_{s_0}^s e^{\frac 3 4 (s - s')} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\alpha \mathcal{F}^{(2)}(s') {\,\mathrm{d}}s'\,, \\ \label{forward:2}
&{ q_\alpha^{(3)} } = \int_{s_0}^s e^{\frac 1 2 (s - s')} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\alpha \mathcal{F}^{(3)}(s') {\,\mathrm{d}}s'\,. \end{aligned}$$
Similarly, differentiating in $\beta$ yields the expressions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{forward:1:b}
&{ q_\beta^{(2)} } = \int_{s_0}^s e^{\frac 3 4 (s - s')} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\beta \mathcal{F}^{(2)}(s') {\,\mathrm{d}}s'\,, \\ \label{forward:2:b}
& { q_\beta^{(3)} }= e^{\frac 1 2 (s - s_0)} + \int_{s_0}^s e^{\frac 1 2 (s - s')} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\beta \mathcal{F}^{(3)}(s') {\,\mathrm{d}}s'\,. \end{aligned}$$ Third, by integrating - we have $$\begin{aligned}
{ {\widetilde}{q}^{(5)}_c = {\widetilde}{q}^{(5)}_c(s_0) }+ \int_{s_0}^s {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \mathcal{F}^{(5)}(s') {\,\mathrm{d}}s'\,.\end{aligned}$$
We now write the expressions: $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \mathcal{F}^{(2)} = & 3 \dot{\tau}_c \beta_\tau^2 q^{(2)} + 3 (\beta_\tau - 1) q_c^{(2)} - \mu_c q^{(3)} - \mu q^{(3)}_c - 2 {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G^{(1)}_W(0,s) q^{(2)} \\ \label{joes:2}
& - 2 G^{(1)}_W(0,s) q^{(2)}_c + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F^{(2)}_W(0, s) + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G^{(2)}_W(0, s)\,, \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \mathcal{F}^{(3)} =& 4 \beta_\tau^2 q^{(3)} \dot{\tau}_c + 4 (\beta_\tau - 1) q^{(3)}_c - 3 {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G^{(1)}_W(0, s) q^{(3)} - 3 G^{(1)}_W(0, s) q_c^{(3)} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&- 3 \beta_\tau^2 \dot{\tau}_c |q^{(2)}|^2 - 6 \beta_\tau q^{(2)}q_c^{(2)} - 3 {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W^{(2)}(0, s) q^{(2)} - 3 G_W^{(2)}(0, s) q^{(2)}_c \\
& \label{joes:2:2} + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W^{(3)}(0, s)+ {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F^{(3)}_W(0, s)\,, \end{aligned}$$ for $c \in \{ \alpha, \beta \}$. We also record, by differentiating , the expression $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \mathcal{F}^{(5)} = &- \mu_c q^{(6)} - \mu q^{(6)}_c - \beta_\tau^2 \dot{\tau}_c q^{(5)} + (1 - \beta_\tau) q^{(5)}_c - 20 q^{(3)} q^{(3)}_c \\ \label{joes:3:3}
& - \sum_{j = 1}^{4} \binom{5}{j} ({\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W^{(j)}(0, s) q^{(6-j)} + G_W^{(j)}(0, s) q_c^{(6-j)}) + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W^{(5)}(0, s) + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_W^{(5)}(0, s)\,. \end{aligned}$$
The following estimates are valid on the quantities defined in , , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{whole:1}
|{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \mathcal{F}^{(2)} | \le \eps^{\frac 5 8}\,, && |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \mathcal{F}^{(3)}| \le \eps^{\frac 5 8}\,, && |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \mathcal{F}^{(5)}| \le \eps^{\frac 3 8}\,. \end{aligned}$$
We now estimate each of the terms in the forcing above in : $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}|{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \mathcal{F}^{(2)}| &\lesssim |\dot{\tau}_c| |q^{(2)}| + |\beta_\tau -1| |q_c^{(2)}| + |\mu_c| |q^{(3)}| + |\mu| |q^{(3)}_c| + |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W^{(1)}(0, s)| |q^{(2)}| \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& \qquad \qquad + |G_W^{(1)}(0, s)| |q^{(2)}_c| + |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_W^{(2)}(0, s)| + |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W^{(2)}(0, s)| \\ \label{wolf:alice}
&\lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{-\frac 3 4 s} + \eps^{\frac 1 6} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} + \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac 5 4s} + \eps^{\frac{11}{12}}+ \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- s} + \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{- \frac s 4} + \eps^{\frac 3 4 } e^{- \frac s 4} + \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 4}\les_M \eps^{\frac34}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and similarly, we estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}|{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \mathcal{F}^{(3)}| &\lesssim |q^{(3)}| |\dot{\tau}_c| + |\beta_\tau - 1| |q^{(3)}_c| + \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W^{(1)} \|_\infty |q^{(3)}| + \|G_W^{(1)}\| |q_c^{(3)}| + |\dot{\tau}_c| |q^{(2)}|^2 \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& \qquad + |q^{(2)}| |q^{(2)}_c| + \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W^{(2)}\| |q^{(2)}| + \|G_W^{(2)}\| |q_c^{(2)}| + \|{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W^{(3)} \| + \|{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_W^{(3)} \| \\
& \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{-s} + \eps^{\frac{11}{12}} + \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac 5 4 s} + \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{- \frac s 4} + \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{-\frac 3 2 s} + \eps^{\frac 3 4} + \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{-\frac 5 4 s} + \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{-\frac 1 4 s} + \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 4} + \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{- \frac s 4}{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\\
& \lesssim_M \eps^{\frac34}\,.
\label{wolf:alice:2}\end{aligned}$$ In both estimates above we have invoked the bootstrap estimate on $\mu$, the estimate on $|1 - \beta_\tau|$, the bootstraps on the $\dot{\tau}_c, \mu_c$ terms, for the decay estimates on $q^{(2)}, q^{(3)}$, - for the estimates on $q^{(2)}_c, q^{(3)}_c$, and finally and for the transport and forcing terms, respectively.
From and , we can take $\eps$ small relative to the implicit constant which depends on $M$ to conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
|{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \mathcal{F}^{(2)}| \le \eps^{\frac 5 8}, \qquad |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \mathcal{F}^{(3)}| \le \eps^{\frac 5 8}\,.\end{aligned}$$
Finally, estimating ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \mathcal{F}_5$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}|{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \mathcal{F}_5| &\lesssim |\mu_c| \|W^{(6)} \|_\infty + |\mu| \| W_c^{(6)} \|_\infty + |\dot{\tau}_c| |q^{(5)}| + |1 - \beta_\tau| |q^{(5)}_c| + |q^{(3)}| |q^{(3)}_c| \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&\qquad + \sum_{j = 1}^4 (\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W^{(j)} \|_\infty |q^{(6-j)}| + \| G_W^{(j)} \|_\infty \| W_c^{(6-j)} \|_\infty ) + \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c G_W^{(5)} \|_\infty + \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c F_W^{(5)} \|_\infty \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}&\lesssim_M \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 4} + \eps^{\frac{11}{12}} + \eps^{\frac 1 2} + \eps^{\frac 16} e^{- \frac 3 4 s} (1 + \eps^{\frac 3 8} e^{\frac s 8} ) + \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{- \frac s 4} + \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 4} + \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{- \frac s 4}\\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& \qquad + \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{- \frac s 4} + \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{- \frac s 4}\\
&\les_M \eps^{\frac12}\,, {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ from which we can conclude $|{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \mathcal{F}^{(5)}| \le \eps^{\frac 3 8}$, establishing the final estimate of . We invoke the same set of bootstraps as in the estimate of ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \mathcal{F}^{(2)}, {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c \mathcal{F}^{(3)}$ above, and in addition we invoke on the estimate of $q^{(5)}_c$ and on the $W^{(n)}_c$ quantities.
The following estimates are valid $$\begin{aligned}
\label{joes:oes:1}
|q^{(2)}_\alpha - \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{\frac 3 4 s} |& \le \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{\frac 3 4s}\,, & |q^{(2)}_\beta| &\le \frac{1}{2} \eps^{\frac 5 4} e^{\frac 3 4 s} \,,\\ \label{joes:oes:2}
|q^{(3)}_\alpha| &\le \frac{1}{2} \eps e^{\frac 1 2 s} \,,& |q^{(3)}_\beta - \eps^{\frac 1 2} e^{\frac s 2}| &\le \eps e^{\frac 12 s} \,, \\ \label{joes:oes:3}
|{\widetilde}{q}_c^{(5)}|& \le \frac 12 \eps^{\frac 3 8} e^{\frac 1 8 s}\,. \end{aligned}$$ In particular, this verifies the bootstrap estimates - , and .
For - , this follows immediately upon combining estimates with the expressions - . For the estimate on ${\widetilde}{q}_c^{(5)}$, we need to use that $$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde}{q}_\alpha^{(5)}(s_0) &= {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x^5|_{x= 0} \Big( x^2 \chi(x) \Big) = 0\,, \\
{\widetilde}{q}_\beta^{(5)}(s_0) &= {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x^5|_{x = 0} \Big( x^3 \chi(x) \Big) = 0\,,\end{aligned}$$ according to .
Estimates for $W$
=================
In this section we will verify various pointwise bootstrap estimates on $W$, solving , and derivatives thereof. The main objective is to verify the bootstrap assumptions - , , - , - , as well as .
The following lemma verifies the bootstrap .
The following estimate is valid on $W^{(1)}$ $$\begin{aligned}
|W^{(1)}| \le 1 + \frac \ell 2 M^{40} e^{-s}\,, \end{aligned}$$ which in particular verifies .
We subdivide into three regions $|x| \le \ell$, $\ell\le |x| \le \eps^{-\frac14}$ and ${\left|x\right|}\geq\eps^{-\frac14}$. In the middle region $\ell \le |x| \le \eps^{- \frac 1 4}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
|W^{(1)}(x, s)| \le |{\overline}{W}^{(1)}(x)| + |{\widetilde}{W}^{(1)}(x, s)| \le 1 - \frac{\ell^7}{50} + |{\widetilde}{W}^{(1)}(x, s)| \le 1 - \frac{\ell^7}{50} + \eps^{\frac 1 5} < 1,\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked to bound $|{\overline}{W}^{(1)}|$ above in this region, and the bootstrap which is also valid in this region.
In the far-field region, $|x| \ge \ell$, we use $$\begin{aligned}
|W^{(1)}(x)| \le M \eta_{- \frac 1 5}(x) \lesssim_M (\eps^{- \frac 1 4})^{\frac 4 5}\,. \end{aligned}$$
In the region $|x| \le \ell$, we obtain by a Taylor expansion of $W^{(1)}$ for some $|x_\ast| \le \ell$. $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}W^{(1)}(x, s) =& -1 + W^{(2)}(0, s) x + W^{(3)}(0, s) \frac{x^2}{2} + W^{(5)}(x_\ast, s) \frac{x^4}{24} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}= & -1 + W^{(2)}(0, s) x + W^{(3)}(0, s) \frac{x^2}{2} + {\overline}{W}^{(5)}(x_\ast) \frac{x^4}{24} + {\widetilde}{W}^{(5)}(x_\ast, s) \frac{x^4}{24} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\ge & (-1 + {\overline}{W}^{(5)}(x_\ast) \frac{x^4}{24} - | {\widetilde}{W}^{(5)}(x_\ast, s) \frac{x^4}{24}|) + W^{(2)}(0, s) x + W^{(3)}(0, s) \frac{x^2}{2} \\
\ge & -1 + \ell M^{40} e^{-s} + \ell^2 \frac{M^{40}}{2} e^{-s}\,.{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$
Above, we have used property to assert that ${\overline}{W}^{(5)}(x_\ast) > \frac 1 2$ via a further Taylor expansion: $$\begin{aligned}
{\overline}{W}^{(5)}(x_\ast) > {\overline}{W}^{(5)}(0) - |x_\ast| \| {\overline}{W}^{(6)} \|_\infty > {\overline}{W}^{(5)}(0) - C \ell > \frac 1 2\,. \end{aligned}$$
in which case we use to bound $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{x^4}{24} \Big( {\overline}{W}^{(5)}(x_\ast) - |{\widetilde}{W}^{(5)}(x_\ast, s)| \Big) \ge \frac 1 2 - \eps \ge \frac 1 4\,.\end{aligned}$$
We now collect various estimates on damping terms. To do so, we first make the following definitions. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{country:coffee:1}
D_n &:= \frac 1 4 (- 1 + 5n) + \beta_{\tau}(n+1_{n> 1}) W^{(1)}\,,\\ \label{country:coffee:2}
{\widetilde}{D}_n&:= \frac 1 4 (-1 + 5n) + \beta_{\tau}\left({\overline}W^{(1)}+ nW^{(1)} \right) \,,\\ \label{country:coffee:3}
D_{n}^{c} &:= \frac{5n-1}{4} +(n+1) \beta_\tau W^{(1)}\,, \\ \label{bravo:16}
D_{n,r} &:= D_n - \eta_{- \frac r 4} \mathcal{V}_W {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x \eta_{\frac r 4} = \frac 1 4 (- 1 + 5n) + \beta_{\tau}(n+1_{n> 1}) W^{(1)}- \eta_{- \frac r 4} \mathcal{V}_W {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x \eta_{\frac r 4}\,, \\ \label{country:coffee:4}
{\widetilde}{D}_{n,r} &:= {\widetilde}{D}_{n} - \eta_{- \frac r 4} \mathcal{V}_W {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x \eta_{\frac r 4} = \frac 1 4 (-1 + 5n) + \beta_{\tau}\left({\overline}W^{(1)}+ nW^{(1)} \right) - \eta_{- \frac r 4} \mathcal{V}_W {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x \eta_{\frac r 4} \,, \\ \label{country:coffee:5}
D_{n, r}^{c} &:= D_{n}^{c} - \eta_{- \frac r 4} \mathcal{V}_W {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x \eta_{\frac r 4} = \frac{5n-1}{4} +(n+1) \beta_\tau W^{(1)} - \eta_{- \frac r 4} \mathcal{V}_W {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x \eta_{\frac r 4}\,. \end{aligned}$$ We now state various estimates on these damping terms.
Let $|x_0| \ge \ell$. Then, for $D \in \{ {\widetilde}{D}_6, D_7^{c} \}$, ${\overline}{D} \in \{ {\widetilde}{D}_{1, \frac 4 5}, {\widetilde}{D}_{0,- \frac 1 5} \}$, and for $n \ge 2$, $j \ge 1$, the following estimates are valid $$\begin{aligned}
\label{headphones:1}
D \ge & \frac 1 8\,, \\ \label{street:beat:2}
-\int_{s_0}^s {\overline}{D} \circ \Phi^{x_0}_W \le & \frac{1}{50} \log M\,, \\ \label{street:beat:3}
- \int_{s_0}^s D_{n, \frac 4 5} \circ \Phi^{x_0}_W \le & - \frac 1 9 (s - s_0) + \frac{1}{50} \log M\,, \\ \label{thor:4}
- \int_{s_0}^s W^{(1)} \circ \Phi^{x_0}_W \le &\frac{1}{50} \log M\,, \\ \label{thor:5}
- \int_{s_0}^s D^{c}_{j, \frac{1}{5}} \circ \Phi^{x_0}_W \le & \frac{1}{50} \log M\,.\end{aligned}$$
First, for , $$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde}{D}_{6} =\frac 1 4 (-1 + 30) + \beta_{\tau}\left({\overline}W^{(1)}+ 6W^{(1)} \right) \geq \frac{1}{4}- 6{\left|1-\beta_\tau\right|}\geq \frac{1}{8}\,.\label{eq:damping:W6}
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used that ${\overline}W^{(1)}\geq -1$, and . An analogous estimate applies for the $D_7^{c}$ term.
We turn now to . By a simple calculation, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&{\widetilde}{D}_{0, -\frac 1 5}= \beta_{\tau} {\overline}W^{(1)}+ \frac{1}{4} \eta_{-1}+\frac{x^3}{5}\eta_{-1}g_W\,,\\
&{\widetilde}{D}_{1, \frac 4 5}= \beta_{\tau} ( {\overline}W^{(1)}+W^{(1)})- \eta_{-1}-\frac{4x^3}{5}\eta_{-1}g_W\,.\end{aligned}$$
Observe, that for either the case $D_q={\widetilde}{D}_{0, -\frac 1 5}, {\widetilde}{D}_{1, \frac 4 5}$, we have from , , , $$\begin{aligned}
{\left|D_q\right|}&\leq 3 \ell \log M \eta_{-\frac15}+\eta_{-1}(1+{\left|x\right|}({\left|W\right|}+{\left|G_W\right|}))\\
&\leq 4 \ell \log M \eta_{-\frac15}+{\left|x\right|}\eta_{-1}( \frac{1}{1000} \log M \eta_{\frac1 {20}}+ \eta_{\frac14})\\
&\leq 6\ell \log M\,.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, using in addition , we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}-\int_{s_0}^s D_{q}\circ\Phi_W^{x_0}(s') \,ds' \leq & 6 \ell \log M \int_{s_0}^s \left(\eta_{-\frac15}(\ell \eps^{\frac15}e^{\frac15 s})+e^{- s}\right) ds' \\ \label{steve:aoki}
\leq & 6 \ell \log M (20 \log \ell^{-1}) \leq \frac{1}{50} \log M\,.\end{aligned}$$ The same calculation establishes estimate , , , with minor modifications.
Transport Estimates for $W$
---------------------------
We now prove a uniform estimate on ${\widetilde}{ W}^{(6)}$ in the region ${\left|x\right|}\leq \ell$. We will prove the estimates along trajectories originating at ${\left|x_0\right|}\leq \ell$. Note that no trajectory originating outside the ball of radius $\ell$ may enter the ball of radius $\ell$. This is a consequence of . The following establishes the bootstrap bounds - .
The following localized estimates hold in the region ${\left|x\right|}\leq \ell $ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{iniesta:1}
& |{\widetilde}{W}^{(n)}| \le \frac 1 2 ({\left|x\right|}^{6-k}\eps^{\frac{1}{5}}+\eps^{\frac12})\leq {\left|\ell\right|}^{6-n}\eps^{\frac{1}{5}},\quad \mbox{for } n=0,\dots, 5\,, \\
\label{messi:1}
& |{\widetilde}{W}^{(6)}| \le \frac 1 2 \eps^{\frac{1}{5}}\,,\\ \label{xavi:1}
& |{\widetilde}{W}^{(7)}| \le \frac M 2 \eps^{\frac 1 5}\,, \\ \label{rooney:1}
& |{\widetilde}{W}^{(8)}| \le \frac{M^3}{2} \eps^{\frac 1 5} \,. \end{aligned}$$
Composing with the flow we have $$\frac{d}{ds}\left({\widetilde}W^{(6)}\circ \Phi_W^{x_0}\right) +\left({\widetilde}{D}_{6}\circ \Phi_W^{x_0}\right)\left({\widetilde}W^{(6)}\circ \Phi_W^{x_0}\right)={\widetilde}{F}_{W,n}\circ \Phi_W^{x_0}\,.$$ Hence, applying Grönwall, and the lower bound , we obtain $${\left|{\widetilde}W^{(6)}\circ \Phi_W^{x_0}\right|}\les {\left|{\widetilde}W^{(6)}(x_0,-\log\eps)\right|}+\ell\eps^{\frac 1 5}\les \ell\eps^{\frac 1 5}\,.$$ The same argument applies for and using the latter two estimates in .
From the constraints and the estimate , we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde}W(x) =\frac{{\widetilde}W^{(2)}(0)}{2!}x^2 + \frac{{\widetilde}W^{(3)}(0)}{3!}x^3 + \frac{{\widetilde}W^{(5)}(0)}{5!}x^5 + {\mathcal O}(\eps^{\frac15}|x|^6) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Then applying and , we obtain .
For $\ell\leq {\left|x\right|}\leq \eps^{-\frac14}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rover:1}
|{\widetilde}{W}| &\le \frac 1 2 \eps^{\frac{3}{20}}\eta_{\frac{1}{20}} \,, \\ \label{3eb:4}
|{\widetilde}{W}^{(1)}| &\le \frac 1 2 \eps^{\frac{1}{20}}\eta_{-\frac15}\,, \end{aligned}$$ which thus verifies the bootstraps - .
We write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{stuck:1}
({\ensuremath{\partial}}_s + {\widetilde}{D}_{0, - \frac 1 5}) (\eta_{- \frac{1}{20}} {\widetilde}{W}) + \mathcal{V}_W {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x (\eta_{- \frac{1}{20}} {\widetilde}{W}) &= \eta_{- \frac{1}{20}} {\widetilde}{F}_{W,0}\,, \\ \label{stuck:2}
({\ensuremath{\partial}}_s + {\widetilde}{D}_{1, \frac 4 5}) (\eta_{\frac{1}{5}} {\widetilde}{W}^{(1)}) + \mathcal{V}_W {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x (\eta_{\frac 1 5} {\widetilde}{W}^{(1)}) &= \eta_{\frac{1}{5}} {\widetilde}{F}_{W,1}\,.\end{aligned}$$
We now fix any $|x_0| \ge \ell$. We will consider trajectories starting with $(s_\ast, x_0 = \pm \ell)$ or $(s_0, x_0)$ for $|x_0| > \ell$. Writing the solution to we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_{- \frac{1}{20}} {\widetilde}{W} \circ \Phi^{x_0}_W = \eta_{- \frac{1}{20}} {\widetilde}{W}(s_\ast, \Phi^{x_0}_W(s_\ast)) e^{- \int_{s_\ast}^s {\widetilde}{D}_{0, - \frac 1 5} \circ \Phi^{x_0}_W} + \int_{s_\ast}^s e^{- \int_{s'}^s {\widetilde}{D}_{0, - \frac 1 5} \circ \Phi^{x_0}_W} \eta_{- \frac{1}{20}} {\widetilde}{F}_{W} \circ \Phi_W^{x_0} {\,\mathrm{d}}s'\,.\end{aligned}$$ We now estimate both sides to produce $$\begin{aligned}
|\eta_{- \frac{1}{20}} {\widetilde}{W} \circ \Phi^{x_0}_W | \le & ( \eps^{\frac 34} + 2 \ell^6 \eps^{\frac 1 5} ) M^{\frac{1}{50}} + \int_{s_\ast}^s M^{\frac{1}{50}} e^{- \frac 3 4 s'} {\,\mathrm{d}}s' \le \frac 1 2 \eps^{\frac{3}{20}}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Above, we have invoked estimate on the forcing term and for the damping term. We have moreover estimated the initial data by using to write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{truck}
{\widetilde}{W}(x, s_0) = & {\widehat}{W}_0 + \alpha x^2 \chi + \beta x^3 \chi - {\overline}{W} (1 - \chi(\eps^{\frac 1 4}x) )\,.\end{aligned}$$ When $|x| \le \eps^{- \frac 1 4}$, the last term above is zero, and so we estimate, for $|x| \le \eps^{- \frac 1 4}$, $$\begin{aligned}
|{\widetilde}{W}(x, s_0) \eta_{- \frac{1}{20}}| \le \|{\widehat}{W}_0 \eta_{- \frac{1}{20}} \|_\infty + |\alpha| + |\beta| \le \eps^{\frac 3 4}\,,\end{aligned}$$ by the estimates and .
Writing the solution to yields $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_{\frac 1 5} {\widetilde}{W}^{(1)} \circ \Phi^{x_0}_W = \eta_{\frac 1 5} {\widetilde}{W}^{(1)}(s_\ast, x_0) e^{- \int_{s_\ast}^s {\widetilde}{D}_{1, \frac 4 5} \circ \Phi^{x_0}_W} + \int_{s_\ast}^s e^{- \int_{s'}^s {\widetilde}{D}_{1, \frac 4 5} \circ \Phi^{x_0}_W} \eta_{\frac 1 5} {\widetilde}{F}_{W,1} \circ \Phi_W^{x_0} {\,\mathrm{d}}s' \,.\end{aligned}$$ We now estimate the right-hand side via $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}|\eta_{\frac 1 5} {\widetilde}{W}^{(1)} \circ \Phi^{x_0}_W| \le &( \eps^{\frac 3 4} + 2 \ell^5 \eps^{\frac 1 5} ) M^{\frac{1}{50}} + \eps^{\frac{1}{10}} M^{\frac{1}{50}} \int_{s_\ast}^s |\eta_{- \frac{1}{20}}(x_0 e^{\frac 1 5 (s' - s_0)}) {\,\mathrm{d}}s' \le \frac 1 2 \eps^{\frac{1}{20}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where above we have invoked estimate for the damping term, and for the forcing term. For the initial data, we differentiate to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde}{W}^{(1)}(x, s_0) = {\widehat}{W}_0' + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x \Big( \alpha x^2 \chi + \beta x^3 \chi \Big) - {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x \Big( {\overline}{W} (1 - \chi(\eps^{\frac 1 4}x)) \Big),\end{aligned}$$ which upon noting that the latter term is identically zero on $|x| \le \eps^{- \frac 1 4}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
|{\widetilde}{W}^{(1)}(x, s_0) \eta_{\frac 1 5}| \le \| \eta_{\frac 1 5} {\widehat}{W}_0' \|_\infty + |\alpha| + |\beta| \le \eps^{\frac 3 4}\,, \end{aligned}$$ upon invoking estimates and .
For ${\left|x\right|}\geq \ell$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3eb:1}
|W| &\leq \frac{\ell}{2} \log M \eta_{\frac{1}{20}}\,, \\ \label{3eb:2}
|W^{(1)}| &\leq \frac \ell 2 \log M \eta_{- \frac 1 5}\,, \\ \label{3eb:3}
{\left|W^{(n)}\right|}&\leq \frac 1 2 M^{k^2} \eta_{- \frac 1 5}\quad \text{ for } n =2,\dots, 8\,, \end{aligned}$$ which verifies the bootstraps - .
We write, for $n \ge 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{stuck:3}
&({\ensuremath{\partial}}_s + D_{n, \frac 4 5}) \eta_{\frac 1 5} W^{(n)} + \mathcal{V}_W {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x (\eta_{\frac 1 5} W^{(n)}) = \eta_{\frac{1}{5}} F_{W,n}\,, \\ \label{stuck:4}
&({\ensuremath{\partial}}_s + D_{0, -\frac 1 5}) (\eta_{- \frac{1}{20}} W) + \mathcal{V}_W {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x (\eta_{- \frac{1}{20}}W) = \eta_{- \frac{1}{20}} F_{W,0}\,. \end{aligned}$$ We will treat the cases $n = 0$, $n = 1$, and $n \ge 2$ cases separately.
Writing Grönwall for gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nat:1}
\eta_{\frac 1 5}W^{(n)} \circ \Phi_W^{x_0} = \eta_{\frac 1 5} W^{(n)}(s_\ast, x_0) e^{- \int_{s_\ast}^s D_{n, \frac 4 5} \circ \Phi_W^{x_0}} + \int_{s_\ast}^s e^{- \int_{s'}^s D_{n, \frac 4 5} \circ \Phi_W^{x_0} } \eta_{\frac 1 5} F_{W,n} \circ \Phi_W^{x_0} {\,\mathrm{d}}s'\,. \end{aligned}$$ Estimating both sides for $n \ge 2$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
|\eta_{\frac 1 5}W^{(n)} \circ \Phi_W^{x_0}| \le ( M + 10 \eps^{\frac 1 5} ) e^{- \frac{1}{9} (s - s_\ast)} M^{\frac{1}{50}} +M^{\frac{1}{50}} \int_{s_\ast}^s e^{- \frac{1}{9} (s - s')} M^{-\frac{9}{10}} M^{n^2} {\,\mathrm{d}}s',\end{aligned}$$ where we have appealed to estimate for the damping term and estimate for the forcing.
For the $n = 0, 1$ cases, it suffices to prove estimates and in the region $|x| \ge \eps^{- \frac 1 4}$ due to - . In this case, we select $|x_0| \ge \eps^{- \frac 1 4}$ and $s_\ast \ge s_0$ such that $(s_\ast, x_0)$ is the origin of the trajectories consider. More specifically, we take either $|x_0| > \eps^{- \frac 1 4}$ and $s_\ast = s_0$ or $|x_0| = \eps^{- \frac 1 4}$ and any $s_\ast \ge s_0$. In this case, continues to hold for $n = 1$, and we estimate via $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}|\eta_{\frac 1 5} W^{(1)} \circ \Phi_W^{x_0}| \le & |\eta_{\frac 1 5} W^{(1)}(x_0, s_\ast) | | e^{- \int_{s_\ast}^s D_{1, \frac 4 5} \circ \Phi_W^{x_0}} | + \int_{s_\ast}^s |e^{- \int_{s'}^s D_{1, \frac 4 5} \circ \Phi_W^{x_0}}| \| \eta_{\frac 1 5} F_{W,1} \|_\infty {\,\mathrm{d}}s' \\ \label{martin:1}
\lesssim & \Big( \sup_{|x| \ge \eps^{- \frac 1 4}} |\eta_{\frac 1 5} W^{(1)}(x, s_0)| + | \eta_{\frac 1 5} W^{(1)}(\eps^{- \frac 1 4}, s_\ast)| \Big) + \int_{s_\ast}^s e^{- \frac 1 2 s'} {\,\mathrm{d}}s' \\ \label{martin:2}
\lesssim & \Big(1 +|\eta_{\frac 1 5} {\overline}{W}^{(1)}(\eps^{- \frac 1 4})| + |\eta_{\frac 1 5} {\widetilde}{W}^{(1)}(\eps^{- \frac 1 4}, s_\ast)| \Big) + \int_{s_\ast}^s e^{- \frac 1 2 s'} {\,\mathrm{d}}s' \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\le & \frac \ell 2 \log M\,. \end{aligned}$$ To evaluate the size of the initial data, from to , we have used to compute $$\begin{aligned}
|\eta_{\frac 1 5} W^{(1)}(x, s_0)| = \Big| \Big( {\overline}{W}^{(1)} \chi(\eps^{\frac 1 4}x) + {\overline}{W} \eps^{\frac 1 4} \chi'(\eps^{\frac 1 4}x) + {\widehat}{W}_0' + {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x \Big( \alpha x^2 \chi(x) + \beta x^3 \chi(x) \Big) \Big) \eta_{\frac 1 5} \Big| \lesssim 1\,. \end{aligned}$$
Above, we have invoked the choice to ensure that $\ell \log M$ can be selected larger than the implicit constants appearing in the above estimate. We have also invoked bootstrap to control the ${\widetilde}{W}^{(1)}$ term above. We have also invoked to control the forcing term, and used the fact that $$\begin{aligned}
\exp \Big( - \int_{s_0}^s D_{1, \frac 4 5} \circ \Phi_W^{x_0} \Big) \le 10 \quad\text{ for } |x_0| \ge \eps^{- \frac 1 4}\,. \end{aligned}$$
An analogous series of estimates applies to .
Transport estimates of $\nabla_c W$
-----------------------------------
We now verify the bootstrap estimates - .
For $n=0,\dots, 6$ and ${\left|x\right|}\le \ell$ we have the following estimates $$\begin{aligned}
\label{warrior:1:kim}
&|W_c^{(n)}| \le M \ell^{\frac 3 4} \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{\frac 3 4 s}\,, \\ \label{warrior:2:kim}
&|W_c^{(7)}| \le \frac M 2 \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{\frac 3 4 s} \,. \end{aligned}$$
The first inequality above follows for $n = 0$ upon Taylor expanding and noting that $W_c(0, s) = 0$ via $$\begin{aligned}
| W_c | \le \ell \sup_{|x| \le \ell} |W_c^{(1)}| \le \ell M \ell^{\frac 1 2} e^{\frac 3 4(s- s_0)}\,. \end{aligned}$$
The exact same argument works for the $n = 1$ inequality. For the $n = 2$ inequality, we also Taylor expand, but must factor in the value at $x = 0$ via $$\begin{aligned}
|W^{(2)}_c| \le |W^{(2)}_c(0, s)| + \ell \sup_{|x| \le \ell} |W^{(3)}| \le 4 e^{\frac 3 4(s - s_0)} + \ell M e^{\frac 3 4(s - s_0)}\,. \end{aligned}$$
Finally, for the $n = 7$ case, we directly apply Grönwall to integrate which gives $$\begin{aligned}
W_c^{(7)}( \Phi_W(x, s), s) = W_c^{(7)}(x, s) e^{- \int_{s_0}^s D_7^{c} \circ \Phi_W} + \int_{s_0}^s e^{- \int_{s'}^s D_7^{c} \circ \Phi_W} F_{W,7}^{c} \circ \Phi_W {\,\mathrm{d}}s'\,. \end{aligned}$$
We note that implies that $$\begin{aligned}
e^{- \int_{s_0}^s D_7^{c} \circ \Phi_W^{x_0}} \le e^{- \frac 1 8 (s - s_0)}\,.\end{aligned}$$
Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}|W^{(7)}_c \circ \Phi_W^{x_0}| \le & 2 W^{(7)}_c(x_0, s_0) e^{-\frac 1 8 (s - s_0)} + \int_{s_0}^s e^{-\frac 1 8(s - s')} \| F_{W,7}^{c} \circ \Phi_W \| {\,\mathrm{d}}s' \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\le & 2 e^{-\frac 1 8(s - s_0)} + \int_{s_0}^s e^{-\frac 1 8 (s - s')} M \ell^{\frac 1 5} e^{\frac 3 4 (s' - s_0)} {\,\mathrm{d}}s' \\
\le & 2 e^{-\frac 1 8 (s - s_0)} + 2M \ell^{\frac 1 5} e^{\frac 3 4 (s - s_0)}\,,{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked the enhanced localized estimate, .
We now verify - .
For $n=1,\dots,7$ and ${\left|x\right|}\le \ell$ we have the following estimates $$\begin{aligned}
\label{prince:1}
|W_c| &\le \frac{M^{4}}{2} \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{\frac 3 4 s} \,, \\ \label{prince:2}
|W^{(n)}_c \eta_{\frac{1}{20}} | &\le \frac{M^{(n+2)^2}}{2} \eps^{\frac 34} e^{\frac 3 4 s} \,. \end{aligned}$$
Consider equation for ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W$. First, define the rescaled quantity $Q := {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W e^{- \frac 1 4 (s -s_0)}$, which satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
({\ensuremath{\partial}}_s + \beta_\tau W^{(1)}) Q + \mathcal{V}_W {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x Q = e^{- \frac 1 4 (s - s_0)} F^c_{W,0}\end{aligned}$$ By Grönwall, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}|Q \circ \Phi_W^{x_0}| \le & |Q(x_0, s_\ast)| e^{- \int_{s_\ast}^s \beta_\tau W^{(1)} \circ \Phi_W^{x_0}} + \int_{s_\ast}^s e^{- \int_{s'}^s \beta_\tau W^{(1)} \circ \Phi_W^{x_0} } |e^{- \frac 1 4 (s' - s_0)} F_{W,0}^{c} \circ \Phi_W^{x_0}| {\,\mathrm{d}}s' \\
\lesssim & (\| W_c(\cdot, s_0) \|_\infty + \ell^{\frac 1 2}M e^{\frac 1 2(s_\ast - s_0)} ) M^{\frac{1}{50}} + M^{\frac{1}{50}} \int_{s_\ast}^s e^{- \frac 1 4 (s' - s_0)} \eps^{\frac 18} {\,\mathrm{d}}s' \,,{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked for the estimate on the damping term, and estimate for the forcing term. Multiplying through by $e^{\frac 1 4 (s - s_0)}$ and using that $s_\ast \le s$ generates the desired bound.
For , we again use Grönwall to estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}|\eta_{\frac{1}{20}} W_c^{(n)} \circ \Phi_W^{x_0}| \le& |W_c^{(n)}(x_0, s_\ast)| e^{- \int_{s_\ast}^s D^{c}_{n, \frac 1 5} \circ \Phi_W^{x_0}} + \int_{s_\ast}^s e^{- \int_{s'}^s D_{n, \frac 1 5}^{c} \circ \Phi_W^{x_0}} |\eta_{\frac{1}{20}} F_{W,n}^{c} \circ \Phi_W^{x_0}| {\,\mathrm{d}}s' \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\lesssim & ( \| W_c^{(n)}( \cdot, s_0) \|_\infty + M e^{\frac 3 4 (s_\ast - s_0)} ) M^{\frac{1}{50}} + M^{\frac{1}{50}} \int_{s_0}^s M^{-1} M^{(n+2)^2} e^{\frac 3 4 (s'-s_0)} {\,\mathrm{d}}s' \\
\lesssim & M e^{\frac 3 4 (s_\ast - s_0)} M^{\frac{1}{50}} + M^{\frac{1}{50}} M^{(n+2)^2} M^{-1} e^{\frac 3 4 (s - s_0)}\,,{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked the estimate on the damping term, and estimate to estimate the forcing term. This concludes the proof of the lemma.
Transport estimates for $\nabla_c^2 W$
--------------------------------------
The following verifies the bootstraps .
Let $0 \le n \le 6$. $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_{c_1 c_2} W^{(n)} \|_\infty \le \frac{ M^{(n+5)^2}}{2} \eps^{\frac 3 4} e^{\frac 3 4 s}\,. \end{aligned}$$
Using equation , we write via Grönwall upon noting that $W_{c_1 c_2}(s_0, x) = 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}|W^{(n)}_{c_1 c_2} \circ \Phi_{W}^{x_0}| \le &\int_{s_0}^s e^{- \int_{s'}^s D^{c}_n \circ \Phi_W^{x_0}} | F_{W,n}^{c_1, c_2} \circ \Phi_W^{x_0}| {\,\mathrm{d}}s' \\
\lesssim & \int_{s_0}^s e^{\frac{11}{8} (s - s')} M^{(n+5)^2 - 1} e^{\frac 3 2 (s' - s_0)} {\,\mathrm{d}}s' \lesssim M^{(n+5)^2 - 1} e^{\frac 3 2 (s - s_0)}\,,{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ where above we have used the definition to produce the trivial bound $$\begin{aligned}
D_n^{c} \ge - \frac{11}{8}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and estimate - for the forcing.
Proof of main theorem
=====================
We are now ready to establish all of the assertions in Theorem \[thm:general\]. While the bootstrap estimates put forth in Section \[section:Bootstraps\] have all been verified, the first task is to now establish the inductive proposition, Proposition \[induct:prop\].
Newton iteration {#subsection:proof}
----------------
We now prove the main theorem by designing a Newton scheme on appropriately defined maps $\mathcal{T}_N$.
First, we will define the map $\mathcal{T}_N: \mathcal{B}_N(\alpha_N, \beta_N) \subset \mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^2$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{T}_N(\alpha, \beta) := (W^{(2)}_{\alpha, \beta}(0, s_{N+1}), W_{\alpha, \beta}^{(3)}(0, s_{N+1}))\,. \end{aligned}$$ Define now the *error* quantities via $$\begin{aligned}
&E_{N}^{(2)} := W_{\alpha_N, \beta_N}^{(2)}(0, s_{N+1}) = \mathcal{T}_N^{(1)}(\alpha_N, \beta_N)\,, \\
&E_N^{(3)} := W_{\alpha_N, \beta_N}^{(3)}(0, s_{N+1}) = \mathcal{T}_N^{(2)}(\alpha_N, \beta_N)\,.\end{aligned}$$ An immediate consequence of is the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
|E_N^{(2)}| + |E_N^{(3)}| \le M^{25} e^{- s_{N}}.\end{aligned}$$
We now compute the matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{\alpha, \beta} \mathcal{T}_N = \begin{pmatrix} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\alpha W^{(2)}_{\alpha, \beta}(0, s_{N+1}) & {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\beta W^{(2)}_{\alpha, \beta}(0, s_{N+1}) \\ {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\alpha W^{(3)}_{\alpha, \beta}(0, s_{N+1}) & {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\beta W^{(3)}_{\alpha, \beta}(0, s_{N+1}) \end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ which, when we evaluate at the point $(\alpha_N, \beta_N)$ produces $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{\alpha, \beta}|_{\alpha_N, \beta_N} \mathcal{T}_N = \begin{pmatrix} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\alpha W^{(2)}_{\alpha_N, \beta_N}(0, s_{N+1}) & {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\beta W^{(2)}_{\alpha_N, \beta_N}(0, s_{N+1}) \\ {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\alpha W^{(3)}_{\alpha_N, \beta_N}(0, s_{N+1}) & {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\beta W^{(3)}_{\alpha_N, \beta_N}(0, s_{N+1}) \end{pmatrix}\,.\end{aligned}$$
The bootstrap assumptions - , coupled with the estimates on the second derivatives, enable us to apply the Implicit Function Theorem on $\mathcal{T}_N$ in a neighborhood $\mathcal{B}_N(\alpha_N, \beta_N)$ of $(\alpha_N, \beta_N)$, defined in , to conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{crickets:2}
|\alpha_{N+1} - \alpha_{N}| &\le M^{25} e^{- \frac 3 4 (s_N - s_0)} e^{-s_N} + \eps^{\frac 1 4} e^{-s_N} e^{- \frac 1 2 (s_N - s_0)}\,, \\ \label{crickets:3}
|\beta_{N+1} - \beta_{N}| &\le 2M^{25} e^{- \frac 1 2(s_N - s_0)} e^{-s_N}\,, \end{aligned}$$ which in particular verifies the bootstraps . More specifically, we have used that in the neighborhood $\mathcal{B}_N(\alpha_N, \beta_N)$, we have uniform bounds on the $(\alpha,\beta)$ Hessian of $ \mathcal{T}_N$. Estimating ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_{\alpha \alpha} \mathcal{T}_N$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\sup_{\alpha, \beta \in \mathcal{B}_N} |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_{\alpha \alpha} \mathcal{T}_N | |\alpha - \alpha_N| \lesssim_M & e^{\frac 3 2 (s_{N+1} - s_0)} \Big( e^{- \frac 34 (s_N - s_0)} e^{-s_N} + \eps^{\frac 1 5} e^{-s_N} e^{- \frac 1 2(s_N - s_0)} \Big) \\
\lesssim_M & e^{- s_N}\Big( e^{\frac 3 4 (s_N - s_0)} + \eps^{\frac 1 5} e^{s_N - s_0)} \Big) \ll {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\alpha|_{\alpha_N, \beta_N} \mathcal{T}_N\,.{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, for ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_{\alpha \beta} \mathcal{T}_N$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\sup_{\alpha, \beta \in \mathcal{B}_N} |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_{\alpha \beta} \mathcal{T}_N| |\alpha - \alpha_N| \lesssim_M & e^{\frac 3 2 (s_{N+1} - s_0)} \Big( e^{- \frac 34 (s_N - s_0)} e^{-s_N} + \eps^{\frac 1 5} e^{-s_N} e^{- \frac 1 2(s_N - s_0)} \Big) \\
\lesssim_M & e^{- s_N}\Big( e^{\frac 3 4 (s_N - s_0)} + \eps^{\frac 1 5} e^{(s_N - s_0)} \Big) \ll {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\beta |_{\alpha_N, \beta_N} \mathcal{T}_N\,,{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\sup_{\alpha, \beta \in \mathcal{B}_N} |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_{\alpha \beta} \mathcal{T}_N| |\beta - \beta_N| \lesssim_M e^{\frac 3 2 (s_{N+1} - s_0)} \Big( e^{-s_N} e^{- \frac 1 2(s_N - s_0)} \Big) \ll {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\alpha|_{\alpha_N, \beta_N} \mathcal{T}_N\,.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, estimating ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_{\beta \beta} \mathcal{T}_N$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\sup_{\alpha, \beta \in \mathcal{B}_N} |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_{\beta \beta} \mathcal{T}_N| |\beta - \beta_N| \lesssim_M e^{\frac 3 2 (s_{N+1} - s_0)} \Big( e^{-s_N} e^{- \frac 1 2(s_N - s_0)} \Big) \ll {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\beta|_{\alpha_N, \beta_N} \mathcal{T}_N\,.\end{aligned}$$
We can now send $N \rightarrow \infty$ to obtain our limiting profiles. To make matters precise, we define the following norm, specific to a given $s_\ast \in [s_0, \infty)$. $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\Big\| (W, Z, A) \Big\|_X := &\Big\| \| W \eta_{- \frac{1}{20}} \|_{L^\infty} \Big\|_{L^\infty(s_0, s_\ast)} + \sum_{j = 1}^6 \Big\| \| W^{(j)} \eta_{\frac 1 5} \|_{L^\infty} \Big\|_{L^\infty(s_0, s_\ast)} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& + \Big\| e^{\frac 3 4 s} W^{(2)}(0, s) \Big\|_{L^\infty(s_0, s_\ast)} + \Big\| e^{ \frac 3 4 s} W^{(3)}(0, s) \Big\|_{L^\infty(s_0, s_\ast)} \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& + \eps^{- \frac 5 4} \Big\| \| Z \|_\infty \Big\|_{L^\infty(s_0, s_\ast)} + \eps^{- \frac 3 4} \Big\| \| A\|_\infty \Big\|_{L^\infty(s_0, s_\ast)} \\ \label{norm:X}
& + \sum_{j = 1}^6 \Big\| e^{\frac 5 4 s} \| Z^{(j)} \|_{L^\infty} \Big\|_{L^\infty(s_0, s_\ast)} + \sum_{j = 1}^6 \Big\| e^{\frac 5 4 s} \| A^{(j)} \|_{L^\infty} \Big\|_{L^\infty(s_0, s_\ast)}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and the corresponding Banach space $$\begin{aligned}
X := \text{Closure of } C^\infty_c([s_0, s_\ast], \mathbb{R} )^3 \text{ with respect to } \| \cdot \|_X\,. \end{aligned}$$ We also define the following norms in which we measure the modulation variables $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| (\mu, \tau, \kappa, \xi) \|_{Y} := & \eps^{- \frac 1 7} \| e^{\frac 3 4 s} \mu \|_{L^\infty(s_0, s_\ast)} + \eps^{- \frac 1 7} \| e^{\frac 3 4 s} \dot{\tau} \|_{L^\infty(s_0, s_\ast)} + \eps^{- \frac 1 8} \| \dot{\kappa} \|_{L^\infty(s_0, s_\ast)} \\
&+ \frac{1}{\kappa_0} \| \dot{\xi} \|_{L^\infty(s_0, s_\ast)}\,,{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ and the corresponding Banach space $$\begin{aligned}
Y := \text{Closure of } C^\infty_c([s_0, s_\ast])^4 \text{ with respect to } \| \cdot \|_Y\,. \end{aligned}$$
\[corr:infty\] There exist values $(\alpha_\infty, \beta_\infty)$ so that the data $W_0$ given according to yields a global solution, $(W, Z, A) \in X$ and $(\mu, \tau, \kappa, \xi) \in Y$ on $- \log(\eps) \le s <\infty$ which satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{X:estimate}
\| (W, Z, A) \|_X + \| (\mu, \tau, \kappa, \xi) \|_Y \lesssim_M 1\,,\end{aligned}$$ the constraints $$\begin{aligned}
W(0, s) = 0\,, && W^{(2)}(0, s) = -1\,, && W^{(4)}(0, s) = 0\,, \end{aligned}$$ the following asymptotic behavior for the second and third derivatives: $$\begin{aligned}
|W^{(2)}(0, s)| \lesssim e^{- \frac 3 4 s}\,, && |W^{(3)}(0, s)| \lesssim e^{-\frac 3 4 s}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, for the fifth derivative $W^{(5)}(0, s)$, there exists a number $\nu$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nu:def}
W^{(5)}(0, s) \rightarrow \nu, \qquad |\nu - 120| \lesssim \eps^{\frac 78}\,. \end{aligned}$$
Fix any $s_0 \le s_\ast < \infty$ and consider the sequences $$\begin{aligned}
\{ W_{\alpha_N, \beta_N}, Z_{\alpha_N, \beta_N}, A_{\alpha_N, \beta_N} \}_{N \ge \lfloor s_\ast \rfloor + 1} &=: \{W_N, Z_N, A_N\}_{N \ge \lfloor s_\ast \rfloor + 1}\,, \\
\{ \mu_{\alpha_n, \beta_n}, \dot{\tau}_{\alpha_N, \beta_N}, \dot{\kappa}_{\alpha_N, \beta_N}, \dot{\xi}_{\alpha_N, \beta_N} \}_{N \ge \lfloor s_\ast \rfloor + 1} &=: \{ \mu_N, \dot{\tau}_N, \dot{\kappa}_N, \dot{\xi}_N \}_{N \ge \lfloor s_\ast \rfloor + 1}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Our assertion will be that these sequences are Cauchy in the spaces $X$ and $Y$, respeectively. Let now $s_0 \le s \le s_\ast$. Recall from the definition of $\mathcal{B}_N$ in , that $$\begin{aligned}
|\alpha_{N+1} - \alpha_N| \lesssim_M e^{-s_N} e^{- \frac 1 2 (s_N - s_0)}, \qquad |\beta_{N+1} - \beta_N| \lesssim_M e^{-s_N} e^{- \frac 1 2(s_N - s_0)}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Considering the first term in definition of , we now estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\| (W_{N+1} - W_N ) \eta_{- \frac{1}{20}} \|_{L^\infty} \lesssim_M & e^{-s_N} e^{- \frac 1 2 (s_N - s_0)} \sup_{(\alpha, \beta) \in \mathcal{B}_N} \| {\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W \eta_{- \frac{1}{20}} \|_{L^\infty} \\ \label{above:above}
\lesssim_M & e^{- s_N} e^{- \frac 1 2 (s_N - s_0)} e^{\frac 3 4 (s -s_0)}\,, \end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked the estimate . Second, for $k \ge 1$, we have a nearly identical estimate using . Third, we estimate using - $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}e^{\frac 3 4 s} |W_{N+1}^{(2)}(0, s) - W_{N}^{(2)}(0, s)| \lesssim_M &e^{\frac 3 4 s} e^{-s_N} e^{- \frac 1 2 (s_N - s_0)} \sup_{(\alpha, \beta) \in \mathcal{B}_N} |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_c W^{(2)}(0, s)| \\
\lesssim_M & e^{\frac 3 4 s} e^{-s_N} e^{- \frac 1 2 (s_N - s_0)} e^{\frac 3 4(s - s_0)}\,.\end{aligned}$$ An analogous estimate applies to the fourth quantity in .
For the quantities in the third and fourth lines of , we use - , coupled with - , in essentially the identical manner to the quantities above. Similarly, for the quantities in $Y$, we couple the estimates - , with the estimates - .
As $s \le s_\ast \le s_N \rightarrow \infty$, the estimates above clearly imply that $\{W_N, Z_N, A_N\}$ is a Cauchy sequence in the norm X and $\{ \mu_N, \dot{\tau}_N, \dot{\kappa}_N, \dot{\xi}_N \}_{N \ge \lfloor s_\ast \rfloor + 1}$ form a Cauchy sequence in $Y$, upon taking supremum in $s \in [s_0, s_\ast]$. We conclude by sending $s_\ast \rightarrow \infty$.
For the final step, we note that the norms $X$ and $Y$ are clearly strong enough to pass to the limit in the equation - . Furthermore, applying and yields that $$\nu=\lim_{s\rightarrow \infty}W^{(5)}(0, s)\,,$$ exists, and by we have $${\left|\nu-120\right|}\lesssim \eps^{\frac78}\,.$$
Consequential quantitative properties for $(w, a, z)$ {#s:bandicoot}
-----------------------------------------------------
We finish by providing a proof of the following consequence of our construction.
The solution $w(\theta, s)$ satisfies the following Holder $1/5$ regularity estimate uniformly in $t$ up to the shock time $T_\ast$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{reaCH:1}
\sup_{t \in [-\eps, T_\ast]} [w(\cdot, t)]_{\frac{1}{5}} \lesssim 1\,.\end{aligned}$$
Due to bootstrap bounds , on ${\widetilde}{W}$, and properties on ${\overline}{W}$ we obtain the following on $W = {\overline}{W} + {\widetilde}{W}$, $$\begin{aligned}
|{\ensuremath{\partial}}_x W(x, s)| \lesssim \langle x \rangle^{- \frac 4 5}, \end{aligned}$$ where the implicit constant is uniform, and in particular, independent of $s$. Using this, we write $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}[W(\cdot, x)]_{\frac 1 5} = & \sup_{(x, x')} \frac{|W(x, s) - W(x', s)|}{|x - x'|^{\frac 1 5}} = \sup_{(x, x')} \frac{1}{|x - x'|^{\frac 1 5}} |\int_{x}^{x'} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x W(y, s) {\,\mathrm{d}}y| \\ \label{tho:1}
\lesssim & \sup_{(x, x')} \frac{1}{|x - x'|^{\frac 1 5}} \int_{x}^{x'} \langle y \rangle^{- \frac 4 5} {\,\mathrm{d}}y = \sup_x \frac{1}{|x|^{\frac 1 5}} \int_0^x \langle y \rangle^{- \frac 4 5} {\,\mathrm{d}}y \lesssim 1\,. \end{aligned}$$ Finally, we use to argue as follows. Select any $(\theta, \theta') \in \mathbb{T}$. Then there exists a corresponding $(x, x')$ determined through so that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{|w(\theta, t) - w(\theta', t)|}{|\theta - \theta'|^{\frac 1 5}} = \frac{|W(x, s) - W(x', s)|}{|x - x'|^{\frac 1 5}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ From here, we take supremum over $\theta$ and apply estimate to reach .
The following estimates hold for a constant $C_M$ that depends on $M$, $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{t \in [-\eps, T_\ast)} \sup_{\theta \in \mathbb{T}} |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_\theta a(\cdot, t)| &\le C_M\,, \\
\sup_{t \in [-\eps, T_\ast)} \sup_{\theta \in \mathbb{T}} |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_\theta z(\cdot, t)| &\le C_M\,, \\
\sup_{t \in [-\eps, T_\ast)} \sup_{\theta \in \mathbb{T}} |w(\theta, t)| &\le 2 \kappa_0\,. \end{aligned}$$
This follows upon pulling back to the original coordinate system via and which gives $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{t} \sup_{\theta} |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_\theta a| &= \sup_{s} \sup_{x} e^{\frac 5 4 s} |A^{(1)}| \le M^{2}\,, \\
\sup_{t} \sup_{\theta} |{\ensuremath{\partial}}_\theta z| &= \sup_{s} \sup_{x} e^{\frac 5 4 s} |Z^{(1)}| \le M^{2}\,,\end{aligned}$$ upon invoking bootstraps and , and upon invoking Corollary \[corr:infty\] to ensure that these bootstraps are satisfied globally.
We now arrive at the pointwise estimate for $w(\theta, t)$. For this, we use the bootstraps , , and to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}|w| \le & e^{- \frac s 4} |W| + |\kappa| \lesssim e^{- \frac s 4} \sup_{\substack{ - \log(\eps) \le s < \infty \\ x \in B_f }} \langle x \rangle^{\frac 1 5} + |\kappa_0| + \eps \\
\lesssim & e^{- \frac s 4} (M \eps e^{\frac 5 4 s} )^{\frac 1 5} + |\kappa_0| + \eps \le 2 |\kappa_0|\,.{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$
We now provide a final lemma to obtain the shock dynamics of ${\ensuremath{\partial}}_\theta w(x, t)$.
The following asymptotic behavior is valid for $w(x, t)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BUD:1}
&\lim_{t \rightarrow T_\ast} {\ensuremath{\partial}}_\theta w(\xi(t), t) = - \frac{1}{T_\ast - t}\,.\end{aligned}$$
First, follows upon using , evaluating at $x = 0$, and using the constraint $W^{(1)}(s, 0) = -1$ which yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pre:lim:1}
{\ensuremath{\partial}}_\theta w(\xi(t), t) = - \frac{1}{\tau(t) - t}\,. \end{aligned}$$ We now note that, while $\dot{\tau}(t)$ satisfies the bootstrap , $\tau(t)$ is itself uniquely defined upon enforcing $$\begin{aligned}
\tau(T_\ast) = T_\ast\,. \end{aligned}$$ Thus, we may take the limit of to get .
We now establish the following pointwise asymptotic stability result.
\[l:wombat\] Let $W$ be the global solution from Corollary \[corr:infty\] and let $\nu$ be as in . Then the following asymptotic behavior holds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pointwise:limit}
\lim_{s \rightarrow \infty} W^{(n)}(x, s) = {\overline}{W}^{(n)}_\nu(x), \qquad n=0,\dots,5\,, \end{aligned}$$ where ${\overline}{W}_\nu$ is the exact, self-similar Burgers profile $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bar:nu}
{\overline}{W}_\nu(x) := \left(\frac{\nu}{120}\right)^{-\frac14}{\overline}W\left(\left(\frac{\nu}{120}\right)^{\frac14} x\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$
We note that the parameter $\nu$ in is directly related to the spatial rescaling invariance of Burgers’ equation, listed in Section \[s:burgers\].
Let $(W,Z,A)$ be the global solution defined in Corollary \[corr:infty\]. First, it is easily verified that ${\overline}W_{\nu}$ is an exact solution to the self-similar Burgers’ equation , and that the first 5 Taylor coefficients of ${\overline}W_{\nu}$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
W_{\nu}(0)=W_{\nu}^{(2)}(0)=W_{\nu}^{(3)}(0)=W_{\nu}^{(4)}(0)=0,\quad W_{\nu}^{(1)}(0)=-1\quad\mbox{and } W_{\nu}^{(5)}(0)=\nu\,.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, at the limit $s\rightarrow \infty$, the first 5 Taylor coefficients of $W$ and ${\overline}W_{\nu}$ match. Let us define the difference $${\widetilde}W_{\nu}=W-{\overline}W_{\nu}\,.$$ Hence, by definition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Taylor:cancellation}
\lim_{s\rightarrow \infty }W_{\nu}^{(n)}(0)=0\,,\end{aligned}$$ for all $n=0,\dots,5$. By a similar calculation to – although we will rearrange the terms on the left-hand-side and right-hand-side – we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&({\ensuremath{\partial}}_ s- \frac 1 4+ {\overline}W_{\nu}^{(1)}) {\widetilde}W_{\nu} +(W+\frac54 x) {\ensuremath{\partial}}_x {\widetilde}W_{\nu} = -\beta_\tau e^{- \frac 3 4 s} \dot{\kappa} + F_{ W}+((1-\beta_{\tau}W)-G_W){\ensuremath{\partial}}_x W:={\widetilde}F_\nu\,.\end{aligned}$$
Using , and , we have that for any fixed $x_*$ that $$\label{eq:tilde:Fnu:decay}
\int_{s_0}^{\infty}{\left|{\widetilde}F_\nu (x_*,s)\right|}\,ds<\infty\,.$$ Now fix $\delta>0$, $x_*\in\mathbb R$ and $s_*\geq -\log \eps$. Then as a consequence of and we have $$\label{eq:Taylor:est}
{\left|{\widetilde}W(x_*,s_*)\right|}\les_M {\left|x_*\right|}^6 + \delta\,,$$ assuming that $s_*$ is taken sufficiently large dependent on the choice of $\delta$. Now define $\Phi$ to be the trajectory $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\partial}}_s \Phi(s) = \left(W+\frac54 x\right) \circ \Phi, \qquad \Phi(s_*) = x_*\,. \end{aligned}$$ If we in addition define $q= e^{-\frac54(s-s_*)}{\widetilde}W_\nu$, then $q\circ \Phi$ satisfies the equation $$\begin{aligned}
(\partial_s+1+ {\overline}W_{\nu}^{(1)} )(q\circ \Phi)=e^{-\frac54(s-s_*)}{\widetilde}{F}_{\nu}\circ \Phi\,.\end{aligned}$$ Since ${\overline}W_{\nu}^{(1)} \geq -1$, then by Grönwall and , it follows that $$\label{eq:q:phi:est}
{\left|q\circ \Phi (s)\right|}\leq {\left|q\circ \Phi (s_*)\right|}+\delta$$ for $s\geq s_*$, assuming that $s_*$ is taken to be sufficiently large, dependent on $\delta$. Combining and we obtain that for $s_* \leq s\leq s_*-\frac{23}{5}\log {\left|x_*\right|}$ and assuming $\delta\leq {\left|x_*\right|}^6$ $$\label{eq:wallaby}
{\left|{\widetilde}W_{\nu}\circ \Phi (s)\right|}\les_M e^{\frac54(s-s_*)}({\left|x_*\right|}^6 + \delta)
\les_M {\left|x_*\right|}^{\frac{1}{4}}
\,.$$ Let us restrict to the case $x_*>0$ and assume the lower bound $$\label{eq:escape:lower:bound}
\Phi\left(s_*-\frac{23}{5}\log {\left|x_*\right|}\right)\geq \Gamma\,.$$ In particular, by continuity, implies that for any $x_*\leq x\leq \Gamma$, there exists an $s_*\leq s\leq (s_*-\frac{23}{5}\log {\left|x_*\right|}$ such that $\Phi(s)=x$ and hence by $${\left|{\widetilde}W_{\nu}(x,s)\right|} \les_M {\left|x_*\right|}^{\frac{1}{4}}\,.$$ By taking the limit $s_*\rightarrow \infty$, this implies $$\label{eq:kangaroo}
\lim_{s\rightarrow \infty }{\left|{\widetilde}W_{\nu}(x,s)\right|} \les_M {\left|x_*\right|}^{\frac{1}{4}}\,,$$ for any $x_*\leq x\leq \Gamma$.
It remains to prove a $x_*$ dependent lower bound on $\Gamma$ that increases as $x_*\rightarrow 0$. First note that by and the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus $$\begin{aligned}
W+\frac54 x\geq x\left( \frac54 -{\left \| W^{(1)} \right\|}_{\infty}\right)\geq \frac29 x\,.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus by Grönwall $\Phi(s)\geq e^{\frac15(s-s_*)}s_*$, which implies $$\Phi\left(s_*-\frac{23}{5}\log {\left|x_*\right|}\right)\geq {\left|x_*\right|}^{-\frac{1}{45}}\,,$$ and hence we can take $\Gamma= {\left|x_*\right|}^{-\frac{1}{45}}$. Thus by taking $x_*\rightarrow 0$, from we obtain $$\label{eq:bilby}
\lim_{s\rightarrow \infty}{\left|{\widetilde}W_{\nu}(x,s)\right|} =0 \,,$$ for all $x>0$. An analogous argument yields for the case $x<0$. The case $x=0$ is trivial since ${\widetilde}W_{\nu}(0,s)=0$ for all $s$. Thus, $W$ converges pointwise to ${\overline}W_{\mu}$. The proof for $n = 1,\dots,5$ works in an analogous manner.
We remark that the asymptotic profile that is picked out in is consistent with our estimates . Indeed, by using estimate , we can estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\| ({\overline}{W}_\nu - {\overline}{W}) \eta_{- \frac{1}{20}} \|_\infty \lesssim \eps^{\frac 78}\,, \end{aligned}$$ which shows that $W$ can simultaneously lie in a ball of size $\eps^{\frac{3}{20}}$ within ${\overline}{W}$ (in the weighted norm above) and converge pointwise to ${\overline}{W}_\nu$.
It is now possible to prove asymptotic stability in a much stronger sense. To do so, we define the slightly weaker weighted space by first fixing a $0 < \delta \ll 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{norm:X:delta}
\| W \|_{\mathcal{X}_{-\delta}} := \| W \eta_{- \frac{1}{20} - \delta} \|_\infty + \sum_{j = 1}^5 \| W^{(j)} \eta_{\frac1 5 - \delta} \|_\infty\,. \end{aligned}$$
For any $\delta > 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{asy:conv:1}
\Big\| W - {\overline}{W}_\nu \Big\|_{\mathcal{X}_{-\delta}} \rightarrow 0\quad \text{ as } s \rightarrow \infty\,. \end{aligned}$$
This is a standard consequence of pointwise convergence (), uniform estimates on six derivatives, guaranteed by the specification of the norm $X$, , and finally, the compactness afforded by the weaker weight of $\langle x \rangle^{-\delta}$ in our norm . For the purpose of completeness, we include the argument for the lowest order part of the $X_{-\delta}$ norm, while the higher order components work in an exactly analogous fashion.
To prove , specifically $\| (W - {\overline}{W}_\nu) \eta_{- \frac{1}{20} - \delta} \|_\infty \rightarrow 0$, we will first fix an arbitrary ${\widetilde}{\eps} > 0$, and demonstrate the existence of $S = S({\widetilde}{\eps})$ large, such that $s > S$ implies $\| (W - {\overline}{W}_\nu) \eta_{- \frac{1}{20} - \delta} \|_\infty \le {\widetilde}{\eps}$.
First, there exists $X = X({\widetilde}{\eps}, \delta)$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\| (W - {\overline}{W}_\nu) \eta_{- \frac{1}{20} - \delta} \|_{L^\infty(|x| \ge X)} \le \frac{{\widetilde}{\eps}}{10}\,, \end{aligned}$$ according to the estimate on $W$ and on ${\overline}{W}$ (and hence, ${\overline}{W}_\nu$).
We thus restrict to the compact interval $|x| \le X$, which we now subdivide into $N = N({\widetilde}{\eps}, M)$ sub-intervals with centers $x_k$, $k = 0, ..., N$. $N$ will be selected according to the rule: $$\begin{aligned}
(\| W^{(1)} \|_\infty + \| {\overline}{W}^{(1)}_\nu \|_\infty) \frac{1}{N} < \frac{{\widetilde}{\eps}}{10}\,.\end{aligned}$$
By the pointwise convergence guaranteed by , there exists an $s_k$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
|W(s_k, x_k) - {\overline}{W}_\nu(x_k)| \le \frac{{\widetilde}{\eps}}{10}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Define now $S := \max_{k} s_k$. Estimating, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}|W(s, x) - {\overline}{W}_\nu(x)| \le & |W(s, x) - W(s, x_k)| + |W(s, x_k) - {\overline}{W}_\nu(x_k)| \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}& + |{\overline}{W}_\nu(x_k) - {\overline}{W}_\nu(x)| \\ {\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\le & (\| W^{(1)} \|_\infty + \| {\overline}{W}^{(1)}_\nu \|_\infty) |x - x_k| + \frac{{\widetilde}{\eps}}{10} \\
\le & \frac{{\widetilde}{\eps}}{10} + \frac{{\widetilde}{\eps}}{10}\,,{\ensuremath{\nonumber}}\end{aligned}$$ for $s > S$. Taking supremum over $|x| \le X$ gives the desired conclusion.
We note that the proof follows in a very similar manner to the proof of Corollary 4.7 of [@BuShVi2019].
By finite speed of propagation, the strict support properties imposed in Section \[ss:initial\], can be replaced by the condition that $(w_0,z_0,a_0)$ satisfy the conditions modulo a small perturbation in the $C^8$ topology.
The conditions for the cases $n=0,1$ impose no obstruction to $\check w_0$ been chosen within an open set since the conditions may be enforced by choosing $\eps$ and $\kappa_0$ appropriately (it should be noted that these two parameters are free to be chosen from an open set). In order to weaken the condition for the case $n=4$, we note that by a Taylor expansion $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{\theta}^4 w_0(\theta)&=\partial_{\theta}^4 w_0(0)+\theta \partial_{\theta}^5 w_0(0)+{\mathcal O}(\eps^{-\frac{29}{4}}\theta^2)\\
&=\partial_{\theta}^4 w_0(0)+120\eps^{-6}\theta +\theta(\partial_{\theta}^3 w_0(0)-120\eps^{-6})+{\mathcal O}(\eps^{-\frac{29}{4}}\theta^2)
\, ,\end{aligned}$$ here implicitly we used and that $${\left \| \partial_{\theta}^6\eps^{\frac14} {\overline}W\left(\eps^{-\frac54}\theta\right) \right\|}_{\infty}\les \eps^{-\frac{29} 4} \,.$$ By continuity, given ${\overline}\eps$, then assuming $\partial_{\theta}^4 w_0(0)$ and $\partial_{\theta}^5 w_0(0)-120\eps^{-6}$ to be sufficiently small, there exists a $\theta\in(-{\overline}\eps,{\overline}\eps)$ such that $\partial_{\theta_0}^4 w_0(\theta)=0$. Thus, up to a coordinate translation $\theta\mapsto \theta+\theta_0$, and under the assumptions $\partial_{\theta}^4 w_0(0)$ and $\partial_{\theta}^5 w_0(0)-120\eps^{-6}$ are both sufficiently small, we can remove the assumption for the case $n=4$. The strict assumption for the case $n=5$ may be removed by applying the rescaling $${\widetilde}a(\theta,t)=\mu^{-1}a(\mu \theta,t),\quad{\widetilde}w(\theta,t)=\mu^{-1}w(\mu \theta,t),\quad {\widetilde}z(\theta,t)=\mu^{-1}z(\mu \theta,t)\,,$$ for $\mu$ sufficiently close to $1$. As was noted in [@BuShVi2019], such a rescaling would modify the domain; however, since by finite-speed of propagation we restrict our analysis to a strict subset of the domain, such a rescaling does not impose any problem.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, Princeton University; email: [[email protected]]([email protected]); partially supported by NSF grant DMS-1900149 and a Simons Foundation Mathematical and Physical Sciences Collaborative Grant.
[^2]: Department of Mathematics, Princeton University; email: [[email protected]]([email protected]); partially supported by NSF grant DMS-1802940.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
A non-backtracking walk on a graph, $H$, is a directed path of directed edges of $H$ such that no edge is the inverse of its preceding edge. Non-backtracking walks of a given length can be counted using the non-backtracking adjacency matrix, $B$, indexed by $H$’s directed edges and related to Ihara’s Zeta function.
We show how to determine $B$’s spectrum in the case where $H$ is a tree covering a finite graph. We show that when $H$ is not regular, this spectrum can have positive measure in the complex plane, unlike the regular case. We show that outside of $B$’s spectrum, the corresponding Green function has “periodic decay ratios.” The existence of such a “ratio system” can be effectively checked, and is equivalent to being outside the spectrum.
We also prove that the spectral radius of the non-backtracking walk operator on the tree covering a finite graph is exactly $\sqrt{\text{\rm gr}}$, where ${\text{\rm gr}}$ is the growth rate of the tree. This further motivates the definition of the graph theoretical Riemann hypothesis proposed by Stark and Terras [@ST].
Finally, we give experimental evidence that for a fixed, finite graph, $H$, a random lift of large degree has non-backtracking new spectrum near that of $H$’s universal cover. This suggests a new generalization of Alon’s second eigenvalue conjecture.
address:
- |
Math\
UofT
- |
CS\
UBC
- |
Haifa Research Lab.\
IBM
author:
- Omer Angel
- Joel Friedman
- Shlomo Hoory
bibliography:
- 'NBRW.bib'
date: November 2007
title: 'The non-backtracking spectrum of the universal cover of a graph'
---
Introduction
============
Let $H$ be a finite, simple (i.e., without self-loops or multiple edges), connected graph. The main result of this paper is to describe the spectrum of operators on the universal cover, ${\widetilde H}$, of $H$, that are “lifts” from operators on $H$. Let us briefly describe this result, saving precise definitions and statements for later sections.
A [*cover*]{} of $H$ is a graph homomorphism $\pi{\colon}G\to H$ such that $\pi$ induces a bijection between the edges incident on $x$ and those incident on $\pi(x)$. Note that $G$ may be infinite. The [*universal cover*]{} ${\widetilde H}$ of $H$ is the unique (up to isomorphism) cover of $H$ that is a tree. A cover of $H$ may be thought of as a graph with the same local structure as $H$. The universal cover is in several senses an approximation to typical large covers of $H$.
A [*connected local operator*]{} on $H$ is a matrix $M$ indexed by $H$’s vertices, such that if $x\ne y$ then $M_{x,y}\neq0$ iff $x\sim y$, where $x\sim y$ means that $x$ is adjacent to $y$; $M$ may be viewed as an operator, in that for a function $f$ on $H$ we have a function $Mf$ defined by $(Mf)_x = \sum_{y\sim x} M_{x,y} f_y$. Using the bijection on neighbourhoods induced by $\pi$, any such operator extends in a canonical way to a bounded operator ${\widetilde M}$ on $\ell^2({\widetilde H})$. (See Section \[sec:prelim\] for more detailed definitions.) One of our main results is an algebraic description of the spectrum of ${\widetilde M}$.
\[T:main\_rough\] Fix a finite graph, $H$, and symmetric, connected, local operator, $M$, on $H$. There is an explicit (in terms of $H,{\lambda}$) set, $S$, of polynomial equations in variables $\{r_e\}_{e\in E(H)}$ taking values in ${\mathbb{C}}\cup\{\infty\}$, such that ${\widetilde M}-{\lambda}I$ is invertible iff $S$ has a solution with norm $\alpha(r)<1$, where $\alpha(r)$ is the largest eigenvalue of a matrix whose entries are given via $H$ as polynomials in the $\{r_e\}$.
See [Theorem \[T:main\]]{} below for a statement including the algebraic representation. This result gives an algorithm for finding the spectrum of of ${\widetilde H}$, and shows that it is determined by some algebraic curves.
A significant and motivating case of [Theorem \[T:main\_rough\]]{} is the non-backtracking spectrum of a graph. A non-backtracking walk on a graph, $H$, is a directed path in $H$ such that no edge is the inverse of the preceding edge. The non-backtracking matrix of the graph allows counting such paths in the same way that the adjacency matrix of a graph is used to count paths in the graph. Non-backtracking walks appear in numerous applications and estimating their number is a fundamental problem. The matrix $B$ is indexed by directed edges of $H$, with $B_{e,f}=1$ iff $(e,f)$ form a non-backtracking path of length 2. This may be seen as an asymmetric, local operator on the edge graph of $H$, and in this way extended to an operator on ${\widetilde H}$. This operator is asymmetric, but we can still use [Theorem \[T:main\]]{} to characterize ${\widetilde B}$’s spectrum. Note that while $B$ and ${\widetilde B}$ are real operators, they are not self-adjoint and so their spectra may be complex.
\[T:Bspec\_rough\] Given $H,{\lambda}$, there is an explicit set of polynomial equations in variables $\{r_e\}_{e\in E(H)}$ taking values in ${\mathbb{C}}\cup\{\infty\}$, such that ${\widetilde B}-{\lambda}I$ is invertible iff there is a solution with norm $\alpha(r)<1$, where $\alpha(r)$ is explicitly given in terms of $H$.
As an example, we consider the case where $H$ is $K_4$ with one edge deleted. Already in that case, the spectrum of the non-backtracking path operator on ${\widetilde B}$ has a non-trivial structure, see Figure \[fig-tree-spec\]. We are also interested in the relation between the non-backtracking spectrum of ${\widetilde H}$ and that of a typical large but finite cover of $H$. Figure \[fig-lift-spec\] shows the spectrum of a randomly chosen cover of this $H$. This and other numerical experiments give strong indication that the spectra converge to the spectrum of the universal cover (determined rigorously in this paper.)
![The non-backtracking spectrum of the universal cover of $K_4$ minus an edge.[]{data-label="fig-tree-spec"}](treespec){width=".7\textwidth"}
![The non-backtracking spectrum of a random 300-lift of $K_4$ minus an edge. The shaded area is the non-backtracking spectrum of its universal cover; the circled points are the spectrum for the base graph.[]{data-label="fig-lift-spec"}](liftspec){width="\textwidth"}
Motivation {#sec:motivation}
----------
Non-backtracking walks seem to be an essential part of various aspects of graph theory, including the Broder-Shamir trace method ([@BS87; @Fri91; @Fri93; @Fri]), Ihara zeta functions of graphs ([@Ha89; @KS00; @ST]), Bollobas’ question concerning girth and average degree ([@AHL02; @Hoo05]), and decoding of low density linear codes ([@Gal63; @Sh04; @RU]). Given $H$, there is a matrix, $B=B(H)$, whose powers count non-backtracking walks of a given length. $B$ is indexed by the directed edges of $H$, and is analogous to the adjacency matrix for paths (see below). Many interesting quantities concerning non-backtracking walks can be expressed in terms of spectral properties of $B$.
Several applications of walks in a graph $H$, require understanding the spectrum of the universal cover of $H$, denoted ${\widetilde H}$. Similarly, there are connections between non-backtracking walks on $H$ and the spectrum of the non-backtracking walk operator on ${\widetilde H}$.
For regular graphs, i.e., graphs in which each vertex has the same degree, there is a direct and simple relationship between the spectrum of $B$ and that of the adjacency matrix, $A=A(H)$. This fact renders many questions quite easy for regular graphs, masking formidable difficulties that may occur for non-regular graphs. In the case of a $d$-regular graph $H$, the universal cover is a $d$-regular tree, and the spectrum of ${\widetilde A}=A({\widetilde H})$ is known to be the interval $$\sigma({\widetilde A}) = \left[ -2\sqrt{d-1},2\sqrt{d-1} \right].$$ In this case, the spectrum of ${\widetilde B}=B({\widetilde H})$ is the union of a circle and two real intervals in the complex plane. Numerical experiments, such as those of Stark and Terras (see [@ST] and the previous papers in that series), suggest that ${\widetilde B}$, for general (non-regular) $H$, can be two dimensional. As an example, when $H$ is $K_4$ minus an edge, the non-backtracking spectrum of ${\widetilde H}$ is depicted in Figure \[fig-tree-spec\].
The main goal of this paper is to give a method for finding the spectrum of ${\widetilde B}$ for any finite graph, $H$. This will prove the above noted two-dimensionality. A consequence of this method is that $\rho({\widetilde B}) =
\sqrt{{\text{\rm gr}}}$, i.e., the spectral radius of ${\widetilde B}$ is the square root of the growth rate of ${\widetilde H}$. This further motivates the definition of the graph theoretical Riemann hypothesis proposed by Stark and Terras [@ST].
### Alon’s conjecture. {#alons-conjecture. .unnumbered}
Alon’s conjecture states that for any $d\ge3$ and any ${\varepsilon}>0$, the probability that a random $d$-regular graph on $n$ vertices has second largest eigenvalue $\lambda_2 \le 2\sqrt{d-1} + {\varepsilon}$ tends to $1$ as $n\to\infty$. This was proven for various of notions of “random graph,” i.e., various probability distributions on $d$-regular graphs on $n$ vertices, in [@Fri] (see also [@BS87; @Fri91]). A main tool used to this end is the analysis of non-backtracking walks in random, regular graphs.
As we shall see (and see [@Fri]), for finite $d$-regular graphs each $\mu\in\sigma(A)$ corresponds to two $\lambda\in\sigma(B)$ given by the solutions of ${\lambda}^2 - \mu{\lambda}+ d-1=0$. In particular, since $\sigma(A(H))
\subset [-d,d]$, the non-backtracking spectrum is contained in the union of the circle $\{z : |z|=\sqrt{d-1} \}$ and the two real segments $[1-d,-1]$ and $[1,d-1]$. This simple relation yields a form of Alon’s conjecture in terms of the non-backtracking spectrum, namely that the spectral radius, $\rho(B)$, of $B$ is at most $\sqrt{d-1}+{\varepsilon}$.
In [@Fri03], Alon’s conjecture is relativized, meaning that for any graph, $H$ (the “base graph”), we consider a random lift, $\pi{\colon}G\to
H$, of degree $n$; eigenpairs of $A(H)$ pull back to eigenpairs of $A(G)$, we call such eigenpairs of $A(G)$ [*old*]{} eigenpairs of $\pi$, while eigenpairs of $A(G)$ not arising from $A(H)$ we call [*new*]{} eigenpairs of $\pi$; we conjecture that for any fixed $H$ and ${\varepsilon}>0$, most random lifts have all new eigenvalues of absolute value bounded above by ${\varepsilon}$ plus the spectral radius of $A({\widetilde H})$; and a weaker new eigenvalue bound is proved via the Broder-Shamir technique (Alon’s original conjecture is the case where $H$ has one vertex). The full conjecture might be provable with a refined Broder-Shamir method (as in [@Fri91; @Fri]) that seems to require a translation between the adjacency matrix spectrum and non-backtracking spectrum. However, for irregular graphs we are aware of no such translation. This makes it difficult to apply the trace method in the general case.
Computer experiments indicate that the new (i.e., not arising from the base) non-backtracking spectrum of large random lifts is distributed in some fixed region, as seen in Figure \[fig-lift-spec\]. We would like to prove that this region is the non-backtracking spectrum of the universal cover of the base graph, shown in Figure \[fig-tree-spec\]. This suggests a generalization of the relative Alon conjecture, roughly stating that the new non-backtracking spectrum of a large random lift is near the non-backtracking spectrum of the universal cover; for non-regular graphs, unlike the case of regular graphs, it is not clear how this relates to the usual relative Alon conjecture regarding adjacency matrix spectrum. This might allow us to apply the trace methods of [@BS87; @Fri93; @Fri] in order to prove some analog of Alon’s conjecture for lifts of general base graphs (perhaps first for the non-backtracking spectrum and then, ultimately, on the adjacency matrix spectrum).
The relativized Alon conjecture raises the questions of how to determine the non-backtracking spectrum of the universal cover of a finite graph (answered in this paper) and how can one translate spectral bounds between adjacency matrices and non-backtracking adjacency matrices in the irregular case.
### The Ihara Zeta function. {#the-ihara-zeta-function. .unnumbered}
For a finite graph $H$, the eigenvalues of $B(H)$ are the reciprocals of the poles of the [*Ihara zeta function*]{} of the graph. This zeta function is a graph theoretic analogue of the number theoretic Riemann zeta function. For further details, we refer the reader to Hashimoto [@Ha89], Kotani and Sunada [@KS00], and to Stark and Terras [@ST].
### Bounds for graphs with large girth. {#bounds-for-graphs-with-large-girth. .unnumbered}
A third motivation is the result of Alon, Hoory, and Linial [@AHL02], giving a lower bound on the number of vertices in a graph with a specified girth and average degree. They answer affirmatively a longstanding open question by Bollob[á]{}s. Their result is basically a lower bound on the Perron eigenvalue of $B$ in terms of the average degree. In further work, Hoory [@Hoo05], gave a similar bound on the spectral radius of $H$’s universal cover, $\rho(A({\widetilde H}))$.
Further questions raised by these works concern the relation between ${\widetilde H}$’s growth rate ${\text{\rm gr}}=\rho(B)$, and the spectral radii of the remaining three operators $A$, ${\widetilde A}$, and ${\widetilde B}$. In this paper we partially answer this question by proving that $\rho({\widetilde B})=\sqrt{{\text{\rm gr}}}$.
### LDPC error correcting codes. {#ldpc-error-correcting-codes. .unnumbered}
A final motivation is the analysis of a decoding algorithm for a family of error correcting codes, known as low density parity check (LDPC) codes. This decoding algorithm, which is receiving a lot of attention at present, was first suggested by Gallager [@Gal63]. LDPC codes are binary linear codes of length $n$, described by a set of highly sparse linear equations over $GF(2)$. It is convenient to represent such a code by a bipartite graph, where the two sides correspond to variables and equations. Each equation is adjacent to the variables occurring in it. There is a natural decoding algorithm for such codes based on message passing. At each iteration of the algorithm, a message is sent along each directed edge of the graph (alternating between variables to equations and equations to variables rounds). We refrain from further description of this algorithm, and refer the reader to a survey by Shokrollahi [@Sh04], or a book by Richardson and Urbanke [@RU].
The connection of this algorithm to non-backtracking walks is in the fact that the $k$-th generation message computed at edge $e$ depends only on the initial value at the endpoints of all length $k$ non-backtracking walks starting at $e$. It seems that to analyze such an algorithm, one needs a non-backtracking analog of expansion. For example, the Mixing Lemma for expanders states that the number of edges $e(S,T)$ between any two vertex sets $S$, $T$ in a $d$-regular graph satisfies $\Big|e(S,T)-d|S||T|/N\Big|
\le {\lambda}_2 \sqrt{|S||T|}$, where ${\lambda}_2$ is the second largest eigenvalue in absolute value (see [@HLW] for a survey on expander graphs). It would be helpful to develop a non-backtracking analogue of the expander Mixing Lemma.
Main results
------------
In the following unless otherwise specified, all graphs will be [ *simple*]{}, meaning without self-loops or multiple edges, and connected; in Section 9 we explain our conventions and generalizations to graphs that are not simple. Throughout this paper, if $G$ is a graph, then $V(G)$ denotes $G$’s vertices, and $E(G)$ denotes $G$’s [*directed edges*]{}, which (for $G$ simple) we define as the union of $\{(u,v),(v,u)\}$ over all $u,v$ joined by an edge of $G$; for $e=(u,v)\in E(G)$ we set $e^{-1}=(v,u)$; we write $u\sim v$ to denote that there is an edge joining $u$ and $v$. (All graphs in this paper are locally finite, meaning that each vertex is incident upon a finite number of edges.)
Let $\pi{\colon}T\to H$ be the universal cover of a finite graph, $H$. For an operator, $M$, on $l^2(V(T))$, we set $M_{uv} = \langle \delta_u, M
\delta_v \rangle$ for $u,v\in V(T)$ (where $\delta$ denotes the Dirac delta function); we say that $M$ is
1. [*symmetric*]{} if $\overline{M}^*=M$;
2. [*local*]{} if $M_{uv}=0$ for $u,v$ of distance greater than one;
3. [*connected*]{} if $M_{uv}\ne 0$ for $u,v$ of distance one;
4. [*a pullback (from $\pi$ or, abusively, $H$)*]{} if $M_{uv}$ depends only on $\pi(u)$ and $\pi(v)$ assuming $u\sim v$.
The main result of this paper gives a way to compute the spectrum of local, symmetric operators on $T$ pulled back from $H$. If $M$ has an inverse, we define the [*Green function for $M$*]{} to be $G(u,v)=\langle \delta_u,
M^{-1} \delta_v \rangle$. If an operator $A$ on $l^2(V(H))$ pulls back to $\pi^*A$ on $T$, then determining the spectrum of $\pi^*A$ amounts to determining for which $\lambda$ the operator $M=M_\lambda=\pi^*A-I\lambda$ has a Green function.
The key idea in this paper to determine the Green function, $G$, of $M$, is that for any edge, $e=(u,v)$, of $E(T)$, the ratio $r_e=G(u,v)/G(u,u)$ should depend only on $\pi(e)$. This surprised us at first, although the intuitive explanation is simple. If $\pi(e)=\pi(e')$ for $e'=(u',v')\in
E(T)$, then there is an automorphism of $T$ taking $e$ to $e'$; using this automorphism we can “graft” appropriate linear combinations of pieces of $G(u,\,\cdot\,)$ and $G(u',\,\cdot\,)$ onto $G(u',\,\cdot\,)$; if $r_e\ne
r_{e'}$, then this “grafting” process will yield more than one Green function, which is impossible (see Lemma \[L:one\_dim\]).
There are numerous technical difficulties in turning this intuition into precise theorems. One is that an example of Figà-Talamanca and Steger (see Section \[se:examples\]) shows that $G(u,u)$ may vanish, forcing us to work with the more delicate situation of zero and infinite ratios. Another is that knowing $M$ and a ratio system, $r$, while it is easy to determine $G$, it does not seem easy to know if $M$ is invertible, at least when $H$ is infinite.
To make a precise statement, if $a,b\in{\mathbb{C}}$ with at least one of $a,b$ not vanishing, we interpret $b/a$ to be $\infty$ if $a=0$ and the usual ratio otherwise; in this case we say the [*generalized ratio*]{}, $b/a$, exits. If $u,v,w\in V(T)$ are vertices of a tree, $T$, we write $[u,w]$ for the unique path (a sequence alternating between vertices and edges) from $u$ to $w$ in $T$, and say that $v$ is between $u$ and $w$ if $v$ lies in $[u,w]$.
\[D:generalized-ratio-system\] A [*[[[ratio system]{}]{}]{} for $M$*]{} is a function $r\colon E(H) \to
{\mathbb{C}}\cup\{\infty\}$ satisfying the following:
1. If $r_e \ne 0$ for some $e=(u,v)$ then $$\label{eq:recursion}
0 = m_{vv} + \frac{m_{e^{-1}}}{r_e}
+ \sum_{e'\text{ s.t. } e\to e'} m_{e'} r_{e'},$$ with the convention that $c/\infty=0$ for any $c$, and where $e\to e'$ means that $e'\neq e^{-1}$ but $(e,e')$ forms a path of length two (i.e., $e$’s head is the tail of $e'$).
2. If $r_e=0$ then there is some $f$ with $e\to f$ and $r_f=\infty$.
3. If $r_f=\infty$ and $e\to f$, then $r_{e}=0$ and $r_{f^{-1}}\ne0$.
Here condition (a) comes from the fact that for fixed $u$ we have $MG(u,\,\cdot\,)=\delta_u$; conditions (b) and (c) are needed when the ratios become zero or infinite, i.e., when $G(u,u)=0$ for some $u$. Note that there is no assumed relationship between $r_e$ and $r_{e^{-1}}$.
For a [[[ratio system]{}]{}]{} we define $r$’s [*decay rate*]{}, $\alpha(r)$, to be the Perron eigenvalue of the matrix $R$ whose rows and columns are indexed by the directed edges of $H$ with nonzero (but possibly infinite) ratios, defined by: $$\label{eq:defineR}
R_{e,f} = \begin{cases}
\displaystyle
\sum_{e' \text{ s.t. } e \to e' \to f}
|m_f/m_{e'^{-1}}|^2 & r_{f}=\infty, \\
|r_f|^2 & \text{$r_f \ne \infty$ and $e\to f$,} \\
0 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
\[T:main\] Let $\pi{\colon}T\to H$ be a universal cover of a finite graph, $H$, and let $M$ be a pulledback, symmetric, local operator on $l^2(V(T))$. Then $M$ has a bounded inverse if and only if $M$ has a [*ratio system*]{} $r
: E(H) \to {\mathbb{C}}\cup \{\infty\}$ with $\alpha(r)<1$.
Furthermore, for and edge $(u,v)$ of type $e$ and any $w$ such that $u\in
[w,v]$, we have $G(w,v)/G(w,u)=r_e$ whenever this generalized ratio is defined.
Theorem \[T:main\] has numerous applications, including to adjacency matrices and Laplacians. The application to non-backtracking spectrum of a graph, $G$, derives from its connection to the local operator $$Q_\lambda = Q-\lambda A+\lambda^2 I$$ where $A=A_G$ is the adjacency matrix of $G$ and $Q=Q_G$ is the diagonal matrix with entries $Q_{vv}=d_v-1$ where $d_v$ is the degree of $v$. Specifically we shall prove the following theorem for graphs, $G$, of bounded degree, regarding the spectrum, $\sigma(B)$, of $B=B(G)$.
\[T:small\_spec\] Let $G$ be a graph with degrees bounded by ${{d_{\rm max}}}$, then $$\sigma(B(G)) = \{\pm 1\} \cup \{ {\lambda}: Q_{\lambda}\text{ is not invertible}
\}.$$
For $\lambda=0$, $Q_\lambda$ is symmetric, and otherwise $$\lambda^{-1}Q_\lambda=\lambda^{-1}Q - A + \lambda I$$ is (real) symmetric, and so Theorem \[T:main\] applies to $Q_\lambda$.
The following provides an interesting contrast to Theorem \[T:main\].
\[T:alpha1general\] Let $\pi{\colon}T\to H$ be as in Theorem \[T:main\]. If $r$ is a [[[ratio system]{}]{}]{} with $\alpha(r)=1$, then $M$ is not invertible.
Calculations with $K_4$ minus an edge, as in Figure \[fig-tree-spec\], show that a given $M$ can have more than one ratio system. Theorem \[T:alpha1general\] says that if there is a ratio system with $\alpha=1$, then there are none with $\alpha<1$.
The rest of this paper is divided as follows. In Section 2 we give some preliminary remarks. In Section 3 we discuss the non-backtracking spectra of trees and prove Theorem \[T:small\_spec\]. In Section 4 we bound the non-backtracking spectrum in an annulus in terms of the growth rate of the tree. In Section 5 we discuss the Green function and relative kernels (that make precise the “grafting” idea discussed earlier showing that Green’s function has “periodic ratios”). In Section 6 we prove Theorem \[T:main\] in the case of a ratio system with no zero or infinite ratios. In Section 7 we prove Theorem \[T:main\] in full generality. In Section 8 we give some interesting examples illustrating various aspects of Theorem \[T:main\]. In Section 9 we show how to extend our theory to much more general base graphs (or pregraphs), $H$. In Section 10 we make some remarks, mentioning a few of the many questions left open by this paper.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
We wish to thank Chen Greif, Audry Terras, Alex Gamburd, and Bálint Virág for illuminating discussions.
Preliminaries {#sec:prelim}
=============
A directed edge $e'=(u',v')$ of a graph, $H$, [*can follow*]{} edge $e=(u,v)$, denoted $e\to e'$, if $u'=v$ and $e'\ne e^{-1}$. A non-backtracking walk on $H$ is a sequence of directed edges $e_1,e_2,\dots,e_r$ such that $e_k\to e_{k+1}$ for all $k$.
If $H$ is a graph and $v\in V(H)$, the [*1-neighbourhood of $v$*]{} is the subgraph consisting of all undirected edges incident upon $v$. A graph homomorphism $\nu\colon H'\to H$ is a [*covering map*]{} (see [@Fri93]) if for each $v'\in V(H')$, $\nu$ gives a bijection of the edges of the 1-neighbourhood of $v'$ with those of $v$ (note that this definition is correct even when the graphs have self-loops; see Section \[se:self\]). $H'$ is a [*cover*]{} of $H$. The [*type*]{} of a vertex $v\in H'$, is defined as the vertex $\nu(v)\in H$. If $\nu(v')=v$ for vertices $v',v$, we say that $v'$ is [*above*]{} $v$ (or $v$ is [*below*]{} $v'$). These terms are similarly defined for edges.
Note that a cover of a cover is a cover. The [*universal cover*]{} of $H$, denoted ${\widetilde H}$, is the (unique up to isomorphism) cover of $H$ that is also a cover of every other cover of $H$. The universal cover may be constructed as follows. Fix some (arbitrary) vertex $v_0 \in H$. The vertices of ${\widetilde H}$ are the finite non-backtracking walks on $H$ starting at $v_0$. Two vertices of ${\widetilde H}$ are adjacent if one extends the other by a single step. The covering map $\pi{\colon}V({\widetilde H})\to V(H)$ maps a walk to its terminal vertex in $H$. It is easy to see that ${\widetilde H}$ is a tree, hence it is also referred to as the covering tree of $H$. The universality of ${\widetilde H}$ can be stated as follows: If $\nu\colon H'\to H$ is any covering map, and $v'\in
V(H')$ is of type $v_0$, then there is a unique covering map $\mu\colon{\widetilde H}\to H'$ with $\pi=\nu\mu$ and $\mu(\phi)=v'$, where $\phi$ is the empty path.)
If the covering map $\nu\colon H'\to H$ is $n$-to-1 for some finite $n$, then we also say that $H'$ is a [*lifting*]{}, or an [*$n$-lifting*]{}, of $H$. Every cover is either a lifting or is $\infty$-to-1. Equivalently, the graph $H'$, which we denote $H^n$, can be characterized as follows: the vertex set of $H^n$ consists of $n$ copies of $H$’s vertices: $V(H^n) =
V(H) \times [n]$, with the covering map $\pi((v,i))=v$. The edges in $H^n$ are given by a perfect matching between $\pi^{-1}(v)$ and $\pi^{-1}(u)$ for every undirected edge $(u,v) \in E(H)$. This characterization gives rise to a natural distribution on $n$-lifts of $H$, by picking the perfect matchings independently and uniformly at random.
We define 0-forms to be functions on the vertices of a graph, and 1-forms to be functions on directed edges of a graph (with no constraint relating $f(e)$ and $f(e^{-1})$.) Denote by $A=A(H)$ the adjacency operator acting on the Hilbert space of $0$-forms, i.e., $(Af)(v) = \sum_{u\sim v} f(u)$ with multiple edges taken into account.) For graphs with minimal degree at least two, we consider the non-backtracking adjacency operator, $B=B(H)$, which acts on 1-forms. $B$’s action is given by $$(Bf)(e) = \sum_{e' \text{ s.t. } e\to e'} f(e').$$ The definitions of $A,B$ are valid for any locally finite graph, and in particular for ${\widetilde H}$. When the degrees in a graph are globally bounded, $A$ and $B$ may be viewed as bounded operators on $l^2(V)$ and $l^2(E)$, respectively. In the finite case, $B$ is the adjacency matrix of the directed graph with an edge from $e_1$ to $e_2$ iff $e_2\to e_1$. Notice that in the literature $B$ is occasionally defined as the adjoint of our definition.
The [*non-backtracking spectrum*]{} of a graph $H$ is defined to be the spectrum of the corresponding operator $B$ (as opposed to the spectrum of $H$ which is the spectrum of $A$.) Note that $A$ is self-adjoint, hence any graph’s spectrum is real. However, the non-backtracking spectrum generally contains complex numbers. ${\widetilde A}=A({\widetilde H})$ and ${\widetilde B}=B({\widetilde H})$ denote the corresponding operators on ${\widetilde H}$.
We denote by $\rho(u,v)$ the graph distance in ${\widetilde H}$. We let ${\text{\rm gr}}$ denote the growth rate of the universal cover ${\widetilde H}$, i.e. $${\text{\rm gr}}= \lim_{r\to\infty} |{\tt Ball}(v,r)|^{1/r},$$ where ${\tt Ball}(v,r)$ is the radius $r$ ball around some (arbitrary) vertex $v \in V({\widetilde H})$; for connected $H$ the limit is independent of the choice of $v$. It is straightforward to see ${\text{\rm gr}}$ is the Perron-Frobenius eigenvalue of $B$.
Non-backtracking spectrum basics {#se:spectrum_basics}
================================
We start with some background from spectral theory. Let $T$ be a bounded linear operator acting on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ (in this paper we work with $l^2(X)$, where $X$ will be one of $V$, ${\widetilde V}=V({\widetilde H})$, $E$, or ${\widetilde E}=E({\widetilde H})$). Recall that the spectrum of $T$ is $$\sigma(T) = \{{\lambda}| \text{$T - {\lambda}I$ does not have a bounded inverse}\},$$ and its spectral radius is $$\rho(T) = \max\{|\lambda| : \lambda\in\sigma(T)\}$$ (no confusion should arise regarding this $\rho$ and the distance, $\rho$, that involves two arguments). If $\mathcal{H}$ is finite dimensional, then ${\lambda}\in \sigma(T)$ iff there is a nonzero $f$ satisfying $Tf={\lambda}f$. In the general case we have [@Rud91 Chapter 12]:
\[T:operator-spectrum\] For a bounded linear operator $T\colon \mathcal{H}\to\mathcal{H}$, we have ${\lambda}\in\sigma(T)$ iff one of the following three possibilities hold:
1. there exists a nonzero $f$ such that $(T-{\lambda}I)f=0$,
2. there exists a nonzero $f$ such that $(T^*-\overline{{\lambda}} I)f=0$,
3. for every ${\varepsilon}>0$ exists a nonzero $f$ such that $\|(T-{\lambda}I)f\|
< {\varepsilon}\|f\|$.
In case (iii), a sequence of $f$’s with ${\varepsilon}\to0$ is referred to as [ *approximate eigenfunctions*]{}; case (i) is a special case of (iii).
A bounded linear operator $T$ is called [*symmetric*]{} (sometimes [*real symmetric*]{} in the literature) if $\overline{T}^*=T$.
If $T$ is symmetric, then case (ii) of [Theorem \[T:operator-spectrum\]]{} is equivalent to case (i), and so ${\lambda}$ is in the spectrum iff case (iii) holds, i.e., we have a sequence of approximate eigenfunctions for ${\lambda}$.
While the operator $B$ is not symmetric, to identify its spectrum it suffices to check only case (iii). To see this, define the unitary operator $U\colon l^2(E)\to l^2(E)$ by its action $(Uf)_e = f_{e^{-1}}$. Note that $U^{-1}=U$. Since $B$ is real, it is easy to see that $U^{-1}BU = B^T =
B^*$. Consequently, if $f$ is an eigenfunction of $B^*$ with eigenvalue $\overline{{\lambda}}$, then $Uf$ is an eigenfunction of $B$ with eigenvalue ${\lambda}$. Thus case (ii) of [Theorem \[T:operator-spectrum\]]{} holds for the same ${\lambda}$ as case (i), and it suffices to check case (iii).
At this point we are ready to prove Theorem \[T:small\_spec\]. Before doing so we make a few remarks on the theorem.
Note that if $G$ is a $d$-regular graph, $Q=(d-1)I$ and so $Q_{\lambda}=({\lambda}^2+d-1)I-{\lambda}A$ is singular iff ${\lambda}^2-\mu{\lambda}+d-1=0$ for some $\mu\in\sigma(A)$. [Theorem \[T:small\_spec\]]{} is known (in more precision) for finite graphs:
\[T:Q\_finite\] For any finite graph $$\det(B-{\lambda}I) = ({\lambda}^2-1)^{|E|-|V|} \cdot \det(Q_{\lambda}).$$
A version of [Theorem \[T:Q\_finite\]]{} holds for graphs with multiple edges and self-loops. Each half-loop (see Section \[se:self\]) contributes a factor of ${\lambda}-1$, rather than ${\lambda}^2-1$.
We thank Chen Greif for the following remark:
Consider the $2n\times2n$ matrix $X=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} A&-Q\\I&0
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$. One can easily verify by row elimination that $\det(Q_{\lambda})=\det(X-{\lambda}I)$. This observation has practical importance for calculating the non-backtracking spectrum of specific graphs, since eigenvalue calculation is a standard feature in most numeric/symbolic matrix manipulation programs.
If $G$ is finite, then [Theorem \[T:Q\_finite\]]{} implies our result, hence we may restrict ourselves to infinite $G$. The result follows from the following three statements:
1. we have $\pm1 \in \sigma(B)$;
2. if ${\lambda}\ne\pm1$ and $Q_{\lambda}$ is not invertible, then neither is $B-{\lambda}I$;
3. if ${\lambda}\ne\pm1$ and $B-{\lambda}I$ is not invertible, then neither is $Q_{\lambda}$.
To prove (1), we explicitly construct approximate eigenfunctions. $G$ contains some infinite path of directed edges $\{e_i\}_{i\ge0}$. For any $k$, define the function $$f = \sum_{i=1}^{k} \delta_{e_i} - \sum_{i=0}^{k-1} \delta_{e_i^{-1}},$$ i.e., $f$ is 1 on $e_1,\ldots,e_k$, $f$ is $-1$ on $e_0^{-1}, \dots,
e_{k-1}^{-1}$, and zero on all other edges. One can easily check that $$(B-I)f = \delta_{e_0} - \delta_{e_0^{-1}} - \delta_{e_k} +
\delta_{e_k^{-1}}.$$ Thus $\|(B-I)f\| = \sqrt{4}$, while $\|f\|=\sqrt{2k}$, and so taking $k\to\infty$ gives approximate eigenfunctions for ${\lambda}=1$.
${\lambda}=-1$ is similar, with $$f = \sum_{i=1}^{k} (-1)^i \delta_{e_i} + \sum_{i=0}^{k-1} (-1)^i
\delta_{e_i^{-1}}.$$
To prove (2), assume $Q_{\lambda}$ is not invertible. Since $Q_{\lambda}$ is symmetric, as noted above it has approximate (perhaps exact) eigenfunctions. Thus for every ${\varepsilon}$ there is an $f$ such that $\|f\|=1$ and $\|Q_{\lambda}f\|<{\varepsilon}$. Note that $f$ is defined on the vertices of $G$. From $f$ we construct a 1-form, $g$, given by $g_{uv} = f_u - {\lambda}f_v$. Then: $$\begin{aligned}
\big((B-{\lambda}I)g\big)_{uv}
& = \sum_{\substack{w\sim v\\w\ne u}} g_{vw} - {\lambda}g_{uv}
= \sum_{w \sim v} g_{vw} - g_{vu} - {\lambda}g_{uv} \\
& = \sum_{w \sim v} (f_v - {\lambda}f_w) + ({\lambda}^2-1)f_v \\
& = (d_v-1)f_v - {\lambda}(Af)_v + {\lambda}^2 f_v = (Q_{\lambda}f)_v.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\|(B-{\lambda}I)g\|^2 \le {{d_{\rm max}}}\cdot \|Q_{\lambda}f\|^2 < {\varepsilon}^2 {{d_{\rm max}}}.$$ It remains to show that $\|g\|$ is bounded from below. To this end, note that $\left(\begin{smallmatrix} g_{uv} \\ g_{vu} \end{smallmatrix}\right) =
\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1&-{\lambda}\\ -{\lambda}&1 \end{smallmatrix}\right)
\left(\begin{smallmatrix} f_u \\ f_v \end{smallmatrix}\right)$ is an invertible linear transformation for ${\lambda}\ne\pm1$. Thus for ${\lambda}\ne\pm1$, for some $c=c({\lambda})>0$ $$|g_{uv}|^2 + |g_{vu}|^2 \ge c\left(|f_u|^2+|f_v|^2 \right).$$ Summing over all edges we find $\|g\|^2 \ge c$.
To prove (3), let $S_o$, $S_i$ be the outbound and inbound sum operators from 1-forms to 0-forms, defined by $(S_o h)_v = \sum_{u \sim v} h_{vu}$, and $(S_i h)_v = \sum_{u \sim v} h_{uv}$. For any $v$, and any 1-form $h$: $$\begin{aligned}
(S_i Bh)_v
= \sum_{u \sim v} (Bh)_{uv}
&= \sum_{\substack{u,w \sim v \\w\ne u}} h_{vw}
= (d_v-1) (S_o h)_v \\
(S_o Bh)_v
= \sum_{u \sim v} (Bh)_{vu}
&= \sum_{\substack{w\sim u\sim v\\w \ne v}} h_{uw}
= (A S_o h - S_i h)_v.
\end{aligned}$$ And so we have $$S_i B = Q S_o, \qquad \text{ and } \qquad S_o B = A S_o - S_i.$$
Assume $B-{\lambda}I$ is not invertible for some ${\lambda}\ne\pm1$. As before, since $B$ is real, for any ${\varepsilon}>0$ there is a function $g$ such that $\|g\|=1$, and $\|(B-{\lambda}I)g\|<{\varepsilon}$. We claim that $f = S_o g$ is an approximate eigenfunction of $Q_{\lambda}$. Indeed: $$\begin{aligned}
\|Q_{\lambda}f\|
& = \|({\lambda}^2 I - {\lambda}A + Q) S_o g\| \\
& = \|({\lambda}^2 S_o - {\lambda}S_o B - {\lambda}S_i + S_i B)g\| \\
& = \|(S_i-{\lambda}S_o)(B-{\lambda}I)g\| \\
& \le (1+|{\lambda}|) \sqrt{{{d_{\rm max}}}} \, {\varepsilon}\end{aligned}$$ (since $\|S_o\|=\|S_i\| = \sqrt{{d_{\rm max}}}$). Furthermore, for ${\lambda}\ne\pm1$ we shall bound $\|f\|$ from below. For any edge $vu$, $$(S_o g)_v = (Bg)_{uv} + g_{vu} -{\lambda}g_{uv} + {\lambda}g_{uv};$$ notice that $S_i^*$ is the “head map,” $(S_i^*h)_{uv}=h_v$ for all $h\in L^2(V)$, and similarly $S_o^*$ is the “tail map.” So we may write the last equation as $S_i^* S_o = (B-{\lambda}I)+({\lambda}I+U)$ (recall $(Ug)_{uv}=g_{vu}$.) Since $\|g\|=1$, $U^2=1$ and $\|U\|=1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
|{\lambda}^2-1| = \|({\lambda}^2-1)g\| &= \|({\lambda}-U)({\lambda}+U)g\| \\
&\le (|{\lambda}|+1)\|({\lambda}+U)g\|.
\end{aligned}$$ Since clearly $\|h\|^2\ge \|S_i^* h\|^2/{{d_{\rm max}}}$ for any $h\in L^2(V)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{{{d_{\rm max}}}} \|f\| \ge \|S_i^*f\| = \|S_i^* S_o g\|
&\ge \|({\lambda}I+U)g\|-\|(B-{\lambda}I)g\| \\
&\ge \frac{|{\lambda}^2-1|}{|{\lambda}|+1} - \|(B-{\lambda}I)g\|.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\|(B-{\lambda}I)g\|<{\varepsilon}$, it follows that for ${\varepsilon}$ small enough $\|f\|$ is bounded from below.
It is possible to prove [Theorem \[T:Q\_finite\]]{} by a similar argument, with cycles taking the place of the infinite path, resulting in exact eigenfunctions; the eigenspace of 1 is spanned by functions which are 1 on edges of an oriented cycle and -1 on the reverse cycle. The eigenspace of -1 is similar but with alternating signs along cycles of even length.
The following theorem restricts the non-backtracking spectrum of $G$ to the union of an annulus in the complex plain, and two real intervals. For finite graphs, the theorem is due to Kotani and Sunada [@KS00].
\[T:annulus\] Let ${{d_{\rm min}}}\ge 2$ and ${{d_{\rm max}}}$ be the minimal and maximal degrees of some (finite or infinite) graph $G$. Then $$\sigma(B) \subset \left\{{\lambda}\in{\mathbb{C}}:
\sqrt{{{d_{\rm min}}}-1} \le |{\lambda}| \le \sqrt{{{d_{\rm max}}}-1}\right\}
\bigcup \left\{\vphantom{\sqrt{{{d_{\rm min}}}}}
{\lambda}\in{\mathbb{R}}: 1 \le |{\lambda}| \le {{d_{\rm max}}}-1 \right\}.$$
We first prove that $$\sigma(B) \subset \left\{{\lambda}\in{\mathbb{C}}: 1 \le |{\lambda}| \le {{d_{\rm max}}}-1\right\}.$$ Fix some vertex $v$. Clearly $UB$ acts on functions supported on edges directed out of $v$ independently of its action on all other edges. On these $d_v$ edges, the action of $UB$ is given by the matrix $J-I$ where $J$ is the all ones matrix. Since $\sigma(J-I) = \{-1,d_v-1\}$ and since $J-I$ (being symmetric) is orthonormally diagonalizable, we easily see that $$\frac {\|(J-I)f\|} {\|f\|} \in [1,d_v-1]$$ for any function $f$ supported on these edges; therefore, since $U$ is unitary, for any $1$-form, $f$, we have $$\frac{\|Bf\|}{\|f\|} = \frac{\|UBf\|}{\|f\|} \in [1,{{d_{\rm max}}}-1].$$ If ${\lambda}\in\sigma(B)$, then we have for any ${\varepsilon}$ an approximate eigenfunction, $f$, with $\|f\|=1$ and $\|(B-{\lambda})f\|\le {\varepsilon}$. So $$|{\lambda}|=\|{\lambda}f\| \le \| {\lambda}f-Bf\| + \|Bf\| \le {\varepsilon}+{{d_{\rm max}}}-1.$$ Taking ${\varepsilon}\to0$ yields $|{\lambda}|\le{{d_{\rm max}}}-1$. Similarly $$|{\lambda}| = \|{\lambda}f\| \ge \| Bf\| - \| Bf-{\lambda}f\| \ge 1-{\varepsilon},$$ and we conclude $\|{\lambda}\|\ge 1$.
It remains to prove that the non-real ${\lambda}\in \sigma(B)$ satisfy $\sqrt{{{d_{\rm min}}}-1}\le |{\lambda}| \le \sqrt{{{d_{\rm max}}}-1}$. Given $f\in L^2(V)$, define $$\alpha = \frac{\langle f,Af\rangle}{\|f\|^2}, \quad
\beta = \frac{\langle f,Qf\rangle}{\|f\|^2},$$ and note that $\langle f,Q_{\lambda}f\rangle = \|f\|^2\cdot({\lambda}^2 -
\alpha{\lambda}+\beta)$. Further, note that since $A,Q$ are real symmetric operators, that $\alpha,\beta$ are real. From the definition of $A,Q$, we clearly have $|\alpha|\le{{d_{\rm max}}}$ and $\beta \in [{{d_{\rm min}}}-1,{{d_{\rm max}}}-1]$.
If $f$ is an eigenfunction then ${\lambda}^2 - \alpha{\lambda}+\beta=0$. If $Q_{\lambda}$ has only approximate eigenfunctions, $f_{\varepsilon}$, then for those we have $\alpha=\alpha_{\varepsilon},\beta=\beta_{\varepsilon}$ satisfying $$|{\lambda}^2 - \alpha_{\varepsilon}{\lambda}+\beta_{\varepsilon}| = |\langle f,Q_{\lambda}f \rangle |
\le {\varepsilon}$$ and as before, $|\alpha_{\varepsilon}|\le {{d_{\rm max}}}$ and $\beta_{\varepsilon}\in
[{{d_{\rm min}}}-1,{{d_{\rm max}}}+1]$. By passing to a subsequence we may assume that $\alpha_{\varepsilon}$ and $\beta_{\varepsilon}$ have limits, $\alpha,\beta$, as ${\varepsilon}\to0$. We find that, again, ${\lambda}^2-\alpha{\lambda}+\beta=0$ with real $\alpha,\beta$ satisfying $\beta\in[{{d_{\rm min}}}-1,{{d_{\rm max}}}-1]$.
Solving the quadratic equation we get ${\lambda}=\alpha/2 \pm
\sqrt{\alpha^2/4-\beta}$. If ${\lambda}$ is not real then the square root is of a negative number and $$|{\lambda}|^2 = (\alpha/2)^2 + \beta-\alpha^2/4 = \beta,$$ and the claim follows.
Non-backtracking spectrum of trees
==================================
The non-backtracking spectrum of a tree has a fourfold symmetry that is not hard to rigorously prove:
\[P:four\_symmetry\] For any bipartite graph, $G$, $\sigma(B(G))$ is invariant under reflection in the real and imaginary axis.
As we will be primarily concerned with the non-backtracking spectrum of trees, note that this result applies whenever $G$ is a tree.
Since (for any graph) $B$ is a real operator, $\sigma(B)$ is invariant under complex conjugation.
For a bipartite graph $G$, let $X,Y$ be the two sides of the graph. Consider the unitary operator $N$ on 1-forms that negates $f_{uv}$ for $u\in X$ and leaves $f_{uv}$ unchanged for $u\in Y$. Clearly $N^{-1}=N$ and it is easy to see that $N^{-1}BN=-B$. Thus $\sigma(B) = -\sigma(B)$.
The next result improves on the upper bound of [Theorem \[T:annulus\]]{} for sufficiently nice trees. A graph has [*uniformly bounded growth*]{}, $\overline{\text{\rm gr}}$, if $$\overline{\text{\rm gr}}= \limsup M_r^{1/r}$$ is finite, where $$M_r = \sup_v |{\tt Ball}(v,r)|.$$
\[T:tree\_annulus\] Assume a tree without leaves has uniformly bounded growth $\overline{\text{\rm gr}}$, then $$\sigma(B) \subset \{ {\lambda}: 1 \le |{\lambda}| \le \sqrt{\overline{\text{\rm gr}}} \}.$$
Note that for graphs with uniformly bounded degrees, $M_r =
O(({{d_{\rm max}}}-1)^r)$, and so $\overline{\text{\rm gr}}$ is finite. For universal covers of finite graphs, $\overline{\text{\rm gr}}= {\text{\rm gr}}= \lim_{r\to\infty} |{\tt
Ball}(v,r)|^{1/r}$ for any fixed $v$. We shall later see that for universal covers of finite graphs, [Theorem \[T:tree\_annulus\]]{} is sharp and in fact $\{ {\lambda}: |{\lambda}|=\sqrt{\overline{\text{\rm gr}}} \} \subset \sigma(B)$.
Denote $e \to_k e'$ if there is a non-backtracking path $e \to e_1 \to
\cdots \to e_{k-1} \to e'$. Note that if such a path exists, then it is unique and its length is determined by $e,e'$. By definition, $$\|B^k\| = \sup_{\|f\|=\|g\|=1} \big| \langle g,B^kf \rangle \big|.$$ For $f,g$ with $\|f\|=\|g\|=1$, and any collection of coefficients $a(e,e')>0$, we have by Cauchy-Schwarz $$\begin{aligned}
\big| \langle g,B^k f \rangle \big|
& = \left| \sum_{e'\to_k e} f(e) g(e') \right| \\
&\le \sum_{e'\to_k e} a(e,e') |f(e)|^2 + a(e,e')^{-1} |g(e')|^2 \\
&\le \left(\sup_e \sum_{e'\to_k e} a(e,e')\right) \|f\|^2
+ \left(\sup_{e'} \sum_{e'\to_k e} a(e,e')^{-1}\right) \|g\|^2.
\end{aligned}$$
It remains to choose the coefficients $a(e,e')$ so that the sums above are small. To this end, fix some (arbitrary) vertex in the tree to be the root. The unique path from $e'$ to $e$ must descend toward the root some number of steps $i$, and then ascend $k-i$ steps on a different branch to reach $e$. Fix $a(e,e')=\overline{\text{\rm gr}}^{(i-k/2)}$.
For any ${\varepsilon}>0$ there is some $c=c({\varepsilon})$, such that the total number of non-backtracking paths of length $\ell$ from any vertex is bounded by $c\cdot((1+{\varepsilon})\overline{\text{\rm gr}})^\ell$. Since there is always a unique path toward the root, the number of paths starting at $e'$ with $i,k$ as above is at most $c\cdot((1+{\varepsilon})\overline{\text{\rm gr}})^{k-i}$. Consequently $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_e \sum_{e'\to_k e} a(e,e')
&\le \sum_{i=0}^k c((1+{\varepsilon})\overline{\text{\rm gr}})^{k-i}
\overline{\text{\rm gr}}^{(i-k/2)} \\
&\le c(k+1)(1+{\varepsilon})^k {\overline{\text{\rm gr}}}^{k/2}.
\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, the number of paths of type $i$ ending at $e$ is bounded by $c_\delta((1+{\varepsilon})\overline{\text{\rm gr}})^i$, and hence also $$\sup_{e'} \sum_{e'\to_k e} a(e,e')^{-1} \le c(k+1)(1+{\varepsilon})^k
{\overline{\text{\rm gr}}}^{k/2}.$$
Combining the bounds we find $$\rho(B) = \lim \big(\|B^k\|\big)^{1/k} \le (1+{\varepsilon}) \sqrt{\overline{\text{\rm gr}}}.$$ Since ${\varepsilon}$ was arbitrary, this proves the claim.
The Green function and the Relative Kernels
===========================================
Let $\pi{\colon}T\to H$ and $M$ as in Theorem \[T:main\]. By deleting edges $e=\{u,v\}$ from $E(H)$ for which $m_{uv}=0$, we may assume $M$ is connected, i.e., $m_{uv}\ne 0$ whenever $(u,v)\in E(V)$. If $e=(u,v)$ is an edge of $T$ or $H$, we write $m_e$ for $m_{uv}$.
Assume that $M$ is invertible. Then there is a unique [*Green function*]{}, $G=G_M$, defined by the requirement that $MG(x,\cdot) = \delta_x(\cdot)$, or equivalently, $$G(u,v) = (M^{-1}\delta_u)(v).$$ Notice that the symmetry $M^*=\overline{M}$ implies the symmetry of the Green function, $$\begin{aligned}
G(u,v)= \langle M^{-1}\delta_u, \delta_v \rangle
&= \langle \delta_u, (M^*)^{-1} \delta_v \rangle \\
&= \overline{\langle (\overline{M})^{-1} \delta_v,\delta_u \rangle }
= \langle M^{-1} \delta_v,\delta_u \rangle =G(v,u).\end{aligned}$$
\[pr:symmetry\] Let $\pi{\colon}T\to H$, $M$, and $G$, be as above. Let $\sigma$ be an automorphism of $T$ for which $\sigma^* M = M\sigma^*$, where $\sigma^*$ is the pullback (i.e., $\sigma^* f = f\circ\sigma$). Then $G(x,y)=G(\sigma x,\sigma y)$ for all $x,y\in V(T)$.
We have $\delta_{\sigma z}=\sigma^*\delta_z$ for any $z\in V(T)$, and so $$\begin{aligned}
G(\sigma x,\sigma y) &= \langle M^{-1}\delta_{\sigma x},
\delta_{\sigma y}\rangle
= \langle M^{-1}\sigma^*\delta_x,\sigma^*\delta_y\rangle \\
&= \langle (\sigma^*)^{-1} M^{-1}\sigma^*\delta_x, \delta_y\rangle
= \langle M^{-1}\delta_x,\delta_y\rangle = G(x,y).
\qedhere
\end{aligned}$$
We introduce some further notions in order to derive additional properties of the Green function. For a directed edge $e=(u,v)$ of the covering tree, consider the subtree $T_e$ consisting of $v$’s connected component in $T-e$, together with $e$ itself. Thus $T_e$ contains exactly those vertices contained in a non-backtracking path from $u$ that begins with $e$. $T_e$ is considered to be rooted at $u$, which is of degree 1 in it. For any vertex $x$, the unique neighbour closer to the root referred to as $x$’s parent; the other neighbours are $x$’s children.
Let $T_e$ be a tree as above, $e=(u,v)$. The [*relative kernel of $M$ with respect to $e$*]{}, denoted ${\ker_{e} M}$, is the subspace of $l^2(V(T))$ consisting of functions $f$ supported on $T_e$ for which $Mf$ is zero on $T_e\setminus\{u\}$. The [*relative null-kernel*]{}, denoted ${\ker_{e}^0 M}$, is the subspace of the relative kernel consisting of those functions, $f$, for which $f(u)=0$.
It is clear that either ${\ker_{e} M}={\ker_{e}^0 M}$ or else ${\ker_{e} M}/{\ker_{e}^0 M}$ is one-dimensional.
\[L:one\_dim\] Let $M$ be invertible and let $e=(u,v)$.
1. If $G(u,u)\ne 0$, then $\dim({\ker_{e} M}) = 1$.
2. If $G(u,u)=G(u,v)=0$, then $\dim({\ker_{e} M}) = 1$.
3. If $G(u,u)=0$ and $G(u,v)\ne 0$, then $\dim({\ker_{e}^0 M}) = 1.$
This lemma shows that ${\ker_{e} M}$ is one-dimensional or two-dimensional, with the latter only possible in the case where $G(u,u)=0$ and $G(u,v)\ne
0$. We do not know of any operator where ${\ker_{e} M}$ is two-dimensional, or whether such an example exists. There is a class of $M$’s where there are edges for which $G(u,u)=0$ and $G(u,v)\ne 0$ (see Section \[se:steger\]).
Assume first $G(u,u)\ne 0$. Consider the function $$f(w) = \begin{cases} G(u,w) & w\in T_e \\ 0 & w\notin T_e\end{cases}.$$ $Mf$ differs from $MG(x,\cdot)=\delta_u$ only at $u$ and outside $T_e$, and therefore $f\in{\ker_{e} M}$. Since $f(u)\ne 0$, the dimension of ${\ker_{e} M}$ is at least 1. To show that the dimension is not larger than one, suppose that $g\in{\ker_{e} M}$, and define $\tilde g$ via $$\tilde g(w)= \begin{cases} G(u,u)g(w) & \text{if $w\in V(T_e)$,} \\
G(u,w)g(u) & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ Thus $\tilde g$ is proportional to $g$ on $T_e$ and to $G(u,\cdot)$ outside. The two definitions coincide at $u$. It follows that $M \tilde
g$ is supported on $u$, and so $\tilde g$ is proportional to $G(u,\cdot)$ and hence $g$ is proportional to $f$.
Assume from here on that $G(u,u)=0$. Consider the restriction of the $G(u,\cdot)$ to the subtrees emerging from $u$. Since the Green function is unique, $G(u,\cdot)$ must vanish on all but one of these trees (otherwise the restriction of $G(u,\cdot)$ to each subtree gives another function with $Mf=\delta_u$). In particular, there is a unique neighbour $x$ of $u$ with $G(x,u)\ne0$.
If $G(u,v)=0$, then the we repeat the argument above with $f$ the restriction to $T_e$ of $G(x,\cdot)$. As above, $f\in \ker_e$. If there is another $g\in\ker_e$, then let $$\tilde g(w)= \begin{cases} G(x,u)g(w) & \text{if $w\in V(T_e)$,} \\
G(x,w)g(u) & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ This time, $M \tilde g$ is supported on $\{x,u\}$, and so $\tilde g =
c_1G(x,\cdot) + c_2 G(u,\cdot)$. Applying this at $x$ and $u$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
G(x,x)g(u) &= c_1G(x,x) + c_2 G(u,x), &
G(x,u)g(u) &= c_1G(x,u) + c_2 G(u,u)
\end{aligned}$$ and solving for $c_1,c_2$ shows $c_2=0$ (and $c_1=g(u)$). Thus $g$ is proportional to $f$, and $\dim(\ker_e)=1$.
Finally, if $x=v$, then $G(u,\cdot)$ vanishes outside $T_e$, and so $f=G(u,\cdot) \in {\ker_{e}^0 M}$ implying the dimension is at least one. Conversely, for any $g\in{\ker_{e}^0 M}$ the function $M g$ is supported on $u$ and hence must be proportional to $f$, implying the dimension is exactly one.
\[C:proportional\] If $e=(u,v)$ and $x,y$ are not in $V(T_e)\setminus \{u\}$, then the restrictions of $G(x,\,\cdot\,)$ and $G(y,\,\cdot\,)$ to $T_e$ are proportional.
The cases $G(u,u)\ne 0$ and $G(u,u)=G(u,v)=0$ follow from the one-dimensionality of ${\ker_{e} M}$. The remaining case $G(u,u)=0$ and $G(u,v)\ne 0$ follows from the fact mentioned in the above proof that $G(u,\,\cdot\,)$ is supported on $T_e$, so $G(u,x)=G(u,y)=0$. Hence $G(x,u)=G(u,x)=0$. Thus the restrictions to $T_e$ of $G(x,\cdot)$ and $G(y,\cdot)$ are both in the one-dimensional ${\ker_{e}^0 M}$.
Green Functions with finite periodic ratios
===========================================
Let $\pi{\colon}T\to H$ and $M$ be as in Theorem \[T:main\].
A [*[[[finite ratio system]{}]{}]{} for $M$*]{} is a [[[ratio system]{}]{}]{}, $r$, whose values, $r_e$, are never $0$ or $\infty$; in other words, always holds.
As a step toward proving Theorem \[T:main\], we first discuss the simpler case where all ratios are finite.
\[T:main\_simple\] The following are equivalent:
1. $M$ is invertible and $G(u,u) \ne 0$ for all $u$,
2. there is a [[[finite ratio system]{}]{}]{} for $M$ with $\alpha(r)<1$.
We start the proof of [Theorem \[T:main\_simple\]]{} with the assumption that $M$ is invertible and $G(u,u)\ne 0$ for all $u$, and prove that there is a ratio system for $M$ with $\alpha(r)<1$. Indeed, for any edge $e_0\in H$, take some edge $e=(u,v)$ of type $e_0$ and define $$r_{e_0} = \frac{G(u,v)}{G(u,u)}.$$ For a path $\vec p = \{e_i\}_{i=0}^n$ in $H$, it will be convenient to denote $r(\vec p) = \prod r_{e_i}$, i.e., the product of $r_e$ over $\vec
p$, with repeated edges taken into account.
For an edge $e$, we consider the function $f$ on $T_e$ defined by $f =
\frac{G(u,\cdot)}{G(u,u)}$. As noted above, $f\in{\ker_{e} M}$. The following relates $f$ to the [[[finite ratio system]{}]{}]{}.
\[C:prod\_r\] Consider a non-backtracking path $\vec p$ in $H$ beginning with $e_0$. Lift the path to ${\widetilde H}$, starting at $u$ and let $y$ be the terminal vertex. Then $f(y)=r(\vec p)$.
We induct on the path’s length. If $n=0$ the claim states $f(u)=1$, which is true. If $n=1$, the claim states $f(v)=r_e$ which is also true by the choice of $r$. For the inductive step, let $e'=(x,y)$ be an edge of type $e_k$ in $T_e$, with $x$ closer to the root, then it suffices to show that $f(y) = r_{e_k} f(x)$ (this is why we call $r$ a [[[finite ratio system]{}]{}]{}).
Since the restriction of $f$ to $T_{e'}$ is in ${\ker_{e'} M}$, by [Lemma \[L:one\_dim\]]{} it is proportional to $G(x,\cdot)$, and so $$\frac{f(y)}{f(x)} = \frac{G(x,y)}{G(x,x)} = r_{e_k}. \qedhere$$
To check that $r$ is indeed a [[[finite ratio system]{}]{}]{}, note that $(Mf)(v)=0$. However, $$(Mf)(v) = m_{vv} r_e + m_{e^{-1}} + \sum_{e\to e'} m_{e'} r_e r_{e'},$$ which is just .
It remains to show that $\alpha(r)<1$. Consider $S_n = \sum_{\rho(x,u)=n}
|f(x)|^2$, i.e., the contribution to $\|f(x)\|^2$ from all $x$ at level $n$ of $T_e$. The matrix $R$ is constructed so that $S_n$ is the square of the $l^2$-norm of the row corresponding to $e_0$ in $R^n$ (this is proved by induction using [Claim \[C:prod\_r\]]{}).
By Perron-Frobenius theory, there is an $e_0$ and $c>0$ such that $S_n \ge
c\alpha(r)^n$ for $n$ large (see e.g., [@HJ85 Theorem 8.1.26]). Since $\sum_n S_n = \|f_n\|^2$ is finite, it must be that $\alpha(r)<1$.
We now prove the second direction of [Theorem \[T:main\_simple\]]{}. Given a ratio system $r$ with $\alpha(r)<1$, we will first construct the Green function for $M$, and then use it to construct the inverse of $M$. For a vertex $u\in T$ we define $f_u(v) = r(\vec p(u,v))$, where $\vec p(u,v)$ is (the projection to $H$ of) the unique path from $u$ to $v$. By convention, $f_u(u)=1$. Note that $f_u\in l^2$, since for all ${\varepsilon}>0$ we have $S_n =
\sum_{\rho(x,u)=n} |f(x)|^2 = (\alpha(r)+{\varepsilon})^n$ for large $n$, which converges if ${\varepsilon}< 1-\alpha(r)$.
\[C:vanish\_at\_root\] We have $(M f_u)(v)=0$ whenever $v\ne u$. If $e$ is (the type of) an edge incident to $u$ then $(Mf_u)(u)=0$ iff $r_e r_{e^{-1}}=1$. In particular, either $r_e r_{e^{-1}}=1$ for all edges, or for no edges.
When $v\ne u$ the claim is immediate from .
Let $e$ be an edges originating at $u$. We have $(Mf_u)(u) = m_{uu} +
\sum_{e'=(u,v)} m_{e'} r_{e'}$, where the sum is over all edges originating at $u$. Multiplying this by $r_{e^{-1}}$ and subtracting for $e^{-1}$ gives $$r_{e^{-1}} (Mf_u)(u) = m_e(r_e r_{e^{-1}} - 1).$$
If $r_e r_{e^{-1}}=1$, then $r_{e^{-1}}\ne 0$ and therefor $(Mf_u)(u)$ must be 0. If $r_e r_{e^{-1}}\ne 1$, then (since we assume $m_e\ne 0$) $(Mf_u)(u)$ cannot be 0.
It follows that if $e,e'$ are two edges incident on $u$, then $r_e
r_{e^{-1}}$ and $r_{e'} r_{e'^{-1}}$ are either both 1 or both different from 1. Since $H$ is connected, the same holds for any two edges.
We now show that $r_e r_{e^{-1}}\ne 1$ for all $e$. Assume the contrary. Take some non-backtracking cycle $\vec p\in H$, then also $r(\vec p) r(\vec
p^{-1})=1$, and so at least one of the two has absolute value at least one. Without loss of generality suppose $|r(\vec p)|\ge 1$. However, in this case $f_u$ cannot be in $l^2$, since $|f_u|\ge 1$ at all endpoints of the path that is the lifting of $\vec p$ repeated any number of times.
Thus we find that $(Mf_u)(u)\ne 0$ for all $u$. Consequently, there is a function $g_u$ proportional to $f_u$ such that $(M g_u)=\delta_u$. Let us define ${\widetilde G}(u,v)=g_u(v)$. Our next goal is to prove that ${\widetilde G}$ is the Green function for $M$. Let us establish some of its properties [^1].
First, note that there are constants $K_1,K_2$ such that for any $x,z$ and any $y$ on the path $[x,z]$ $$\label{eq:split}
K_1 \left| {\widetilde G}(x,z) \right|
\le \left| {\widetilde G}(x,y){\widetilde G}(y,z) \right|
\le K_2 \left| {\widetilde G}(x,z) \right|.$$ This follows from the definition of ${\widetilde G}$ in terms of the [[[finite ratio system]{}]{}]{}, $r$, and the fact that ${\widetilde G}(y,y)$ takes on only finitely many values as it depends only on $y$’s type.
The second property is that ${\widetilde G}(x,\cdot)$ and ${\widetilde G}(\cdot,x)$ are in $l^2$. Moreover, multiplying a row or a column of ${\widetilde G}$ by a “slowly increasing function” (like that in the lemma that follows) still yields an $l^2$ function. Recall that we denote the distance between vertices $x,y$ in $T$ by $\rho(x,y)$.
\[C:columns-in-l2\] For any vertex $u$, let $h_1 = \rho(u,\cdot) {\widetilde G}(u,\cdot)$ and $h_2 =
\rho(u,\cdot) {\widetilde G}(\cdot,u)$. There is some constant $c$ independent of $u$ such that $\|h_1\|_2<c$ and $\|h_2\|_2<c$.
Since there are finitely many types for $u$, it suffices to consider a single $u$. As before, let $S_n=\sum_{\rho(x,u)=n} |{\widetilde G}(u,x)|^2$, so that for any ${\varepsilon}>0$ we have $S_n = (\alpha(r)+{\varepsilon})^n$ for large $n$. It follows that $$\|h_1\|^2 = \sum_n n^2 S_n < \infty.$$ For $h_2$, consider $S_n' = \sum_{\rho(x,u)=n} |{\widetilde G}(x,u)|^2$. This equals the $l^2$ norm of a column of $R^n$, and therefore has the same asymptotics as $S_n$.
The next two claims imply that $M$ is invertible.
\[C:conv\] For every $h\in l^2(T)$ there exists $\theta \in l^2(T)$ such that $M
\theta = h$.
\[C:kernel\] The kernel of $M$ is trivial.
Given $h\in l^2(T)$, define $\theta$ as $$\theta(v)=\sum_{u\in V(T)} {\widetilde G}(u,v) h(u);$$ [Claim \[C:columns-in-l2\]]{} and Cauchy-Schwarz combined imply that the above sum converges. It also follows that $M \theta = h$ at each vertex. It remains to show that $\theta\in l^2(T)$, so we need to bound $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}\label{eq:theta_bd}
\sum_v \big| \theta(v) \big|^2
&\le \sum_{u,v,w} \left|h(u)h(w){\widetilde G}(u,v){\widetilde G}(w,v) \right| \\
&= \sum_{u,w} \big| h(u)h(w)H(u,w) \big|,
\end{split} \\
\intertext{where}
H(u,w) &= \sum_v \Big| {\widetilde G}(u,v){\widetilde G}(w,v) \Big|. \notag
\end{aligned}$$
The tree paths $[v,u]$ and $[v,w]$ separate at some point $x$, which is along the path $[u,w]$ (possibly, $x=u$ or $x=w$.) Separating the last sum according to the value of $x=x(v,u,w)$, using and summing over $v$ we get $$\label{eq:H_bd}
\begin{aligned}
H(u,w)
& \le c \sum_{{\begin{psmatrix}[colsep=3mm,rowsep=0mm]
[name=u] u & [name=x] x & [name=w] w \\[0mm]
& [name=v] v &
\ncline{x}{u} \ncline{x}{v} \ncline{x}{w}
\end{psmatrix}}} \big| {\widetilde G}(u,x){\widetilde G}(w,x){\widetilde G}(x,v)^2 \big| \\
& \le c' \sum_{{\begin{psmatrix}[colsep=3mm,rowsep=0mm]
[name=u] u & [name=x] x & [name=w] w
\ncline{x}{u} \ncline{x}{w}
\end{psmatrix}}} \big| {\widetilde G}(u,x){\widetilde G}(w,x) \big|, \\
\end{aligned}$$ where the first diagram means that we sum over all vertices $u,w,v,x$ such that the subtree they span has the given structure (with $x$ at the branching point in the first case, and along the path in the second). Note that it is possible to use at this stage to eliminate $x$. We keep $x$ to facilitate discussion in the next section. Inserting in gives $$\sum_v |\theta(v)|^2 \le c \sum_{{\begin{psmatrix}[colsep=3mm,rowsep=0mm]
[name=u] u & [name=x] x & [name=w] w
\ncline{x}{u} \ncline{x}{w}
\end{psmatrix}}} |h(u)h(w){\widetilde G}(u,x){\widetilde G}(w,x)|.$$ Fix an arbitrary root in $V(T)$ and let $z$ be the last common ancestor of $u,w$ in the above sum. Either $x\in[u,z]$ or $x\in[w,z]$. We bound the sum for $x\in[u,z]$, the proof for other sum being identical. We need to show that $$\sum_{{\begin{psmatrix}[colsep=2mm,rowsep=0mm]
& [name=z] z & \\[0mm]
[name=x] x & & [name=w] w \\[0mm]
[name=u] u & &
\ncline{x}{u} \ncline{x}{z} \ncline{z}{w}
\end{psmatrix}}} \Big|h(u)h(w){\widetilde G}(u,x){\widetilde G}(w,x)\Big| < \infty.$$ Note that $z$ must be the common ancestor of $x,w$. To avoid division by zero, denote for any two vertices $u,v$ $$\rho'(u,v) = \max\{1,\rho(u,v)\}.$$
Using for $z\in[x,w]$ and Cauchy-Schwarz we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Big|h(u)h(w){\widetilde G}(u,x){\widetilde G}(w,x)\Big|
&\le c \Big| h(u)h(w){\widetilde G}(u,x){\widetilde G}(z,x){\widetilde G}(w,z) \Big| \\
&\le c \Big| h(w){\widetilde G}(u,x){\widetilde G}(z,x)
\frac{\rho'(z,x)\rho'(x,u)}{\rho'(z,w)} \Big|^2 \\
& \hspace{3cm} + c \Big| h(u){\widetilde G}(w,z)
\frac{\rho'(z,w)}{\rho'(z,x)\rho'(x,u)} \Big|^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Consider the first term. Its contribution to the sum can be written as $$c \sum_{{\begin{psmatrix}[colsep=2mm,rowsep=0mm]
& [name=z] z & \\[0mm]
[name=x] x & & [name=w] w \\[0mm]
[name=u] u & &
\ncline{x}{u} \ncline{x}{z} \ncline{z}{w}
\end{psmatrix}}} \Big| h(w){\widetilde G}(u,x){\widetilde G}(z,x)
\frac{\rho'(z,x)\rho'(x,u)}{\rho'(z,w)} \Big|^2.$$ $u$ lies below $x$ in the tree, and the sum of $\rho'(x,u)^2
|{\widetilde G}(u,x)|^2$ over such $u$ is uniformly bounded. Similarly we can sum $\rho'(z,x)^2 |{\widetilde G}(z,x)|^2$ over all $x$ below $z$. Summing over $u$ and then over $x$ we are left with $$c \sum_{{\begin{psmatrix}[colsep=3mm,rowsep=0mm]
[name=z] z \\[0mm]
[name=w] w
\ncline{z}{w}
\end{psmatrix}}} \frac{|h(w)|^2}{\rho'(z,w)^2}.$$ Since $z$ must lie on the path from $w$ to the root, summing over $z$, we are left with $$c\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{|h(w)|^2}{(\max(1,n))^2}
\leq c' \|h\|_2^2 < \infty.$$
The second term above is similarly bounded, except that we sum first over $w$, then over $z$, $x$ and $u$ in that order to end up with $c'\|h\|_2^2$ again.
Suppose that $Mf=0$. Then for every function $g \in l^2(T)$, using the symmetry of $M$, $$0 = \langle M f, g \rangle
= \langle f, M^* g\rangle
= \langle f, \overline{M} g\rangle.$$ Since we have a [[[finite ratio system]{}]{}]{} for $M$ with $\alpha<1$, we also have one for $\overline{M}$. By [Claim \[C:conv\]]{} for $\overline M$, its image is all of $l^2$, and so for every $h \in l^2(T)$ we have $0=\langle f,
h\rangle$. Thus $f$ must be 0.
This completes the proof of [Theorem \[T:main\_simple\]]{}. Now we give a proof of Theorem \[T:alpha1general\] in the case of finite ratio systems.
\[T:alpha\_1\] If there is a [[[finite ratio system]{}]{}]{} for $M$ with $\alpha(r)=1$ then $M$ is not invertible.
Fix some edge $e=(u,v) \in {\widetilde H}$. Using a [[[finite ratio system]{}]{}]{} $r$ with $\alpha(r)=1$ we consider the function $$f_n(x) = \begin{cases}
r(\vec p) & \mbox{if $x\in T_e$ and $\rho(x,u)=n$,} \\
0 & \text{otherwise,}
\end{cases}$$ and let $F_n = \sum_{k=0}^n f_k$. Thus $\|F_n\|^2=\sum^n \|f_k\|^2$. Since $MF_n$ is 0 on levels $1,\dots,n-1$ of the tree, it is supported on level 0 and levels $n,n+1$. Consequently $\|MF_n\|^2 = O(\|f_n\|^2)$.
Recall that $\|f_n\|^2$ is the sum of the row corresponding to $e$ in $R^n$. Since the Perron eigenvalue of $R$ is 1, this sum grows polynomially in $n$ and we have $\|f_n\|^2 = P(n)+o(1)$ for some polynomial $P$. By choosing the edge $e$ to be in the support of the Perron eigenfunction of $R$ we can guarantee $P\not\equiv0$.
Assume $\deg P=k$ (which might be 0), with leading term $c n^k$. Then $\|F_n\|^2 = c n^{k+1}/(k+1)+ O(n^k)$, while $\|M F_n\| = O(n^k)$. Thus $\|MF_n\| / \|F_n\| \to 0$ as $n\to\infty$, and so $M$ cannot have a bounded inverse.
\[C:spectral\_radius\] For any finite graph $H$, we have $\rho({\widetilde B})=\sqrt{\text{\rm gr}}$. Moreover, $\{{\lambda}: |{\lambda}|=\sqrt{\text{\rm gr}}\} \subset \sigma({\widetilde B})$.
By [Theorem \[T:small\_spec\]]{}, it suffices to show that $M=Q_{\lambda}$ is invertible for $|{\lambda}|>\sqrt{\text{\rm gr}}$, and is not invertible for $|{\lambda}|=\sqrt{\text{\rm gr}}$. Since $m_{vv} = d_v-1+{\lambda}^2$ and $m_e=-{\lambda}$ for any $e$, it is straightforward to see that $r_e\equiv {\lambda}^{-1}$ satisfies . This [[[finite ratio system]{}]{}]{} has $\alpha(r)={\lambda}^{-2}{\text{\rm gr}}$. [Theorem \[T:main\_simple\]]{} shows that $Q_{\lambda}$ is invertible whenever $|{\lambda}| >
\sqrt{\text{\rm gr}}$. However, if $|{\lambda}|=\sqrt{\text{\rm gr}}$ then $\alpha(r)=1$ and [Theorem \[T:alpha\_1\]]{} implies that $Q_{\lambda}$ is singular.
Zeroes and Infinities {#se:maintheoremproof}
=====================
In this section we extend the results of the previous section to the case where $G(u,u)$ could vanishes for some $u$, i.e., where ratios are allowed to be zero or infinity; we finish the proofs of Theorem \[T:main\] and \[T:small\_spec\]. We discuss some examples where $G(u,u)$ vanishes for some $u$ in Section \[se:examples\].
We start with some remarks about Definition \[D:generalized-ratio-system\]. Conditions (b) and (c) replace condition (a) in the situation of zero and infinite ratios. Condition (b) is easy to justify: $m_{e^{-1}}/r_e=\infty$, so there must be an infinite term in the sum as well. Condition (c) effectively states that the only way to have $r_f=\infty$ is as in condition (b). In particular, there cannot be two edges leaving a vertex with infinite ratios (since then their inverses both must and cannot have ratio zero).
As before, we need to extend $r$ to non-backtracking paths, and would like $r(\vec p)$ to be the product of the ratios along the edges of the path. In the presence of infinite ratios this needs clarification. We define $r(\vec
p)$ inductively. For paths of a single edge, $r(e)=r_e$, and for the an empty path, ${\varepsilon}$, $r({\varepsilon})=1$).
For longer paths, note that an infinite ratio must be preceded by a zero ratio, so we must determine the value of $0\cdot\infty$. For paths of length $m\ge2$ we define $r(\vec p)$ inductively as follows: $$\label{eq:r_path}
r(e_1,\dots,e_m) = \begin{cases}
r_{e_1}r(e_2,\dots,e_m) & r_{e_1},r_{e_2} \ne \infty, \\
-\frac{m_{e_2}}{m_{e_1^{-1}}} r(e_3,\dots,e_m) &
r_{e_1}=0, r_{e_2}=\infty, \\
\infty & r_{e_1} = \infty. \\
\end{cases}$$ In the case $r_{e_1}=0$ and $r_{e_2}=\infty$, we effectively define “$r_{e_1}r_{e_2}$” (literally zero times infinity) to be $r(e_1,e_2)=-m_{e_2}/m_{e_1^{-1}}$, since the uniqueness of $G$ implies that $G(v,v)=0$ and $G(v,u)\ne 0$ implies that $G(v,w)\ne 0$ for exactly one other neighbour of $u$, and furthermore $m_{vw}G(v,w)+m_{vu}G(v,u)=0$.
We remark that with this definition of $r(\vec p)$, the proof of Theorem \[T:alpha\_1\] carries over to prove Theorem \[T:alpha1general\].
We first assume that $M$ is invertible, and find the promised ratio system $\{r_e\}$. Let $G$ be the Green function. Let $e=(u,v)$ be some edge in $T$ of type $e_0$. We define $r_e$ to be the generalized ratio $G(u,v)/G(u,u)$ as before, provided $G(u,v)$ and $G(u,u)$ do not both vanish. Otherwise, since $MG(u,\cdot)$ does not vanish at $u$, there must be a neighbour $x$ of $u$ with $G(u,x)\ne0$. We then define $r_e=G(x,v)/G(x,u)$. In short there is some $x$, either $x=u$ or $x\notin T_e$ such that $G(u,x),G(x,v)$ are not both zero and $$r_e = G(x,v)/G(x,u).$$ By [Corollary \[C:proportional\]]{}, this ratio does not depend on our choice of $x$. As before, $r_e$ depends only on the type of $e$, so this it is naturally equivalent to a function on edges of $H$.
The function $r$ defined above is a [[[ratio system]{}]{}]{} for $M$ with $\alpha(r)<1$.
Throughout we assume that $e=(u,v)$ and that $x$ is either $u$ or outside $T_e$ and $G(x,v)/G(x,u)$ is defined (and therefore equals $r_e$). In particular $x\ne v$ and so $MG(x,\cdot)=\delta_x$ vanishes at $v$. Thus we have $$\label{eq:MGx_v}
0 = m_{vv} G(x,v) + m_{e^{-1}} G(x,u)
+ \sum_{\substack{w\sim v\\w\ne u}} m_{vw} G(x,w).$$
To check (a), note that $r_e\ne0$ implies $G(x,v)\ne0$, and so the same $x$ may be used to find $r_f$ for $f=(v,w)$. Writing $G(x,w)=G(x,v)r_{vw}$ in gives $$0 = m_{vv} + m_{e^{-1}} \frac{G(x,u)}{G(x,v)} +
\sum_{\substack{w\sim v\\w\ne u}} m_{vw} r_{vw}.$$ This is just , since $\frac{G(x,u)}{G(x,v)}=1/r_e$ (meaning $0$ if $r_e=\infty$).
To prove (b), suppose that $r_e=0$. Then we have $G(x,u)\ne0$ and $G(x,v)=0$, and so gives $$\sum_{\substack{w\sim v\\w\ne u}} m_{vw} G(x,w) = -m_{vu} G(x,u) \ne 0$$ Thus not all of $G(x,w)$ are 0. Let $w\sim v$ such that $G(x,w)\ne0$, then the same $x$ can be used to find $r_f$ for $f=(v,w)$, and $r_{vw} =
G(x,w)/G(x,v)=\infty$.
To verify (c), note that if $r_f = \infty$ for $f=(v,w)$, then by [Corollary \[C:proportional\]]{}, we must have $G(x,v)=0$ for all $x \not \in V(T_f)
\setminus \{v\}$. In particular $G(v,v)=0$. It follows that $G(v,w) \neq
0$, so $w$ can be used to find $r_{f^{-1}}$ and so $r_{f^{-1}}=\frac{G(w,v)}{G(w,w)}\ne 0$. Finally, to check that $r_e=0$, suppose $x$ is used to find $r_e$. Then $G(x,v)=0$, for otherwise $x$ could be used to find $r_f$, and $r_f$ would be finite.
It remains to show that $\alpha(r)<1$. As before, we show that the Perron eigenvalue of $R$ satisfies $\alpha(r)<1$ by proving that for all $e$ with $r_e\ne0$ the sum of row $e$ in $R^k$ tends to zero with $k$. Pick an edge $\tilde e=(u,v)$ of type $e$ with $r_e\ne0$. As above, fix some vertex $x \notin T_{\tilde e}\setminus\{u\}$ satisfying $G(x,v)\ne 0$. We claim that $$\label{eq:ratios_in_L2}
\sum_{y\in T_{\tilde e}} |G(x,y)|^2
= |G(x,u)|^2 + |G(x,v)|^2 \sum_f \sum_{k=0}^\infty (R^k)_{ef}$$ This implies the required result, since the left-hand-side is finite. To see , for every $y\in T_{\tilde e}$ except for $u$, the path $[v,y]$ in $T$ projects to some non-backtracking walk $\vec
p_y$ in $H$. This gives a bijection between such $y$ and non-backtracking walks in $H$ that begin with an edge $e'$ such that $e\to e'$. We have $G(x,y)=G(x,v)r(\vec p_y)$.
The definition of $R$ is such that $$(R^k)_{ef} = \sum |r_{\vec p}|^2,$$ where the sum is over paths in $H$ that begin with an edge $e'$ such that $e \to e'$, end with edge $f$ and, for some $m$, contain $k+m$ steps with $m$ edges with $r_{e_i}=\infty$. The above identity follows.
Conversely, given a [[[ratio system]{}]{}]{} $r$ with $\alpha(r)<1$, we construct a candidate for the Green function ${\widetilde G}(\cdot,\cdot)$ as in the proof of [Theorem \[T:main\_simple\]]{} and use it to construct $M^{-1}$. Our first goal is to find for each $u$ a function $f_u$ so that $M f_u = c\delta_u$. We can then define ${\widetilde G}(u,v)=c^{-1}f_u(v)$.
Generally we take $f_u(x) = r(\vec p)$ where $\vec p$ is (the projection of) the path from $u$ to $x$. However, if there is an edge $e$ leaving $u$ with $r_e=\infty$, then this results in some infinite values of $f_u$. In this case, roughly speaking, we “divide by $\infty$”. All finite values will become 0, and the infinite ones will become finite. We shall now make this more precise.
Let $V_\infty$ denote the set of all $u$ such that there is an edge $e=(u,v)$ with $r_e=\infty$: $$V_\infty = \{u : \exists v, r_{uv}=\infty\}$$ As noted above, for $u\in V_\infty$, the $v$ with $r_{uv}=\infty$ must be unique. Define $u^*$ to be this neighbour, $v$; otherwise, for $u\notin
V_\infty$, let $u^*=u$. Then (recall $\pi{\colon}T\to H$ is the covering map) set $$\label{eq:fu}
f_u(x) = \begin{cases}
r({\vec p}) & \text{if $u\notin V_\infty$, where $\vec p = \pi([u,x])$,}
\\
r({\vec q}) & \text{if $u\in V_\infty$ and $x\in T_{(u,u^*)}
\setminus\{u\}$, where $\vec q = \pi([u^*,x])$}, \\
0 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
We further denote $Z(u) = \sum_{e=(u,v)} m_e r_e$ where the sum is over edges leaving $u$ with $r_e\ne\infty$ (i.e., if one of the edges has $r_e=\infty$, then it is not included).
\[C:factor\] For any $u$ we have $$\label{eq:factor}
(M f_u)(u) = \begin{cases}
m_{uu^*} & u\in V_\infty, \\
m_{uu} + Z(u) & u \not\in V_\infty.
\end{cases}$$
If $u \in V_\infty$ then we have $r_{uu^*}=\infty$. Consequently $f_u$ is supported on $T_{uu^*}$, $f_u(u)=0$ and for $v\sim u$ we have $f_u(v)$ is $1$ or $0$ according to whether or not $v=u^*$. The claim follows. For $u
\notin V_\infty$ we have $f_u(u)=1$ and $f_u(v)=r_{uv}$ for all neighbours $v$ of $u$, so the equality holds also in this case.
Define $V_0 = \{u : m_{uu}+ Z(u)=0\}$.
\[C:T0connected\] If an edge $e=(u,v)$ has $r_e\notin\{0,\infty\}$ and $v\in V_0$, then $r_e r_{e^{-1}} = 1$ and $u\in V_0$.
can be written as $m_{vv} + m_{e^{-1}}/r_e + Z(v) -
m_{e^{-1}}r_{e^{-1}}=0$. If $v\in V_0$ this becomes $1/r_e-r_{e^{-1}}=0$, or $r_e r_{e^{-1}} = 1$. Applying this to for $e^{-1}$ gives $m_{uu}+Z(u)=0$, so $u\in V_0$ as well.
\[C:double\_infinity\] If $u\in V_0$, some edge entering $u$ has ratio in $\{0,\infty\}$, then one edge $e$ entering $u$ has $r_e=r_{e^{-1}}=\infty$, and all other edges entering $u$ have ratio 0.
If $r_{vu}=0$ for some $v$, then by (b) there is an $e=(w,u)$ with $r_{e^{-1}}=\infty$. This implies by (c) that all edges $e'$ entering $u$ except for $e$ have $r_{e'}=0$. By (c), $r_e\ne0$. Applying (a) to $e$ reduces to $m_{uu} + m_{e^{-1}}/r_e + Z(u)=0$. Since $u\in V_0$, we must have $r_e=\infty$.
If $r_e=\infty$ for some $e=(v,u)$, then we claim $r_{e^{-1}}=\infty$: if it were finite, applying (a) to $e$ would give $m_{uu} + Z(u) -
m_{e^{-1}}r_{e^{-1}}=0$. This implies $r_{e^{-1}}=0$, contradicting (c). Since $r_e=r_{e^{-1}}=\infty$, again by (c) all edges $e'$ entering $u$ except for $e$ have $r_{e'}=0$.
$V_0\subset V_\infty$.
Suppose that $u\in V_0\setminus V_\infty$. Since there are no edges with infinite ratio leaving $u$, by [Claim \[C:double\_infinity\]]{} all edges entering $u$ have finite nonzero ratios. By [Claim \[C:T0connected\]]{} this implies that all of $u$’s neighbours are in $V_0$, and by [Claim \[C:double\_infinity\]]{} they are all in $V_0\setminus V_\infty$.
It follows that if $V_0\setminus V_\infty$ is nonempty then it must be the entire tree. If $V_0\setminus V_\infty = T$ then for all edges $r_e
r_{e^{-1}}=1$. Then (as in [Claim \[C:vanish\_at\_root\]]{}) taking a non-backtracking cycle, $\vec p$, in $H$ gives $r(\vec p) r(\vec p^{-1})
= 1$, and so $\alpha\ge 1$ — a contradiction.
For any $u$, $(Mf_u)(u) \ne 0$.
By [Claim \[C:factor\]]{}, either $u\in V_\infty$ and then $(Mf_u)(u)
=m_{uu^*}\ne0$, or $u\notin V_\infty$. In the latter case $u\notin V_0$, and therefore $(Mf_u)(u) = m_{uu}+Z(u) \ne 0$.
It follows that we may define $$\label{eq:tG}
{\widetilde G}(u,x) = \frac{f_u(x)}{(M f_u)(u)},$$ so that $M {\widetilde G}(u,\cdot)=\delta_u$. It remains to prove the generalized form of [Claim \[C:conv\]]{}:
Given a [[[ratio system]{}]{}]{} with $\alpha(r)<1$, for every $h\in l^2(T)$ there exists a $\theta\in l^2(T)$ such that $M\theta=h$.
The proof is very similar to the proof of [Claim \[C:conv\]]{}, and we only point out the differences.
Equation (\[eq:split\]) only fails if $G(y,y)=0$. This problem is easily overcome by shifting the splitting point from $y$ to $y^*$, which is the unique neighbour of $y$ satisfying $r_{yy^*}=\infty$. When $G(y,y)\ne 0$ we define $y^*$ to be $y$. We have for suitable $K_1,K_2$ and any $y\in[x,z]$ $$\label{eq:split_gen} \tag{3$'$}
K_1 | {\widetilde G}(x,z) |
\le | {\widetilde G}(x,y^*){\widetilde G}(y^*,z) |
\le K_2 | {\widetilde G}(x,z) |.$$ This follows from the definition of ${\widetilde G}$ and the fact that $y$ has only finitely many types.
As in the preceding section, we define $H(u,w) = \sum_v \left|
{\widetilde G}(u,v){\widetilde G}(w,v) \right|$. Using gives the bound $$H(u,w) \le c \sum_{{\begin{psmatrix}[colsep=3mm,rowsep=0mm]
[name=u] u & [name=x] x & [name=w] w
\ncline{x}{u} \ncline{x}{w}
\end{psmatrix}}} |{\widetilde G}(u,x^*){\widetilde G}(x^*,w)|.$$ In all subsequent estimates $x^*$ and $z^*$, respectively, take the place of $x$ and $z$ in all instances of ${\widetilde G}$, but $x$ and $z$ remain unchanged in the “tree sum” notation and in $\rho'$.
The only difference is that in place of [Claim \[C:columns-in-l2\]]{} we need bounds of the form $$\label{eq:tGbound}
\sum_x \rho(u,x)^2 \left( |{\widetilde G}(u,x^*)|^2 + |{\widetilde G}(x^*,u)|^2\right) < c.$$ Such bounds are an easy consequence of [Claim \[C:columns-in-l2\]]{}: The map $x\mapsto x^*$ maps no more than ${{d_{\rm max}}}+1$ $x$’s to each $x^*$. Since also $|\rho(x^*,y^*)-\rho(x,y)|\le 2$, replacing some of the variables by their starred versions introduces at most a constant factor into the bounds at each stage of the computation.
Examples {#se:examples}
========
We wish to analyze two examples to highlight the necessity of considering [[[ratio system]{}]{}]{}s. Each of these examples demonstrates a general point. Then we give a third example, which seems to be the “smallest interesting example” of a graph with a non-regular universal cover. We describe the calculations needed to determine its non-backtracking spectrum. In each of these examples, the finite graph is a simple graph. In the next section we shall show how each of these can be viewed as a covering of an even smaller graph by using self-loops, multiple edges, or “passing” to a pregraph.
Example 1: Fig[à]{}-Talamanca and Steger {#se:steger}
----------------------------------------
[@FigSteg] contains various examples of graphs where $G(u,u)=0$ for some $u$ when $M$ is the weighted adjacency matrix of the tree. Consider $K_4$, the complete graph on four vertices, whose six edges are written as the disjoint union of three perfect matchings, $E_1,E_2,E_3$. Let the edges in $E_i$ have weight $p_i$, for some positive real $p_1,p_2,p_3$. Without loss of generality $p_1\ge p_2\ge p_3$. By symmetry (i.e., using Proposition \[pr:symmetry\]), for any ratio system $r$, the ratios $r_e$ of all directed edges of $E_i$ are equal. Call the three ratios $r_1,r_2,r_3$, and consider the ratio system is $r_1=\infty$, $r_2=r_3=0$. We have $r(e_k,e_1)=-p_k/p_1$; the condition $\alpha(r)<1$ amounts to $$(p_2/p_1)^2+(p_3/p_1)^2 < 1.$$ Thus the adjacency matrix for the tree is invertible with $G(u,u)=0$ if $p_1^2 > p_2^2 + p_3^2$. (In [@FigSteg Lemma 1.4] it is shown that if $p_1^2\le p_2^2+p_3^2$ then the adjacency matrix is not invertible.)
It is of interest to note that the relative kernel with respect to an $E_1$ edge is only one-dimensional (when $p_1^2>p_2^2+p_3^2$).
Example 2: $(2,3)$-bipartite graphs
-----------------------------------
Consider the adjacency matrix of a $(2,3)$-bipartite graph, i.e., a bipartite graph with vertex set $V_2\cup V_3$ such that each vertex in $V_k$ is of degree $k$. Then consider $r_{32}=\infty$, $r_{23}=0$, where $e_{23}$ is an edge from $V_2$ to $V_3$ and $e_{32}$ the opposite. This fails to be a generalized ratio for the adjacency matrix only at condition (c) of the definition. Furthermore, if we tried to omit condition (c), then this ratio system would have $\alpha<1$: A vertex of degree 3 in the universal cover has two children so $r(e_{32},e_{23})=-1/2$. This gives rise to $L^2$-functions, $f$, with $Mf=\delta_r$ for any vertex $r$ of degree 2 (we can take $f$ to have value 0 at all degree two vertices, and value $-(-2)^{-a}$ at all vertices at odd distance $2a-1$ to $r$).
It is easy to see that the adjacency matrix is not invertible here; indeed, consider a long path in the tree, and a function supported on the degree two vertices of this path, alternating $\pm 1$; this function, $f$, has $Mf$ bounded but $\|f\|$ unbounded as the path length tends to infinity. This example shows that condition (c) in the definition of a [[[ratio system]{}]{}]{} cannot be omitted from Theorem \[T:main\].
Example 3: Case study of $P_{1,2,2}$
------------------------------------
We consider here non-backtracking walks on lifts of the graph $P_{1,2,2}$ consisting of three paths between a pair of vertices $u,u'$ of lengths $1,2,2$. Thus $u,u'$ have degree 3 and there are two other vertices, $v,v'$, of degree 2. This is the same as $K_4$ with an edge removed.
To find the spectrum of $B(\widetilde P_{1,2,2})$ we need to determine invertibility of $M=Q_{\lambda}$. Let us look for ratio functions $r_e$ that respect all the graph’s symmetries, i.e. $r_{uv}=r_{uv'}=\cdots$. There are only three distinct ratios: $$x = r_{uv} \qquad y = r_{uu'} \qquad z = r_{vu}.$$ Thus $y$ appears on two directed edges, and $x,z$ on four each. The equations we need to satisfy are $$\begin{aligned}
({\lambda}^2+1) x + {\lambda}(1+xz) =0, \\
({\lambda}^2+2) y + {\lambda}(1+2xy) =0, \\
({\lambda}^2+2) z + {\lambda}(1+xz+yz) =0.\end{aligned}$$ Using the first equation to eliminate $z$ and the second to eliminate $x$ yields: $$\left( y + {\lambda}^{-1} \right) \left( (2{\lambda}^4+2{\lambda}^2+4) y^2
+ {\lambda}^3({\lambda}^2+1) y - {\lambda}^2({\lambda}^2+1) \right) = 0.$$ This leads to the trivial solution $x=y=z=-{\lambda}^{-1}$ and two non-trivial solutions for $x,y,z$ (or to be precise, two branches of one solution). The condition $\alpha(r)<1$ reduces to $x^2 z^2 (1+2y^2)<1$. A computer plot of the $\lambda$ where none of the solutions has $\alpha(r)<1$ is shown in Figure \[fig-tree-spec\] (the shaded region).
Self-loops and Pregraphs via Finite Tree Quotients {#se:self}
==================================================
\[se:pregraph\]
We shall show that Theorem \[T:main\] can be generalized to universal covers of all of the following structures: graphs/pregraphs with multiple edges, self-loops, boundaries (with boundary conditions), edge and vertex weights, and edge lengths (see [@Fri93]). The common theme is that all these structure admit some sort of “universal cover,” $T$ that is sufficiently symmetric that a mild generalization of Theorem \[T:main\] holds.
First, note that Definition \[D:generalized-ratio-system\] makes sense for any graph homomorphism $\pi{\colon}T \to H$, regardless of whether or not $H$ is finite (and even whether or not $\pi$ is a covering map).
A [*tree quotient*]{} is a tree, $T$, along with a group, ${{\mathcal G}}$, acting on it; we denote this $T/{{\mathcal G}}$. By $V(T/{{\mathcal G}})$ we mean the ${{\mathcal G}}$ orbits of $V(T)$, and similarly for $E(T/{{\mathcal G}})$. The action of ${{\mathcal G}}$ is cofinite if $V(T/{{\mathcal G}})$ and $E(T/{{\mathcal G}})$ are finite; alternatively we say $T/{{\mathcal G}}$ is [*finite*]{}. By a symmetric local operator on $T/{{\mathcal G}}$ we mean a symmetric local operator on $T$ that is invariant under ${{\mathcal G}}$. By a [[[ratio system]{}]{}]{} on $T$ we mean a [[[ratio system]{}]{}]{} as in Definition \[D:generalized-ratio-system\] with $H$ there taken to be $T$; by a [[[ratio system]{}]{}]{} on $T/{{\mathcal G}}$ we mean a [[[ratio system]{}]{}]{} on $T$ that is invariant under ${{\mathcal G}}$, i.e., $r$ can be viewed as a function $r:E(T/{{\mathcal G}})\to {\mathbb{C}}\cup\{\infty\}$.
Any finite graph and pregraph as described in [@Fri93; @FriTill] (possibly with boundary, self-loops, multiple edges, vertex and edge weights, and edge lengths) admits a universal cover, $\pi{\colon}T\to G$; $T$ is a tree (a graph) that inherits vertex and edge weights and lengths from $G$ (boundary edges may be discarded with the Laplacian or adjacency matrix modified appropriately). By the universal property of $T$, for any two vertices in $T$ above the same $G$ vertex, $T$ admits an automorphism from taking one vertex to the other. It follows that if ${{\mathcal G}}$ is the group of all automorphisms of $T$ over $G$, then $T/{{\mathcal G}}$ is finite and has at most as many edges and vertices as $G$. Hence to generalize Theorem \[T:main\] to all the above situations it suffices to consider finite tree quotients $T/{{\mathcal G}}$.
Consider a symmetric, local operator, $M$, on a tree quotient, $T/{{\mathcal G}}$. The proof of Theorem \[T:main\] shows that a Green’s function, $G$, for $M$ gives rise to generalized periodic ratios on $T$; Proposition \[pr:symmetry\] shows that generalized periodic ratios also live on $T/{{\mathcal G}}$. Furthermore, given the periodic ratios $\{r_e\}$ from $G$, we can reconstruct $G$ via and .
A [*classifying condition*]{} for a tree quotient, $T/{{\mathcal G}}$, is a condition $C=C(r)$ or even $C=C(r,M)$ on generalized periodic ratios, $r$, such that $C(r,M)$ is satisfied iff $r$ arises from the Green function, $G$, of an invertible, symmetric, local operator, $M$, on $T/{{\mathcal G}}$.
Given a tree quotient, we wish to find a classifying condition that is simple to check. Theorem \[T:main\] says that if $\pi{\colon}T\to H$ is a universal cover of a finite graph, $H$, and ${{\mathcal G}}$ is the group of automorphisms of $T$ over $H$, then “$\alpha(r)<1$” is a classifying condition for $T/{{\mathcal G}}$.
Our first task is to generalize the matrix $R$ that describes $\alpha$ on a tree quotient, $T/{{\mathcal G}}$. For $e,f\in E(T)$ with $r_e,r_f\ne 0$, we define $R_{e,f}$ as in ; for $a,b\in E(T/{{\mathcal G}})$ pick an $e$ with $e\in a$ and set $$R_{a,b} = \sum_{f\in b} R_{e,f}.$$
In this setting, our proof of Theorem \[T:main\] shows the following:
Let $C=C(r)$ be a condition on generalized periodic ratios of a tree quotient, $T/{{\mathcal G}}$, such that
1. if $r$ arises from a Green function, then $C(r)$ is satisfied,
2. if $r$ satisfies $C(r)$, then $(Mf_u)(u)\ne 0$ for all $u$ (with $f$ as in ), and
3. if $r$ satisfied $C(r)$ then ${\widetilde G}$ is a bounded kernel, i.e., the map $$h(\,\cdot\,)\mapsto \sum_{u\in V(T)} {\widetilde G}(u,\,\cdot\,) h(u),$$ is bounded in $L^2$.
Then $C$ is a classifying condition for $T/{{\mathcal G}}$. Furthermore,
1. $(Mf_u)(u)\ne 0$ for all $u$ as long as there can exist no sequence of distinct vertices, $v_0,v_1,\ldots$ in $T$ for which $|r([v_0v_i])|\ge 1$ for all $i\ge 1$, and
2. any function ${\widetilde G}{\colon}V(T)\times V(T)\to {\mathbb{C}}$ is a bounded kernel provided that it satisfies the bounds and .
Now let $\alpha(r)$ be the spectral radius of the operator $R$ defined above as an operator on $l^2(V(T/{{\mathcal G}}))$. If ${{\mathcal G}}$ acts cofinitely on $T$, then $R$ is a finite real matrix with non-negative entries, and a periodic ratio arising from a Green function must satisfy $\alpha(r)<1$ since the Green function is in $l^2$, using the analogue of . Conversely, a generalized periodic ratio with $\alpha(r)<1$ yields that $$R+ 2R^2+ 3R^3+\cdots$$ is a bounded operator, from which we conclude and that there cannot exist distinct $v_0,v_1,\ldots\in V(T)$ with $|r([v_0v_i])|\ge
1$; the cofinite action on ${{\mathcal G}}$ on $T$ shows that $((Mf_u)(u))^{-1}$ and $r_e$ are uniformly bounded, yielding . We conclude the following theorem.
Let ${{\mathcal G}}$ act cofinitely on $T$. The condition $\alpha(r)<1$, defined above, is a classifying condition for $T/{{\mathcal G}}$.
We do not know a classifying condition when ${{\mathcal G}}$ does not act cofinitely on $T$.
We now demonstrate how the trees in the three examples in the previous section have smaller quotients, provided one is willing to pass to graphs or pregraphs that may have self-loops and multiple edges.
Example 1 in the previous section covers the graph consisting of one vertex with three half-loops, $e_1,e_2,e_3$, of respective weights $p_1\ge p_2\ge
p_3$. This is how it is presented in [@FigSteg]; they allow any number of half-loops with weights $p_1\ge\dots\ge p_r$. The covering tree’s adjacency matrix is invertible iff $p_1^2 > p_2^2+\cdots+p_r^2$. The $r$ half-loop example is covered by any $r$-regular graph whose edges can be partitioned into $r$ perfect matchings.
Example 2 covers the pregraph with two vertices, no self-loops, with one vertex of degree two, and one vertex of degree three.
Example 3 covers the graph $H=(V,E)$, where $V=\{u,v\}$, where there are two edges joining $u$ and $v$ and one half-loop at $u$.
Concluding Remarks and Further Questions
========================================
We have given a semi-algebraic characterization of invertible symmetric local operators on a finite tree quotient. It would be interesting to know what happens when the tree quotient is not finite and/or when the operator is not symmetric (with respect to $l^2$ of any measure on the tree vertices). For example, the non-backtracking [*random*]{} walk selects at each step a uniform neighbour of $X_n$ different from $X_{n-1}$ [@ABLS; @OW].
Our characterization can be used, at least in principle, to compute the various spectra of trees, including adjacency and Laplacian, and, less obviously, non-backtracking. This may shed light on the questions mentioned in the introduction. One interesting question, especially for two-dimensional non-backtracking spectrum, is to know if there is a natural spectral measure there, analogous to the Wigner semicircle law, as done by McKay for regular base graphs. Specifically, we conjecture that for any finite graph $H$ there is a measure $\mu$ supported on the non-backtracking spectrum of the universal cover ${\widetilde H}$, such that the uniform measure on $\sigma(H^n)$ converges in probability (in a suitable topology) to $\mu$, where $H^n$ is a random uniform $n$-lift of $H$ (possibly with some corrections, say around $\pm 1$).
The proof of Theorem \[T:alpha1general\] is based on explicitly constructing approximate eigenfunctions when there is a ratio system with $\alpha=1$. It would be nice to be able to find a sequence of approximate eigenfunctions of $M-\lambda$ for general $\lambda$ is $M$’s spectrum.
Finally we believe that for $\lambda$ on the boundary of the spectrum of $M$ (as before), $M-\lambda I$, has a [[[ratio system]{}]{}]{}, $r$, with $\alpha(r)=1$. In particular, if $\{\lambda_n\}$ is a sequence of complex numbers with a finite limit, $\lambda$, and $M$ is as usual, and $r_n$ is a ratio system for $M-\lambda_n$, then $r_n$ has a limit point, $r$, where we compactify ${\mathbb{C}}\cup\{\infty\}$ as usual. Is $r$ necessarily a ratio system? In particular is it impossible to have $r_e=r_f=\infty$ for two edges, $e,f$, with the same tail? If this does happen, might it still be possible to define $\alpha$ for the limit point, $r$?
[^1]: Note that since $M$ is a symmetric operator, we expect ${\widetilde G}$ to be symmetric as well. While this fact has a direct proof, the following lemma is easier and suffices for our purposes. The symmetry of ${\widetilde G}$ will eventually follow by proving that ${\widetilde G}$ is the Green function of $M$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- Masashige Matsumoto and Mikito Koga$^1$
title: 'Exciton-Mediated Triplet Superconductivity in $T_h$ System PrOs$_4$Sb$_{12}$'
---
The skutterudite [PrOs$_4$Sb$_{12}$]{} is a recently found new heavy fermion superconductor. [@Bauer] It is reported that the time reversal symmetry is broken in the superconducting state, [@Aoki-muSR] and that there are multiple phases depending on a magnetic field. [@Izawa] These results together with the absence of the Hebel-Slichter peak in nuclear quadrupole resonance (NQR) measurements [@Kotegawa] indicate that unconventional superconductivity is realized in [PrOs$_4$Sb$_{12}$]{}. In theoretical studies, an attempt to confirm these experimental results of unconventional superconductivity has been carried out. [@Miyake; @Ichioka; @Sergienko; @Hotta]
The Pr$^{3+}$ ion in [PrOs$_4$Sb$_{12}$]{} has a 4$f^2$ configuration in a $T_h$ (without fourfold axes in a cubic crystal) point-group crystal field. [@Takegahara-Th] The $\Gamma_1$ singlet ground state is realized with low-lying $\Gamma_4^{(2)}$ triplet excited states. This crystal-field configuration can explain naturally the magnetic field-induced antiferro (AF)-type order above 4.5 T, [@Aoki-field; @Ho; @Kohgi; @Goremychkin] where the superconductivity disappears. This is the most important feature compared to the reference superconductors [LaOs$_4$Sb$_{12}$]{} and [PrRu$_4$Sb$_{12}$]{}. [@Takeda; @Yogi; @Frederick] Thus, we believe that the existence of the low-lying triplet state is important for superconductivity.
A recent neutron scattering experiment revealed that the low-lying excitation mode has a weak dispersion relation (exciton). [@Kuwahara-1; @Kuwahara-2] In our previous study, we investigated exciton-mediated superconductivity by taking only an effective magnetic exchange interaction between the Pr triplet states and conduction electrons. [@Matsumoto] In this case, we found an attractive interaction for $d$-wave superconductivity.
The observed exciton dispersion indicates that there are intersite multipole interactions between the Pr ions. In the field-induced ordered phase, the following experimental results are reported: (1) Only a small dipole moment is observed. [@Kohgi] (2) The critical field exhibits a marked anisotropy depending on the field direction. [@Tayama] (3) An inelastic neutron scattering experiment revealed that the intensity of the exciton decreases towards the zone boundary. [@Kuwahara-2] The above results support a nonmagnetic multipole (quadrupole) interaction. [@Shiina-1; @Shiina-2; @Shiina-3] To derive such a substantial multipole interaction via a conduction electron system, we have to take the orbital degrees of freedom into account in the exchange interaction between the Pr $4f^2$ and conduction electrons. [@Koga] Their coupling should contribute to the mass enhancement of the conduction electrons. [@Bauer; @Aoki-field; @Sugawara]
By neutron scattering measurements, evidence of an AF multipole intersite interaction was also found. [@Kuwahara-1; @Kuwahara-2] It is known that AF magnetic fluctuations tend to stabilize singlet pairing superconducting states. If triplet superconductivity is stabilized, orbital degrees of freedom are important, as discussed in the case of the $p$-wave superconductivity of Sr$_2$RuO$_4$. [@Takimoto] We apply this idea to $f$-electron systems in a different manner and pursue a stability condition for the triplet superconductivity. To determine the role of orbitals, [PrOs$_4$Sb$_{12}$]{} is a good example, since its orbital is well defined by the localized nature of the $f$-electron. In fact, recent NMR and $\mu$SR measurements reported evidence of odd parity superconductivity. [@Tou; @Higemoto]
As mentioned above, the ground state in Pr $4f^2$ is $|\Gamma_1\rangle$ accompanied by low-lying triplet excitations $|\Gamma_{4n}^{(2)}\rangle$ $(n=1,2,3)$. In the $T_h$ symmetry, the $|\Gamma_{4n}^{(2)}\rangle$ states are linear combinations of $\Gamma_5$ and $\Gamma_4$ wavefunctions in $O_h$. [@Takegahara-Th; @Shiina-1] $$\begin{aligned}
|\Gamma_{4n}^{(2)}\rangle = \sqrt{1-d^2} |\Gamma_5^n\rangle + d |\Gamma_4^n\rangle\end{aligned}$$ Here, n=1,2,3, and $d$ is the $T_h$ crystal-field parameter describing the deviation from the $O_h$ symmetry ($d=0$ or $|d|=1$). The Pr ion is at the center in the cage of Sb$_{12}$. The $4f^2$ state hybridizes with conduction electrons having local $a_u$ and $t_u$ symmetries, which can be formed from the molecular orbitals of Sb$_{12}$. [@Harima] In this paper, we treat a single $a_u$ dominant conduction band with strong hybridization with the Pr $f^2$ state. The $a_u$ electrons hybridize with the $f$ $\Gamma_7$ states of Pr directly and also with the $f$ $\Gamma_8$ states via nonlocal mixing with the $t_u$ molecular orbital of Sb$_{12}$.
Let us begin with the following nonlocal exchange interaction between the 4$f^2$ state of the $i$th Pr and the conduction electrons: [@Koga] $$\begin{aligned}
&H_{\rm ex} = \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{N} J \sum_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}'} e^{{{\rm i}}({{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}-{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}')\cdot{{\mbox{\boldmath$r$}}}_i}
\label{eqn:H-sd} \\
&\times
\sum_{\lambda\mu}
[ S_{i\lambda} s_\lambda^\mu({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}') + Q_{i\lambda} q_\lambda^\mu({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}') ]
\sum_{\sigma\sigma'}
\sigma^{\mu}_{\sigma\sigma'} c_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}\sigma}^\dagger c_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}'\sigma'}.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here, $J=\sqrt{1+20d^2}J_0$ with $J_0$ as the coupling constant for $d=0$. $S_{i\lambda}$ and $Q_{i\lambda}$ are local magnetic and nonmagnetic operators, respectively, which couple $|\Gamma_1\rangle$ with $|\Gamma_4^{(2)}\rangle$. The $\lambda=z, +, -$ components are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
S_z &= (|\Gamma_{42}^{(2)} \rangle \langle \Gamma_1|)
+ (|\Gamma_1 \rangle \langle |\Gamma_{42}^{(2)}|), \cr
Q_z &= (|\Gamma_{42}^{(2)} \rangle \langle \Gamma_1|)
- (|\Gamma_1 \rangle \langle \Gamma_{42}^{(2)}|), \cr
S_- &= S_+^\dagger = - \sqrt{2} (|\Gamma_1 \rangle \langle \Gamma_{41}^{(2)}|)
+ \sqrt{2} (|\Gamma_{43}^{(2)} \rangle \langle \Gamma_1|), \cr
Q_- &= Q_+^\dagger = -\sqrt{2} (|\Gamma_1 \rangle \langle \Gamma_{41}^{(2)}|)
-\sqrt{2} (|\Gamma_{43}^{(2)} \rangle \langle \Gamma_1|).
\label{eqn:S-and-Q}\end{aligned}$$ In eq. (\[eqn:H-sd\]), $\mu$ takes $\mu=0,z,+,-$, where $\sigma^0$ is a unit matrix and $\sigma^\pm = (\sigma^x \pm {{\rm i}}\sigma^y)/2$. The momentum dependences of the $\mu$ components of the magnetic and nonmagnetic channels are described by $s_\lambda^\mu({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}')$ and $q_\lambda^\mu({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}')$, respectively. The former is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
s_z^0({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}') &= {{\rm i}}\frac{3}{7} A \frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{3}} ( A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}2} - A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}' 2} ),~~~
s_z^z({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}') = 0, \cr
s_z^+({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}') &= {{\rm i}}\frac{3}{7} \frac{A}{2}
[ \frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{3}} ( A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}1}^* + A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}' 1}^* )
+ \beta ( A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}1} + A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}' 1} ) ], \cr
s_z^-({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}') &= [s_z^+({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}',{{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})]^*, \cr
s_-^0({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}') &= {{\rm i}}\frac{3}{7} A \frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{3}} ( A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}1}^* - A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}' 1}^* ), \cr
s_-^z({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}') &= {{\rm i}}\frac{3}{7} \frac{A}{2}
[ - \frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{3}} ( A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}1}^* + A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}' 1}^* )
+ \beta ( A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}1} + A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}' 1} ) ], \cr
s_-^+({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}') &= {{\rm i}}\frac{3}{7} A \beta ( A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}2} + A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}' 2} ), \cr
s_-^-({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}') &= {{\rm i}}\frac{3}{7} A \frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{3}} ( A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}2} + A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}' 2} ).
\label{eqn:sq}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are functions of the $T_h$ parameter $d$: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha=\frac{\sqrt{1-d^2}}{\sqrt{1+20 d^2}},~~~
\beta=\frac{\sqrt{21}d}{\sqrt{1+20 d^2}}.\end{aligned}$$ We introduced the parameter $A$ representing the amplitude of the nonlocal mixing between the $a_u$ (xyz) and $t_u$ (x,y,z) components of conduction electrons. The symmetry of the mixing is expressed by the functions $A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}1}$ and $A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}2}$: $A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}1} = F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}yz} + {{\rm i}}F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}zx}$, $A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}2} = F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}xy}$, where $F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}xy} = \sin(k_x/2) \sin(k_y/2) \cos(k_z/2)$, $F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}yz} = \cos(k_x/2) \sin(k_y/2) \sin(k_z/2)$, $F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}zx} = \sin(k_x/2) \cos(k_y/2) \sin(k_z/2)$. They reflect the symmetry of the bcc lattice. $s_+^\mu({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}')$ is obtained simply by $s_+^\mu({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}')=[s_-^{-\mu}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}',{{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})]^*$. Here, $\mu=0,z,+,-$ and $-\mu=0,z,-,+$. For nonmagnetic channels, $q_\lambda^\mu({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}')$ is obtained from $s_\lambda^\mu({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}')$ by replacing $(A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}' 1}, A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}' 2}) \rightarrow (-A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}' 1}, -A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}' 2})$ for $\lambda = z,-$, and $(A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}1}, A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}2}) \rightarrow (-A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}1}, -A_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}2})$ for $\lambda = +$.
Within the above exchange interaction (\[eqn:H-sd\]), we obtained the following simple form for a multipole-multipole interaction for the nearest-neighbor Pr pairs: [@Koga] $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm I} = \sum_{\langle ij \rangle} ( D_s {{\mbox{\boldmath$S$}}}_i \cdot {{\mbox{\boldmath$S$}}}_j + D_q {{\mbox{\boldmath$Q$}}}_i \cdot {{\mbox{\boldmath$Q$}}}_j ),
\label{eqn:HI}\end{aligned}$$ since $x$, $y$ and $z$ are identical in the $T_h$ symmetry. Here, ${{\mbox{\boldmath$Q$}}}_i\cdot{{\mbox{\boldmath$Q$}}}_j=-Q_{iz}Q_{jz}+(Q_{i-}Q_{j+}+Q_{i+}Q_{j-})/2$ due to the anti-Hermite nature of $Q_z$ defined by eq. (\[eqn:S-and-Q\]). $\sum_{\langle ij \rangle}$ denotes the summation over the nearest-neighbor Pr sites on the bcc lattice. $D_s$ and $D_q$ in eq. (\[eqn:HI\]) are coupling constants for the magnetic and nonmagnetic interactions, respectively. From eq. (\[eqn:HI\]), we derived the following Hamiltonian for the crystal-field excitons: [@Shiina-3; @Matsumoto] $$\begin{aligned}
H_{4f} = \sum_{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}E_{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}( b_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}x}^\dagger b_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}x}
+ b_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}y}^\dagger b_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}y}
+ b_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}z}^\dagger b_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}z} ),\end{aligned}$$ where $b_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}\alpha}$ is the bosonic operator for the $\alpha=x,y,z$ component exciton. $E_{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}$ is the dispersion for exciton $E_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}} = \sqrt{ [ \Delta + (D_s + D_q) \Lambda_{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}]^2
- [(D_s - D_q) \Lambda_{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}]^2}$, with $\Lambda_{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}=8\cos(k_x/2)\cos(k_y/2)\cos(k_z/2)$ for the bcc lattice. $\Delta$ ($\Delta \gg D_s, D_q$) is the crystal field splitting from $|\Gamma_1\rangle$ to $|\Gamma_4^{(2)}\rangle$.
For Pr-based systems, it was pointed out that the exciton plays an important role in mass enhancement [@Fulde] and superconductivity. [@Ishii] In this paper, we derive the effective interaction $H_{\rm eff}$ between conduction electrons mediated by the exciton within the following second-order perturbation: $H_{\rm eff} = H_{\rm ex} [1/(E_0 - H_0)] H_{\rm ex}$. Here, $H_0$ is the unperturbed Hamiltonian for the Pr 4$f^2$ and conduction electron systems. We can eliminate bosonic operators by taking expectation values at low temperatures. Since we are interested mainly in superconductivity, we only consider the $c_{-{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}'}^\dagger c_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}'}^\dagger c_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}}c_{-{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}}$ type of interaction. We define the singlet and triplet pair operators by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{s}_{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}&= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \sum_{\sigma\sigma'}
i \sigma_{\sigma\sigma'}^y c_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}\sigma} c_{-{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}\sigma'}, \cr
\hat{t}_{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}^\alpha &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \sum_{\sigma\sigma'}
( i \sigma^y \sigma^\alpha )_{\sigma\sigma'} c_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}\sigma} c_{-{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}\sigma'},\end{aligned}$$ where, $\alpha=x,y,z$.
For singlet pairings, we obtain the effective Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
&H_{\rm eff}^{\rm singlet}
= (\frac{3 J A}{7})^2 ( \frac{1}{3} \alpha^2 - \beta^2 ) \frac{1}{N} \sum_{k k'}
( - \frac{U_{s1}}{\Delta} + U_{s2} \frac{\Lambda_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}-{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}'}}{\Delta^2} ) \cr
&\times
( F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}xy}F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}'xy} + F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}yz}F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}'yz} + F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}zx}F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}' zx} )
\hat{s}_{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}^\dagger \hat{s}_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}'},
\label{eqn:singlet}\end{aligned}$$ where $U_{s1}=10/9$ and $U_{s2}=2(D_s+D_q/9)$. For $\alpha^2/3 - \beta^2 > 0$ ($|d|<1/8$), $d_{xy}$, $d_{yz}$ and $d_{zx}$-waves are stabilized in the lowest order of $1/\Delta$. For a larger $|d|$, however, the lowest order term becomes repulsive. For $|d|>1/8$, we have to consider the second-order term proportional to $\Lambda_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}-{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}'}/\Delta^2$. The even parity component of $\Lambda_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}-{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}'}$ also leads to $d$-wave states. In this case, the pair wavefunction, for instance, the $d_{xy}$-wave, has a form of $[\sin(k_x/2)\sin(k_y/2)\cos(k_z/2)]
[\cos(k_x/2)\cos(k_y/2)\cos(k_z/2)]$. For a small Fermi wave number $k_{\rm F}$, the $d$-wave is favorable due to large cosine function values. However, we note that the coupling for the singlet pairing is strongly suppressed around $|d| \sim 1/8$ ($\alpha^2/3=\beta^2$).
For triplet pairings, an effective interaction similar to eq. (\[eqn:singlet\]) is derived. There is no first-order term in $1/\Delta$ for triplet pairings due to the even parity nature of the functions $(F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}xy}, F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}yz}, F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}zx})$. The interaction is of the order of $1/\Delta^2$, and proportional to products of $(F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}xy}, F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}yz}, F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}zx})$ functions and the exciton dispersion $\Lambda_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}-{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}'}$. There is, for instance, the following term: $$\begin{aligned}
( & F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}yz} F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}' yz} \hat{t}_{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}^{x \dagger} \hat{t}_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}'}^x
+ F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}zx} F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}' zx} \hat{t}_{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}^{y \dagger} \hat{t}_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}'}^y \cr
&
+ F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}xy} F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}' xy} \hat{t}_{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}^{z \dagger} \hat{t}_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}'}^z )
\times \frac{\Lambda_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}-{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}'}}{\Delta^2}.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Since $\Lambda_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}-{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}'}$ contains $p$-wave-type terms such as $\sin(k_x/2)\cos(k_y/2)\cos(k_z/2)$, $f$-wave pairing functions are obtained by the product of this $p$-wave-type function and the $d$-wave-type functions ($F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}xy}$, $F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}yz}$, $F_{{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}zx}$). For a larger $k_{\rm F}$, the $f$-wave pairing states take advantage against the $d$-wave, since they contain three sine functions with larger values.
Next, we focus on such triplet pairing states. We express the effective interaction for triplet pairings in $O_h$ bases as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm eff}^{\rm triplet}
= \frac{V_{\rm eff}}{\Delta^2} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{kk'} \sum_{\Gamma\Gamma'}
U_{\Gamma\Gamma'} \hat{g}_\Gamma^\dagger({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}) \hat{g}_{\Gamma'}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}').
\label{eqn:H-eff}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $V_{\rm eff}= (12JA/7)^2 ( D_s + D_q/9 )$ is an effective coupling for triplet pairings. Both magnetic ($D_s$) and nonmagnetic ($D_q$) multipole-multipole interactions contribute to the triplet superconductivity. $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{g}_\Gamma({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}) = V_\Gamma^x({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}) \hat{t}_{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}^x
+ V_\Gamma^y({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}) \hat{t}_{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}^y
+ V_\Gamma^z({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}) \hat{t}_{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}^z
\label{eqn:V}\end{aligned}$$ is an operator for a triplet pair with the $O_h$ representation $\Gamma$. $\hat{t}^\alpha$ and $V_\Gamma^\alpha({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})$ represent the spin and orbital components, respectively. $U_{\Gamma\Gamma'}$ represents an interaction connecting $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$. We introduce a ${{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}$-vector by a linear combination of ${{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})= \sum_\Gamma \Delta_\Gamma {{\mbox{\boldmath$V$}}}_\Gamma({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})$. Here, $\Delta_\Gamma$ is the amplitude of the order parameter for $\Gamma$. The order parameter $\Delta_\Gamma$ can be obtained by solving the following gap equation: $$\Delta_\Gamma = - 2\pi T N_0 \sum_m \frac{1}{|\omega_m|}
\sum_{\Gamma'\Gamma''} U_{\Gamma\Gamma'}
\langle {{\mbox{\boldmath$V$}}}_{\Gamma'}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}) \cdot {{\mbox{\boldmath$V$}}}_{\Gamma''}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}) \rangle_k \Delta_{\Gamma''}.
\label{eqn:gap-eq}$$ Here, $\langle \cdots \rangle_{{{\mbox{\footnotesize \boldmath$k$}}}}$ represents an integral over the Fermi surface. $\omega_m$ is a Matsubara frequency for fermions. $N_0$ is the density of states at the Fermi energy. In the $T_h$ system, the gap equations can be reduced to the $\Gamma_1\oplus\Gamma_2$, $\Gamma_{31}\oplus\Gamma_{32}$ and $\Gamma_4\oplus\Gamma_5$ types. We find that the transition temperatures for these pairing states are similar. We focus on one of the pairing types ($\Gamma_4\oplus\Gamma_5$) in this paper, since this three-dimensional representation is most appropriate for the observed experimental results. The $V_\Gamma^\alpha({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})$ functions in eq. (\[eqn:V\]) for the $\Gamma_4\oplus\Gamma_5$ type are listed in Table I. The interaction $U_{\Gamma\Gamma'}$ in eq. (\[eqn:gap-eq\]) is given in Table II. The off-diagonal matrix elements are proportional to $\alpha\beta$. They vanish in the $O_h$ system. The eigenvalues of the matrix in eq. (\[eqn:gap-eq\]) determine the effective interaction corresponding to the obtained eigenmode. A negative (positive) eigenvalue means an attractive (repulsive) interaction. The lowest eigenvalue leads to the highest transition temperature. The eigenvalue depends on the $T_h$ parameter $d$ strongly via the off-diagonal components.
$$\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline
& V_\Gamma^x({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}) & V_\Gamma^y({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}) & V_\Gamma^z({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}}) \\ \hline
\hat{g}_{\Gamma_x^{\rm A}} & 0 & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} x^2 y'^2 z z' &
-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} x^2 y y' z'^2 \\
\hat{g}_{\Gamma_x^{\rm B}} & 0 & - \frac{1}{2} x'^2 y^2 z z' & \frac{1}{2} x'^2 y y' z^2 \\
\hat{g}_{\Gamma_{yz}^{\rm A}} & - \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} x x' y y' z z' &
\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} x^2 y'^2 z z' &
\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} x^2 y y' z'^2 \\
\hat{g}_{\Gamma_{yz}^{\rm B}} & x x' y y' z z' &
\frac{1}{2} x'^2 y^2 z z' & \frac{1}{2} x'^2 y y' z^2 \\
\hat{g}_{\Gamma_{yz}^{\rm C}} & x x' y y' z z' &
- \frac{1}{2} x'^2 y^2 z z' &
- \frac{1}{2} x'^2 y y' z^2 \\ \hline
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{|c|ccccc|} \hline
& \Gamma_x^{\rm A} & \Gamma_x^{\rm B} & \Gamma_{yz}^{\rm A} & \Gamma_{yz}^{\rm B} & \Gamma_{yz}^{\rm C} \\ \hline
\Gamma_x^{\rm A} & a_4 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\Gamma_x^{\rm B} & 0 & a_5 & 0 & -a_3 & a_3 \\
\Gamma_{yz}^{\rm A} & 0 & 0 & a_4 & 0 & 0 \\
\Gamma_{yz}^{\rm B} & 0 & -a_3 & 0 & a_1 & 0 \\
\Gamma_{yz}^{\rm C} & 0 & a_3 & 0 & 0 & a_2 \\ \hline
\end{array}$$
Let us discuss effects of the $T_h$ symmetry on superconductivity. As shown in Table II, the off-diagonal terms connect the lowest eigenstate with higher-lying eigenvalue states. This effect is similar to the level repulsion between the states. As a result, the lowest eigenvalue is reduced compared with that in the absence of the off-diagonal terms, and the effective attractive interaction is enhanced as in Fig. 1. Therefore, the $T_h$ symmetry stabilizes the triplet superconductivity. In contrast to the triplet pairing states, there is no such effect for the $d$-wave states \[see eq. (\[eqn:singlet\])\].
Next, we apply our result to explain the recent experimental data. Zero-field $\mu$SR measurements revealed an internal magnetic field emerging at the superconducting transition temperature. [@Aoki-muSR] This indicates that superconductivity with a broken time reversal symmetry is realized in [PrOs$_4$Sb$_{12}$]{}, implying the multicomponent $\Gamma_{31}\oplus\Gamma_{32}$ or $\Gamma_4\oplus\Gamma_5$ type. For the $\Gamma_4\oplus\Gamma_5$ type, there are threefold degenerate solutions. There are two types of combination with a broken time reversal symmetry. One is the ${{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}_{\Gamma_{4y}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})\pm{{\rm i}}{{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}_{\Gamma_{4z}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})$ type, and the other is the ${{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}_{\Gamma_{4x}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})+\omega{{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}_{\Gamma_{4y}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})+\omega^2{{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}_{\Gamma_{4z}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})$ type with $\omega=e^{\pm {{\rm i}}2\pi/3}$. These states with a broken time reversal symmetry are nonunitary states with a finite ${{\mbox{\boldmath$q$}}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})={{\rm i}}{{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})^*\times{{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})$ vector.
Let us discuss the $T_h$ nature of the gap function $\sqrt{|{{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})|^2-|{{\mbox{\boldmath$q$}}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})|}$ for the nonunitary states. In Fig. 2(a), we show the gap function, for instance, ${{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})={{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}_{\Gamma_{4z}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})$ for a $T_h$ parameter $\alpha=\beta=1/\sqrt{2}$ ($d=1/\sqrt{22}$). Although the shape looks like a clover with four leaves, there are six point nodes along all the basal axes $x$, $y$ and $z$. The fourfold symmetry around the $z$ axis is broken under the $T_h$ symmetry. The angle of one leaflike shape tends to be small towards the $y$ direction, and the gap decreases strongly in the $x$ direction. The other two states \[${{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}_{\Gamma_{4x}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})$ and ${{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}_{\Gamma_{4y}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})$\] can appear with a broken time reversal symmetry, since the three states are degenerate. As shown in Fig. 2(b), the ${{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}_{\Gamma_{4y}}$ component is combined with ${{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}_{\Gamma_{4z}}$, and the gap function takes a value close to the $y$ direction, which is larger than that for the single component of ${{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}_{\Gamma_{4z}}$.
Multiple superconducting phases are reported by thermal conductivity measurements. [@Izawa] In the lower-field phase, it was reported that the gap function has a twofold symmetry around the $z$ axis, [@Izawa; @Huxley] which may correspond to the nonunitary triplet pairing states ${{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})={{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}_{\Gamma_{4y}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})\pm{{\rm i}}{{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}_{\Gamma_{4z}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})$ discussed above.
{width="8cm"}
![ Gap functions at $\alpha^2=\beta^2=1/2$ ($d=1/\sqrt{22}$) for $k_{\rm F}=0.75\pi$: (a) ${{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})={{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}_{\Gamma_{4z}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})$ and (b) ${{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})={{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}_{\Gamma_{4y}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})\pm{{\rm i}}{{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}_{\Gamma_{4z}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})$. []{data-label="fig:gap-4-5"}](fig2a.eps "fig:"){width="4cm"} ![ Gap functions at $\alpha^2=\beta^2=1/2$ ($d=1/\sqrt{22}$) for $k_{\rm F}=0.75\pi$: (a) ${{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})={{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}_{\Gamma_{4z}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})$ and (b) ${{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})={{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}_{\Gamma_{4y}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})\pm{{\rm i}}{{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}}_{\Gamma_{4z}}({{\mbox{\boldmath$k$}}})$. []{data-label="fig:gap-4-5"}](fig2b.eps "fig:"){width="4cm"}
In our previous study, we found the order of $J_0^2 D^2 / \Delta^3$ for the coupling of the $d$-wave pairing interaction, where only an effective magnetic exchange interaction between the triplet excitations and conduction electrons was considered. [@Matsumoto] Here, $D$ ($\ll\Delta)$ represents the width of the exciton dispersion. In contrast to this, we considered both the $a_u$ and $t_u$ local symmetries in the single conduction band, where the latter has orbital degrees of freedom. This model leads to attractive channels for triplet pairing with the order of $A^2 J_0^2 D / \Delta^2$.
If the field-induced order is a quadrupolar type, strong orbital fluctuations are expected. Thus, the parameter $A$ can have a sufficiently large value of $A > \sqrt{D/\Delta}$. In this case, the superconducting state discussed in this paper can be stabilized. The triplet pairing is promising when the singlet pairing interaction is suppressed \[$|d| \sim 1/8$ in eq. (\[eqn:singlet\])\]. Since the spin-orbit interaction works in the exchange process via the $4f$ orbitals, the spin of the conduction electron is not conserved in the scattering with orbital exchange. This can give rise to attractive triplet channels even when the exciton has AF fluctuations. We also found that the $T_h$ symmetry stabilizes the triplet superconductivity and reflects the symmetry of the gap function. It is remarkable that the atomic nature of Pr is revealed by the superconductivity.
We would like to express our sincere thanks to H. Shiba for valuable discussions and critically reading the manuscript. We thank Y. Aoki, W. Higemoto, K. Izawa, M. Kohgi, H. Kusunose, K. Kuwahara, O. Sakai, R. Shiina, T. Takimoto and H. Tou for useful discussions. We acknowledge M. Oichi for his kind assistance. This work is supported by JSPS Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research in Priority Area ‘Skutterudite’ (No. 16037207) and for Young Scientists (No. 16740197).
[99]{} E. D. Bauer [*et al*]{}.: Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{} (2002) 100506(R).
Y. Aoki [*et al*]{}.: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{} (2003) 067003.
K. Izawa [*et al*]{}.: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{} (2003) 117001.
H. Kotegawa [*et al*]{}.: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{} (2003) 027001.
K. Miyake, H. Kohno and H. Harima: J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**15**]{} (2003) L 275.
M. Ichioka, N. Nakai and K. Machida: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**72**]{} (2003) 1322.
I. A. Sergienko and S. H. Curnoe: Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{} (2004) 144522.
T. Hotta: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**74**]{} (2005) 1275.
K. Takegahara, H. Harima and A. Yanase: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**70**]{} (2001) 1190.
Y. Aoki [*et al*]{}.: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**71**]{} (2002) 2098.
P.-C. Ho [*et al*]{}.: Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{} (2003) 180508(R).
M. Kohgi [*et al*]{}.: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**72**]{} (2003) 1002.
E. A. Goremychkin [*et al*]{}.: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{} (2004) 157003.
N. Takeda and M. Ishikawa: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**69**]{} (2000) 868.
M. Yogi [*et al*]{}.: Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{} (2003) 180501(R).
N. A. Frederick [*et al*]{}.: Phys. Rev. B [**69**]{} (2004) 024523.
K. Kuwahara [*et al*]{}.: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**73**]{} (2004) 1438.
K. Kuwahara [*et al*]{}.: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{} (2005) 107003.
M. Matsumoto and M. Koga: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**73**]{} (2004) 1135.
T. Tayama [*et al*]{}.: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**72**]{} (2003) 1516.
R. Shiina and Y. Aoki: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**73**]{} (2004) 541.
R. Shiina: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**73**]{} (2004) 2257.
R. Shiina, M. Matsumoto and M. Koga: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**73**]{} (2004) 3453.
M. Koga [*et al*]{}.: in preparation.
H. Sugawara [*et al*]{}.: Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{} (2002) 220504(R).
T. Takimoto: Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{} (2000) R 14641.
H. Tou: private communication.
W. Higemoto: private communication.
H. Harima and K. Takegahara: J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**15**]{} (2003) S 2081.
P. Fulde and J. Jensen: Phys. Rev. B [**27**]{} (1983) 4085.
H. Ishii, H. Ohgaki and A. Oguri: Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{} (1995) 12969.
A. D. Huxley [*et al*]{}.: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{} (2004) 187005.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A discrete-time Markov chain can be transformed into a new Markov chain by looking at its states along iterations of an almost surely finite stopping time. By the optional stopping theorem, any bounded harmonic function with respect to the transition function of the original chain is harmonic with respect to the transition function of the transformed chain. The reverse inclusion is in general not true. Our main result provides a sufficient condition on the stopping time which guarantees that the space of bounded harmonic functions for the transformed chain embeds in the space of bounded harmonic sequences for the original chain. We also obtain a similar result on positive unbounded harmonic functions, under some additional conditions. Our work was motivated by and is analogous to [@Forghani-Kaimanovich2016], the well-studied case when the Markov chain is a random walk on a discrete group.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Connecticut, USA'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Bowdoin College, USA'
author:
- 'Iddo Ben-Ari'
- Behrang Forghani
bibliography:
- 'Transformed.bib'
title: On Transformations of Markov Chains and Poisson Boundary
---
Introduction
============
The classic Poisson formula naively says that a harmonic function on the unit disk in the complex plane, that is a function whose Laplacian vanishes, can be represented as an integral transform of its values on the boundary of the disk. The integral transform is with respect to a kernel known as the Poisson kernel. Probabilistically, the Poisson kernel is the distribution of the position where Brownian motion exits the open disk. The idea of representing a harmonic function as an integral transform of its boundary values extends beyond Laplacian to other contexts. In particular, in the theory of Markov chains, the study of notion of Poisson formula goes back to the works of Blackwell [@Blackwell1955] and Feller [@Feller1956].
Let ${\EuScript{X}}$ be an infinite, countable set. This will serve as our state space. Let $p:{\EuScript{X}}\times {\EuScript{X}}\to [0,1]$ be a transition function, that is $\sum_y p(x,y)=1$ for all $x\in {\EuScript{X}}$. A function $f:{\EuScript{X}}\to {{\mathbb R}}$ is $p$-harmonic if $\sum_y p(x,y) |f(y)|<\infty$ for all $x\in {\EuScript{X}}$ and it also satisfies the mean value property $f(x)=\sum_y p(x,y)f(y)$ for all $x\in{\EuScript{X}}$. Note that the constant functions are bounded and $p$-harmonic, and that the set of $p$-harmonic functions is a linear space. It is easy to see that the space of bounded $p$-harmonic functions is a Banach space with respect to the sup-norm. By Rohlin’s theory of measurable partitions [@Rohlin52] and Doob’s theory of martingales [@Doob53], there exists a probability space called the Poisson boundary such that its $L^\infty$ as a Banach space is isometrically isomorphic to the space of bounded $p$-harmonic functions, see [@Kaimanovich1996].
There are extensive developments of the theory of Poisson boundaries whenever the state space ${\EuScript{X}}$ has some special structure, e.g. a group, a Riemannian manifold, see [@Furstenberg1963], [@Kaimanovich2002], [@Kaimanovich-Woess2002] and the references therein.
Furstenberg [@Furstenberg1973] showed that the Poisson boundary of a random walk on a group is isomorphic to the induced random walk to a recurrent subgroup. Later, Kaimanovich [@Kaimanovich83], Muchnik [@Muchnik2006], Willis [@Willis1990] provided more constructions on a random walk on group that preserve the Poisson boundary. The most general method up to date to construct random walks on groups with a common Poisson boundary was recently introduced by Kaimanovich and the second author in [@Forghani-Kaimanovich2016], [@Behrang2016]. Their method is based on applying a randomized stopping time to the space of sample paths to obtain a new random walk with identical Poisson boundary. A crucial step in the proof is that each countable group can be viewed as a quotient space of some free semigroup. Hence the proofs are applicable only to random walks on countable groups. This approach was employed to study the space of positive harmonic functions on a countable group with respect to a stopping time [@Forghani-Mallahi2016].
In this paper, we consider the case when the state space has *no additional structure*. Given a Markov chain ${\boldsymbol{x}}= (x_0,x_1,\dots)$ on a countable state space ${\EuScript{X}}$ with transition function $p$ and a stopping time $\tau$ which is almost surely finite (see equation ), we consider the process obtained by looking at the Markov chain corresponding to $p$ along iterations of the stopping time, a sequence we denote by $\langle \tau ({\boldsymbol{x}}) \rangle$. Through the strong Markov property, see [@Revuz1984], this process is a Markov chain on ${\EuScript{X}}$ which we call the transformed chain, and whose transition function we denote by $p^\tau$, given by $p^\tau (x,y) = {\mbox{\bf P}}_x (x_\tau = y)$. We say $\tau$ can be asymptotically recovered (Assumption \[as:asymp\]) when there exists a positive integer-valued map $\rho$ on the space of sample paths such that $$\displaystyle\limsup_{n\to\infty} \inf_{x} {\mbox{\bf P}}_x \bigg(n+\rho (x_n,x_{n+1},\cdots) \in \langle \tau({\boldsymbol{x}}) \rangle\bigg)=1.$$
A simple example for a stopping time that can be asymptotically recovered is that of a hitting time. More examples are given in Section \[sec:examples\].
We investigate how the Poisson boundary (bounded harmonic functions) of the original and transformed Markov chains are related. We do this by showing the intuitively clear fact that if the stopping time can be asymptotically recovered (Assumption \[as:asymp\]), then the space of bounded harmonic functions for the transformed process is embedded in the space of space-time harmonic functions for the original chain. This is the statement of our main result, Theorem \[th:newmain\]:
Let $p$ be a transient transition function on ${\EuScript{X}}$, and suppose that $o\in {\EuScript{X}}$ is such that all $x\in {\EuScript{X}}-\{o\}$ are accessible from $o$. Let $\tau$ be a stopping time for which is finite a.s. under any initial distribution and can be asymptotically recovered (Assumption \[as:asymp\]). Then for any positive bounded $p^\tau$–harmonic function $u$ there exists an extension $\bar{u}$ to ${\EuScript{X}}\times {{\mathbb Z}}_+$, ${\bar u}(x,0)=u(x)$, such that
1. $\bar{u}$ is a positive bounded $p$-harmonic sequence.
2. $\|{\bar u} \|_\infty =\|u\|_\infty$.
We note that in general, and unlike the case of random walks on groups, the Poisson boundaries of the original and transformed chains may be fundamentally different, see the example in Section \[splitting\]. In Theorem \[th:martin\] we extend the scope to positive harmonic functions under some additional conditions.
Our proof of the theorem is based on the construction of the *Martin boundary*, which is one the main qualitative space in boundary theory and potential theory associated to Markov chains. The Martin boundary of a Markov chain is the topological counterpart of the Poisson boundary which is responsible for representation of positive harmonic functions. If the Martin boundary as a Borel space equipped with an appropriate probability measure, then it is isomorphic (as a measure space) with the Poisson boundary, see [@Dynkin69].
The organization of the paper is as follows. In Section \[sec:preliminaries\] we recall the theory of Poisson, tail, and Martin boundaries. Section 3 devoted to constructing Markov chains via transformation. In Section 4 we show how the tools from the theory of Martin boundary can be applied to the transformed Markov chains via stopping times. Our main result is proved in Section \[sec:main\], and in Section \[sec:examples\] we present a number of examples. Two standard approximation results used in the proof of Theorem \[th:martin\] are proved in the Appendix.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
We would like to thank the anonymous referee for reading the manual very carefully and suggesting improvements.
Preliminaries {#sec:preliminaries}
=============
Markov chains {#sec:MC_defn}
-------------
Let ${\EuScript{X}}$ be a countable set. The set ${\EuScript{X}}$ and its power set form a measurable space. Let ${\EuScript{X}}^{{{\mathbb Z}}_+}=\{{\boldsymbol{x}}=(x_0,x_1,\dots):x_n \in {\EuScript{X}},n\in{{\mathbb Z}}_+\}$, the set of ${\EuScript{X}}$-valued sequences indexed by ${{\mathbb Z}}_+$. For every $n\in{{\mathbb Z}}_+$ define the coordinate function $\omega_n({\boldsymbol{x}})=x_n$. Denote by ${{\mathcal F}}_k^\infty({\EuScript{X}})=\sigma(\omega_k,\omega_{k+1},\cdots)$ the sigma-algebra generated by the coordinate functions $\omega_i,~i\ge k$. Let ${{{\mathcal F}}^\infty}={{\mathcal F}}^\infty_0({\EuScript{X}})$. The measurable space $({{\EuScript{X}}^{\mathbb{Z}_+}},{{{\mathcal F}}^\infty})$ is called the space of sample paths. For our work, we will also need to define an auxiliary process ${\boldsymbol{z}}=(z_n:n\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+)$, as follows. Given ${\boldsymbol{x}}$ and $t \in{{\mathbb Z}}_+$, we let $ z_n = (x_n,t+n)$. That is, ${\boldsymbol{z}}$ also keeps track of time.
Let $p$ be a transition function on ${\EuScript{X}}$. That is $p:{\EuScript{X}}\times {\EuScript{X}}\to [0,1]$ and $\sum_y p(x,y) =1$ for all $x\in {\EuScript{X}}$. Let $m$ be a probability measure on ${\EuScript{X}}$. For $n\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+$, define the $n$-th iteration of $p$, denoted by $p^n$, through $$\label{eq:p_iterated}
p^0(x,y) = \delta_{x}(y), \mbox{ and }p^{n+1} (x,y) = \sum_z p(x,z) p^n (z,y)$$ (note that $p^1=p$, and that $p^n$ is also a transition function). By Kolmogorv’s extension theorem, there exists a unique probability measure ${\mbox{\bf P}}_m$ on the space of sample paths satisfying $${\mbox{\bf P}}_m(a_0,a_1,\cdots,a_n)=m(a_0)p(a_0,a_1)\cdots p(a_{n-1},a_n)$$ where $(a_0,a_1,\cdots,a_n)=\{{\boldsymbol{x}}\in{{\EuScript{X}}^{\mathbb{Z}_+}}\ :\ \omega_i({\boldsymbol{x}})=a_i,\ i=0,\cdots,n\}$. The probability measure $m$ is usually referred to as the initial distribution under ${\mbox{\bf P}}_m$. As usual, we write ${\mbox{\bf E}}_m$ for the expectation operator associated with ${\mbox{\bf P}}_m$, also for $x\in {\EuScript{X}}$ we abbreviate and write ${\mbox{\bf P}}_x,{\mbox{\bf E}}_x$ instead of ${\mbox{\bf P}}_{\delta_x},{\mbox{\bf E}}_{\delta_x}$. Note then that $${\mbox{\bf P}}_m=\sum_x m(x){\mbox{\bf P}}_x,\ \ \ \ {\mbox{\bf E}}_m=\sum_xm(x){\mbox{\bf E}}_x.$$ The triple $({\EuScript{X}},p,m)$ is called a Markov chain on the state space ${\EuScript{X}}$ with the transition function $p$ and the initial distribution $m$.
Harmonic functions
------------------
Suppose that $f:{\EuScript{X}}\to {{\mathbb R}}$ satisfies $\sum_y p(x,y) |f(y)|< \infty$ for all $x\in {\EuScript{X}}$. Then we can define a function $pf:{\EuScript{X}}\to {{\mathbb R}}$ through $$pf(x)=\sum_yp(x,y)f(y).$$ If $pf =f$, then $f$ is called $p$–harmonic. We denote the set of all bounded $p$–harmonic functions and the set of all positive $p$–harmonic functions by $H^{\infty}({\EuScript{X}},p)$ and $H_{+}({\EuScript{X}},p)$, respectively. We also write $H^\infty_+({\EuScript{X}},p)$ for the convex cone of bounded positive harmonic functions.
Harmonic sequences {#Z}
------------------
A sequence of functions $(f_n:n\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+)$, where $f_n: {\EuScript{X}}\to{{\mathbb R}}$, is called a $p$–harmonic sequence whenever $$pf_{n+1}=f_n.$$ The space $p$–harmonic sequence is denoted by $S({\EuScript{X}},p)$, while the subspace of bounded $p$–harmonic sequences, and nonnegative $p$–harmonic sequences are denoted by $S^{\infty}({\EuScript{X}},p)$ and $S_+({\EuScript{X}},p)$, respectively. If $f$ is a nonnegative $p$–harmonic, then $(f,f,\dots)$ is a nonnegative $p$–harmonic sequence. Harmonic sequences sometimes are called space–time harmonic functions. Indeed, given a $p$–harmonic sequence $(f_n:n\in{{\mathbb Z}}_+)$, define a function $f:{\EuScript{X}}\times {{\mathbb Z}}_+\to {{\mathbb R}}$ by letting $f(x,n)=f_n(x)$. Now if one defines a transition function $p^+$ on ${\EuScript{X}}\times {{\mathbb Z}}_+$ by letting $$p^+((x,n),(y,n+1))=p(x,y),$$ then $p^+ f = f$. Conversely, if $f$ is $p^+$–harmonic, then $(f(x,0),f(x,1),\dots)$ is a $p$-harmonic sequence. In terms of notation, ${{{\mathcal S}}}({\EuScript{X}},p)=H({\EuScript{X}}\times {{\mathbb Z}}_+,p^+)$. For $(x,t)\in {\EuScript{X}}\times{{\mathbb Z}}_+$, write ${\mbox{\bf P}}_{x,t}$ for the probability measure on the space of sample paths on ${\EuScript{X}}\times {{\mathbb Z}}_+$ induced by $p^+$ with initial distribution $\delta_{x,t}$. A sample path in that space will be written as $\boldsymbol z=(z_0,z_1,\cdots)$.
Poisson boundary {#sec:Poisson}
----------------
Let $S:{{\EuScript{X}}^{\mathbb{Z}_+}}\to{{\EuScript{X}}^{\mathbb{Z}_+}}$ be the time-shift, that is $$S(x_0,x_1,\cdots)=(x_1,x_2,\cdots),$$ and for $k\ge 1$ write $S^k$ for the $k$-th iteration of $S$, i.e, $S^k (x_0,x_2,\cdots) =(x_k,x_{k+1},\cdots)$. The sigma-algebra ${\mathcal{I}}=\{A\in\mathcal F^\infty\ :\ S^{-1}A=A\}$ is called the invariant sigma-algebra. Let $\theta$ be a probability measure on ${\EuScript{X}}$ with full support, that is $\theta(x)>0$ for all $x\in {\EuScript{X}}$. Let $\overline{{\mathcal{I}}}({\EuScript{X}},p)$ denote the completion of ${{{\mathcal I}}}$ with respect to the probability measure ${\mbox{\bf P}}_{\theta}$. As can be easily seen, this completion is equivalent to requiring that whenever $A\subseteq {{\EuScript{X}}^{\mathbb{Z}_+}}$ is such that $A\subseteq B$ for some $ B \in{{{\mathcal F}}^\infty}$, satisfying ${\mbox{\bf P}}_x (B) = 0$ for all $x\in {\EuScript{X}}$, then $A$ is measurable with respect to the completion. Therefore $\overline{{{\mathcal I}}}({\EuScript{X}},p)$ is independent of the particular choice of $\theta$. The Poisson boundary is defined as the restriction of $({{\EuScript{X}}^{\mathbb{Z}_+}},{{\mathcal F}}^\infty,{\mbox{\bf P}}_{\theta})$ to $\overline{{\mathcal{I}}}({\EuScript{X}},p)$. Denote the Poisson boundary with respect to the transition function $p$ as $\mathcal{PB}({\EuScript{X}},p):=({\EuScript{X}}^{{{\mathbb Z}}_+}, \overline{{\mathcal{I}}}({\EuScript{X}},p), {\mbox{\bf P}}_\theta)$. As an ergodic theoretic object, the Poisson boundary is identified with the space of ergodic components of the time-shift on the space of sample paths [@Kaimanovich91].
The Poisson boundary identifies the space of bounded harmonic functions. More precisely, let $f$ be a bounded $p$–harmonic function, define
$$\label{eq:martin-approach}
\begin{array}{rcl}
H^\infty({\EuScript{X}}, p) &\longrightarrow &L^\infty(\mathcal{PB}({\EuScript{X}},p))\\
f &\longmapsto& \phi_f({\boldsymbol{x}}):= \displaystyle\lim_{n\to\infty} f(x_n) \ \mbox{ a.e.}
\end{array}$$
Because $f$ is a bounded $p$–harmonic function, the sequence $(f(x_n))_{n}$ is ${\mbox{\bf P}}_\theta$–martingale, therefore $\phi_f(x)$ almost surely exists. Because $\overline{{\mathcal{I}}}({\EuScript{X}},p)$ is a complete sigma–algebra, $\phi_f$ is measurable with respect to the probability space ${\mathcal{PB}}({\EuScript{X}},p)$. We can define the inverse as follows. $$\label{eq: bounded-infinity}
\begin{array}{rcl}
L^\infty({\mathcal{PB}}({\EuScript{X}},p)) &\longrightarrow &H^\infty({\EuScript{X}}, p) \\
\phi &\longmapsto& f_\phi(x):= \int \phi({\boldsymbol{x}}) \ d{\mbox{\bf P}}_x({\boldsymbol{x}})
\end{array}$$ Moreover the definitions of $\phi_f$ and $f_\phi$ imply that $\|f\|_\infty=\|\phi_f\|_\infty$, hence $H^\infty({\EuScript{X}},p)$ is isometrically isomorphic to $L^\infty({\mathcal{PB}}({\EuScript{X}},p))$, see also Corollary \[cor:isometry\].
Tail boundary
-------------
Consider the tail sigma–algebra ${\mathcal{T}}=\displaystyle\bigcap_{k=0}^{\infty}S^{-k}({{\mathcal F}}^\infty)$ on the space of sample paths. The completion of ${\mathcal{T}}$ with respect to ${\mbox{\bf P}}_\theta$, where $\theta$ is as in the last paragraph, is denoted by $\ol{\mathcal{T}}({\EuScript{X}},p)$. The tail boundary is the restriction of $({{\EuScript{X}}^{\mathbb{Z}_+}},{{\mathcal F}},{\mbox{\bf P}}_{\theta})$ to the sigma-algebra $\ol{\mathcal{T}}({\EuScript{X}},p)$. The tail boundary associated with the transition function $p$ is denoted by ${\mathcal{TB}}({\EuScript{X}},p):=({\EuScript{X}}^{{{\mathbb Z}}_+}, \overline{{\mathcal{T}}}({\EuScript{X}},p), {\mbox{\bf P}}_\theta))$. Similarly to the Poisson boundary, the space of bounded $p$–harmonic sequences $S^\infty({\EuScript{X}},p)$ is isometrically isomorphic to $L^\infty({\mathcal{TB}}({\EuScript{X}},p))$: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
S^\infty({\EuScript{X}}, p) &\longrightarrow &L^\infty({\mathcal{TB}}({\EuScript{X}},p))\\
F=(f_n)_n &\longmapsto& \psi_F({\boldsymbol{x}}):= \displaystyle\lim_{n\to\infty} f_n(x_n)\ a.e
\end{array}$$ Using the fact that the space of bounded $p^+$–harmonic functions can be viewed as the space of bounded $p$–harmonic functions implies $H^\infty({\EuScript{X}}\times {{\mathbb Z}}_+,p^+)$ is isometrically isomorphic to $L^\infty({\mathcal{TB}}({\EuScript{X}},p))$. On the other hand, $H^\infty({\EuScript{X}}\times {{\mathbb Z}}_+,p^+)$ is isometrically isomorphic to $L^\infty({\mathcal{PB}}({\EuScript{X}}\times{{\mathbb Z}}_+,p^+))$. Summarizing: we have $L^\infty({\mathcal{TB}}({\EuScript{X}},p))$ is isometrically isomorphic to $L^\infty({\mathcal{PB}}({\EuScript{X}}\times{{\mathbb Z}}_+,p^+))$. Therefore, the tail boundary associated with $p$ is isomorphic (as a probability space) to the Poisson boundary associated with $p^+$, for more details see [@Ka92; @Kaimanovich1996]
$$\begin{tikzcd}
H^\infty({\EuScript{X}}\times{{\mathbb Z}}_+,p^+)\arrow[r, "\cong"] & S^\infty({\EuScript{X}},p) \dar{\cong} \\
L^\infty({\mathcal{PB}}({\EuScript{X}}\times{{\mathbb Z}}_+,p^+)) \arrow[u, "\cong"] & L^\infty({\mathcal{TB}}({\EuScript{X}},p))
\end{tikzcd}$$
Viewing the Poisson boundary as representing the bounded harmonic functions, the tail boundary as representing the bounded harmonic sequences, and using the fact that every harmonic function uniquely extends to a harmonic sequence, we can think of the Poisson boundary as a subset on the tail boundary. We will not get into any details here. However, we have the following:
$$\begin{tikzcd}
H^\infty({\EuScript{X}},p)\arrow[r, hook] & S^\infty({\EuScript{X}},p) \dar{\cong} \\
L^\infty({\mathcal{PB}}({\EuScript{X}},p)) \arrow[u, "\cong"] & L^\infty({\mathcal{TB}}({\EuScript{X}},p))
\end{tikzcd}$$
A transition function of a Markov chain is called steady whenever the tail boundary coincides mod ${\mbox{\bf P}}_x$ with the Poisson boundary for any $x$ in ${\EuScript{X}}$, and, in particular, all bounded harmonic sequences are bounded harmonic functions. The “0-2” law determines whether a transition function is steady, see [@Ka92] for more details. Here is one sufficient condition:
For $x\in {\EuScript{X}}$, let $g_x = \inf \{n\ge 1: p^n(x,x)>0\}$. Then $p$ is steady if the greatest common divisor of $\{g_x>0:x\in {\EuScript{X}}\}$ is $1$.
Martin boundary {#sec:martin_boundary}
---------------
The relation between the Poisson and the tail boundaries to the invariant and tail sigma-algebras allow to characterize the space of bounded harmonic functions and bounded harmonic sequences, respectively. We now introduce the Martin boundary, a topological boundary also used to characterize positive harmonic functions (Theorem \[th:doob59\] below), and which is more suitable for our purposes. We comment that the Poisson boundary can be identified as a subset of the Martin topology equipped with an appropriate probability measure [@Kaimanovich1996], [@Sawyer1997], and [@Woess09], also see Corollary \[cor:isometry\] below. One can refer to [@Derriennic1976], [@Kaimanovich1996], [@Sawyer1997] and [@Woess09] for the construction of Martin boundary. In this section, we remind the reader about the definition of the Martin boundary and related results which will be used later.
Let $p$ be a transition function on ${\EuScript{X}}$. The transition function is called transient whenever the Green’s function $G^p(x,y)=\sum_{n\geq0}p^n(x,y)$ is finite for all $x,y\in {\EuScript{X}}$, $p^n$ is the $n$-th iteration of $p$, defined in .
We always make the following assumption on $p$:
\[as:required\]
1. $p$ is transient.
2. There exists a state $o$ such that all $y \in {\EuScript{X}}-\{o\}$ are accessible from $o$: $$G^p(o,y)>0\mbox{ for all }y\in {\EuScript{X}}.$$
We also define the [*Martin kernel*]{} on ${\EuScript{X}}\times {\EuScript{X}}$ $$K^p(x,y)=\begin{cases} \frac{G^p(x,y)}{G^p(o,y)} & G^p(o,y)>0 \\ 0 & \mbox{otherwise}\end{cases}$$ The [*Martin compactification*]{} of ${\EuScript{X}}$ is the topological space $M({\EuScript{X}},p)$
satisfying the following requirements:
1. Every singleton $\{x\},~x\in {\EuScript{X}}$, is open.
2. ${\EuScript{X}}$ is dense.
3. For $x\in {\EuScript{X}}$, the function $K^p(x,\cdot)$ extends to a continuous function on $M({\EuScript{X}},p) $, and the set of extensions separate points in $M({\EuScript{X}},p) \backslash {\EuScript{X}}$.
These requirements uniquely determine a compact topological space (up to homeomorphism). Furthermore, the resulting space is metrizable [@Woess09]. The compact topological space $\partial({\EuScript{X}},p)=M({\EuScript{X}},p) \backslash {\EuScript{X}}$ is called the *Martin boundary* of the Markov chain with respect to the transition function $p$.
The *minimal Martin boundary* is the Borel subset $\partial_m({\EuScript{X}},p)$ of $\partial({\EuScript{X}},p)$ consisting of all $\xi$ satisfying
1. $K^p(\cdot, \xi) \in H_+({\EuScript{X}},p)$.
2. $K^p(\cdot,\xi)$ is [*minimal harmonic*]{}: if $u\in H_+({\EuScript{X}},p)$ and $u \le K^p(\cdot,\xi)$, then $u = c K^p(\cdot, \xi)$ for some $c\le 1$.
[@Doob59]\[th:doob59\] Let $u\in H_+({\EuScript{X}},p)$. Then there exists a unique finite measure $\mu_u$ on the Borel sigma-algebra on $\partial_m({\EuScript{X}},p)$ such that $$u(x)=\int_{{\partial}_m({\EuScript{X}},p)}K^p(x,\xi)d\mu_u(\xi).$$
The measure $\mu_u$ is called the representation of $u$. Since $K^p(o,\xi)=1$ for all $\xi\in \partial_m ({\EuScript{X}},p)$, we have that $u(o) = \mu_u (\partial_m({\EuScript{X}},p))$. Note that we can consider $\mu_u$ as a finite measure on the compact metric space $\partial ({\EuScript{X}},p)$, by letting $\mu_u(\partial ({\EuScript{X}},p)-\partial_m({\EuScript{X}},p))=0$. A special role is reserved for $\mu_{\bf 1}$ the representation of the constant function ${\bf 1}$. This is due to the following two results:
\[cor:isometry\] The mapping $T$ given by $$\label{eq:mapping} (T f)(x) = \int_{\partial_m({\EuScript{X}},p)} K^p(x,\xi) f (\xi) d\mu_{\bf 1}.$$ defines a linear isometry from $L^\infty(\mu_1)$ onto $H^\infty ({\EuScript{X}},p)$ and also $L^\infty(\mathcal{PB}({\EuScript{X}},p))$.
The right-hand side of defines a linear mapping from $L^\infty(\mu_{\bf 1})$ to the linear space of bounded real-valued functions on ${\EuScript{X}}$ equipped with the $\sup$-norm. Also, $$|Tf(x) | \le \|f\|_\infty \int_{\partial_m({\EuScript{X}},p)} K^p(x,\xi) d \mu_{\bf 1}(\xi) = \|f\|_\infty.$$ Therefore $\|Tf \|_\infty \le \|f\|_\infty$. By dominated convergence, $$p (T f)(x) = \int_{\partial_m({\EuScript{X}},p)}\sum_y p(x,y) K^p(y,\xi) f (\xi) d \mu_{\bf 1}(\xi)= \int_{\partial_m({\EuScript{X}},p)} K^p(x,\xi) f(\xi) d \mu_{\bf 1} (\xi)=(Tf)(x),$$ therefore $Tf \in H^\infty ({\EuScript{X}},p)$. Next we show that $T$ is an isometry. Suppose first that $f\in L^\infty(\mu_{\bf 1})$ is nonnegative, and let $u = Tf$. Then since $\|u\|_{\infty}{\bf 1}-u$ and $u$ are both in $H_+({\EuScript{X}},p)$, it follows from the uniqueness assertion in Theorem \[th:doob59\], that $\|u\|_\infty \mu_{\bf 1} =\mu_{ \|u\|_{\infty}{\bf 1}-u}+ \mu_u$, the sum of two positive measures. Therefore, not only $\mu_u \ll \mu_{\bf 1}$, but also, $0\le \frac{ d \mu_u}{d \mu_{\bf 1}} \le \|u\|_\infty$. Since $\frac{d \mu_u}{d\mu_{\bf 1} } =f$, we have $\|f\|_\infty \le \|u\|_\infty$. In the case of signed $f$, this means $$\| \left . \|f\|_\infty{\bf 1} \pm f\right. \|_\infty \le \| \left. \|f\|_\infty {\bf 1} \pm Tf \right.\|_\infty.$$ The righthand side is bounded above by $\|f\|_\infty + \|Tf \|_\infty$. As for the left hand side, we can choose the sign so that the norm is equal to $2\|f\|_\infty$. Therefore, $\|Tf \|_\infty \ge \|f\|_\infty$, and since the reverse inequality is already established, $T$ is an isometry. Finally, we show that $T$ is onto. If $v\in H^\infty_+({\EuScript{X}},p)$, then as already seen, $\mu_v \ll \mu_{\bf 1}$, and $\frac{d\mu_v}{d\mu_{\bf 1}} \in L^\infty(\mu_{\bf 1})$, so that $v$ is in the range of $T$. If $u \in H^\infty({\EuScript{X}},p)$, then we can write it as a difference of two elements in $H^\infty_+({\EuScript{X}},p)$, i.e, $u=(\|u\|_\infty{\bf 1} + u) - \|u\|_{\infty}$. Therefore, $u$ is also in the range of $T$.
[@Dynkin69; @Woess09] \[th:limits\]
1. There exists a $\partial({\EuScript{X}},p)$-valued random variable $x_\infty$ such that for ${\mbox{\bf P}}_x$-a.s. sample path $\lim_{n\to\infty} x_n=x_\infty $ is in the Martin topology for all $x$ in ${\EuScript{X}}$.
2. The random variable $x_\infty$ is supported on $\partial_m({\EuScript{X}},p)$ and for every measurable set $A$ in $\partial_m({\EuScript{X}},p)$, $${\mbox{\bf P}}_x (x_\infty \in A) = \int_A K^p(x,\xi) d \mu_{\bf 1} (\xi).$$
Transformed Markov chains {#sec:transformed}
=========================
Stopping time {#sec:stopped_process}
-------------
A measurable function $\tau:{\EuScript{X}}^{{{\mathbb Z}}_+}\to {{\mathbb Z}}_+\cup\{\infty\}$ is called stopping time, if for every $k\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+$, the set $\{ {\boldsymbol{x}}: \tau({\boldsymbol{x}})=k\}$ is a measurable set in the sigma-algebra generated by the first $k+1$ coordinate function $\sigma(\omega_0,\omega_1,\cdots\omega_k)$. In what follows, we will assume that $$\label{eq:finiteness}
{\mbox{\bf P}}_x(\tau < \infty)=1 \mbox{ for all }x\in {\EuScript{X}}.$$ Given a stopping time $\tau$ satisfying , a nondecreasing sequence is induced by iteration: $$\tau_0 =0,\ \ ~\tau_1=\tau,\ \ \tau_{n+1} = \begin{cases} \tau_n + \tau \circ S^{\tau_n} & \tau_n <\infty; \\ \infty & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{cases}$$ With this sequence, we obtain a transformed process ${\boldsymbol{x}}^{\tau}=(y_n({\boldsymbol{x}}):n\in{{\mathbb Z}}_+)$ given by $y_n = x_{\tau_n}$. By the strong Markov property, see [@Revuz1984], $${\mbox{\bf P}}( x_{\tau_{n+1}}=z | \sigma(x_{\tau_1}\cdots,x_{\tau_n} )) = {\mbox{\bf P}}_{y_n} (x_{\tau} = z).$$ Therefore ${\boldsymbol{x}}^{\tau}$ is a Markov chain with the transition function $$p^{\tau}(x,y)={\mbox{\bf P}}_x (x_{\tau} = y).$$
Note that Doob’s optional stopping theorem implies that for any stopping time $\tau$, we can write $$H^{\infty}({\EuScript{X}},p)\subseteq H^{\infty}({\EuScript{X}},p^\tau).$$ Similarly, $$H^{\infty}({\EuScript{X}}\times{{\mathbb Z}}_+,p^+)\subseteq H^{\infty}({\EuScript{X}}\times{{\mathbb Z}}_+,(p^{+})^\tau).$$
Let ${\mbox{\bf P}}^\tau$ denote the probability measure on the space of sample paths with respect to the transition function $p^\tau$. We could map almost every sample path with respect to $p$ to a sample path with respect to $p^\tau$: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
({\EuScript{X}}^{{{\mathbb Z}}_+},{\mbox{\bf P}}_\theta)&\longrightarrow &({\EuScript{X}}^{{{\mathbb Z}}_+},{\mbox{\bf P}}^\tau_\theta)\\
{\boldsymbol{x}}=(x_n)_n &\longmapsto & {\boldsymbol{x}}_\tau:=(x_{\tau_n})_n,
\end{array}$$ which implies $L^\infty({\mathcal{PB}}({\EuScript{X}},p))$ is isomorphic to a subspace of $L^\infty({\mathcal{PB}}({\EuScript{X}},p^\tau))$.
Consider the following:
\[as:asymp\] There exists a mapping $\rho:{{\EuScript{X}}}^{{{\mathbb Z}}_+}\to {{\mathbb Z}}_+$ such that $$\displaystyle\limsup_{n\to\infty} \inf_{x} {\mbox{\bf P}}_x (\rho_n ({\boldsymbol{x}}) \in \langle \tau({\boldsymbol{x}}) \rangle)=1,$$ where $\rho_n({{\boldsymbol{x}}}) = n + \rho \circ S^n({{\boldsymbol{x}}})$ and $\langle \tau({\boldsymbol{x}}) \rangle=(\tau_0({\boldsymbol{x}}),\tau_1({\boldsymbol{x}}),\cdots)$.
In order to be able to employ the tools from the last section, we need to insure that $p^\tau$ satisfies the conditions of Assumption \[as:required\]. We observe that if ${\boldsymbol{x}}$ (equivalently, $p$) is transient then so is ${\boldsymbol{x}}^\tau$ (equivalently $p^\tau$).
If $p$ is transient, then so is $p^\tau$. Furthermore, for all $x$ and $y\in {\EuScript{X}}$, we have $G^{p^\tau}(x,y) \le G^p(x,y)$.
Transience of $p^\tau$ is equivalent to ${\boldsymbol{x}}^\tau$ visiting each state finitely often under ${\mbox{\bf P}}_x$ for all $x\in {\EuScript{X}}$. Since this holds for ${\boldsymbol{x}}$, and the paths of ${\boldsymbol{x}}^\tau$ are subsequences of ${\boldsymbol{x}}$ both statements hold.
Note that $p^\tau$ may, in general, not satisfy the second condition in Assumption \[as:required\]. For example let ${\EuScript{X}}={{\mathbb Z}}_+$, the set of nonnegative integers and let $p(n,n+1)=1$, then $G^p(0,n)=1>0$ for any natural number $n$. If we consider the stopping time $\tau=2$, then for any $n\in{{\mathbb Z}}_+$, $G^{p^{\tau}}(m,n)>0$ if and only if $n-m \in 2{{\mathbb Z}}_+$. Therefore there does not exist $m\in{{\mathbb Z}}_+$ such that $G^{p^{\tau}}(m,n)>0$ for all $n\in{{\mathbb Z}}_+$. In Section \[sec : extension\], we will remedy this by expanding the state space.
The extension {#sec : extension}
=============
Assumption \[as:asymp\] does not warrant that $p^\tau$ satisfies the second condition of Assumption \[as:required\] which is required for defining the Martin boundary. If it does, we need not do anything. Otherwise, we need to introduce the following completion.
Our starting point is a transition function $p$ on ${\EuScript{X}}$ satisfying Assumption \[as:required\], and a stopping time $\tau$ for $p$ satisfying Assumption \[as:asymp\].
The first step is to append a state to ${\EuScript{X}}$, and extend $p$ to the new resulting extended state space. Let ${\EuScript{X}}^* = {\EuScript{X}}\cup\{*\}$, where $*$ is a state not in ${\EuScript{X}}$. Let $\theta$ be any probability measure on ${\EuScript{X}}^*$ with $\theta(x)>0$ for all $x\in {\EuScript{X}}$ and $\theta(*)=0$. Extend $p$ to ${\EuScript{X}}^*$ by letting $$p^*(x,y) = \begin{cases} p(x,y)& ~x,y\in {\EuScript{X}}\\
\theta(y)& x=* \\
0 & \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ We write ${\boldsymbol{x}}^*$ for the corresponding Makrov chain. Clearly $p^*$ satisfies both conditions in Assumption \[as:required\] with ${\EuScript{X}}$ replaced by ${\EuScript{X}}^*$ and $o=*$. We also write ${\mbox{\bf P}}^*_x $ and ${\mbox{\bf E}}^*_x$ for the distribution and corresponding expectation associated with ${\boldsymbol{x}}^*$, starting from $x$ in ${\EuScript{X}}^*$. Note that for any $x\in {\EuScript{X}}$, we have ${\mbox{\bf P}}^*_x$ is supported on ${\EuScript{X}}$-valued sequences and coincides with ${\mbox{\bf P}}_x$. It could be therefore viewed as an extension of ${\mbox{\bf P}}_x$.
This extension preserves the space of bounded harmonic functions:
Let $f$ be a bounded function on ${\EuScript{X}}$. Then, $f$ is $p$–harmonic if and only there exists a unique bounded function $f^*$ on ${\EuScript{X}}^*$ such that
1. $f^*$ is an extension of $f$, that is $f^*(x)=f(x)$ for all $x$ in ${\EuScript{X}}$,
2. $f^*$ is $p^*$–harmonic.
It is enough to define $f^*(*) = \sum_{y\in {\EuScript{X}}} \theta(y) f(y)$ and $f^*(x)=f(x)$ for any $x$ in ${\EuScript{X}}$. Them $f^*$ is an extension of $f$ and a bounded $p^*$–harmonic. The reverse direction is clear.
Next we extend the stopping time $\tau$ to ${\EuScript{X}}^*$-valued sequences by setting $$\tau^*({\boldsymbol{x}}^*) = \begin{cases} \tau({\boldsymbol{x}}^*)&\mbox{if } x_0^*,x_1^*,\dots \in {\EuScript{X}}\\
1+ \tau(x_1^*,x_2^*,\dots)&\mbox{if } x_0^*=*,x_1^*,x_2^*,\dots \in {\EuScript{X}}\\
\min\{j:x_j^*= *\}& \mbox{ otherwise}
\end{cases}$$
It immediately follows that $\tau^*$ is a stopping time for ${\boldsymbol{x}}^*$. Note that under ${\mbox{\bf P}}_x^*$ for $x\in {\EuScript{X}}$, we have $\tau^*=\tau$ a.s. Furthermore, if $x\in {\EuScript{X}}^*$, then $\tau^*$ is finite a.s. ${\mbox{\bf P}}^*_x$. As a result, and similarly to the definition of $p^\tau$, we have an induced transition function $(p^*)^{\tau^*}$, defined as follows: $$(p^*)^{\tau^*} (x,y) = {\mbox{\bf P}}_x^* ({\boldsymbol{x}}^*_{\tau^*}=y) = \begin{cases} p^{\tau}(x,y) & x,y \in {\EuScript{X}}\\ \sum_{x'}\theta(x') p^\tau(x',y) & x =*,y \in {\EuScript{X}}\\
0 & \mbox{otherwise} \end{cases}$$
We will write ${\boldsymbol{y}}^*$ for the induced chain, that is $y^*_n = {\boldsymbol{x}}^*_{\tau^*_n},~n\in{{\mathbb Z}}_+,$ where, $$\tau^*_0=0\ \mbox{ and }\ \tau^*_{n+1} = \tau^*_n+\tau^*\circ S^{\tau^*_n}$$ Finally, we restrict $(p^*)^{\tau^*}$ to $\widehat {\EuScript{X}}$, the subset of all states which can be reached from any state under $(p^*)^{\tau^*}$ and the state $*$. More precisely, $\widehat {\EuScript{X}}$, defined as follows: $$\widehat{\EuScript{X}}= \{y \in {\EuScript{X}}^*: (p^*)^{\tau^*}(x,y) >0\mbox{ for some }x\in {\EuScript{X}}^* \}\cup\{*\}.$$ Equivalently, $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat {\EuScript{X}}& = \{y\in {\EuScript{X}}: p^{\tau}(x,y)>0\mbox{ for some }x \in {\EuScript{X}}\}\cup \{*\}.
\end{aligned}$$
Denote the restriction of $(p^*)^{\tau^*}$ to $\widehat {\EuScript{X}}$ by ${\widehat{p^\tau}}$. The sample paths with respect to the transition function ${\widehat{p^\tau}}$ will be denoted by $\widehat{\boldsymbol{y}}=(\widehat y_0,\widehat y_1,\widehat y_3,\cdots)$. By construction, the Markov chain associated with the transition function ${\widehat{p^\tau}}$ on $\widehat {\EuScript{X}}$ satisfies Assumption \[as:required\].
Main Result {#sec:main}
===========
We are ready to state our main results.
\[th:newmain\] Suppose that $p$ is a transition function on ${\EuScript{X}}$ satisfying Assumption \[as:required\] and that $\tau$ is a stopping time on ${\EuScript{X}}$-valued sequences satisfying Assumption \[as:asymp\]. Then for any $0\le u \in H^\infty ({\EuScript{X}},p^\tau)$, there exists a function $\bar{u}$ on ${\EuScript{X}}\times {{\mathbb Z}}_+$ such that
1. ${\bar u}(x,0)=u(x),~x\in {\EuScript{X}}$.
2. $0\le {\bar u}\in S^\infty ({\EuScript{X}},p)$.
3. $\|{\bar u} \|_\infty =\|u\|_\infty$.
Note that if $p$ is steady, then $u(x)= {\bar u}(x,t)$ for all $t\in{{\mathbb Z}}_+$ hence the embedding in the theorem gives $u\in H^\infty({\EuScript{X}},p)$.
To introduce the next result, recall that that the support of a Borel measure $\mu$ on a metric space $(M,d)$, $\mbox{Supp}(\mu)$, is defined as $$\mbox{Supp}(\mu) = \{y\in M: \mu (U) >0 \mbox{ if } U\mbox{ is open and }y\in U\}.$$ By definition, the support is closed and its complement is a $\mu$-null set.
We say that a transition function $p$ on ${\EuScript{X}}$ has a locally finite range if for every $x\in{\EuScript{X}}$, the set $\{y\in{\EuScript{X}}:p(x,y)>0\}$ is finite.
\[th:martin\] Suppose that $p$ is a transition function on ${\EuScript{X}}$ with locally finite range satisfying Assumption \[as:required\], and that $\tau$ is a stopping time on ${\EuScript{X}}$-valued sequences satisfying Assumption \[as:asymp\].
Let $u\in H_+(\widehat{{\EuScript{X}}},{\widehat {p^\tau}})$ be such that $\mbox{Supp}(\mu_u^{\widehat{p^\tau}})\subseteq \mbox{Supp}(\mu_{\bf 1}^{\widehat{p^\tau}})$.
Then there exists a function ${\bar u}$ on ${\EuScript{X}}\times {{\mathbb Z}}_+$ such that
1. ${\bar u}(x,0)=u(x),~x \in {\EuScript{X}}$.
2. ${\bar u}\in S_+({\EuScript{X}},p)$.
The assumption on the support of $u$ is needed to ensure that one can approximate $u$ through bounded harmonic functions. We need the local finite range assumption to show that pointwise limits of the approximating sequence are indeed harmonic sequences, avoiding a strict inequality in Fatou’s lemma. As for the assumption on the support of the measures, it is known that for random walks on regular trees the support of any harmonic function coincides with the minimal Martin boundary ([@Sawyer1997 Section 8]). Nevertheless, the assumption on the support of a positive harmonic function does not hold in general, even for transition functions with locally finite range ([@Sawyer1997 Sections 6,7]).
We now prove two lemmas we will use to prove Theorem \[th:newmain\]. The lemmas will be followed by the proof of the Theorem \[th:newmain\] and the proof of Theorem \[th:martin\].
\[lem:inv\_to\_tail\] Under the conditions of Theorem \[th:newmain\], for $A \in \partial({\widehat {\EuScript{X}}}, \widehat {p^\tau})$ there exists $I_A\in {{{\mathcal T}}} ({\EuScript{X}}^*,p^*)$ such that $$\label{eq:inv_in_tail} \{\lim_{n\to\infty} y^*_n \in A\} = I_A,~{\mbox{\bf P}}_x-a.s. \mbox{ for all }x\in {\widehat {\EuScript{X}}}-\{*\}.$$ Furthermore, if $A$ and $A'$ are disjoint, $I_A$ and $I_{A'}$ are disjoint.
We split the proof of the lemma into two parts. In the first part, we show that holds for all $A$ which are intersection of $\partial( \widehat{\EuScript{X}}, {\widehat{p^\tau}})$ with an open ball (in the Martin topology on $\widehat {\EuScript{X}}$ relative to the transition function ${\widehat{p^\tau}}$), centered at a point in $\partial( \widehat{\EuScript{X}}, {\widehat{p^\tau}})$. Once this is proved, we show how the lemma extends to all Borel (in the subspace topology) subsets of $\partial(\widehat {\EuScript{X}}, {\widehat{p^\tau}})$.
We begin with the first part. Let $B_\epsilon(\zeta)$ be a neighborhood of $\zeta$ in $\partial( \widehat{\EuScript{X}}, {\widehat{p^\tau}})$ with radius $\epsilon$. Since the topology on $\partial(\widehat {\EuScript{X}}, {\widehat{p^\tau}})$ is the induced topology from the compact metric space $\widehat{\EuScript{X}}\cup \partial( \widehat{\EuScript{X}}, {\widehat{p^\tau}})$, a basis for the topology on $\partial( \widehat{\EuScript{X}}, {\widehat{p^\tau}}) $ is the collection of sets of the form
$$\label{eq:special_As}
A = B_\epsilon(\zeta)\cap \partial( \widehat{\EuScript{X}}, {\widehat{p^\tau}})\mbox{ for some } \epsilon>0\mbox{ and }\zeta \in \partial( \widehat{\EuScript{X}}, {\widehat{p^\tau}}).$$
Fix $\zeta$ in $\partial( \widehat{\EuScript{X}}, {\widehat{p^\tau}})
$ and $\epsilon>0$. Let $A = B_\epsilon(\zeta) \cap \partial( \widehat{\EuScript{X}}, {\widehat{p^\tau}})$ and let $B = B_\epsilon(\zeta) \cap \widehat {\EuScript{X}}$. Clearly, $$\{ \widehat y_\infty \in A\}=\{x^*_{\tau_n}\in B \mbox{ eventually}\}$$ because by definition, $x^*_{\tau_n} = \widehat y_n$ for $n\in{{\mathbb Z}}_+$. Denote the event on the right hand side by $B_\infty$. Therefore instead of dealing with the event on the left hand side, we will work with $B_\infty$. Let $$K_n = \left\{{\boldsymbol{x}}: \rho_n({\boldsymbol{x}}) \not\in \langle \tau({\boldsymbol{x}})\rangle\right\}.$$ By assumption, there exists a subsequence $(n_i:i\in{{\mathbb N}})$ such that $$\sum_{i} {\mbox{\bf P}}_x(K_{n_i})<\infty,~x\in {\EuScript{X}}.$$ Therefore the event $\Gamma=\{K_{n_i} \mbox{ finitely often}\}$ has ${\mbox{\bf P}}_x (\Gamma)=1$ for all $x\in {\EuScript{X}}$. Write $\Gamma_x = \Gamma \cap \{x_0=x\}$. For each $i$, let $\rho_{i,0} = \rho_{n_i}$, and continue inductively, $$\rho_{i,j+1} = \rho_{i,j} + \tau^* \circ S^{\rho_{i,j}}.$$ Observe then that $\rho_{i,j}$ are all ${{{\mathcal F}}}_{n_i}^\infty({\EuScript{X}}^*)$-measurable. Let $$C_{i} = \bigcap_{j\in{{\mathbb Z}}_+} \left\{x^*_{\rho_{i,j}} \in B\right\}$$ and $C=\limsup C_i = \cap_{k=1}^\infty \cup_{i\ge k} C_i.$ Therefore $\cup_{i\ge k} C_i \in {{{\mathcal F}}}_{n_i}^\infty({\EuScript{X}}^*)$, and since this union is decreasing in $k$, it follows that $C$ belongs to ${{{\mathcal F}}}_{n_k}^\infty({\EuScript{X}}^*)=S^{-n_k} ({{{\mathcal F}}}^\infty({\EuScript{X}}^*))$ for all $k\in{{\mathbb N}}$, that is $C\in {{{\mathcal T}}} ({\EuScript{X}}^*)$. Clearly, on $\Gamma_x$, $C$ implies $B_\infty$, and conversely, on $\Gamma_x$, $B_\infty$ implies $C$. Therefore, $$B_\infty = C,~{\mbox{\bf P}}_x-\mbox{ a.s.,}~x \in\widehat{\EuScript{X}}-\{*\}.$$ This proves for the particular choice of $A$, with $I_A = C$. Note that by construction, if $A$ and $A'$ are disjoint, so are the corresponding $C$ and $C'$.
We continue to the second part. Under the subspace topology, $\partial(\widehat {\EuScript{X}},{\widehat{p^\tau}})$ is a compact metric space. Therefore it is separable and every open set is a countable union of such sets from this basis, and every compact subset is a complement of such a countable union. In particular, it follows from the first stage that for any compact set $K\in \partial(\widehat {\EuScript{X}},{\widehat{p^\tau}})$, there exists $I_K\in \ol{\mathcal{T}}({\EuScript{X}}^*,{p^*})$, such that $$\{\widehat y_\infty \in K\}= I_K,~{\mbox{\bf P}}_x-\mbox{a.s., for all }x\in \widehat{\EuScript{X}}-\{*\}.$$
Note that $\mu_{\bf 1}^{{\widehat{p^\tau}}}$ is a probability measure on a compact metric space (due to extension explained below Theorem \[th:doob59\]), it is regular. So for a fixed Borel set $A \subseteq\partial(\widehat {\EuScript{X}},{\widehat{p^\tau}})$, there exists an increasing sequence $(Q_j:j\ge 1)$ such that for any $j$ the set $Q_j$ is a compact subsets of $\partial( \widehat {\EuScript{X}}, {\widehat{p^\tau}})$ and $\mu_{\bf 1}^{{\widehat{p^\tau}}} (A-Q_j) \to 0$. Now $ \{\widehat y_\infty \in \cup Q_j \}=\cup \{\widehat y_\infty \in Q_j\}$, and therefore, there exists $I_{H} \in {{{\mathcal T}}} ({\EuScript{X}}^*,p^*)$ such that $$\{\widehat y_\infty \in \cup Q_j\} = I_H,\quad {\mbox{\bf P}}_x-\mbox{a.s.}\quad x \in \widehat {\EuScript{X}}- \{*\}.$$ We also observe that $${\mbox{\bf P}}_x ( \widehat y_\infty \in A -\cup Q_j) = \int_{A-\cup Q_j} K^{{\widehat{p^\tau}}}(x,\zeta)d \mu_{\bf 1}^{{\widehat{p^\tau}}} (\zeta)=0,$$ for $x \in \widehat{\EuScript{X}}$. Note that for $x=*$ or $x\in {\EuScript{X}}- \widehat {\EuScript{X}}$, then $${\mbox{\bf P}}_x (y^*_\infty \in A - \cup Q_j) = \sum_{y\in \widehat{\EuScript{X}}-\{*\}} {{\widehat{p^\tau}}}(x,y){\mbox{\bf P}}_y(\widehat y_\infty \in A -\cup Q_j) =0.$$ By completeness, it follows that the event $\{y^*_\infty \in A - \cup Q_j\}$ is in $\ol{{{{\mathcal T}}}}({\EuScript{X}}^*,p^*)$. From this we conclude that $$\{\widehat y_\infty \in A\}= I_H\quad {\mbox{\bf P}}_x \mbox{-a.s.}\quad x \in \widehat{\EuScript{X}}-\{*\}.$$ This completes the proof of the second part, and of the lemma.
\[lem:supremum\] For $x$ in ${\EuScript{X}}$ and $t$ in ${{\mathbb Z}}_+$, let $v(x,t) = \sum_{i=1}^N c_i {\mbox{\bf P}}_{x,t} (I_{A_i})$, where $c_i\ge 0$ and $A_i\in \partial( \widehat {\EuScript{X}},{\widehat{p^\tau}})$ are disjoint and $I_{A_i}$ is as in Lemma \[lem:inv\_to\_tail\]. Then $$\|v\|_\infty = \sup_{x\in \widehat {\EuScript{X}}-\{*\}}\|v(x,0)\|_{\infty}.$$
Clearly, $\|v \|_\infty \ge \|v(\cdot,0)\|_\infty$. On the other hand, $$v(x,0) = \sum c_i {\mbox{\bf P}}_x (y^*_\infty \in A_i),$$ therefore by Theorem \[th:limits\], $\sup_{x \in \widehat {\EuScript{X}}-\{*\}} v(x,0)=\max c_i$, while $$v(x,t) = \sum c_i {\mbox{\bf P}}_{x,t} (I_{A_i}) \le \max c_i,$$ because $I_{A_i}$ are disjoint, ${\mbox{\bf P}}_{x,t}$-a.s. for all $(x,t)\in {\EuScript{X}}^*\times {{\mathbb Z}}_+$.
Without loss of generality, we can assume that $\theta$ is such that $\sum_{x\in {\EuScript{X}}} \theta (x) u(x)<\infty$. Thus, extend $u$ to ${\EuScript{X}}^*$ by letting $u(*) = \sum_{x\in {\EuScript{X}}} \theta (x) u(x)$, and let $\widehat u$ be the restriction of $u$ to $\widehat {\EuScript{X}}$. By assumption, there exists $0\le f\in L^1(\mu_1^{\widehat {p^\tau}})$ such that $$\widehat u (x) = \int_{\partial_m( \widehat{{\EuScript{X}}} , \widehat{p^\tau})} K^{\widehat{p^\tau}}(x,\zeta) f (\zeta) d \mu_1^{\widehat {p^\tau}}(\zeta).$$ There exists a nondecreasing sequence of nonnegative simple functions $(f_n:n\in{{\mathbb N}})$ on $\partial_m( \widehat{{\EuScript{X}}} , \widehat{p^\tau})$ such that $f_n \nearrow f$. Letting $$\widehat u_n (x) = \int_{\partial_m( \widehat{{\EuScript{X}}} , \widehat{p^\tau})} K^{\widehat{p^\tau}}(x,\zeta) f_n (\zeta) d \mu_1^{\widehat{p^\tau}}(\zeta),$$ it follows from Lemma \[lem:inv\_to\_tail\] that there exists a combination $\sum c_i {\bf 1}_{I_{A_i}}$, $I_{A_i}\in {{{\mathcal T}}} ({\EuScript{X}}^*,p^*)$, such that $$\widehat u_n (x) = \sum c_i {\mbox{\bf P}}_{x,0} (I_{A_i}),\quad x \in \widehat {\EuScript{X}}-\{*\}.$$
Let $v_n(x,t) = \sum c_i {\mbox{\bf P}}_{x,t} (I_{A_i}),~(x,t)\in {\EuScript{X}}^*\times {{\mathbb Z}}_+$. Then $v_n \in S^\infty({\EuScript{X}}^*,p^*)$. Since by Lemma \[lem:supremum\], $\|v_n\|_\infty\le \sup_{x\in \widehat {\EuScript{X}}-\{*\}} \|v_n(x,0)\|_\infty\le \|\widehat u\|_\infty$, we can extract a subsequence $(v_{n_k})$ which converges pointwise. Clearly, $v_\infty (x,0)=u(x)$ on $\widehat {\EuScript{X}}-\{*\}$. However, it also follows from dominated convergence that $v_\infty \in S^\infty({\EuScript{X}}^*,p^*)$. Furthermore, $\|v_\infty\|_\infty \le \|\widehat u\|_\infty$.
Here is an outline of an alternative proof to Theorem \[th:newmain\], based entirely on the construction of the Poisson boundary presented in Section \[sec:Poisson\] and avoiding the notion of Martin boundary. The proof was suggested by the referee.\
Let $u\in H^\infty({\EuScript{X}},p^{\tau})$, and let $\phi_u$ be the element in $L^\infty({{{\mathcal P}}B}({\EuScript{X}},p^\tau))$ obtained through : $$\label{eq:y_embed}
\phi_u ({{\boldsymbol{y}}}) = \lim_{n\to\infty} u(y_n), \quad {\mbox{\bf P}}_{\theta}\mbox{-a.s.},$$ Now ${\boldsymbol{y}}$ is a deterministic function of ${\boldsymbol{x}}$: ${\boldsymbol{y}}= {\boldsymbol{y}}({\boldsymbol{x}})$ through $y_n = x_{\tau_n}$, and therefore one can rewrite the lefthand side as a function of ${\boldsymbol{x}}$, ${\widetilde{\phi_u}}({\boldsymbol{x}}) = \phi_u({\boldsymbol{y}}({\boldsymbol{x}}))$. The Borell-Cantelli argument in the heart of Lemma \[lem:inv\_to\_tail\] gives a sequence $(\rho_{n_i}:i=1,2,\dots)$ of ${{{\mathcal F}}}_{n_i}^\infty({\EuScript{X}})$-measurable random variables with $n_i \nearrow \infty$, and $\rho_{n_i} \in \langle \tau \rangle$, eventually ${\mbox{\bf P}}_{\theta}$-a.s. Therefore the righthand side of is $\lim_{i\to\infty} u(x_{\rho_{n_i}})$, ${\mbox{\bf P}}_{\theta}$-a.s., and is therefore $\ol{{{{\mathcal T}}}}({\EuScript{X}},p)$-measurable. Thus, we have obtained an embedding $$H^{\infty}({\EuScript{X}},p^\tau) \ni u \hookrightarrow \widetilde{\phi_u} \in L^\infty ({{{\mathcal T}}B}({\EuScript{X}},p)).$$
We now prove Theorem \[th:martin\].
By the assumption on the support of $\mu_u^{\widehat p^\tau}$, there exists a sequence $f_n\in L^\infty (\mu_{\bf 1}^{\widehat {p^\tau}})$ such that $f_n d\mu_1^{\widehat{p^\tau}}$ converges weakly to $\mu^{\widehat {p^{\tau}}}_{u}$ (see Proposition \[pr:approx\]). Since for each $x\in \widehat {\EuScript{X}}$, the mapping $\zeta \to K^{\widehat{p^\tau}}(x,\zeta)$ is bounded and continuous on the compact metric space $\partial ({\widehat {\EuScript{X}}},{\widehat {p^\tau}} )$, it follows that each of the functions $$u_n (x) = \int K^{\widehat{p^\tau}}(x,\zeta) f_n (\zeta) d\mu_{\bf 1}^{\widehat {p^\tau}},~x\in{\widehat {\EuScript{X}}}$$ is in $H^\infty(\widehat{{\EuScript{X}}},\widehat{p^\tau})$ and the sequence $(u_n :n\in{{\mathbb N}})$ converges pointwise to $u$. By Theorem \[th:newmain\], there exists a function $0\le \ol{u}_n \in S^\infty({\EuScript{X}},p)$ such that $\ol{u}_n(x,0)=u_n (x),~x \in {\EuScript{X}}$. Since $p \ol{u}_n(x,t+1)=\ol{u}_n (x,t),~x\in {\EuScript{X}}$, it follows that $p(x,y) \ol{u}_n(y,t+1)\le \ol{u}_n(x,t)$ whenever $p(x,y)>0$, or $$\ol{u}_n (y,t+1)\le \inf \{ \frac{\ol{u}_n(x,t)}{p(x,y)}: x~, p(x,y)>0\}.$$ Iterating, and using the fact that $p$ is irreducible, we have that for every $(y,t)\in {\EuScript{X}}\times {{\mathbb Z}}_+$ there exist $x=x(y,t)\in {\EuScript{X}}$ and a constant $c(y,t)>0$, both not depending on $n$, such that $\ol{u}_n(y,t) \le c(y,t)\ol{u}_n(x(y,t),0)$. Since $\ol{u}_n (x,0)$ converges to $u(x)$ as $n\to\infty$ for every $x\in {\EuScript{X}}$, it follows that the sequence of nonnegative numbers $(\ol{u}_n (y,t):n\in{{\mathbb N}})$ is bounded. As a result, there exists a subsequence $(n_j:j\in{{\mathbb N}})$ such that $\ol{u}_{n_j}(x,t)$ converges to a finite limit at all $(x,t)\in {\EuScript{X}}\times{{\mathbb Z}}_+$. Denote this limit function by $\ol{u}$. Clearly, $\ol{u}(x,0)=u(x)$. Since $p$ is locally finite, $$p \ol{u} (x,t+1)= \sum_{y} p(x,y)\lim_{j\to\infty} \ol{u}_{n_j} (y,t+1) = \lim_{j\to\infty} p \ol{u}_{n_j}(x,t+1)=\lim_{j\to\infty}\ol{u}_{n_j}(x,t)= \ol{ u}(x,t),$$ completing the proof.
Examples {#sec:examples}
========
In this section, we provide some examples.
Deterministic Stopping times
----------------------------
Suppose that $\tau=c$. Let $\rho = 1$, we have that ${\mbox{\bf P}}_x (\rho_n \in \langle \tau \rangle) =1$ whenever $n+1$ is multiple of $c$.
First Passage times {#sec:hitting}
-------------------
Let $A$ be a recurrent set for $p$ and $\tau = \inf\{n \ge1: x_n \in A\}$. Setting $\rho = \tau$ satisfies the condition of Assumtption \[as:asymp\]. This is the generalization of Furstenberg’s result for random walks on groups, when $A$ is a recurrent subgroup [@Furstenberg1973]. We will now show how this can be used to study equivalence of bounded harmonic functions on product spaces. Suppose that $p$ is an irreducible and transient transition function on $X \times Y$, where $X$ and $Y$ are nonempty countable sets. $X$ may be finite. We will assume that there exists $o\in X$ such that the set $A=\{o\}\times Y$ is $p$–recurrent. Write ${\boldsymbol{x}}=({\boldsymbol{x}}(1),{\boldsymbol{x}}(2))$ for the corresponding Markov chain, where ${\boldsymbol{x}}(1)$ is an $X$-valued process, and ${\boldsymbol{x}}(2)$ is a $Y$-valued process. Note that in general neither ${\boldsymbol{x}}(1)$ nor ${\boldsymbol{x}}(2)$ are Markov chains. Let $\tau$ denote the first passage time to $A$: $$\tau = \inf\{t\ge 1: {x}_t(1) = o\}.$$ Then $\rho=\tau$ satisfies Assumption \[as:asymp\]. Observe next that $p^\tau$ induces a transition function $\gamma$ on $Y$ through the relation $$\gamma(y,y') = p^{\tau}((o,y),(o,y')),~x,y\in Y.$$ Given $x\in X$ and $y \in Y$, let $v((x,y)) = {\mbox{\bf E}}_{(x,y)} [ u({y}_{\tau})]$. Clearly, $v((o,y)) = \gamma u (y) = u(y)$. Therefore, $p^{\tau}v((o,y))=\gamma u(y) = u(y) = v ((o,y))$. Next, if $x\ne o$, we have $$p^\tau v ((x,y)) = \sum_{y'}p^\tau((x,y),(o,y')) {\mbox{\bf E}}_{(o,y')} [ u({ y}_{\tau})]=\sum_{y'}p^{\tau}((x,y),(o,y')) u(y')=v((x,y)).$$
One easy example is $X={{\mathbb Z}}$, $Y={{\mathbb Z}}^{d-1}$, $d\ge 3$, and $p$ being the simple symmetric random walk on $X \times Y = {{\mathbb Z}}^d$ and $o=0$. It is known that the Markov chain is steady, and that all bounded harmonic functions are constants, so in particular, $S^\infty({\EuScript{X}},p)$ consists only of constant functions. Furthermore, the first (or any component) is recurrent. Thus $\gamma$ is a transition function on ${{\mathbb Z}}^{d-1}$ which is symmetric, but not nearest neighbor (in fact, it is easy to see that $\sum_{y\in {{\mathbb Z}}^{d-1}} \gamma(0,y)|y|=\infty$). From Theorem \[th:newmain\] we therefore obtain that all bounded harmonic functions for $\gamma$ are constants.
Additive functionals
--------------------
Recall that an additive functional for a Markov chain is a real-valued process $I= (I_n:n \ge 0)$, such that $I_{n+k} = I_n + I_k \circ S^n$ and $I_k$ is measurable with respect to the sigma-algebra generated by the first $k+1$ coordinate functions for all $k$ (enough for $k=0,1$). An example for an additive functional is $I_n = \sum_{k\le n} f(x_k)$ where $f:{{\EuScript{X}}}\to {\mathbb R}$ is any function.\
Let $(I_n:n \ge 0)$ be an additive functional for ${\boldsymbol{x}}$ that satisfies $\displaystyle\lim_{n\to\infty} I_n = \infty$ ${\mbox{\bf P}}_x$-a.s. Let $\tau = \inf \{n\ge 1: I_n > I_{n-1}\}$. Setting $\rho = \tau$ clearly satisfies the condition. Note that the above example is a special case, with the additive functional counting the number of visits to $A$. On the other hand, letting $\tau = \inf \{n: I_n \ge a\}$ for some fixed $a$, in general does not satisfy the condition.
A generic choice for $\rho$
---------------------------
Let ${\EuScript{X}}$ be a free semigroup generated by the finite nonempty set ${{{\mathcal G}}}$. That is, the elements of ${{\EuScript{X}}}$ are finite sequences of elements in ${{{\mathcal G}}}$, the empty sequence included, denoted by $\emptyset$. Given $x \in {{\EuScript{X}}}$, we write $ x g$ for the sequence in ${{\EuScript{X}}}$ obtained by concatenating $g$ to $x$ from the right. If $y=xg$, we write $g=x^{-1}y$ and refer to $g$ as the increment. Assume that for any $x \in {\EuScript{X}}$ and $g\in {{{\mathcal G}}}$ the transition function $p$ is invariant under the action of semigroups that is $p(x,xg) = p_g$, where $g\to p_{g}$ is any probability measure on ${{{\mathcal G}}}$. We will also assume that $\tau$ is a stopping time invariant under the action of semigroup in the following sense $$\label{eq:invariant_tau}\tau (\omega_0,\omega_1, \dots) =\tau (x\omega_0,x\omega_1, \dots) = \tau(\emptyset, \omega_0^{-1}\omega_1,\omega_0^{-1} \omega_2,\dots)$$ for all $x$ in the semigroup ${\EuScript{X}}$. That is, $\tau$ is a function of the consecutive increments rather than the actual path. Let $\tau$ satisfy the following two additional conditions:
- $\tau$ is bounded by $M \in {{\mathbb Z}}_+$;
- ${\mbox{\bf P}}_\emptyset (\tau =1)> 0$.
Let $A=\{g\in {{{\mathcal G}}}:\tau(\emptyset,g)=1\}$. Observe that from assumption (ii), $\sum_{g\in A} p_g>0$, and therefore ${\mbox{\bf P}}_x$-a.s., given a path $(\omega_0,\omega_1,\dots)$, its associated sequence of increments $(\omega_0^{-1}\omega_1,\omega_1^{-1}\omega_2,\dots)$ contains infinitely many runs (of consecutive increments) in $A$ longer than any fixed $k$. By (i), any “time” interval of length longer than $M$ contains at least one element in $\langle \tau\rangle$ before its last element. If, in addition, all increments corresponding to this time interval are in $A$, it necessarily follows that the last element is in $\langle \tau \rangle$. This simple idea translates to the following definition of $\rho$: $$\rho({\boldsymbol{x}}) = \inf\left\{n>3M: x_{i-1}^{-1}x_i \in A,~\mbox{ for all } i =n-2M,\dots,n \right\}.$$ From the definition of the random walk, $\rho$ is finite ${\mbox{\bf P}}_x$-a.s. for any $x\in {\EuScript{X}}$. Also, because $\tau \le M$, between time $\rho_n - 2M$ and $\rho_n$ there exists at least one element of $\langle \tau \rangle$, call the first such element $\tau_m$. Since all consecutive increments until time $\rho_n$ are in $A$, all elements of the sequence $(\tau_m, \tau_m+1, \dots, \rho_n)$ are in $\langle \tau \rangle$. Thus ${\mbox{\bf P}}_x (\rho_n \in \langle \tau \rangle )=1$ and Assumption \[as:asymp\] is satisfied.
The second author and Kaimanovich show that the Poisson boundary of random walks on countable groups preserved under any stopping times. Moreover, they show that the results hold for randomized stopping times with finite logarithmic moment. They first lift random walks on a countable group to a random walk on a free finitely or infinitely countable generated) semigroup whose first step of the random walk is distributed on the generators of the free semigroup, and show their results in this setup and then apply them to prove the results for any countable groups, see [@Behrang] and [@Forghani-Kaimanovich2016] for more details. However, our result in the above example provides a different proof for special stopping times on finitely generated free semigroups.
$\boldsymbol\rho$ is not $\boldsymbol\tau$
-------------------------------------------
We want to show that also in general choosing $\rho=\tau$ will not satisfy Assumption \[as:asymp\]. Let ${\EuScript{X}}$ be the free semigroup generated by ${{{\mathcal G}}}=\{a,b\}$. Then for every $x$ we define transition function on ${{\EuScript{X}}}$ by $$p(x,xa)=p(x,xb)=\frac12.$$ For any sample path ${\boldsymbol{x}}=(x_0,x_1,x_2,\cdots)$ and $x$ in ${\EuScript{X}}$, define the stopping time $$\tau({\boldsymbol{x}})=\begin{cases}
1 & x_0=x,\ x_1=xa\\
2 & x_0=x,\ x_1=xb.
\end{cases}$$
We claim that $\tau$ does not satisfy Assumption \[as:asymp\]. By contradiction, suppose that $\rho=\tau$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{\bf P}}_x (\rho_n \in \langle \tau \rangle )&={\mbox{\bf P}}_x(\rho_n \in \langle \tau \rangle | n \in \langle \tau \rangle ){\mbox{\bf P}}_x( n \in \langle \tau \rangle)+{\mbox{\bf P}}_x(\rho_n \in \langle \tau \rangle | n \not \in \langle \tau \rangle ){\mbox{\bf P}}_x( n \not\in \langle \tau \rangle)\\
&= 1 \times {\mbox{\bf P}}_x( n \in \langle \tau \rangle) + \frac 34 (1- {\mbox{\bf P}}_x( n \in \langle \tau \rangle) )\\
& = \frac 14(3+{\mbox{\bf P}}_x( n \in \langle \tau \rangle)),
\end{aligned}$$ where the $\frac 34$ factor on the second line is because if $n \not\in \langle \tau \rangle$, then $n+1 \in \langle \tau \rangle$ and so $\rho_n\in \langle \tau \rangle$ if and only if either: i) $\rho_n=n+1$, that is $x_n^{-1}x_{n+1}=a$; or ii) $\rho_n=n+2$ and $n+2\in \langle \tau \rangle$, that is $x_{n}^{-1}x_{n+1} = b$ and $x_{n+1}^{-1}x_{n+2}=a$. Finally, letting $\alpha_n = {\mbox{\bf P}}_x (n \in \langle \tau \rangle)
$, we have $\alpha_1=\frac 12$, $\alpha_2= \frac 34$ and by conditioning on the first increment, for $n\ge 3$, $\alpha_n=\frac 12 \alpha_{n-1}+ \frac 12 \alpha_{n-2}$. As a result, $\lim_{n\to\infty}\alpha_n = \frac 23$. It follows that $$\displaystyle\lim_{n\to\infty}{\mbox{\bf P}}_x (\rho_n \in \langle \tau \rangle )= \frac{11}{12}<1.$$
Delayed stopping
----------------
We construct a Markov chain and a corresponding stopping time with the following property. There exist states such that for every choice of $\rho$, ${\mbox{\bf P}}_x (\rho_n \in \langle \tau \rangle)<1$, for all $n$ large. Nevertheless, we can define $\rho$ so that $\displaystyle\lim_{n\to\infty} {\mbox{\bf P}}_x (\rho_n \in \langle \tau\rangle) =1$ for all $x\in {\EuScript{X}}$.\
Let ${{\EuScript{X}}}={\mathbb N}\times \{0,1\}$. Let $r$ be any irreducible and transient transition function on ${\mathbb N}$. We will also assume that $r$ is lazy, that is $r(x,x) =\frac 12$ for all $x$. Let $s$ be a transition function on $\{0,1\}$ such that $0$ is an absorbing state, $s(0,0)=1$, and $s(1,0)=s(0,1)=\frac12$. For $n_1,n_2 \in {\mathbb N}$ and $d_1,d_2 \in \{0,1\}$, let $$p((n_1,d_1),(n_2,d_2)) = r(n_1,n_2)s(d_1,d_2).$$ The space of sample paths of the Markov chain with transition function $p$ can be expressed in terms of the component processes. That is, if ${\boldsymbol{x}}$ denotes that chain, then ${\boldsymbol{x}}=({\boldsymbol{x}}(1),{\boldsymbol{x}}(2))$, with ${\boldsymbol{x}}(1)$ and ${\boldsymbol{x}}(2)$ are two independent sample paths with respect to $r$ and $s$, receptively. Assume that $A$ and $B$ are disjoint recurrent sets for $r$. Then clearly, both $A$ and $B$ are infinite. Let $\sigma = \inf\{n\ge 1: x_n(1) \in A\}$, and continue inductively $\sigma_1=\sigma,~ \sigma_{n+1} = \sigma\circ {S^{\sigma_n}}$. Define $$\tau = \begin{cases}
\sigma & x_0(2) =0\\ \sigma_{\sigma} & x_0(2)=1
\end{cases}$$ In other words, if $x_0(2)=0$, we stop when ${\boldsymbol{x}}(1)$ hits $A$. Otherwise, we wait until $\sigma$, and then stop after ${\boldsymbol{x}}(1)$ hits $A$ an additional $\sigma-1$ more times. Let $m$ be in $B$. Suppose that $\rho:{{\EuScript{X}}}^{{\mathbb Z}_+}\to {\mathbb Z}_+$. We begin by observing that $${\mbox{\bf P}}_{(m,1)}(\rho_n \in \langle \tau\rangle) \le {\mbox{\bf P}}_{(m,1)}(\sigma \le n) + {\mbox{\bf P}}_{(m,1)} (\rho_n \in \langle \tau\rangle,\sigma>n).$$ Now since $x_0(2)=1$, it follows from the definition of $\tau$, that under ${\mbox{\bf P}}_{(m,1)}$, we have $\tau=\sigma_{{\sigma}}$. On the event $\sigma>n$, this automatically implies $\tau_1>n$, and in particular, if $\rho_n \in \langle \tau\rangle $, we must have $\rho_n > \sigma+ (\sigma-1) > 2n$. As a result, the event $\{\rho_n \in \langle \tau \rangle\}\cap \{\sigma>n \} $ is contained in the event $\{\rho \circ S^n > n\}\cap \{\sigma>n \}$. This, with the Markov property imply: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber {\mbox{\bf P}}_{(m,1)}(\rho_n \in \langle \tau\rangle) &\le {\mbox{\bf P}}_{(m,1)}(\sigma \le n) + {\mbox{\bf P}}_{(m,1)}(\rho\circ S^n>n,\sigma>n) \\
\label{eq:as}
& = {\mbox{\bf P}}_{(m,1)}(\sigma \le n) + {\mbox{\bf E}}_{(m,1)} [{\mbox{\bf P}}_{{\boldsymbol{x}}_n}(\rho>n),\sigma>n].\end{aligned}$$ Since we assume that $\rho$ is finite ${\mbox{\bf P}}_{(m,0)}$ a.s., there exists $n_0\in{{\mathbb N}}$ such that for all $n\ge n_0$, ${\mbox{\bf P}}_{(m,0)}(\rho>n) <\frac 12$. Under ${\mbox{\bf P}}_{m,1}$, the event $$C_n=\{x_0(1)=x_1(1)=\dots=x_n(1)\}\cap \{x_n(2) = 0\}$$ has probability $2^{-n} \times (1-2^{-n})$, and is contained in $\{\sigma>n\}$. Thus for $n\ge n_0$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{\bf E}}_{(m,1)} [{\mbox{\bf P}}_{{\boldsymbol{x}}_n}(\rho>n), \sigma>n] &\le {\mbox{\bf P}}_{(m,1)} ( C_n)\times {\mbox{\bf P}}_{(m,0)}(\rho>n)+ {\mbox{\bf P}}_{(m,1)} (C_n^c,\sigma>n) \\
& <\frac 12 {\mbox{\bf P}}_{(m,1)}(C_n) + {\mbox{\bf P}}_{(m,1)} (C_n^c ,\sigma>n)\\
& = \frac 12 {\mbox{\bf P}}_{(m,1)}(C_n) + {\mbox{\bf P}}_{(m,1)} (\sigma>n) - {\mbox{\bf P}}_{(m,1)}(C_n,\sigma>n)\\
& ={\mbox{\bf P}}_{(m,1)} (\sigma>n) - \frac 12 {\mbox{\bf P}}_{(m,1)}(C_n),
\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality is due to the fact that under ${\mbox{\bf P}}_{(m,1)}$, $C_n \subseteq \{\sigma>n\}$. Plug this inequality into to obtain $${\mbox{\bf P}}_{(m,1)}(\rho_n \in \langle \tau\rangle) \le 1 - \frac 12 2^{ -n} (1-2^{-n}),~n\ge n_0.$$
Next we show that choosing $\rho=\sigma$ satisfies $\displaystyle\lim_{n\to\infty} {\mbox{\bf P}}_{x} (\rho_n \in \langle \tau \rangle) =1$, for all $x$ (note: we can also choose $\rho=\tau$). Let $N_{i,j}$ count the number of times ${\boldsymbol{x}}(1)$ visits $A$ between times $i$ and $j$. That is, $$N_{i,j} = \sum_{i \le n \le j} {\bf 1}_A (x_n(1)).$$ Observe that from the definition of $\tau$, if $x^2_k =0$, then the times of the $k$-th, $k+1$-th, etc. hits of $A$ by ${\boldsymbol{x}}(1)$ will all be in $\langle \tau \rangle$. Letting $T = \inf \{n: {\boldsymbol{x}}_n(2) =0\}$, we have $${\mbox{\bf P}}_x (\rho_n \in \langle \tau \rangle) \ge \sum_{k} {\mbox{\bf P}}_x ( T = k,N_{k,n}\ge k).$$ Since $A$ is recurrent, $ N_{k,n}\underset{n\to\infty}{ \nearrow} \infty$, and so the result follows from monotone convergence.
Splitting of Poisson Boundary {#splitting}
-----------------------------
This final example is of a transition function $p$ and a stopping time where $S^\infty ({\EuScript{X}},p)$ consists only of constant functions, yet $H^\infty({\EuScript{X}},p^{\tau})$ contains at least two linearly independent elements. In particular, there does not exist $\rho$ satisfying Assumption \[as:asymp\].\
Let $p$ be the transition function of the nearest neighbor symmetric random walk on ${\EuScript{X}}={{\mathbb Z}}^d$, $d\ge 3$ (the assumption on the dimension is to ensure transience of $p$). By Ney and Spitzer [@Ney-Spitzer], both the Poisson and Martin boundary with respect to $p$ are trivial: all harmonic functions are constants. Write ${ x}=({ x}(1),\dots, { x}(d))$. Define stopping times $T_{+},T_-,T_0$ as follows: $$T_+ = \inf\{n \ge 1:{ x}_n(1)={x}_{0}(1)+ 1\} \hspace{1cm} T_- = \inf\{n \ge 1:{ x}_n(1)={x}_{0}(1)- 1\}$$ and $$T_0=\inf\{n\ge 1:{x}_n(1) ={ x}_0(1)\}.$$ Finally, let $T_{+,2} = T_{0}\circ S^{T_{+}}$ and $ T_{-,2} = T_{0}\circ S^{T_{-}}$. In words, $T_\pm$ is the first time ${x}(1)$ is one unit to the right (for $+$) or to the left (for $-$) of its starting point, and $T_{\pm,2}$ is the second time ${x}(1)$ is one unit to the right ($+$) or one unit to the left ($-$) from its starting location.
Set $$\tau=\begin{cases} T_+ \wedge T_{-,2}\mbox{ if } x_0(1)\ge 0 \\ T_-\wedge T_{+,2}\mbox{ if } x_0(1) < 0. \end{cases}$$
Observe that by symmetry, ${\mbox{\bf P}}(T_+<T_-)=\frac 12$, and ${\mbox{\bf P}}(T_+< T_{-,2})= \frac 12+ \frac 12 \times \frac 12 \times \frac 12=\frac 58$. It immediately follows that $x_{\tau}(1)$ is a nearest neighbor Markov chain on ${{\mathbb Z}}$ with the following transition probabilities: $$r(x,y)= \begin{cases} \frac 58 & x \ge 0,~ y= x+1 \mbox{ or } x<0, ~y=x-1 \\ \frac 38 & x\ge 0,~ y=x-1\mbox{ or } x<0,~ y=x+1.\end{cases}$$
In particular, ${ x}^{\tau}(1)$ is transient with positive drift on the positive half line and negative drift on the negative half line. Clearly, $\{\lim { x}_{\tau_n}(1)=+\infty\}$ is invariant with respect to ${\boldsymbol{x}}^{\tau}$, therefore the function ${\mbox{\bf P}}_x (\lim {x}_{\tau_n}(1) = +\infty)$ is a $p^{\tau}$-harmonic function. It is easy to see that this function is not constant. Therefore the conclusion of Theorem \[th:newmain\] does not hold, which in turn implies that there does not exist a $\rho$ satisfying Assumption \[as:asymp\]. Note that with this construction, $p^\tau$ is irreducible. As simpler, yet not irreducible example can be obtained by defining $\tau$ as the first time $x(1)$ is one unit away from $0$ than where it started at. In this case, $x_{\tau}(1)$ is the Markov chain on ${{\mathbb Z}}$ which jumps from $0$ to $\pm 1$ with probability $1/2$ each, and jumps from $x$ to $x+\mbox{sgn}(x)$ with probability $1$ for all $x\ne 0$.
Appendix
========
\[lem:partition\] Let $\mu$ be a Borel measure on a compact metric space $(M,d)$. Then for every $\delta$, there exists a number $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$ and Borel subsets $N_0,N_1,\dots,N_n$ of $M$ such that
1. $\cup_{j=0}^n N_j = M$.
2. $N_j \cap N_i =\emptyset$ for $i\ne j$.
3. $N_0$ is contained in the complement of $\mbox{Supp}(\mu)$.
4. For $j=1,\dots,n$, the diameter of $N_j$ is $< \delta$.
5. $N_j,~j=1,\dots,n$ contains a neighborhood of an element in the support of $\mu$.
Let $B(x)$ denote the open ball of center $x$ with radius $\delta/2$. The collection of balls $(B(x):x\in \mbox{Supp}(\mu))$ is an open cover of the compact set $\mbox{Supp}(\mu)$. Therefore it possesses a finite subcover indexed by centers $x_1,\dots,x_n$. Let $N_1 =\{y\in B(x_1):d(y,x_1)\le \min_{j\ne 1} d(y,x_j)\}$. Then $x_1\in N_1$, $N_1$ has nonempty interior, and $x_j\not \in N_1$ for all $j\ne 1$. Continue inductively, letting $$N_{i+1}=\{y\in B(x_{i+1}):d(y,x_{i+1})\le \min_{j\ne i+1} d(y,x_j)\}-\cup_{j\le i}N_i.$$ Thus, $x_{i+1}\in N_{i+1}$, $N_{i+1}$ has nonempty interior, and $x_j\not \in N_{i+1}$ for all $j\le i+1$. Finally, let $N_0=M- \cup_{j=1}^n N_j$.
\[pr:approx\] Let $\mu$ and $\nu$ be two probability measures on the Borel sets of a compact metric space $(M,d)$, satisfying $\mbox{Supp}(\nu)\subseteq \mbox{Supp}(\mu)$. Then there exists a sequence $(f_k:k\in{{\mathbb N}})$ of nonnegative simple functions such that $f_n d\mu$ converges weakly to $\nu$. That is, $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \int g f_n d\mu = \int g d\nu$$ for every continuous $g$ on $M$.
By lemma \[lem:partition\] for every $k\in{{\mathbb N}}$ we can find $n=n(k)$ and a partition $N_0,N_1,\dots,N_n$ of $M$ such that the diameter of $N_1,\dots,N_n$ is $<\frac{1}{k}$, $\nu(N_0)=\mu(N_0)=0$ and $\mu(N_j)>0$ for $j=1,\dots,n$. Let $f_k$ be the simple function equal to $0$ on $N_0$ and to $\nu(N_j)/\mu(N_j)$ on $N_j$ for $j=1,\dots,n$. Then $\int f_k d \mu =1$. Next fix a continuous function $g$ on $M$. Then by compactness, $g$ is uniformly continuous. Fix $\epsilon>0$, and choose $k$ to such that $|g(x) - g(y)|<\epsilon$ whenever $d(x,y)<\frac{1}{k}$. Let $N_0,\dots,N_n$ as above, and let $x_1,\dots,x_n$ be arbitrary elements in $N_1,\dots,N_n$, respectively. Then $$| \int g d\nu - \sum_{i=1}^n g(x_i) \nu(N_i)| <\epsilon$$ and $$|\int g f_k d\mu - \sum_{i=1}^n g(x_i) \nu(N_i) | <\epsilon,$$ and therefore $$|\int gf_k d \mu - \int g d\nu|<2\epsilon,$$ completing the proof.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The magnetic and electronic phase diagram of a model for the quasi-one-dimensional alkali metal iron selenide compound Na$_2$FeSe$_2$ is presented. The novelty of this material is that the valence of iron is Fe$^{2+}$ contrary to most other iron-chain compounds with valence Fe$^{3+}$. Using first-principles techniques, we developed a three-orbital tight-binding model that reproduces the [*ab initio*]{} band structure near the Fermi level. Including Hubbard and Hund couplings and studying the model via the density matrix renormalization group and Lanczos methods, we constructed the ground state phase diagram. A robust region where the block state $\uparrow \uparrow \downarrow \downarrow
\uparrow \uparrow \downarrow \downarrow$ is stabilized was unveiled. The analog state in iron ladders, employing 2$\times$2 ferromagnetic blocks, is by now well-established, but in chains a block magnetic order has not been observed yet in real materials. The phase diagram also contains a large region of canonical staggered spin order $\uparrow \downarrow \uparrow \downarrow \uparrow \downarrow \uparrow$ at very large Hubbard repulsion. At the block to staggered transition region, a novel phase is stabilized with a mixture of both states: an inhomogeneous orbital-selective charge density wave with the exotic spin configuration $\uparrow \uparrow \downarrow \uparrow \downarrow \downarrow \uparrow \downarrow$. Our predictions for Na$_2$FeSe$_2$ may guide crystal growers and neutron scattering experimentalists towards the realization of block states in one-dimensional iron-selenide chain materials.
author:
- 'Bradraj Pandey$^{1,3}$, Ling-Fang Lin$^{1,2}$, Rahul Soni$^{1,3}$, Nitin Kaushal$^{1,3}$, Jacek Herbrych$^{4}$, Gonzalo Alvarez$^{5}$, and Elbio Dagotto$^{1,3}$'
title: |
Prediction of exotic magnetic states in the alkali metal quasi-one-dimensional\
iron selenide compound Na$_2$FeSe$_2$
---
I. Introduction
===============
Iron-based pnictides and selenides are fascinating materials with exotic magnetic and superconducting properties [@fernandes; @pdai; @elbio]. For iron-selenides the low-temperature insulating ground state has robust local magnetic moments [@chuang; @gretar; @Bao], highlighting the importance of Hubbard and Hund coupling interactions among the electrons occupying the $3d$ orbitals [@pdai; @elbio]. The competition between charge, spin, lattice, and orbital degrees of freedom can give rise to various types of exotic magnetic and electronic ordering. In particular, recently the two-leg ladder iron selenide materials have received considerable attention. One reason is their similarity with copper-based ladders, with a spin gap in the undoped limit and superconductivity upon doping by high pressure [@riera; @rice]. Moreover, in the two-leg ladder iron-based compound BaFe$_2$Se$_3$, an exotic block-antiferromagnetic (AFM) order (involving $ 2 \times 2 $ ferromagnetically aligned blocks, coupled antiferromagnetically along the legs of the ladder) has been reported using inelastic neutron diffraction methods [@mourigal; @caron; @caron2; @wang2016; @lei; @mouri], confirming earlier predictions by theory [@julian; @julian2]. BaFe$_2$Se$_3$ is an insulator with robust Néel temperature $T_N \sim$ 250K into the block phase and large individual magnetic moments $\sim 2.8 \mu_B$. In another iron-based ladder material, where K replaces Ba leading to KFe$_2$Se$_3$, the magnetic moments align ferromagnetically along the rungs but antiferromagnetically along the legs forming 2$\times$1 blocks [@caron].
In addition to these ladder materials, there are some experimentally observed iron-selenide compounds, such as TlFeS$_2$, TlFeSe$_2$ and KFeSe$_2$, which contain weakly coupled quasi-one-dimensional [*chains*]{} [@bronger; @seidov]. In these compounds iron is in a valence Fe$^{3+}$, corresponding to $n=5$ electrons in the $3d$ iron orbitals. Based on magnetic susceptibility, electric resistivity, and electron-spin resonance, TlFeSe$_2$ behaves as a quasi one-dimensional standard spin-staggered antiferromagnet [@veliyev]. Furthermore, neutron diffraction experiments on TlFeS$_2$ also indicate [@nishi] staggered spin order below $T_N=196$K.
The experimental developments described above in quasi-1D iron-based materials provides a playground for theoretical many-body calculations based on multi-orbital Hubbard model [@nocera; @ORVB; @herbrychNatComm; @herbrychblock; @patelComm]. Using accurate numerical techniques for low-dimensional systems, such as the density matrix renormalization group method (DMRG) [@white1; @steven], the high-pressure superconducting two-leg ladder compound BaFe$_2$S$_3$ [@takahashi; @yamauchi; @petrovic] was explored with regards to magnetic and pairing properties keeping two orbitals active [@patel; @arita]. Evidence for the correct rung-FM and leg-AFM spin order was found over large portions of interaction parameters [@patel]. Evidence of metallization under high pressure was also reported [@yangpressure1; @yangpressure2]. This is considered a precursor of superconductivity, which was also shown to appear in theoretical studies of two-orbital one-dimensional models upon hole doping [@nocera; @ORVB]. Even multiferroicity was unveiled in iron ladders [@dongmultiferroic], indicating an unexpected rich behavior. Moreover, novel Te-based ladders were predicted to display interesting magnetic properties as well [@yang1; @yang2].
The phase diagram of a three-orbital Hubbbard model for chains, was also studied using DMRG [@julian; @julian2], unveiling various types of exotic magnetic and electronic phases. More canonical ferromagnetic and staggered $\uparrow \downarrow \uparrow \downarrow$ states were also stabilized varying the Hund and Hubbard interaction parameters. The spin dynamical properties of exotic orbital-selective Mott phases (displaying the selective localization of electrons on a particular orbital) were also analyzed, revealing unusual coexisting modes of spin excitations [@herbrychNatComm].
The magnetic phase diagram of the five-orbital Hubbard model for iron-selenide materials was initially studied using real-space Hatree-Fock approximations for chains [@german] and ladders [@luo]. At electronic density $n=5$, relevant to previously known chain compounds such as TlFeSe$_2$, a simple staggered AFM phase in a large parameter space of the phase diagram was reported, in agreement with existing experiments. Interestingly, a much richer phase diagram was theoretically predicted for chains with the electronic density $n=6$. More reliable DMRG studies of the three-orbital Hubbard model at $n=6$ have also consistently reported a similar wide variety of exotic phases for $n=6$, including the block phase $\uparrow \uparrow \downarrow \downarrow$ at robust Hund coupling [@julian], as well as generalizations to longer blocks [@herbrychblock] and even spontaneously formed spiral phases [@herbrychspiral]. But thus far only two-leg ladder materials, such as BaFe$_2$Se$_3$ and BaFe$_2$S$_3$, have been studied experimentally, confirming the block nature of the spin state – either 2$\times$2 or 2$\times$1 blocks – as well as exotic superconductivity upon high pressure. However, finding a truly $n=6$ one-dimensional version, with only chains instead of ladders, would add another interesting member to the existing group of realizations of the theory predictions, opening a novel avenue for research.
Recently, the possibility of preparing the alkali iron selenide compound Na$_2$FeSe$_2$ has been discussed [@stuble]. In Na$_2$FeSe$_2$ the iron atom is in a valence state Fe$^{2+}$, which correspond to an electronic density $n=6$ for the $3d$ Fe orbitals. As already discussed, Hartree-Fock studies of low-dimensional multiorbital models with electronic density $n=6$ displayed a much richer phase diagram with exotic phases, as compared to the canonical staggered order of the $n=5$ case. Motivated by the recent experimental efforts [@stuble], in this publication we study theoretically the magnetic and electronic properties of the chain compound Na$_2$FeSe$_2$. Using first principles calculations we obtain the relevant hopping amplitudes. Next, using computationally accurate techniques, such as DMRG and Lanczos methods, we construct the ground-state phase diagram by varying the on-site same-orbital Hubbard $U$ repulsion and the on-site Hund coupling $J_H$. At low values of $J_H/U$, the staggered AFM order with wavevector $\pi$ dominates in a large portion of the phase diagram. However, increasing $J_H/U$ into the realistic regime for iron-based compounds, interesting block phases, particularly $\uparrow \uparrow \downarrow \downarrow$, dominate in a large region of parameter space. In contrast to Hartree-Fock methods, DMRG and Lanczos take into account quantum fluctuations rendering the results more reliable. Finally, albeit in a narrow region of parameter space, a novel phase $\uparrow \uparrow \downarrow \uparrow \downarrow \downarrow \uparrow \downarrow$ was also found with a mixture of properties of the dominant block and staggered states.
The organization of the paper is as follow. In Section II, details of the [*ab initio*]{} calculations are described. Section III contains the three-orbital Hubbard model and details of the numerical methods. Section IV presents the DMRG and Lanczos predictions, where first we focus on the results at the realistic Hund coupling $J_H/U=1/4$, and later an extended phase diagram of the model is provided. Finally, conclusions are provided in Section V.
II. Ab Initio Calculations
==========================
The crystal structure of Na$_2$FeSe$_2$ is shown in Fig. \[fig1\]. The most prominent feature is that edge-sharing FeSe$_2$ tetrahedral form one-dimensional chains running along the $c$ axis. Here, first-principles density functional theory (DFT) calculations are used employing the lattice constants $a$, $b$, and $c$, and the atomic positions of the Na, Fe, and Se atoms as reported in Ref. . These lattice constants are $a=6.608 {\rm \AA}$, $b=11.903 {\rm \AA}$, and $c=5.856 {\rm \AA}$. The space group is Ibam (no. 72), and the atomic positions of Na(8j), Fe(4a), and Se(8j) are (0.1562, 0.35565, 0.0), (0.0, 0.0,0.25), and (0.21638, 0.11435, 0.0), respectively. The band structure and the projected density-of-states for the 3$d$ orbitals are presented in Fig. \[fig2\](a,b). The orbital $d_{x^2-y^2}$ contributes primarily near the Fermi level. The contribution of the orbitals $d_{xz}$ and $d_{yz}$ is subdominant, but not negligible.
Considering the one-dimensional character of the atomic structure, all interchain electron hopping amplitudes are neglected and we only focus on the intrachain hoppings. In other words, only a Na$_2$FeSe$_2$ single chain \[shown in Fig. \[fig1\](b)\] is considered in the DFT procedure. The calculations were performed using the generalized gradient approximation [@perdew] and the projector augmented wave (PAW) pseudopotentials [@blochl], implemented in the Vienna [*ab initio*]{} Simulation Package (VASP) code [@kresse; @joubert]. Since the magnetic properties will be considered via many-body calculations, magnetism was not included in the derivation of the bands and hopping amplitudes from first principles. Following a self-consistent calculation with total energy convergence of order eV, the maximally localized Wannier functions [@marzari] were constructed using the WANNIER90 code [@mosto] from the [*ab initio*]{} ground-state wave function.
We constructed three Wannier functions involving the orbital basis [$d_{xz}$, $d_{yz}$, $d_{x^2-y^2}$]{} for each iron and deduced the hopping parameters, readjusted to fit properly the band structure after reducing the original five orbitals to three (see Sec. III for details). The corresponding band structure using these hoppings is displayed in Fig. \[fig2\](c), which agrees well with the DFT band structure. Note that there are two Fe atoms in the primitive unit cell in the DFT calculation because of the alternating positions of the Se atoms, leading to a unit cell of $2d$ length, where $d$ is the distance between two nearest-neighbor iron atoms. The band structure can be unfolded since we only focus on the irons only, leading to the bands in Fig. \[fig2\](d) that were used in the DMRG calculations.
III. Model and Method
=====================
The Hamiltonian for the one-dimensional chain of Na$_2$FeSe$_2$, with three orbitals at each iron site, will be described by the multi-orbital Hubbard $H=H_k+H_{in}$. The kinetic or tight-binding component contains the nearest- and next-nearest neighbors hopping: $$\begin{aligned}
H_k = \sum_{i,\sigma,\gamma,\gamma'} t_{\gamma, \gamma'}\left(c^{\dagger}_{i\sigma,\gamma}c^{\phantom\dagger}_{i+1, \sigma, \gamma'}+H.c.\right) \nonumber \\
+ t'_{\gamma, \gamma'}\left(c^{\dagger}_{i\sigma,\gamma}c^{\phantom\dagger}_{i+2, \sigma, \gamma'}+H.c.\right)+ \sum_{i\gamma \sigma} \Delta_{\gamma} n_{i,\sigma \gamma},\end{aligned}$$ where $t_{\gamma, \gamma'}$ is the nearest-neighbor (NN) 3$\times$3 hopping amplitude matrix between sites $i$ and $i+1$ in the orbital space $\gamma=\{d_{xz},d_{yz},d_{x^2-y^2}\}$. $n_{i,\sigma \gamma}$ stands for the orbital and spin resolved particle number operator. These orbitals will be referred to as $\gamma = \{1,2,3\}$, respectively, in the remaining of the paper, for notation simplicity. As explained before, the hopping matrices for Na$_2$FeSe$_2$ were obtained from a tight-binding Wannier function analysis of first-principles results and they are in eV units. Explicitly, the NN 3$\times$3 matrix $t_{\gamma, \gamma'}$ between sites $i$ and $i+1$ in orbital space is given by: $$t_{\gamma, \gamma'}=
\begin{bmatrix}
-0.177 & 0.171 & 0.000 \\
-0.171 & 0.114 & 0.000 \\
0.000 & 0.000 & 0.144
\end{bmatrix}$$ where $\gamma$ are the orbitals for site $i$ and $\gamma'$ for site $i+1$. $t'_{\gamma, \gamma'}$ is the NNN hopping matrix between sites $i$ and $i+2$: $$t'_{\gamma, \gamma'}=
\begin{bmatrix}
-0.037 & -0.003 & 0.000 \\
0.003 & -0.053 & 0.000 \\
0.000 & 0.000 & -0.064
\end{bmatrix}$$ The on-site matrix containing the crystal fields $\Delta_{\gamma}$ for each orbital is given by: $$t^{OnSite}_{\gamma, \gamma}=
\begin{bmatrix}
-0.068 & 0.000 & 0.000 \\
0.000 & -0.134 & 0.000 \\
0.000 & 0.000 & -0.188
\end{bmatrix}$$
Note that we follow the convention that each $3 \times 3$ matrix (both $t_{\gamma, \gamma'}$ and $ t'_{\gamma, \gamma'}$) represent the hopping matrix to move from one iron site to another. The full hopping matrix, which includes both the back and forth hopping processes, are of size $6 \times 6$ containing $t_{\gamma, \gamma'}$ in the upper off-diagonal block, the transpose of $t_{\gamma, \gamma'}$ in the lower off-diagonal block, and the on-site matrix $t^{OnSite}_{\gamma,\gamma}$ in both diagonal blocks [@luo]. The kinetic energy bandwidth is $W=0.94$ eV.
The electronic interactions portion of the Hamiltonian is standard: $$\begin{aligned}
H_{in}= U\sum_{i\gamma}n_{i\uparrow \gamma} n_{i\downarrow \gamma} +\left(U'-\frac{J_H}{2}\right) \sum_{i,\gamma < \gamma'} n_{i \gamma} n_{i\gamma'} \nonumber \\
-2J_H \sum_{i,\gamma < \gamma'} {{\bf S}_{i,\gamma}}\cdot{{\bf S}_{i,\gamma'}}+J_H \sum_{i,\gamma < \gamma'} \left(P^+_{i\gamma} P_{i\gamma'}+H.c.\right). \end{aligned}$$ The first term is the Hubbard repulsion between electrons in the same orbital. The second term is the electronic repulsion between electrons at different orbitals where the standard relation $U'=U-2J_H$ is assumed. The third term represents the Hund’s interaction between electrons occupying the active $3d$ orbitals. The operator ${\bf S}_{i,\gamma}$ is the total spin at site $i$ and orbital $\gamma$. The fourth term is the pair-hopping between different orbitals at the same site $i$, where $P_{i, \gamma}$=$c_{i \downarrow \gamma} c_{i \uparrow \gamma}$.
To solve numerically this Hamiltonian and obtain the ground state properties of Na$_2$FeSe$_2$, the DMRG and Lanczos methods were used. Open boundary conditions were employed in DMRG and at least 1200 states kept during the calculations. For these DMRG calculation, we used the DMRG++ computer program [@gonzalo]. We fixed the electronic density per-orbital to be $n=4/3$ (four electrons per site, i.e. four electrons in three orbitals). Such electronic density is used in the context of iron superconductors where iron is in a valence Fe$^{2+}$, corresponding to 6 electrons in five orbitals. A common simplification is to drop one orbital doubly occupied and one empty, leading to 4 electrons in the remaining three orbitals. Most of the DMRG calculations were performed using chains of length $L=16$ and $L=24$ which for our purposes of finding the magnetic properties of the ground state are sufficient. Furthermore, by investigating small lattice sizes ($L=4$) with exact Lanczos diagonalization we reached the same conclusions.
IV. Results
===========
In Fig. \[fig3\], we show the phase diagram of the three-orbitals Hubbard model. We use realistic [*ab initio*]{} hopping amplitudes for Na$_2$FeSe$_2$ and vary $U/W$ at fixed Hund coupling $J_H/U=1/4$ [@luo2010]. This phase diagram was constructed based on DMRG calculations measuring several observables: the site average electronic density at each orbital $n_{\gamma}= \frac{1}{L}\sum_{i,\sigma} \langle n_{i\sigma \gamma} \rangle$, the spin-spin correlation $S(r)=\langle {\bf S}_m \cdot {\bf S}_l \rangle$ (where $r=|m-l|$; $m$ and $l$ are sites), and the spin structure factor $S(q)=\frac{1}{L}\sum_{m,l}e^{-iq(m-l)}\langle {\bf S}_m \cdot {\bf S}_l \rangle$ using primarily a system size $L=16$. The global electronic density is $n=$4/3 (4 electrons in three orbitals at each site in average).
Four different phases were found: (i) a paramagnetic phase (PM) at small $U/W$, followed by (ii) an unexpected block phase (AF2) where ferromagnetic clusters of two spins are coupled antiferromagnetically in a $\uparrow \uparrow \downarrow \downarrow$ pattern. Then (iii) an intermediate electronically inhomogeneous and spin exotic state (AF3) was found, with ferro and antiferro magnetic ordering $\uparrow \uparrow \downarrow \uparrow \downarrow \downarrow \uparrow \downarrow$. Finally, (iv) a canonical staggered antiferromagnetic phase (AF1) $\uparrow \downarrow \uparrow \downarrow$ becomes stable. To distinguish among these magnetic phases and to obtain the approximate phase boundary location, we studied $S(q_{p})$ vs $U/W$, where $q=q_{p}$ is defined as the wavevector that displays a sharp peak for each value of $U/W$ studied.
Results at Hund coupling $J_H/U=1/4$
------------------------------------
(a) AF2 and AF1 phases
----------------------
At small Hubbard interaction $U/W$ the system displays metallic behavior without any dominant magnetic order, as expected. In this PM regime, the spin correlation $S(r)$ decays rapidly with distance in the range $U/W<0.8$, as exemplified in Fig. \[fig5\](a). Increasing the Hubbard interaction $U/W$, the system enters into the block phase with AF2 magnetic ordering. In Fig. \[fig5\](b), the spin-correlations $S(r)$ at $U/W=4.0$ are presented, clearly showing the formation of antiferromagnetically coupled ferromagnetic spins clusters in a $\uparrow \uparrow \downarrow \downarrow$ pattern. Because of this block order, the spin structure factor $S(q)$ in the AF2 phase displays a sharp peak at $q=\pi/2$, shown in Fig. \[fig5\](d). The peak value increases with the system size $L$ providing evidence of a stable exotic $\pi/2$-block magnetic state in the system. Note that the canonical power-law decaying real-space correlations in one dimension prevents $S(q)$ from diverging with increasing $L$, but in a real material it is expected that weak interchain couplings will stabilize the several phases we have observed.
As shown in Fig. \[fig4\](a), $S(q_p)=S(\pi/2)$ dominates in the range $0.8 \lesssim U/W \lesssim 8.5$, signalling a stable block-phase in a broad region of parameter space, at $J_H/U=0.25$. Similar block-AF2 spin patterns, albeit extended in two dimensions into 2$\times$2 ferromagnetic blocks, have been also experimentally observed in two dimensional iron-selenium based compounds with vacancies, such as Rb$_{0.89}$Fe$_{1.58}$Se$_2$ and K$_{0.8}$Fe$_{1.6}$Se$_2$ [@Bao] and more importantly for our purposes also in the two-leg ladder BaFe$_2$Se$_3$ [@mourigal] which is a close “relative” of the Na$_2$FeSe$_2$ compound due to the common one-dimensionality and iron valence Fe$^{2+}$. Although it is difficult to establish with clarity what induces this block state, previous work [@julian] suggests that this phase is a result of competition between the Hund coupling $J_H$, favoring ferromagnetic alignment of spins as in double-exchange manganites [@dagotto2001], and the standard superexchange Hubbard spin-spin interaction that aligns the spins antiferromagnetically. One surprising aspect is that in the block-AF2 phase the population of orbital $\gamma=3$ appears locked to $1.5$ in all the range of $U/W$ investigated \[Fig. \[fig4\](b)\]. On the other hand, the occupancies of the other orbitals $\gamma=1$ and $\gamma=2$ change with varying $U/W$ in the same range.
In the inset of Fig. \[fig4\](b), the mean value of the local spin-squared averaged over all sites $\langle S^2 \rangle= \frac{1}{L}\sum_i \langle {\bf S}_i \cdot {\bf S}_i\rangle $ is shown vs $U/W$. For $U/W>1.0$, strong local magnetic moments are fully developed at every site with spin magnitude $S \approx 1$, as expected for four electrons in three orbitals and a robust Hund coupling. In experiments, alkali metal iron selenide compounds generally show large magnetic moments, particularly when compared to iron pnictide compounds. In Fig. \[fig4\](b), the site average occupancy of orbitals $ n_{\gamma}$ vs. $U/W$ is shown, and for $U/W>9.5$ the population of orbital $\gamma=3$ reaches 2, thus decoupling from the system, while the other two orbitals $\gamma = 1,2$ reach population 1. This arrangement minimizes the double occupancy at large $U/W$. In this Mott AF1 phase, the spin correlations show a canonical staggered AFM ordering, see Fig. \[fig5\](c), due to the dominating effect of the superexchange mechanism in the system, now involving only two active orbitals. The structure factor displays a sharp peak at $q=\pi$, see Fig. \[fig5\](e).
(b) Inhomogeneous AF3 phase
---------------------------
At interaction $8.5 <U/W< 9.5$, a novel orbital-selective charge density wave phase was observed, with an exotic AF3 spin ordering. This phase exists for all the lattice sizes analyzed, and moreover it appears both using DMRG and Lanczos, as shown below, thus we believe it is a real regime of the present model. Figure \[fig6\](a) displays the population of the three orbitals $\langle n_{\gamma,i} \rangle$ vs. the site index $i$, at $U/W=9.1$. The results show an orbital-selective charge density wave phase. The pattern that develops has two sites with integer fillings, such as 1.0 and 2.0, followed by two sites with a fractional filling for all the three orbitals. Orbital 3 jumps from population 2.0 as in the phase AF1, to population 1.5, as in the phase AF2, as compared with Fig. \[fig4\](b). The other two orbitals 1 and 2 display similar characteristics, namely a mixture of AF1 and AF2 features.
Interestingly, in parallel to an inhomogeneous charge density arrangement, a novel spin pattern AF3 $\uparrow \uparrow \downarrow \uparrow \downarrow \downarrow \uparrow \downarrow$, develops in the system for this range of $U/W$, see Fig. \[fig6\](b). The structure factor $S(q)$ shows a peak at $q=3\pi/4$, which grows with increasing the system size, see Fig. \[fig6\](c). The phase boundary of this exotic AF3 phase is determined by comparing the peaks of the spin structure factors. As shown in Fig. \[fig4\](b), the peak at $q=3\pi/4$ clearly dominates over other peaks of $S(q)$ in the range $8.5 <U/W<9.4$. Similar spin configurations have also been reported in the study of the one-dimensional two-orbital Hubbard model [@herbrychblock] at density $n=2.33$. We believe that this exotic phase stabilizes in the phase diagram mainly due to the NNN hopping $t'_{\gamma,\gamma'}$ since it generates frustration in the system. Eventually, for large enough values of the Hubbard interaction $U/W>9.5$, the system enters into the insulating Mott phase with staggered AF1 magnetic ordering.
(c) Density of states and charge fluctuations
---------------------------------------------
To characterize, at least qualitatively, the metallic vs. insulating nature of the different phases, we have calculated the orbital-resolved density-of-states, using the Lanczos method for small $L=4$ three-orbital Hubbard model clusters. While these clusters are small, the results are exact. Figure \[fig8\] contains the orbital-resolved density-of-states (DOS) vs $\omega-\mu$ ($\omega$ is the frequency and $\mu$ the chemical potential), for different values of the interaction parameter $U/W$. In the paramagnetic phase, all the three orbitals have a robust weight at the Fermi level, Fig. \[fig8\](a), indicating metallic behavior. For the block phase at $U/W=4$, we observe considerably lower weight at the Fermi level for all the three orbitals, Fig. \[fig8\](b), signaling a possible pseudogap and bad metallic behavior in the system. As expected, in the Mott phase Fig. \[fig8\](c) shows that at $U/W=10$ the system opens a large gap, confirming the insulating nature of the AF1 state. The lower Hubbard band of insulating orbitals 1 and 2 is not shown (located much lower in energy).
To understand better the characteristics of metallic vs. insulating behaviour, in addition to Lanczos we have calculated the orbital-resolved local density of state $\rho_{i,\gamma}(\omega)$ as a function of frequency $\omega$ using dynamical-DMRG within the correction-vector formalism in Krylov space [@nocera1]. The orbital-resolved local-density of state (LDOS) has two components: (i) Above the chemical potential it becomes $$\rho^{+}_{i,\gamma}(\omega)=\frac{-1}{\pi} Im\left[ \left< \psi_0 \left| c_{i,\gamma} \frac{1}{\omega -H +E_g+i\eta}c_{i,\gamma}^{\dagger} \right|\psi_0 \right> \right],$$ and (ii) below the chemical potential the LDOS is $$\rho^{-}_{i,\gamma}(\omega)=\frac{1}{\pi} Im\left[ \left< \psi_0 \left| c_{i,\gamma}^{\dagger} \frac{1}{\omega +H -E_g-i\eta}c_{i,\gamma} \right|\psi_0 \right> \right],$$ where $c_{i,\gamma}$ is the fermionic anihilation operator while $c^{\dagger}_{i,\gamma}$ is the creation operator, $E_g$ is the ground state energy, and $\psi_0$ is the ground-state wave function of the system. We set the broadening parameter as $\eta=0.1$ for the DDMRG calculations. To avoid edge effects, for the LDOS we chose a central site $i=L/2+1$ for the system size $L=16$. For the block phase at $U/W=4.0$, \[Fig. \[fig7\](a)\], a pseudogap with supressed weight near the Fermi-energy appears, which is in accord with the Lanczos DOS, suggesting a bad metalic behavior for the AF2 phase. In Fig. \[fig7\](b), results for the LDOS at the AF3 phase using $U/W=9.1$ are shown. Here, due to the appearance of orbital-selective density order, we calculate results for two sites (one of each kind, i.e. with $\gamma=3$ equal to 2.0 and 1.5) and then average to obtain a net LDOS. The resulting LDOS at $U/W=9.1$ in Fig. \[fig7\](b) indicates insulating behaviour of the system.
In addition to the DOS we have also investigated the charge fluctuations $\delta N$, to distinguish between a metal and an insulator. Figure \[fig7\](c) displays the $\delta N$ charge fluctuations defined as $\delta N= 1/L \sum_i\left(\langle n^2_i \rangle -\langle n_i \rangle^2 \right)$ (where $n_i=\sum_{\gamma} n_{i \gamma}$) and also the orbital-resolved charge fluctuation $\delta N_{\gamma}= \frac{1}{L}\sum_i\langle n^2_{\gamma,i}\rangle - \langle n_{\gamma,i}\rangle^2$ varying $U/W$. For $U/W \lesssim 0.8$, the large local charge fluctuations indicate strong metallic behavior in the PM phase as expected. Increasing $U/W$, the charge fluctuations $\delta N$ decrease substantially but remain finite for $U/W \lesssim 8.5$, hinting towards a (bad) metallic behavior of the system in the block AF2-phase. Moving beyond $U/W>9.5$, the charge fluctuations approach zero, providing further evidence of insulating behavior in the AF1-phase. The AF3 phase is difficult to judge because of its narrow range nature, but it also seems insulating. These results are in agreement with the Lanczos DOS analysis in Fig. \[fig8\].
Phase Diagram varying $J_H/U$ and $U/W$
---------------------------------------
Figure \[fig9\] contains the phase diagrams of our three-orbital Hubbard model using realistic hopping parameters for Na$_2$FeSe$_2$ and varying $J_H/U$ from 0.15 to 0.30 and $U/W$ from 0 to 10. The phase diagram shown in Fig. \[fig9\](a) is based on the DMRG calculations ($L=16$), while Fig. \[fig9\](b) is based on Lanczos calculations using $L=4$ sites. To obtain the phase boundaries among the different phases, we have used the peak values of the spin-structure factor $S(q_{p})$ and the site-average occupancies of each of the orbitals $n_{\gamma}= \frac{1}{L}\sum_{i,\sigma} \langle n_{i\sigma \gamma} \rangle$. For lower values of $U/W$, as expected the metallic PM phase dominates in the phase diagram for any values of $J_H/U$. The phase boundary of the PM phase clearly is very similar between the DMRG and Lanczos results. Further increasing the Hubbard interaction $U/W$, in the lower range of Hund couplings $J_H/U$ shown, the block AF2 phase stabilizes in a small region of the phase diagram, while the staggered AF1 phase dominates over a larger portion. At not too large $J_H/U$, the superexchange mechanism dominates and promotes primarily staggered AF1 magnetic ordering, as expected. For these moderate values of $J_H/U$, a rapid cascade of transitions (PM $\to$ AF2 $\to$ AF3 $\to$ AF1) is observed. For $J_H/U<0.19$, the narrow region in between AF2 $\to$ AF1 shows incommensurate behavior (not shown), while for $J_H/U>0.19$ this intermediate region displays the exotic AF3-spin order with peak at $q=3\pi/4$.
Interestingly, by increasing $J_H/U$ the block AF2 phase with spin configuration $\uparrow \uparrow \downarrow \downarrow$ stabilizes over a large portion of the phase diagram. This magnetic block state (AF2) is the same as found before in the context of orbital-selective Mott phases [@julian; @herbrychNatComm; @herbrychblock], although here the three orbitals remain itinerant, i.e. none has a population locked to one. As in those previous efforst, we believe the block spin order AF2 arises from competing superexchange order at small $J_H$ and double-exchange ferromagnetism at large $J_H$. While in our phase diagram there is no ferromagnetic phase in the range studied, we found that removing the NNN hopping leads to a stable ferromagnetic region, as in previous efforts [@julian; @herbrychNatComm; @herbrychblock]. Thus, the ferromagnetic state is certainly close in energy.
Also note the good agreement between the DMRG and Lanczos results found for the phase diagrams, see Fig. \[fig9\](a) vs Fig. \[fig9\](b), except for small $J_H/U$ where the AF3 phase is broader with Lanczos than DMRG, with opposite effects for the AF2 region. This small difference may be due to size effects. However, at moderate $J_H/U$ between 0.19 and 0.25 – a region considered realistic for iron-based compounds – the AF2 phase, which represents our main prediction for the physics of Na$_2$FeSe$_2$ if ever synthesized, is large and robust as Fig. \[fig4\](a) shows using DMRG and Fig. \[fig10\](b) using Lanczos.
V. Conclusions
==============
In this publication, the phase diagram of the one-dimensional chain compound Na$_2$FeSe$_2$ has been investigated. We used a realistic three-orbital Hubbard model with the hopping amplitudes derived from [*ab initio*]{} calculations. The phase diagram presented here was constructed at electronic density $n=4$ per site (the analog of $n=6$ in a five-orbital system). To our best knowledge, this is the first material of the family of iron superconductors that has both a dominant chain geometry in the structure (not ladder) and valence Fe$^{2+}$. Our phase diagram is based primarily on DMRG measurements of the orbital occupancy and spin structure factor, supplemented by Lanczos techniques. In comparison to previously studied $n=5$ one-dimensional three-orbital models for iron based compounds such as TlFeSe$_2$, which display a trivial staggered spin order, we find a much richer phase diagram for the alkali metal iron selenide compound Na$_2$FeSe$_2$. In particular, at low $J_H/U$ the staggered spin order dominates, but increasing $J_H/U$ the block AF2 phase $\uparrow \uparrow \downarrow \downarrow$ is stabilized over a large region of the phase diagram. We also observed a narrow region of a new phase AF3, with charge density wave properties and a combination of features of the AF1 and AF2 dominant phases, leading to a net $\uparrow \uparrow \downarrow \uparrow \downarrow \downarrow \uparrow \downarrow$ magnetic order. Previous results with iron ladders suggest that high pressure probes may also bring surprises, such as metallicity and even superconductivity. As a consequence, we encourage experimentalists to synthesize Na$_2$FeSe$_2$ and investigate its magnetic properties via neutron scattering experiments.
Acknowledgments
===============
We thank Yang Zhang for useful discussions. The work of B.P, R.S, N.K., and E.D. was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences (BES), Materials Sciences and Engineering Division. L.-F.L. was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants No. 11834002 and No.11674055) and by the China Scholarship Council. G.A. was partially supported by the Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences, which is a U.S. DOE Office of Science User Facility, and by the Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) program funded by U.S. DOE, Office of Science, Advanced Scientific Computing Research and BasicEnergy Sciences, Division of Materials Sciences and Engineering. J.H. acknowledges grant support by the Polish National Agency of Academic Exchange (NAWA) under contract PPN/PPO/2018/1/00035. Validation and some computer runs were conducted at the Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences, which is a DOE Office of Science User Facility.
[99]{}
R.M. Fernandes and A.V. Chubukov, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**80**]{}, 014503 (2017). [https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/80/1/014503 ](https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/80/1/014503 )
P. Dai, J. Hu, and E. Dagotto, [Nat. Phys. [**[8]{}**]{}, 709 (2012).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys2438>
E. Dagotto, [Rev. Mod. Phys. [**[85]{}**]{}, 849 (2013).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.85.849>
T.-M. Chuang, M. P. Allan, Jinho Lee, Yang Xie, Ni Ni, S. L. Bud’ko, G. S. Boebinger, P. C. Canfield, and J. C. Davis, [Science 327, [**[181]{}**]{} (2010).]{} [https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1181083 ](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1181083 )
H. Gretarsson, A. Lupascu, Jungho Kim, D. Casa, T. Gog, W. Wu, S. R. Julian, Z. J. Xu, J. S. Wen, G. D. Gu, R. H. Yuan, Z. G. Chen, N.-L. Wang, S. Khim, K. H. Kim, M. Ishikado, I. Jarrige, S. Shamoto, J.-H. Chu, I. R. Fisher, and Young-June Kim, [Phys. Rev. B [**[84]{}**]{}, 100509(R) (2011).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.100509>
Bao Wei, Huang Qing-Zhen, Chen Gen-Fu, M. A. Green, Wang Du-Ming, He Jun-Ba, and Qiu Yi-Ming, [Chin. Phys. Lett.[**[ 28]{}**]{}, 08614 (2011).]{} [http://cpl.iphy.ac.cn/10.1088/0256-307X/28/8/086104 ](http://cpl.iphy.ac.cn/10.1088/0256-307X/28/8/086104 )
E. Dagotto, J. Riera, and D. Scalapino [Phys. Rev. B [**[45]{}**]{}, 5744(R) (1992).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.45.5744>
E. Dagotto and T. M. Rice, [Science [**[271]{}**]{}, 618 (1996).]{} [https://doi.org/10.1126/science.271.5249.618 ](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.271.5249.618 )
M. Mourigal, Shan Wu, M. B. Stone, J. R. Neilson, J. M. Caron, T. M. McQueen, and C. L. Broholm, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**[115]{}**]{}, 047401 (2015).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.047401>
J. M. Caron, J. R. Neilson, D. C. Miller, K. Arpino, A. Llobet, and T. M. McQueen, [Phys. Rev. B [**[85]{}**]{}, 180405(R) (2012).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.85.180405>
J. M. Caron, J. R. Neilson, D. C. Miller, A. Llobet, and T. M. McQueen, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 180409(R) (2011). <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.180409>
M. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. B [**94**]{}, 041111(R) (2016). <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.94.041111>
H. Lei, H. Ryu, A. I. Frenkel, and C. Petrovic, [Phys. Rev. B [**[84]{}**]{}, 214511 (2011).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.214511>
M. Mourigal, Shan Wu, M. B. Stone, J. R. Neilson, J. M. Caron, T. M. McQueen, and C. L. Broholm, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**[115]{}**]{}, 047401 (2015).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.047401>
J. Rincón, A. Moreo, G. Alvarez, and E. Dagotto, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**[112]{}**]{}, 106405 (2014).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.106405>
J. Rincón, A. Moreo, G. Alvarez, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. B [**90**]{}, 241105(R) (2014). <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.241105>
W. Bronger, A. Kyas, and P. Muller, [J. Solid State Chem. [**[70]{}**]{}, 262 (1987).]{} [https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4596(87)90065-X ](https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4596(87)90065-X )
Z. Seidov, H.-A. Krug von Nidda, J. Hemberger, A. Loidl, G. Sultanov, E. Kerimova, and A. Panfilov, [Phys. Rev. B [**[65]{}**]{}, 014433 (2001).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.65.014433>
R. G. Veliyev, [Semiconductors [**[45]{}**]{}, 158 (2011).]{} [https://doi.org/10.1134/S1063782611020242 ](https://doi.org/10.1134/S1063782611020242 )
D. Welz and M. Nishi, [Phys. Rev. B [**[45]{}**]{}, 9806 (1992).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.45.9806>
N. D. Patel, A. Nocera, G. Alvarez, A. Moreo, and E. Dagotto, [Phys. Rev. B 96, 024520 (2017).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.024520>
N. D. Patel, N. Kaushal, A. Nocera, G. Alvarez, and E. Dagotto, npj Quantum Mater. [**5**]{}, 27 (2020). <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41535-020-0228-2>
J. Herbrych, J. Heverhagen, N. D. Patel, G. Alvarez, M. Daghofer, A. Moreo, and E. Dagotto, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**[123]{}**]{}, 027203 (2019).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.027203>
J. Herbrych, N. Kaushal, A. Nocera, G. Alvarez, A. Moreo, and E. Dagotto, [Nat. Commun. [**[9]{}**]{}, 3736 (2018).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06181-6>
N.D. Patel, A. Nocera, G. Alvarez, A. Moreo, S. Johnston, and E. Dagotto, Communications Physics [**2**]{}, 64 (2019). <https://doi.org/10.1038/s42005-019-0155-3>
S.R. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 2863 (1992). <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2863>
S. R. White Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 10345 1993. <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.48.10345>
H. Takahashi, A. Sugimoto, Y. Nambu, T. Yamauchi, Y. Hirata, T. Kawakami, M. Avdeev, K. Matsubayashi, F. Du, C. Kawashima, H. Soeda, S. Nakano, Y. Uwatoko, Y. Ueda, T. J. Sato, and K. Ohgushi,[ Nat. Mater. [**[14]{}**]{}, 1008 (2015).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4351>
T. Yamauchi, Y. Hirata, Y., Y. Ueda, and K. Ohgushi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{}, 246402 (2015). [https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.246402 ](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.246402 )
For pairing in Se-based ladders see J. Ying, H. Lei, C. Petrovic, Y. Xiao, and V.V. Struzhkin, Phys. Rev. B [**95**]{}, 241109 (2017). <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.95.241109>
N. D. Patel, A. Nocera, G. Alvarez, R. Arita, A. Moreo, and E. Dagotto, [Phys. Rev. B [**[94]{}**]{}, 075119 (2016).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.94.075119>
M-T. Suzuki, R. Arita, and H. Ikeda, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 085116 (2015). <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.92.085116>
Y. Zhang, L-F. Lin, J-J. Zhang, E. Dagotto, and S. Dong, Phys. Rev. B [**95**]{}, 115154 (2017). <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.95.115154>
Y. Zhang, L-F. Lin, J-J. Zhang, E. Dagotto, and S. Dong, Phys. Rev. B [**97**]{}, 045119 (2018). <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.045119>
S. Dong, J.-M. Liu, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 187204 (2014). <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.187204>
Y. Zhang, L-F. Lin, A. Moreo, S. Dong, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. B [**100**]{}, 184419 (2019). <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.100.184419>
Y. Zhang, L-F. Lin, A. Moreo, S. Dong, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. B [**101**]{}, 144417 (2020). <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.101.144417>
Q. Luo, K. Foyevtsova, G. D. Samolyuk, F. Reboredo, and E. Dagotto, [Phys. Rev. B [**[90]{}**]{}, 035128 (2014).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.035128>
Q. Luo, A. Nicholson, J. Rincón, S. Liang, J. Riera, G. Alvarez, L. Wang, Wei Ku, G. D. Samolyuk, A. Moreo, and E. Dagotto, [Phys. Rev. B [**[87]{}**]{}, 024404 (2013).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.87.024404>
J. Herbrych, J. Heverhagen, G. Alvarez, M. Daghofer, A. Moreo, and E. Dagotto, ArXiv:1911.12248 (2019). <https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.12248>
P. Stuble, S. Peschke, D. Johrendt, and C. Rohr, [Journal of Solid State Chemistry [**[258]{}**]{}, 416–430 (2018).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssc.2017.10.033>
J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**[77]{}**]{}, 3865 (1996).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865>
P. E. Böchl, [Phys. Rev. B [**[50]{}**]{}, 17953 (1994).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.50.17953>
G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, [Phys. Rev. B [**[54]{}**]{}, 11169 (1996).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.54.11169>
G. Kresse and D. Joubert, [Phys. Rev. B [**[59]{}**]{}, 1758 (1999).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.59.1758>
N. Marzari and D. Vanderbilt, [Phys. Rev. B [**[56]{}**]{}, 12847 (1997).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.56.12847>
A. A. Mosto, J. R. Yates, Y. S. Lee, I. Souza, D. Vanderbilt, and N. Marzari, [Comput. Phys. Commun. [**[178]{}**]{}, 685 (2007).]{} <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2007.11.016>
G. Alvarez, Comp. Phys. Comm. [**180**]{}, 1572 (2009). <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2009.02.016>
Q. Luo [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 104508 (2010). <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.82.104508>
E. Dagotto, T. Hotta, and A. Moreo, Phys. Rep. [**344**]{}, 1 (2001). <https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00121-6>
A. Nocera and G. Alvarez, Phys. Rev. E [**94**]{}, 053308, (2016). <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.94.053308>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We report on a search for the process $p\bar{p}\rightarrow \gamma+W/Z$ with $W/Z\rightarrow q\bar{q}$ in events containing two jets and a photon at the center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}=1.96$ TeV, using 184 pb$^{-1}$ of data collected by the CDF II detector. A neural network event selection has been developed to optimize the rejection of the large QCD production background; it is shown that this method gives a significant improvement in both signal-to-noise ratio and signal sensitivity, as compared with an event selection based on conventional cuts. An upper limit is presented for the $\gamma+W/Z$ production cross section with the $W$ and $Z$ decaying hadronically.'
title: ' Search for Hadronic Decays of W and Z Bosons in Photon Events in $p\bar p$ Collisions at $\sqrt{s}$=1.96 GeV'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The identification of gauge boson hadronic decays is extremely challenging at hadron colliders, since a small two-jet resonance needs to be extracted from a huge QCD multi-jet background. At the Tevatron only the favorable circumstance of $W$’s generated in top quark decays has allowed for a successful identification of the $W$ hadronic resonance [@top-W-had]. Nevertheless, the ability to extract hadronic resonances submerged in a large QCD background is of paramount importance in the search of new particles with dominantly hadronic decays. The most important example is the Higgs boson for which no direct evidence has yet been observed.
At the Tevatron, one of the most promising signatures for the Higgs observation is the associated production with a $W(Z)$, where the Higgs decays into two jets [@Higgs-Report]. However, at the center of mass energy $\sqrt{s}=1.96$ TeV, the standard model (SM) Higgs boson cross section is much smaller than that for the non-resonant $W+jj$ production, and thus, sophisticated techniques are needed to suppress the QCD background while maintaining a high signal detection efficiency.
In this respect, identification of dijet resonances of the $W$ and $Z$ bosons provides an important test bench for developing such techniques, due to the high statistical sample that can be collected and the fact that their characteristics are well known. In addition, a highly populated $W/Z$ boson dijet mass peak is an excellent tool to constrain the jet energy scale and also to improve the dijet mass resolution, two essential ingredients for precision measurement of signatures with jets in the final state.
At hadron colliders, a mass peak from $W(Z)\rightarrow jj$ was reconstructed in the inclusive dijet events by the UA2 collaboration [@UA2] at $\sqrt{s}=630$ GeV. With a signal over background ratio ($S/B$) of about 1/35, about 5000 events were observed. At $\sqrt{s}=1.96$ TeV, the QCD dijet production cross section increases by approximately a factor 35 for 20 GeV jets, making the production rate too high to be handled by the data acquisition system. However, this is not the case when the $W(Z)$ is produced in association with another gauge boson ($\gamma$,$W$,$Z$).
Because the $\gamma+W(Z)$ cross section is one order of magnitude higher than the heavy diboson production $WW+WZ$, these events offer in principle the best opportunity to identify the $W(Z)\rightarrow
jj$ resonance.
In addition, the diboson production with a photon is interesting in its own right. In fact, the $\gamma+W(Z)$ production is directly correlated to the non-Abelian character of the electroweak theory, and is sensitive to physics beyond the standard model through enhancement of the trilinear $WW\gamma$ coupling and possible contributions of the $ZZ\gamma$ and $Z\gamma\gamma$ couplings forbidden in the standard model. Although such effects have already been searched for in the leptonic channels of $W(Z)\gamma$ events [@CDF-lepton], the successful identification of such events also in the hadronic channels could concur for an even more stringent test of the SM in this sector.
Analysis Overview {#sec-overview}
-----------------
In this paper we report on a search for $W(Z)$ decaying into two jets based on a sample of $\gamma+jj$ data collected with the CDF II detector between July 2003 and September 2004 [@Bocci-thesis], corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 184$\pm$7 pb$^{-1}$ [@Lum-error]. In a previous study of this signature performed by the CDF collaboration at $\sqrt{s}=1.8$ GeV and using 90 pb$^{-1}$ of data [@CDF-RunIMarina], a significance ($S/\sqrt{S+B}$) of 0.3 was achieved, with a S/B of about 1/100. In the study reported here, in addition to an improved online event selection, a neural network based technique is employed to enhance the significance.
The expected shape of the $W(Z)$ mass distribution ($m_{jj}^{W/Z}$) is derived from simulated SM signal events. The shape of the background is determined directly from the data by fitting the observed dijet mass distribution ($m_{jj}$) in the control region, [*i.e.*]{} excluding the part of the $m_{jj}$ spectrum around the W/Z boson mass value where the signal is expected to be visible (signal region).
Because of the steeply falling behavior of the $m_{jj}$ distribution, it is important to have unbiased control regions both below and above the signal region to obtain an accurate description of the background. Extreme care is taken in choosing the online and offline selection cuts in order to not deplete the control region at low values of $m_{jj}$. In fact, since such region has the biggest weight in the fit, it ultimately determines the accuracy with which the background estimate can be determined. Such accuracy is particularly crucial in cases with very low $S/B$ ratio, like the search reported in this article. The excess in the signal region over the smooth background - if consistent with the SM signal shape - can then be attributed to $W(Z)$ decaying into jets.
This paper is organized as follows. In section \[sec-SM-Prediction\], a description of the processes involved in the $W(Z)\gamma$ production is provided as well as the SM cross section predictions. Detector and trigger descriptions follow in Sections \[sec-Detector\] and \[sec-Trigger\]. In Sections \[sec-EventSelection\] and \[sec-Systematics\] event selection criteria and expected event yield, along with their systematic uncertainties, are outlined. The neural network based selection and its performance is described in Section \[sec-NN-base\]. Sections \[sec-Results\] and \[sec-Limit\] discuss the results followed by the conclusions.
STANDARD MODEL PREDICTION FOR THE $W(Z)\gamma$ CROSS SECTION\[sec-SM-Prediction\]
=================================================================================
The tree-level Feynman diagrams for $W\gamma$ and $Z\gamma$ production are shown in Fig. 1. Figure 1(a) and Fig. 1(b) show the $t$-channel and $u$-channel $W(Z)$ production respectively, where a photon is radiated from one of the incoming quarks. Figure 1(c) and Fig. 1(d) show the processes where a photon is radiated from the decay quarks of the $W(Z)$ boson. In these latter cases the $W(Z)$ boson resonance cannot be reconstructed from the two-body mass of the final quarks. The final state of these processes is very similar from both kinematic and topological standpoints to some components of the background in our sample (Sec. \[sec-NN\]). Because our analysis cuts have a high background rejection power, 1(c) and 1(d) radiative decays contributions are strongly suppressed in the sample selected. Finally the process involving the three vector boson coupling $WW\gamma$ is shown in Fig. 1(e).
{width="14cm"}
The $p\bar{p}\rightarrow{}W(Z)\gamma\rightarrow q \bar{q} \gamma$ predictions were determined using the [pythia]{} [@Pythia] Monte Carlo (MC) generator. It calculates the matrix elements at leading order (LO) and in the narrow boson-width approximation in which radiative boson decay diagrams (Fig. 1(c) and 1(d)) are ignored. The QCD initial/final state radiation as well as subsequent parton fragmentation and hadronization were also provided by [pythia]{} . The factorization scale $Q$ was set equal to the center of mass energy of the incoming quarks $\sqrt{\hat{s}}$. The CTEQ5L [@cteq5L] parton distribution functions were used. The [pythia]{} calculations were compared to the predictions obtained with [madgraph]{} [@madgraph], a tree level matrix element calculator that, in contrast to [pythia]{}, does not use the narrow boson-width approximation. The radiative contribution was suppressed by requiring the invariant mass of the W(Z) di-quark decays to be greater than 74(85) GeV. In addition, to avoid collinear emission divergences the distance between the photon and the quarks in the $\eta$-$\phi$ [@var-def] space was required to be greater than 0.4. The final state observables from the MC simulation were also compared. The $p_T$ and pseudorapidity distribution of the two outgoing partons and of the photon as well as the pair-wise separation, defined as $\Delta R_{ij}=\sqrt{(\phi_i-\phi_j)^2+(\eta_i-\eta_j)^2}$, $(i,j)=1,2,3,$ $i\neq j$, were in excellent agreement. The resulting [madgraph]{} $W\gamma$ ($Z\gamma$) cross section is 11% higher than the value predicted by [pythia ]{}. The [pythia]{} cross section prediction is scaled for $O(\alpha_S)$ QCD contributions ($k$-factor) coming from subprocesses with either virtual gluon loops or gluon/quark emissions in the initial state. The magnitude of this correction, averaged over the photon spectrum in the region $p_T^{\gamma}>10$ GeV, is 1.55 for the $W\gamma$ process [@nlo_b1] and 1.44 for the $Z\gamma$ [@nlo_b2]. Including this $k$-factor the SM prediction for the signal in the kinematic region $p_T^{\gamma}>10$ GeV and $|\eta^{\gamma}|<$ 1.2 is $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{W(Z)\gamma} &=&
\sigma(p\bar{p}\rightarrow{}W\gamma)\times{}{\mathfrak
B}(W\rightarrow{}q\bar{q}) \\
&+& \sigma(p\bar{p}\rightarrow{}Z\gamma)\times{}{\mathfrak
B}(Z\rightarrow{}q\bar{q}) = 20.5 \pm 2.5 \ \ pb.\end{aligned}$$ The 12% uncertainty accounts for the discrepancy between [pythia]{} and [madgraph]{} cross sections (11%), for the $k$-factor (3%), the factorization scale (1.5%), and the parton distribution function (4.8%) uncertainties. It is interesting to notice that in contrast to the inclusive production, where the $W$ cross section is about three times larger than the $Z$ cross section [@UA2], for the production of the $W$ and $Z$ in association with a photon, the SM predicts similar cross sections ($\sigma_{W\gamma}=9.9$ pb and $\sigma_{Z\gamma}=10.6$ pb).
DETECTOR DESCRIPTION\[sec-Detector\]
====================================
A detailed description of the CDF II detector can be found elsewhere [@CDF-detector]. Here we briefly describe the aspects of the detector relevant for this analysis. The tracking system is a magnetic spectrometer consisting of a 90-cm long cylindrical silicon micro-strip detector surrounded by a 3.1 m long drift chamber, both immersed in a 1.4 T magnetic field. The calorimeter consists of an electromagnetic ([em]{}) and a hadronic ([had]{}) compartments covering both central ($|\eta|<1.1$) and forward ($1.1<|\eta|<3.6$) regions. Both calorimeters are segmented into projective towers. The tower size in the central calorimeter is approximately $0.11(\eta)\times 15^\circ(\phi)$, and the resolution is about $13.5\%/\sqrt{E_T} \oplus 2\%$ for electrons (where $E_T=E\sin{\theta}$ and $E$ is measured in GeV). Embedded in the central calorimeter is a a multiwire proportional chamber ([ces]{}), located at a depth of approximately six radiation lengths where the density of the energy deposited by an [em]{} shower is at a maximum. Cathode strips and anode wires, with a channel spacing between 1.5 and 2 cm, running along the azimuthal and the beam line direction respectively provide precise information on the electromagnetic shower centroid as well as the shower profile in the transverse direction. Another wire chamber ([cpr]{}) is located between the magnet coil and the central calorimeter modules. It measures the signals from early showers of electromagnetic particles occurring in the coil. The [ces]{} and [cpr]{} systems are used to discriminate prompt photon from multi-photon decay products of neutral mesons, $\pi^0$’s, $\eta$’s or $K_S$’s.
The data were collected with a three level trigger system. At level 1 (L1), a simple selection can be made based on the presence of tracks above a fixed $p_T$ threshold, on the total energy deposited in the calorimeter, or on single calorimeter trigger tower energies (a trigger tower consists of two calorimeter towers adjacent in the $z$ direction). At level 2 (L2), custom built hardware is used to reconstruct calorimeter energy clusters, apply isolation requirements for photons and electrons, identify muons, and measure track displacements from the primary vertex. At level 3 (L3), events are fully reconstructed with the same algorithms used in the offline analysis. The transverse energies however are calculated using the nominal interaction point, instead of the actual event vertex position.
TRIGGER SELECTION\[sec-Trigger\]
================================
In the analysis reported in this article the main source of background is the non-resonant QCD $\gamma+jj$ production. In addition, a large contribution from three-jet production is also expected. Both of these background processes have rather large event rates. As a consequence, an elaborate triggering scheme is needed to reduce their rate to levels that can be handled by the current data acquisition hardware. The main challenge is to keep the photon $p_T$ threshold low enough in order not to bias significantly the data $m_{jj}$ distribution below the signal region. Only with this requirement can an accurate determination of the background shape be successfully carried out (see Sec. \[sec-overview\]). However, an inclusive photon trigger with a low $p_T^{\gamma}$ threshold results in an unacceptably large rate. We designed a trigger taking into account the above constraints. Details of the trigger specifications are outlined in the following sections.
Level 1 and level 2 Selection
-----------------------------
At level 1 events with a trigger tower with $E_T>8$ GeV and at least 89% of its energy deposited in the [em]{} section are selected. At level 2, electromagnetic clusters are reconstructed combining towers with $E_T>7.5$ GeV adjacent to a seed tower. A seed tower must have an $E_T>8$ GeV with 89% of its energy deposited in the [em]{} calorimeter. Only [em]{} clusters with $E_T>12$ GeV and isolated from other deposits of energy are selected. The isolation requirement proceeds as follows. The sum of the transverse energies is determined in a) 8 towers surrounding the seed tower and b) all four combinations of ten towers in a $4\times 3$ region surrounding the seed and one adjacent tower. The lowest of these five sums is required to be less than 1 GeV. Such a strict isolation requirement provides significant rejection against the high-rate neutral meson multi-photon-decay background and against photons radiated by quarks or gluons. To further reduce the L2 output rate the presence of a significant hadronic activity were added on top of the photon requirement. The L2 hardware jet finder was exploited to identify clusters of energetic towers where a nearest neighbor algorithm with a seed tower threshold of 3 GeV is used. The trigger requires the presence of at least two such L2 clusters, one of which corresponds to the photon, with the seed in the region $|\eta|<1.78$. To maximize efficiency for low Et jets we apply no explicit requirement on cluster energy. Instead, the total transverse energy of the calorimeter trigger towers $\Sigma E_T$, excluding the photon candidate energy, is required to be greater than 20 GeV. The trigger rate reduction brought about by these extra cuts allows the photon $E_T$ threshold to be set as low as 12 GeV.
Level 3 Selection
-----------------
At level 3, [em]{} clusters are formed by combining towers with more than 2 GeV of energy with their two nearest neighbors in pseudorapidity. Only clusters with 95% of their energy in the electromagnetic calorimeter are selected. Positions and transverse profiles of [em]{} cluster showers are determined using the [ces]{} detector. Eleven strips (wires) around the most energetic strips (wires) are grouped to form a [ces]{} cluster. To avoid spurious clusters made up by noisy channels, at least two strips (wires) in each cluster are required to be above threshold. This solution is more efficient than just requiring one strip (wire) with high energy, as was done in Run I [@RunIPhotonPRD]. The precise position of an [em]{} cluster is determined using the centroid of the most energetic [ces]{} cluster inside the [em]{} cluster towers. The position resolution achieved using this method is about 2 mm for a single particle shower. The [CES]{} cluster centroid is also required not to be close to the edges of the [ces]{} where the detector is not fully efficient. In particular it has to be within 21 cm from the center of the tower in azimuthal direction ($X_{CES}$) and within 9 cm $<|z|<$ 217 cm along the beam direction ($Z_{CES}$). A calorimeter cluster isolation energy $E^{iso}_{T}$ is defined at this level as the total transverse energy inside a cone of radius R=0.4 in $\eta-\phi$ space, centered at the [CES]{} cluster position, but excluding the cluster energy. A cut of $E^{iso}_{T}<1$ GeV is applied. The profile of the cluster is compared with a single [em]{} particle profile as measured in test beam and $\chi^2$s quantifying the “similarity” are formed in both the azimuthal and longitudinal directions [@RunIPhotonPRD]. The average of these two $\chi^2$s are required to be less than 20. No explicit requirements on jets are implemented at L3. A summary of the trigger cuts is reported in Table. 1.
[lc]{}\
Trigger Tower $E_T$ & $>8$ GeV\
Trigger Tower $E_{HAD}/E_{EM}$ & $<0.125$\
\
L2 [em]{} Cluster $E_T$ & $>12$ GeV\
L2 [em]{} Cluster $E_{HAD}/E_{EM}$ & $<0.125$\
L2 [em]{} Cluster $|\eta|$ & $<1.2$\
L2 [em]{} Cluster $E_T^{iso}$ & $<1.0$ GeV\
\
L2 $\sum{E_T}$ & $>20+{p_T^\gamma }$ GeV\
L2 Jet & $>1$\
L2 Jet $|\eta|$ & $<1.78$\
\
L3 [em]{} Cluster $E_T$ & $>12$ GeV\
L3 [em]{} Cluster $E_{HAD}/E_{EM}$ & $<0.05$\
L3 [em]{} Cluster $E_T^{Iso}$ & $<1.0$ GeV\
L3 [em]{} Cluster $\chi^2_{CES}$ & $<20$\
L3 [em]{} Cluster $|X_{CES}|$ & $<21$ cm\
L3 [em]{} Cluster $|Z_{CES}|$ & $9<z<217$ cm\
\[tab:trg\_summary\]
EVENT SELECTION\[sec-EventSelection\]
=====================================
The events selected online are processed offline taking into account the updated calorimeter calibration, the tracker alignment constants, and the measured beam position in the data. The primary vertex location is determined by iteratively fitting the tracks to a common point. In case more than one vertex is reconstructed due to multiple $p\bar{p}$ interactions in the same bunch crossing, the primary vertex of the event is considered that whose associated tracks have the highest sum of transverse energy. The transverse energies are then determined with respect to this interaction. In the following the offline event selection is described.
Photon Selection
----------------
To eliminate the cosmic ray contamination from the sample, the total missing transverse energy [@var-def] is required to be less than 80% of the transverse energy of the photon candidate. The primary event vertex position along the beam direction is required to be within 60 cm from the center of the detector. Only events with an [em]{} cluster with $E_T>12$ GeV are selected. The cluster position determined in the [CES]{} detector is restricted to $|X_{CES}|<$ 17 cm and 14 cm $<|Z_{CES}|<$ 217 cm. These fiducial cuts ensure the [em]{} shower is contained inside the [ces]{} detector boundaries, allowing an accurate reconstruction of its transverse profiles. The isolation cut applied at the trigger level is refined offline where the transverse energy in a cone $R=0.4$ around the [em]{} cluster, calculated using the event vertex, is required to be less than 1 GeV excluding the photon transverse energy. The photon energy is corrected in average for the contributions of multiple $p\bar{p}$ interactions in the same bunch crossing (pile-up events) and for the photon [em]{} shower leakage into neighboring towers. In addition, the isolation requirement is reinforced by rejecting photon candidates with a reconstructed track pointing to it. Photons converted into $e^+e^-$ pairs in the tracking volume or in the beam pipe, about 14% of all photons emerging from the interaction point, are also rejected by this cut. The [ces]{} shower shape is compared to the one generated by a single [em]{} particle profile with the same technique used at L3. A similar $\chi^2_{CES}<20$ cut is thus applied. Photon candidates with a second [ces]{} cluster inside the associated [EM]{} cluster and with energy above 1 GeV are also rejected to suppress the multi-photon background. The efficiencies of these cuts in selecting prompt photons are described in Section \[sec-SelectionEfficiency\].
Photon Background Subtraction\[sec-PhotonSubtraction\]
------------------------------------------------------
The photon candidates passing the above requirements are still contaminated by multi-photons from neutral meson decay. Two independent techniques are employed to subtract this multi-photon background on a statistical basis. The first one (“profile method”) exploits the difference in $\chi^2_{CES}$ of the two components. Low $p_T$ prompt photons are expected to have a smaller $\chi^2_{CES}$ than multi-photons which have a broader [em]{} shower profile. However, this method is not useful for [em]{} clusters with $p_T>35$ GeV: at such energies multi-photons are too collimated to produce electromagnetic showers that are detectably broader than single photon. The second technique (“conversion method”) [@UA2-cpr] exploits instead the different conversion probability of single and multiple photons when they pass through the magnet coil, and it is approximately independent of $p_T$. Such conversions are detected in the [cpr]{} detector. For both methods the prompt photon content of the sample is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
N_{\gamma} = \frac{\epsilon-\epsilon_b}{\epsilon_{\gamma}-\epsilon_b}\cdot N_{total},\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon_{\gamma}$ and $\epsilon_b$ are respectively the efficiencies for prompt and multiple photons to pass a fixed $\chi^2_{CES}$ cut ([cpr]{} pulse height cut) in the case of the profile (conversion) method. Such efficiencies are determined using both real data and simulated control samples as detailed in [@RunIPhotonPRD]. The number of photon candidates in the sample is $N_{total}$ and $\epsilon$ is the fraction of these candidates passing the cuts. The two methods provide a consistent estimate of the prompt photon content. In the following, for photon background subtraction, we determine the prompt photon content using the profile (conversion) method to photon candidates with $p_T<$ 35 GeV ($p_T>$ 35 GeV ). All the event distributions, including $m_{jj}$, are accordingly weighted to subtract the multiphoton background. The ratio of the number of prompt photons to the number of photon candidates in the sample after the event selection is shown in Fig. \[fig:pho\_fraction\].
![Prompt photon fraction (number of prompt photon/number of candidate photons) in the data sample as a function of the photon candidate $p_T$. Only statistical errors are reported.[]{data-label="fig:pho_fraction"}](ces_cpr_prd.eps){width="9cm"}
Jet Selection {#sec-jet_sel}
-------------
Hadronic jets are identified using an iterative cone clustering algorithm [@JETCLU] with a cone radius R=0.7. Based on simulations of jet fragmentation and of calorimeter response to hadrons the raw $E_T$ of the jets are corrected for [@CDF-JER-NIM]:
(i) the non-linear and non-uniform response of the calorimeter;
(ii) the undetected energy falling into uninstrumented regions of the detector;
(iii) the energy coming in average from multiple $p\bar{p}$ interactions occurring in the same bunch crossing and the underlying event contribution;
(iv) the energy of low momentum charged particles that do not reach the calorimeter;
(v) the average energy loss due to particles falling outside the jet-clustering cone.
The jet corrections depend on the $p_T$ of the jet, its pseudorapidity, and on the number of vertices in the event. They amount, on average, to 25%(15%) of the jet energy for 15(50) GeV jets. In this analysis only events with two jets of $E_T>15$ GeV and containing no additional jet with $E_T>10$ GeV are selected. The additional jet veto is introduced both to reduce the QCD background and to improve the $W/Z$ dijet mass resolution by removing $W(Z)\gamma$ events with hard gluon radiation.
SELECTION EFFICIENCY AND SIGNAL YIELD\[sec-Systematics\]
========================================================
In this section the trigger and offline requirement efficiencies in selecting ${\gamma{}(W/Z)\rightarrow{}\gamma{}q\bar{q}\ }$ signal events are calculated. The trigger efficiency is calculated for events satisfying all the offline selection criteria. In turn, the offline selection efficiency is evaluated using simulated $W(Z)\gamma$ events.
Trigger Efficiency
------------------
It is convenient to break up the trigger efficiency $\epsilon_{trg}$ in two components: 1) the photon selection efficiency $\epsilon_{trg}^{\gamma}$ and 2) the efficiency related to hadronic cluster requirements $\epsilon_{trg}^{jets}$ (see Tab. \[tab:trg\_summary\]).
The $\epsilon_{trg}^{\gamma}$ value is calculated as follows. First, it is evaluated relative to a control sample collected by a trigger with looser photon cuts (including a lower $p_T$ threshold). Then the efficiency of this control sample is measured using a sample of “unbiased” photon candidates, [*i.e.*]{} a sample where they have not been used to trigger the data set. The product of these two contributions is shown in Fig. \[fig:trg\_eff\]; this gives the photon candidate trigger efficiency. The value at the plateau reflects the online/offline isolation energy differences while the low $p_T$ turn-on is determined by the trigger threshold energy smearing. The final prompt photon trigger efficiency $\epsilon_{trg}^{\gamma}$ is determined by applying the photon background subtraction described in Sec. \[sec-PhotonSubtraction\] to the plot in Fig. \[fig:trg\_eff\]. For prompt photons the plateau level increases to 85% as they are more likely to pass the isolation cuts than the multi-photons.
![Trigger efficiency for photon candidates as a function of $p_T$. \[fig:trg\_eff\]](trg_eff_prd.eps){width="9cm"}
The $\epsilon_{trg}^{jets}$ is evaluated using the MC signal sample described in Section \[sec-SM-Prediction\]. The simulation of the CDF calorimeter has been tuned to reproduce the response measured in collider data [@CDF-JER-NIM]. The energies in the trigger towers, the L2 $\sum E_T$, and the L2 jets quantities were estimated using the online algorithms applied to the offline calorimeter tower energies. The accuracy of such estimates was checked in real data against the actual online measurements, and for the quantities used in the online selection the agreement was found to be within 1%. The fraction of MC signal events passing the L2 jet requirements is $\epsilon_{trg}^{jets}= 0.93$.
In conclusion, the combined trigger efficiency in selecting ${\gamma{}(W/Z)\rightarrow{}\gamma{}q\bar{q}\ }$ event is $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_{trg}= \epsilon_{trg}^{\gamma} \cdot \epsilon_{trg}^{jets} =0.76 \pm 0.01.\end{aligned}$$
Acceptance and Selection Efficiency\[sec-SelectionEfficiency\]
--------------------------------------------------------------
The acceptance and efficiency of the offline event selection is estimated by applying sequentially the cuts described in Section \[sec-SM-Prediction\] to the MC signal sample. In Table \[tab:effsum\] the offline cut relative efficiencies, defined as the fraction of events passing a cut after having passed all the previous cuts, are reported. The MC simulation acceptance - the fraction of generated events containing an [em]{} cluster of $E_T>12$ GeV - reflects the choice of the $p_T$ photon generation cut (10 GeV). A lower cut at the generation level is needed to avoid threshold bias brought about by the finite detector resolution. The photon geometric acceptance includes the pseudorapidity selection as well as the $X_{CES}$ and $Z_{CES}$ cuts. The accuracy of the efficiencies reported in Table \[tab:effsum\] depends upon the precision of the detector simulation in reproducing the data. The electromagnetic particle response in the simulation is checked using electrons from $Z\rightarrow ee$ and $W\rightarrow e\nu$ decays (a large sample of pure prompt photons is not available in the data). This comparison is used to estimate the systematic uncertainties of the selection efficiencies. An account of these studies is given next:
(i) [$Z_{vertex}$ *Cut*]{}: The shape of the luminous region in real data was determined by fitting the vertex position in minimum bias events. The signal vertex position is simulated according to this distribution. The fraction of events within $|z|<$ 60 cm in MC simulation matches the data within 0.5%.
(ii) [*Missing Energy Cut*]{}: A change of the $E_T^{miss}/p_T^{\gamma}$ by 10% resulted in a 2% change in the selection efficiency, which is assigned as systematic uncertainty.
(iii) [[had/em]{} *Ratio*]{}: The fraction of the unbiased electron from $Z$-boson decays which pass the [had/em]{} cut in simulated and data events agrees within 1%. We assume the same difference holds for photons, whose shower starts deeper in the calorimeter, and assigning a 1% systematic uncertainty.
(iv) [*Calorimeter Isolation:*]{} The amount of energy surrounding a prompt photon [em]{} deposition is determined by [em]{} shower leakage outside the cluster and by underlying and multiple interaction events. The accuracy of the simulation of the isolation cut measurement has been evaluated using cones of $R=0.4$ randomly placed in the photon fiducial region. The energy collected in these cones can be considered an approximation of the isolation energy measured around [em]{} clusters. The fraction of such cones passing the isolation cut ($E_T<1$ GeV) in simulated $W\rightarrow
e\nu$ events was found 3$\pm$2% higher than in the data. A correction factor 0.97 is applied to the MC isolation efficiency to account for the observed discrepancy. The 2% uncertainty is included in the systematic errors.
(v) [*Track Isolation:*]{} The track isolation efficiencies in simulated and real data events were found to be consistent within 2%. The photon conversion $\gamma\rightarrow e^-e^-$ rate is used to tune the detector simulation for the amount of material present in front of the calorimeter. The uncertainty of the track isolation efficiency includes any remaining deficiency in the material simulation.
(vi) [*[ces]{} $\chi^2$:*]{} Photon and electron [em]{} shower profile are simulated using the information collected during the single electron test beam. As a consequence, for the efficiency of the [ces]{} $\chi^2$ cut, a very good agreement (within 0.2%) is observed between simulated and real data $Z\rightarrow ee$ events.
(vii) [[ces]{} *Cluster Isolation:*]{} The [ces]{} cluster activity around $Z$-boson decay electrons in MC simulation was found to match the data at the level of 3%.
(viii) [*Jet Cuts*]{}: To assess the uncertainty on the jet cut efficiency the jet energy scale of all jets is shifted by one standard deviation (about 8(4)% for jets of $E_T=$15(50) GeV [@CDF-JER-NIM]). This results in a 7% relative change on the selection efficiency that we set as systematic uncertainty. This is the dominant source of systematics.
[lc]{} & [*Efficiency*]{} (%)\
MC Simulation Acceptance & 62.1$\pm$0.1\
Photon Geometric Acceptance & 60.7$\pm$1.0\
$|z_{vtx}|<60$ cm & 96.1$\pm$0.5\
Missing $E_T$ Cut & 90.6 $\pm$2.0\
\
Ratio & 94.5$\pm$1.0\
Calorimeter Isolation & 80.8$\pm$2.0\
Track Isolation & 80.2 $\pm$2.0\
CES $\chi^2$ & 99.6$\pm$0.2\
[ces]{} Cluster Isolation & 94.8$\pm$3.0\
\
Jet 3 $p_T<10$ GeV Cut & 54.6\
Jet 2 $p_T>15$ GeV Cut & 82.8\
\
Combining all the contributions in Table \[tab:effsum\] ($A_{kin}$, $\epsilon_{ph}$, and $\epsilon_{jet}$) with the trigger efficiency $\epsilon_{trg}$, our estimate of the total signal selection efficiency is $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon=\epsilon_{trg}\cdot A_{kin}\cdot\epsilon_{ph}\cdot
\epsilon_{jet}=0.065\pm0.006.\end{aligned}$$
Signal Dijet Mass Distribution and Signal Yield\[sec-SimpleAnalysis\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The mass distribution of the two leading jet system for the simulated signal events passing all the Table \[tab:effsum\] selection criteria is reported in Fig. \[fig:djmass\_presel\] along with the individual $\gamma W$ and $\gamma Z$ contributions. Both the $W$ and $Z$ mass distributions have non-Gaussian tails arising from initial and final state gluon radiation. For the $Z$ we notice a larger low mass tail due to the higher - on average - quark momenta compared to the $W$ quarks. In the range between 60 and 120 GeV the signal can be adequately described by a single Gaussian with a mean value of 87.2 GeV and a width of 12.5 GeV. This shape is used to extract the signal from the data. The dijet mass resolution ($\Delta M/M$), estimated by fitting a Gaussian function around the $W$ and $Z$ peaks, is 12% for both gauge bosons. This is consistent with other MC dijet mass resolution studies [@Higgs-Report]. The expected number of signal events in the sample is given by $N=\epsilon \times
\sigma_{\gamma W/Z}\times {\cal L}$, where $\epsilon=0.065$ is the selection efficiency (without any mass window cuts), $\sigma_{\gamma
W/Z}=20.5$ pb is the SM cross section (reported in Section \[sec-SM-Prediction\]), and ${\cal L}=184$ pb$^{-1}$ is the total integrated luminosity of the sample. In the dijet mass window 60 $\leq m_{jj}
\leq$ 120 GeV, 227 signal events are expected among the 42462 events present in the data. This corresponds to a signal over background ratio ($S/B$) of $1/187$. For the current data set, the statistical significance - defined as $S/\sqrt{S+B}$ - is 1.1.
In the following we show how the use of a neural network in the selection process can substantially enhance the sensitivity of the analysis.
![Normalized dijet invariant mass (solid line) distribution of the two leading jets of the selected ${\gamma{}(W/Z)\rightarrow{}\gamma{}q\bar{q}\ }$ MC events. The individual contributions from the $W$ and $Z$ bosons (dashed lines) are shown. The fit results are reported in the inset. []{data-label="fig:djmass_presel"}](dj_mass_prd.eps){width="9cm"}
ADVANCED EVENT SELECTION\[sec-NN-base\]
=======================================
The basic event selection described in Sec. \[sec-EventSelection\] has a rather mild discrimination power. However, the 15 GeV jet $p_T$ threshold cannot be increased since it would deplete the low end of the dijet mass spectrum. Similarly, the rejection of the extra jet activity is meant more to improve the dijet mass resolution rather than suppressing the background. Nevertheless, the kinematic and topological distributions of the final state in signal and background events exhibit some differences that can potentially be useful in enhancing the sensitivity of this analysis. In fact:
(i) In signal events the $W(Z)$ boson has a low $p_T$ (since $p_T^{W(Z)}\sim p_T^{\gamma}$). As a consequence the two jets are basically back-to-back with approximately the same energy, and the jet and photon directions are not correlated. In contrast the dominant background ($\gamma+jj$ events) comes either from a $qg\rightarrow
q\gamma$ production, where the quark balancing the photon radiates a gluon, or from a $qq$/$qg$ production, where one of the two outgoing quarks radiates a photon. In both cases, the radiated gluon/photon tends to be collinear with the radiating quark. Thus, the photon is either along or in opposite direction to the leading jet in the event.
(ii) In $\gamma+jj$ events the two leading jets are typically a quark and a gluon jet. This is also true for dijet production which is dominated at low $p_T$ by quark-gluon scattering. For signal events instead the two leading jets are both quark jets.
(iii) The signal is characterized by the production of two colorless gauge bosons that constrains the initial and final state in a particular (color singlet) configuration. The QCD background involves instead quarks and gluons with multiple color connections resulting in higher color radiation.
Hence, it is clear that the production of the signal and the background events differs in many ways. However, it was not possible to identify a set of selection criteria able to adequately discriminate between signal and background while keeping an acceptable signal yield. This is shown in Fig. \[fig:nn-distribution\] where the signal and background distributions for a few observables are compared. For these reasons we developed an artificial neural network (ANN) selection to exploit subtle differences and variable correlations. The ANN selection is applied to the events that have already passed the simple kinematic cuts described in Table \[tab:effsum\]. The structure of the ANN along with its performance is described next.
Neural Network Selection\[sec-NN\]
----------------------------------
In this analysis we employed the [jetnet]{} [@Jetnet] software package to construct a feed-forward network [@ForwardFeed]. The architecture of the network consists of one intermediate (hidden) layer and a single output node. For the network output $N_{OUT}$ a target value of 1 for the signal and 0 for the background is chosen. The training for the signal recognition is performed using as a template $\gamma(W/Z)\rightarrow q\bar{q}\gamma$ events generated by [ pythia]{} (Sec. \[sec-SM-Prediction\]). As background template instead, a subsample of real data events is used. In fact it is not trivial to simulate properly the QCD $\gamma+jj$ production because of the interplay between the components associated to the hard process (determined by matrix element calculations) and the components generated by the development of the hard partons (described by parton shower calculations) [@Mrenna_matching]. In addition, further complications arise from NLO effects that cannot be neglected for an accurate determination of the shape of the observable distributions [@Z_jets_NLO], a key ingredient in an ANN training. Considering that less than 0.6% of the data are signal events - based on predicted production rates - data provide an excellent approximation for background distributions. Only data events in the 60$\leq m_{jj} \leq$120 GeV signal mass window are considered in the ANN training.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*Property*]{} [*Description*]{}
------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Delta \eta_{jj}$ $\eta$ separation between the two leading jets
$n^{j_1+j_2}_{trk}$ Number of tracks inside a cone of size 0.5
in $\eta-\phi$ around the two leading jets
$M_{j_2}/E_{j_2}$ Mass over energy ratio of the second jet ($M=\sqrt{E^2-P^2}$)
$\eta_{max}^{jets}$ Maximum $\eta$ of the two leading jets
$\Omega$ “Intrajet Energy” defined as $\Omega=\big(\sum E_T -
E_T^{jet1} - E_T^{jet2} -
E_T^{\gamma}\big)\big/{}\Delta L$
where $\sum E_T$ is the $E_T$ scalar sum of the calorimeter towers
in the pseudorapidity region $(\eta^{DW}-0.3)<\eta<(\eta^{UP}+0.3)$
and $\Delta L = \eta^{UP}-\eta^{DW}+0.6$ with $\eta^{DW}=\min(\eta^{jet1},\eta^{jet2},\eta^{\gamma})$
and $\eta^{UP}=\max(\eta^{jet1},\eta^{jet2},\eta^{\gamma})$.
The energies of the photon and the two jets are [*uncorrected*]{}
$dE_T^{j\gamma}$ $\big(E_T^{jet1}-E_T^{\gamma}\big)\big/\big(E_T^{jet1}+E_T^{jet2}+E_T^{\gamma}\big)$
$\Delta \Phi_{jj}$ Azimuthal angle between the two jets
$\max \Delta \Phi_{j\gamma}$ Maximum azimuthal separation between photon and jets
$\min \Delta \Phi_{j\gamma}$ Minimum azimuthal separation between photon and jets
Sphericity $S=3/2\cdot (Q_2+Q_3)$ with $0\leq S \leq 1$
$\min \Delta \eta_{j\gamma}$ Minimum $\eta$ separation between photon and jets
$\max \Delta \eta_{j\gamma}$ Maximum $\eta$ separation between photon and jets
$\Delta \Phi_{\gamma W}$ Azimuthal separation between the photon and the jet1-jet2 system
$\eta_{j_2}$ Pseudo-rapidity of the second jet
$\Delta E_T^{jj}$ $E_T^{jet1} - E_T^{jet2}$ Transverse energy difference between jets
$\beta_W$ $\beta$ of the jet1-jet2 system
Aplanarity $A=3/2\cdot Q_3$ with $0\leq A \leq 0.5$
$\cos\theta^{*}$ cosine of the angle $\theta^{*}$ between the photon and the leading jet
directions calculated in the $\gamma$-jet reference frame
$\Delta \eta_{\gamma W}$ $\eta$ separation between the photon and the jet-jet system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variable Selection and Neural Network Training Tuning {#sec-NN_sel}
-----------------------------------------------------
We consider a set of 19 input variables (or [*nodes*]{}) related to the signal and background differences outlined above. The selected variables emphasize event and jet topologies, rather than absolute kinematic values of the final state objects. This is done to preserve as much as possible the shape of the $m_{jj}$ spectrum. The list of the ANN input nodes are given in Table \[tab:nn\_table\] along with their definitions. In order to improve the performance of an ANN, it is usually advisable to remove fully correlated variables from the set of input nodes. To identify among our 19 variables the redundant ones, we develop a “ranking” method that proceeds as follows.
First, the most discriminating variable is determined by comparing the performance of 19 ANN’s having each variable in Table \[tab:nn\_table\] as a single input node. The ratio $S/\sqrt{S+B}$ for a signal acceptance of 75% is used as a figure of merit. Second, two input node ANN’s are built. They have as a first input node the variable found before and as a second node one of the remaining variables. The second best variable, defined as the property that provides the best discrimination power when paired with the first variable, is determined by comparing the significance of these ANN’s.
The procedure is repeated, determining at each step the variable which, in conjunction with the best set of variables found in the previous step, forms the best performing ANN. At the end, when all the variables are considered, an ordered list of properties is generated. In Table \[tab:nn\_table\] the properties are listed in the order resulting from this procedure. The highest and lowest significance of the ANN’s built at the step $k$ ($k=1,..,19$) is shown in Fig. \[fig:nn\_ranking\]. The ANN’s discriminating power improves with the number of input nodes until the properties that are subsequently added become strongly correlated with those already considered. At this point a plateau in performance is reached. In our case such a plateau appears at about $k=10$. Hence, only the first ten properties listed in Table \[tab:nn\_table\] are used as input nodes in the final ANN.
{width="16cm"}
![Best (full square) and worst (empty square) ANN input variable combination in term of significance as a function of the number of input nodes for a signal efficiency of 75%. The fluctuations in the curves are due to small changes in the ANN internal parameters one has to introduce when the number of inputs increases. []{data-label="fig:nn_ranking"}](NN_ranking_for_prd.eps){width="9cm"}
The number of nodes, $N_{h}$, in the hidden layer is set to 17. Several ANN’s with $N_{h}$ from 11 to 30 were compared and no significant differences in performance were observed.
Neural Network Output and Improvement in Significance {#sec-NN_perform}
------------------------------------------------------
After the training, the ANN can be seen as a function associating a real number $0.0 \leq N_{OUT}\leq 1.0$ to each event. The $N_{OUT}$ distributions for the signal and background samples are shown in Fig. \[fig:nn\_out\]. Selecting events above some ANN output value $N_{CUT}$ clearly enhances the signal sensitivity of the sample.
![The ${N_{OUT}}$ normalized distributions for the signal (dashed line) and for the background (solid line) events.[]{data-label="fig:nn_out"}](NN_output_for_prd.eps){width="9cm"}
In Fig. \[fig:nn\_sbeff\] the signal (background) efficiency is shown as a function of $N_{CUT}$. In order not to deplete the signal yield too much we set $N_{CUT}=0.6$. For this value the signal efficiency of the ANN selection, $\epsilon_{NN}$, is 72%. After the ANN selection the expected number of signal events is $S=164$, while 11691 data events remain in the $60 \leq M_{jj} \leq 120$ GeV mass window. This corresponds to an $S/B=1/71$ with a significance $S/\sqrt{S+B}=1.51$, an improvement of 163% (37%) in $S/B$ ($S/\sqrt{S+B}$) over the simple kinematic selection reported in Sec. \[sec-SimpleAnalysis\]. Moreover, optimizing the size of the mass window, a significance of $S/\sqrt{S+B}=1.86$ is obtained in the mass window $72 \leq
M_{jj} \leq 110$ GeV. The data needed to achieve a significance of 5 is reduced by a factor of two when the ANN selection built in this analysis is applied.
Dijet mass spectrum
-------------------
After applying the $N_{OUT} > N_{CUT}=0.6$ cut to the data, the starting point of the control region (at low $m_{jj}$) remains approximately at the same value. This essential feature of our ANN can be linked to the choice of having restricted the network training sample to events with $m_{jj}$ values within the signal region and of not having explicitly used the energy of the two leading jets in the ANN. In addition, the ANN cut was applied to [pythia]{} $\gamma+jj$ MC events to check if some discontinuity was introduced in the $m_{jj}$ spectrum between the control and the signal region. As expected, the $m_{jj}$ distribution was found to be very smooth over the entire $m_{jj}$ range.
As far as the $m_{jj}^{W/Z}$ signal distribution is concerned, after the ANN selection, we observe no significant change in its Gaussian shape with the same mean and an improvement of about 1% in resolution. Hence, the ANN has similar selection efficiency for $W$ and $Z$ boson events.
![Efficiency for the signal and the background as a function of the ANN output threshold $N_{CUT}$. []{data-label="fig:nn_sbeff"}](summary_eff1_for_blessing.eps){width="9cm"}
Systematic Uncertainties on ANN Selection Efficiency {#sec-NN_sys}
----------------------------------------------------
Our final selection criteria are based on an ANN trained on simulated and real data events. Uncertainties in simulated quantities, such as jet kinematic and topological properties, introduce an uncertainty in the ANN selection efficiency. The granularity of the CDF detector allows an accurate determination of the directions of jets and photons. Thus, the observables derived only from the directions ($\Delta \eta_{jj}$, $\eta_{max}^{jets}$, $\Delta \Phi_{jj}$, $\max \Delta \Phi_{j\gamma}$, and $\min \Delta \Phi_{j\gamma}$) rely only upon the final state predictions made by the MC generator. As discussed in Sec. \[sec-SM-Prediction\], a good agreement on final state observables between the signal samples generated with [pythia]{} and [madgraph]{} is found; thus systematic uncertainties associated with these variables are negligible.
Other properties ($n^{j_1+j_2}_{trk}$, $M_{j_2}/E_{j_2}$, $\Omega$, $dE_T^{j\gamma}$, and sphericity) rely on the accuracy of the CDF detector simulation, in particular, on the calorimeter response to particles and track reconstruction efficiency. The calorimeter simulation has been extensively tuned to real data using isolated single tracks [@CDF-JER-NIM] while track reconstruction efficiencies in data and MC are observed to be very similar. The dominant uncertainty on these variables comes from the jet energy scale.
A change of $1\sigma$ [@CDF-JER-NIM] in jet energy scale results in a 27% change in the combined $\epsilon_{jets}\cdot\epsilon_{NN}$ signal efficiency value, which is assigned as total systematic uncertainty on jet and ANN selection efficiency.
### Effect of Multiple $p\bar{p}$ Interactions
In the signal sample used to train the ANN (Sec. \[sec-SM-Prediction\]) the contribution of additional $p\bar
p$ interactions (pile-up events) is not simulated. In this data sample the average number of vertices is 1.7 and more than half of the events contain at least one extra $p\bar p$ interaction. The ANN variables were carefully chosen to avoid any bias from pile-up events. The jet energies already have soft interaction contributions subtracted (Sec. \[sec-jet\_sel\]), and only tracks coming from the primary vertex are considered. The only variable that could in principle be sensitive to additional interactions is the intrajet energy $\Omega$ since it is made up with uncorrected energies. However, comparing data with single interaction MC $\gamma+jj$ events, a difference of less than 4% was observed for the mean value of $\Omega$.\
To gauge the size of a possible pile-up bias in our ANN, we divided the data into two non overlapping sets: one containing events with only one reconstructed vertex, and the second containing events with two or more vertices. The ANN outputs for the two samples turned out to be very similar. As a further check a new ANN was built trained with these two samples and based on the same ten variables used in our analysis. With such a training this new ANN is built to exploit any subtle (if any) pile-up dependence of our input nodes and to discriminate events with one vertex from events with more than one. Similar $N_{OUT}$ distributions (within 1%) were observed in the two cases, showing that pile-up events do not have an appreciable effect on our ANN.
Background Estimation and $W/Z$ Peak Search \[sec-Results\]
===========================================================
The search for the W/Z peak is done by subtracting the background contribution from the data dijet mass distribution. The two control regions are fitted with a smooth curve and interpolated inside the signal region. The functional form of the fit is provided by [ pythia]{} $\gamma+jj$ simulated events which are best described by a simple exponential form $f(m_{jj})=e^{P_0+P_1\cdot m_{jj}}$. Hence, the $m_{jj}$ spectrum from the data is fitted using this function with $P_0$ and $P_1$ as free parameters. The fit is performed starting from a minimum $m_{jj}$ value $M_{min}$ and excluding a mass window $M_{sig}^{L} \le m_{jj} \le M_{sig}^{H}$ containing the signal region. For reasonable variations of these three boundaries the changes in the two fit parameters were found to be well within their statistical uncertainties. The fit parameters do not show any significant change for values of $M_{min}$ greater than 52 GeV, while below that value we observe a steep increase of the fit $\chi^2$ because of the departure of the dijet mass shape from an exponential behavior due to the trigger threshold turn-on. The fit using $M_{min}=52$ GeV, $M_{sig}^{L}=68$ GeV, and $M_{sig}^{H}=116$ GeV is shown in Fig. \[fig:dj\_final\]. The interpolation within the signal region (dashed line) is our estimate of background. The dijet mass spectrum after the background subtraction is shown in Fig.\[fig:residual\]. A consistent result for the background estimate was also found fitting only the high mass control region ($m_{jj}>M_{sig}^H$) and extrapolating back inside the signal region, but at the price of a 50% larger uncertainty, confirming the importance of the low mass control region for an accurate determination of the background contribution. Since the subtracted distribution is compatible with zero, we are not able to identify a signal with the current data sample. In the next section we proceed to set an upper limit on the $\gamma+(W/Z)$ production with the $W/Z$ boson decays into hadrons.
![Dijet Mass distribution of the data after the NN selection cut. An exponential function $e^{P_0+P_1\cdot m_{jj}}$ is used to fit the two sidebands (solid line) and the result is interpolated inside the signal region (dashed line). The values $M_{min}$=52 GeV and $[M_{sig}^{L},M_{sig}^{H}]=[68,116]$ GeV are used to search for the $W/Z$ mass peak.[]{data-label="fig:dj_final"}](fit_bkg_for_prd.eps){width="9cm"}
![Excess of events in the data with respect to the background prediction deduced from the sideband fits (bin errors do not include the background prediction uncertainties). The turn-on effect can be noticed in the first two bins (they are not included in the background fit). No evidence of any excess from the W/Z resonance production is found inside the signal region. []{data-label="fig:residual"}](fit_excess_prd.eps){width="9cm"}
Cross Section Limit Calculation\[sec-Limit\]
============================================
To extract the signal from the data a Bayesian-based statistical procedure is applied. The region between 60 and 120 GeV of the $m_{jj}$ distribution is divided into $N_{bin}=15$ bins, and the data events in each bin are regarded as a counting experiment governed by Poisson statistics. The total number of events expected in the $i^{th}$ bin is $S_i+B_i$. The number of background events $B_i$ is estimated from the dijet mass distribution as described in Sec. \[sec-Results\]. Since the stability of the control region fit makes the error on $B_i$ very small, their values are held fixed. The number of signal events are $S_i=\epsilon \sigma {{\mathcal L}}s_i$, where $\sigma$ is the cross section, $\epsilon$ the total selection efficiency, ${{\mathcal L}}$ the integrated luminosity, and $s_i$ the $i^{th}$ bin content of the signal dijet mass density distribution as extracted from the MC simulation (Fig. \[fig:djmass\_presel\]). At first $s_i$ is held fixed as well. However, we show later how to take into account the uncertainties affecting the shape of the signal distribution.\
The joint probability of measuring $n_i$ events when $\sigma \epsilon
{{\mathcal L}}s_i+B_i$ are expected is given by
$$P(n_i|\sigma,{\epsilon},{{\mathcal L}}) = \prod_{i=1}^{N_{bin}}
\frac{(\sigma \epsilon {{\mathcal L}}s_i+B_i)^{n_i}}{n_i!}e^{-(\sigma \epsilon
{{\mathcal L}}s_i+B_i)}.$$
In Bayesian statistics the parameters $\sigma$, $\epsilon$ and ${{\mathcal L}}$ are represented by probability distributions. Before the measurement their corresponding [*prior*]{} density functions, $\pi(\sigma),\pi(\epsilon)$, and $\pi({{\mathcal L}})$, summarize our [*a priori*]{} knowledge of them. Since no information on the cross section is assumed before the measurement a uniform distribution is chosen as its prior. In particular we define $\pi(\sigma)=0$ if $\sigma<0$ and $\pi(\sigma)=1$ if $\sigma>0$. For the efficiency and integrated luminosity, we use the estimated values $\epsilon_0 \pm
\Delta\epsilon$ reported in Sec. \[sec-SelectionEfficiency\] and ${{\mathcal L}}_0 \pm \Delta {{\mathcal L}}$ pb$^{-1}$ as reported in Sec. \[sec-overview\]. Their priors are assumed to be represented by Gamma distributions $\gamma(x;\mu,\sigma_{\mu})$ with mean $\mu=\epsilon_0$,${{\mathcal L}}_0$ and width $\sigma_{\mu}=\Delta \epsilon$, $\Delta {{\mathcal L}}$. The expression for the joint [*posterior*]{} probability density for $(\sigma,\epsilon,{{\mathcal L}})$ is provided by the Bayes’ Theorem as:
$$p(\sigma,\epsilon,{{\mathcal L}}|n_i) = \frac{1}{{{\mathcal N}}} P(n_i|\sigma,\epsilon,{{\mathcal L}})
\pi(\sigma)\pi(\epsilon)\pi({{\mathcal L}}),$$
where the normalization factor ${{\mathcal N}}$ constrains the integral of $p(\sigma,\epsilon,{{\mathcal L}}|n_i)$ to unity when integrated over all the parameter space. To determine the cross section we calculate the marginalized [*posterior*]{} probability distribution for $\sigma$ as:
$$p(\sigma|n_i) = \iint
p(\sigma,\epsilon',{{\mathcal L}}'|n_i)d\epsilon'd{{\mathcal L}}'.$$
However, since the jet energy scale (JES) uncertainty results in a change of the signal dijet mass distribution shape (Sec. \[sec-NN\_sys\]), $s_i$ cannot be considered fixed and its dependence on JES systematics must be taken into account. To include this effect in the $p(\sigma|n_i)$ computation a new signal density distribution is constructed moving the JES by one standard deviation. Its bin content is defined as $s_i+\Delta s_i$. As a consequence the number of expected events is redefined as $\sigma \epsilon {{\mathcal L}}(s_i+t\Delta s_i)+B_i$, where the real number $t$ parametrizes the uncertainty on the signal density shape. The prior density $\pi(t)$ is assumed to be a Gaussian distribution centered at zero and with a width equal to one. The [*posterior*]{} density for $\sigma$, including the new parameter $t$, is given by $$p(\sigma|n_i) = \frac{1}{{{\mathcal N}}} \iiint P(n_i|\sigma,\epsilon',{{\mathcal L}}',t')
\pi(\epsilon')\pi({{\mathcal L}}')\pi(t')\ d\epsilon' \ d{{\mathcal L}}' \ dt'.$$
As far as the cross section is concerned, this probability density expresses the complete summary of the measurement. Upper limits (or a central value with errors) can be hereby extracted from $p(\sigma|n_i)$. The $p(\sigma|n_i)$ distribution was computed numerically and no local maximum for $\sigma>0$ was found. The cross section upper limit $\sigma_{lim}$ at 95% confidence level is computed solving the equation:
$$\int_0^{\sigma_{lim}} p(\sigma'|n_i)d\sigma' = 0.95.$$
It gives the value $\sigma_{lim}=54$ pb.
Conclusions {#sec-conclusions}
===========
We have developed a neural network approach to identify the dijet resonance of the $W$ and $Z$ boson from the production of events having two jets with an associated photon. As compared with a cut-based approach, the signal over background ratio improves by 163%, and the integrated luminosity needed for a $W/Z\rightarrow jj$ peak to emerge from the huge QCD background is reduced by a factor two. When applied to 184 pb$^{-1}$ of data collected by the CDF II detector, no evidence of a $W/Z\rightarrow jj$ peak is observed. The standard model prediction for $\sigma(p\bar{p}\rightarrow{}W\gamma)\times{}\mathfrak{B}(W\rightarrow{}q\bar{q'})
+
\sigma(p\bar{p}\rightarrow{}Z\gamma)\times{}\mathfrak{B}(Z\rightarrow{}q\bar{q})$ is estimated to be 20.5 pb for photons with $E_T>$ 10 GeV and $|\eta|<1.2$. A 95% confidence level upper limit on this cross section is extracted from the data with a full Bayesian approach and found to be 54 pb. The technique employed in this analysis can be profitably extended to the search for small dijet resonance peaks embedded in large multi-jet backgrounds.
Acknowledgments
===============
We thank the Fermilab staff and the technical staffs of the participating institutions for their vital contributions. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and National Science Foundation; the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare; the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan; the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; the National Science Council of the Republic of China; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the A.P. Sloan Foundation; the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Germany; the Korean Science and Engineering Foundation and the Korean Research Foundation; the Science and Technology Facilities Council and the Royal Society, UK; the Institut National de Physique Nucleaire et Physique des Particules/CNRS; the Russian Foundation for Basic Research; the Comisión Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnología, Spain; the European Community’s Human Potential Programme; the Slovak R&D Agency; and the Academy of Finland.
[24]{}
F. Abe [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{} 5720 (1998). A. Abulencia [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{} 032003 (2006). L. Babukhadia [*et al.*]{} (CDF and D0 Working Group Members), FERMILAB-PUB-03-320-E. J. Alitti [*et al.*]{} (UA2 Collaboration), Z. Phys. [**C49**]{} 17 (1991). D. Acosta [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{} 041803 (2005). A. Bocci, PhD Thesis, Rockefeller University, 2005. D. Acosta [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A [**494**]{}, 57 (2002). D. Acosta [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{} 012001 (2006). T. Sjostrand [[*et al.*]{}]{}, Comp. Phys. Comm. [**135**]{} 238 (2001). H.L. Lai [[*et al.*]{}]{}(CTEQ Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. [**C12**]{}, 375 (2000). CDF uses a cylindrical coordinate system in which $\theta$ and $\phi$ are the polar and azimuthal angles respectively, defined with respect to the beam direction $z$. Transverse quantities such as transverse momentum, $p_T$, are projections into the plane perpendicular to the beam direction. The pseudorapidity is defined as $\eta=-\ln{\tan{(\theta/2)}}$. The missing transverse energy is defined as the magnitude of $\sum_i{E_T^i \vec{n_i}}$, where $\vec{n_i}$ is a unit vector that points from the interaction vertex to the $i^{th}$ calorimeter tower in the transverse plane. Calorimeter towers clustered in jets are corrected by a jet energy correction factor (Sec. \[sec-jet\_sel\]). F. Maltoni and T. Stelzer, J. High Energy Phys. [**0302**]{}, 027 (2003). U. Baur [[*et al.*]{}]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**48**]{}, 5140 (1993). U. Baur [[*et al.*]{}]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{}, 2823 (1998). F. Abe et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A [**271**]{}, 387 (1988). D. Amidei et al., Nucl. Instum. Methods Phys. Res. A [ **350**]{}, 73 (1994). F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 4784 (1995). P. Azzi et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A [ **360**]{}, 137 (1995). The CDF II Detector Technical Design Report, Fermilab-Pub-96/390-E
J. A. Appel [*et al.*]{} (UA2 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B [**176**]{} 239 (1986). . F. Abe [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**48**]{} 2998 (1993). F. Abe [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**45**]{}, 1448 (1992). A. Bhatti [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A [**566**]{}, 2 (2006). C. Peterson, T. Rognvaldsson, and L. Lonnblad, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**81**]{}, 185 (1994). J. Hertz, K. Anders, and R. G. Plamer, [*Introduction to the Theory of Neural Computation*]{} (Addison-Wesley, Boston, 1991). S. Mrenna and P. Richardson, J. High Energy Phys. [**0405**]{}, 040 (2004). J. Campell and R.K. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{} 113007 (2002). The sphericity and aplanarity are defined using the momentum tensor $S^{\alpha\beta}=\frac{\sum_i
p_i^{\alpha}p_i^{\beta}}{\sum_i |\mathbf{p}_i|^2}$, where the summation index $i$ is taken over the two leading jets and the photon, and ($\alpha,\beta$)=($x$, $y$, $z$). By standard diagonalization of $S^{\alpha\beta}$ the three eigenvalues $Q_1 \geq
Q_2 \geq Q_3$, with $Q_1+Q_2+Q_3=1$, are found.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Filtering and smoothing with a generalised representation of uncertainty is considered. Here, uncertainty is represented using a class of outer measures. It is shown how this representation of uncertainty can be propagated using outer-measure-type versions of Markov kernels and generalised Bayesian-like update equations. This leads to a system of generalised smoothing and filtering equations where integrals are replaced by supremums and probability density functions are replaced by positive functions with supremum equal to one. Interestingly, these equations retain most of the structure found in the classical Bayesian filtering framework. It is additionally shown that the Kalman filter recursion can be recovered from weaker assumptions on the available information on the corresponding hidden Markov model.'
author:
- 'Jeremie Houssineau and Adrian N. Bishop'
bibliography:
- 'Uncertainty.bib'
title: Smoothing and filtering with a class of outer measures
---
Outer measure, Information assimilation, Hidden Markov models
60A10, 60J05, 62L12
Introduction
============
The question of how to represent uncertainty is central when formulating any estimation, inference, or learning problem. This question has also long stirred debate among practitioners. Firstly, there was the frequentist versus Bayesian debate in early statistical estimation theory. Later, numerous attempts at “generalising” probabilistic concepts were derived and debated, such as fuzzy logic, imprecise probabilities, possibility theory, fuzzy random sets, and Dempster-Shafer theory [@Zadeh1965; @Walley1991; @Dempster1967; @Shafer1976; @Dubois1983; @Yen1990; @Friedman2001]. The proposed approach is closer in spirit to these latter methods, and assumes a specific structure that is general enough to cover most modelling needs and restrictive enough to enable the derivation of practical estimation algorithms. This approach is based on the fundamental measure-theoretic concept of an outer measure, which provides for a more relaxed manner of distributing probability mass. As explained in [@Fremlin2013]: €œThe idea of the outer measure of a set A is that it acts as an upper bound for the possible measure of A. This structure can in some sense capture standard probability theory, since a given outer measure can bound the probability mass of each measurable subset so finely that it collapses identically to a probability measure. By encompassing a broader spectrum of uncertainty, e.g. from pure randomness to totally non-random uncertainty, the presented estimation principle brings together the Bayesian and frequentist interpretation by simultaneously allowing for fixed randomness and evolving uncertainty based on the received information.
Practically, the proposed filtering/smoothing framework naturally accommodates a more relaxed model of the system dynamics, as well as the observed and prior information. This is achieved via the use of outer measures, and yields potentially more robust estimation algorithms that do not require all sources of uncertainty to be perfectly (and solely) described by strict probability distributions; e.g. Markov transition kernels in the case of the system dynamics. The language and nature of uncertainty may be important in certain applications. Closed-form recursive algorithms will be derived under this framework of outer measures for both filtering and smoothing, and using both forward and backward recursions (in time). An analogue of the classical Kalman filter recursion will also be derived under non-classical, and weaker, assumptions on the prior, dynamic, and observation models.
Representation of uncertainty
=============================
The objective in this section is to introduce a general representation of uncertainty based on [@Houssineau2015; @Houssineau2016_dataAssimilation], that relaxes the standard approach of defining probability distributions over the state space. The proposed approach will build on [@Houssineau2015; @Houssineau2016_dataAssimilation] to enable filtering and smoothing recursions to be derived. The time is discrete and assumed to take integer values between $0$ and $T$ so that the set $\bbT$ of all time steps is defined as $\{0,\dots,T\}$. The state space at time $t\in\bbT$ is denoted $\boX_t$ and is assumed to be a subset of $\bbR^d$ for some $d > 0$. We first consider the problem of representing uncertainty on a single state space $\boE$, which might be $\boX_t$ at any time $t \in \bbT$, before tackling the case of the product space $\boX_{0:T} = \boX_0 \times \dots \times \boX_T$. The sets $\boE$ and $\boX_0,\dots,\boX_T$ are endowed with their respective Borel $\sigma$-algebra $\calB(\boE)$ and $\calB(\boX_0),\dots,\calB(\boX_T)$.
On a single state space
-----------------------
Instead of considering a probability distribution on $\boE$, we consider a probability measure[^1] $P$ on the set $\boL(\boE)$ of measurable functions[^2] from $\boE$ to $\bbR^+$ with supremum equal to $1$, describing some knowledge about the system of interest in the following way: the underlying probability distribution $p$ on $\boE$, if any, is *dominated* by $\oP$, i.e. it satisfies for any $\tf$ in the set $\boL^{\infty}(\boE)$ of positive bounded measurable functions on $\boE$, where $\ninf{\cdot}$ is the supremum norm and where $\tf \cdot f$ denotes the point-wise product between $\tf$ and $f$, i.e. $(\tf \cdot f)(x) = \tf(x) f(x)$ for any $x \in \boE$. The reason for cautioning the existence of $p$, captured by the “if any” in the previous sentence, will be clarified later in this section. In particular, it follows from considering $\tf = \ind{B}$ in for some $B \in \calB(\boE)$ that The set function $B \mapsto \oP(\ind{B})$ is a type of outer probability measure, that is a set function that gives value $0$ to the empty set, value $1$ to the whole space and that is monotone and countably sub-additive. The main difference with a probability measure being that the usual additivity assumption is replaced by sub-additivity. In the right hand side (r.h.s.) of , the integral is additive by definition so it is the supremum that is responsible for the sub-additivity. For the sake of simplicity, we say that $\oP$ is an outer measure.
Defining measures on measurable subsets as in or on measurable functions as in is equivalent [@Schwartz1973], however it is not the case for outer measures because of their sub-additivity. Defining outer measures on measurable functions is then preferred since it is more general. Results with subsets can be recovered by considering an indicator function as in .
The following examples aim at providing insight into the functions in $\boL(\boE)$ as well as into the difference between having one or several such functions in the support of $P$ (that is, informally, in the subset of $\boL(\boE)$ of functions to which $P$ gives positive probability).
If $P = \delta_f$ for some function $f \in \boL(\boE)$ then it holds that so that $f$ can be interpreted as a *possibility function*[^3] since it gives, through the supremum, an upper bound for the probability mass that $p$ can possibly give to $B$.
Let $A$ and $A'$ be disjoint subsets of $\boE$ and consider the two following modelling choices:
1. $P = \delta_{\ind{A \cup A'}}$ which only implies that $p(B) = 0$ if $B$ is disjoint from both $A$ and $A'$, i.e. all the probability mass of $p$ is within $A \cup A'$ but it could as well be all in $A$ or all in $A'$.
2. $P = a \delta_{\ind{A}} + (1-a) \delta_{\ind{A'}}$ for some $a \in (0,1)$ which implies $p(A) = a$ and $p(A') = (1-a)$, i.e. the probability can be distributed in any way within $A$ and $A'$ as long as the total mass in $A$ is equal to $a$.
If the space $\boE$ is discrete, say equal to $\bbN$, then $p$ can be characterised by its probability mass function $m$ via for any $n \in \bbN$. In particular, if $P$ is of the form for indexed family $\{(w_i,f_i)\}_{i \in I}$ of positively-weighted functions in $\boL(\boE)$ then We can notice that if $I = \bbN$ and if $f_i = \ind{n}$ then it holds that $m(n) \leq w_n$ for any $n \in \bbN$. However, since both $m(n)$ and $w_n$ sum to $1$ by definition, it follows that $m(n) = w_n$; in other words $P$ is equivalent to the probability measure $p$. The same approach can be used for uncountable spaces at the cost of measure theoretic notations.
Many distributions that are commonly used in statistics have an analogous possibility function. The interpretation of the two is however different since one fully characterises randomness while the other only suggests a given shape for the uncertainty. Notice that, as opposed to probability density functions on continuous spaces, possibility functions do not require a reference measure to be defined in order to be written as a function.
\[def:GaussianPossibility\] A function $f$ in $\boL(\bbR^d)$ is said to be a *Gaussian possibility function* if it takes the form for some $m \in \bbR^d$ and for some $d\times d$ positive-definite matrix $\bsP$ with real coefficients.
We refer to the parameters $m$ and $\bsP$ of $\bar\calN(\cdot; m,\bsP)$ as the “mean” and the “spread” of the Gaussian possibility function. In this context, referring to $m$ as the mean may be viewed as a slight, but useful, abuse of terminology.
The distribution $P$ on $\boL(\boE)$ can encode information in a Bayesian and/or a frequentist way. If the embedded information relates to a non-random phenomenon, either as a realisation of a random variable or as a fully non-random parameter, then there is no underlying probability measure and $P$ describes the uncertainty in a Bayesian sense. However, if the embedded information relates to a random variable (an actual one, not a realisation of it), then the underlying probability measure exists and is unique, and $P$ describes (partially-unknown) randomness as in the frequentist interpretation.
In this context, it is better to understand random variables as solely describing randomness with another concept needed to describe uncertainty in general. The concept of *uncertain variable* is therefore introduced in order to describe a variable about which $P$ gives information. Two sample spaces are required, the first, denoted $(\Omega_{\r},\calF)$, describes randomness and the second, denoted $\Omega_{\u}$, describes non-random uncertainty. Only the former is endowed with a $\sigma$-algebra $\calF$ since non-random events (subsets of $\Omega_{\u}$) do not need to be assigned a probability mass, it is just unknown whether or not they have happened. The sample space $(\Omega_{\r},\calF)$ is endowed with a probability measure $\bbP(\cdot\given \omega_{\u})$ conditioned on the state $\omega_{\u} \in \Omega_{\u}$ of all non-random phenomenon. The sample space $\Omega_{\u}$ can be seen as a space $\Theta$ describing (possibly unknown) parameters, so that the probability measure $\bbP(\cdot\given \theta)$ with $\theta \in \Theta$ can simply be seen as a parametrised distribution. This separation of random and non-random phenomena imply that degenerate random variables are not considered as random variables but as parameters. Uncertain variables can now be defined straightforwardly by using the sample spaces $(\Omega_{\r},\calF,\bbP)$ and $\Omega_{\u}$.
\[def:uncertainVariable\] An uncertain variable $X$ on a measurable space $(\boE,\calE)$ is a mapping between the product sample space $\Omega = \Omega_{\r}\times \Omega_{\u}$ and $\boE$ such that the mapping $\omega_{\r} \mapsto X(\omega_{\r},\omega_{\u})$ is measurable for every $\omega_{\u} \in \Omega_{\u}$.
An uncertain variable $X$ reduces to a random variable when the mapping $\omega_{\u} \mapsto X(\omega_{\r},\omega_{\u})$ is constant. Alternatively, if the mapping $\omega_{\r} \mapsto X(\omega_{\r},\omega_{\u})$ is constant then $X$ is a non-random uncertain variable and the measurability condition in \[def:uncertainVariable\] is always satisfied.
If an uncertain variable is not a random variable, then there is no underlying probability measure on $\boE$ that would be dominated by the outer measure $\oP$, instead, the latter describes the uncertain variable directly, e.g. the scalar $\oP(\ind{B})$ gauges how likely the event $X \in B$ is for any $B \in \calB(\boE)$. However, it is sometimes useful to consider a (non-unique) probability measure $p$ dominated by $\oP$ in order to understand how operations on the state space $\boE$ affect the outer measure $\oP$, as in \[ssec:jointOuterMeas\] below.
There is a natural transfer from randomness to non-random uncertainty as random phenomena take place and induce uncertainty about the corresponding realisations. For instance, if a coin is being flipped then it is usual to consider the output as random, however there is no more randomness once the coin has landed, and only uncertainty is left (at least until the outcome is observed).
Note that an outer measure $\oP$ on $\boE$ describing what is known about an uncertain variable $X : \Omega \to \boE$ can be pulled back [@Houssineau2016_dataAssimilation] onto $\Omega$ (see also \[sec:operations\] below for the concept of pullback measure). The resulting outer measure $\frakP$ can be seen as an extrinsic description of the uncertainty whereas $\bbP$ is an intrinsic characterisation of the randomness, the former changes when more information is acquired while the latter never changes. The whole sample space could then be seen as $(\Omega,\frakP)$, where $\frakP$ is a “generalised” probability which does not satisfy Kolmogorov’s third axiom ($\sigma$-additivity). However, we do not emphasize this interpretation.
Modelling single-variate/unconditional uncertainty as in this section can be sufficient for many applications, e.g. in expert systems [@Zadeh1983] or to derive data-association formulas [@Houssineau2015] for multi-object representations [@Houssineau2016_population]. However, conditioning is key to express smoothing and filtering equations so that the proposed modelling has to be extended further.
On a joint state space {#ssec:jointOuterMeas}
----------------------
The focus is now on the product space $\boX_{0:T}$ and most of the results will be stated accordingly. Yet, when introducing notations and concepts that apply more broadly, the set $\boE$ will be reused together with another set $\boF$, also endowed with its Borel $\sigma$-algebra. Equation can be extended to the product space $\boX_{0:T}$ as for any function $\bstf$ in $\boL^{\infty}(\boX_{0:T})$, where $p_{0:T}$ and $P_{0:T}$ are probability measures on $\boX_{0:T}$ and $\boL(\boX_{0:T})$ respectively. The possibility $f$ can be thought of as a *joint possibility* since it jointly applies throughout the different state spaces $\boX_0$ to $\boX_T$. However, the outer measure $\oP_{0:T}$ will prove to be insufficient in practice. For instance, information at $t=1$ might be conditional on the state at $t=0$, information at $t=2$ might be conditional at both the states at $t=0$ and $t=1$, etc. In this case, we have to introduce a more general type of outer measure. For this purpose, let $P_t( \cdot \given x_{0:t-1})$ be the conditional distribution on $\boL(\boX_t)$ at time $t \in \bbT$ given the states[^4] $x_{0:t-1}$ at all previous times and let $p_t(\cdot \given x_{0:t-1})$ be a probability distribution on $\boX_t$ verifying for any $\tf \in \boL^{\infty}(\boX_t)$. Now, let $\oP_t(\bstf)$ be a *conditional outer measure* defined for any $\bstf \in \boL^{\infty}(\boX_{0:t})$ as for all $x_{0:t-1} \in \boX_{0:t-1}$, then we have the result of the following theorem about the joint probability $p_{0:T}$, in which $\oP\oP'(\bstf)$ denotes $\oP(\oP'(\bstf))$ for any outer measures $\oP$ on $\boE$, any conditional outer measure $\oP'(\cdot)(x)$ on $\boF$ defined for all $x \in \boE$ and for any $\bstf \in \boL^{\infty}(\boE\times \boF)$.
\[thm:condOuterMeasure\] The outer measure $\oP_{0\up T}$ induced by the family $\{P_t(\cdot \given x_{0:t-1})\}_{t\in\bbT}$ of probability distributions is characterised by for any $\bstf \in \boL^{\infty}(\boX_{0:T})$.
Before proving \[thm:condOuterMeasure\], it is useful to note that the way in which the conditioning is defined in the family $\{P_t(\cdot \given x_{0:t-1})\}_{t\in\bbT}$ matters for the corresponding outer measure. If we consider another family of distributions of the form $\{P'_t(\cdot \given x_{t+1:T})\}_{t\in\bbT}$, then the associated outer measure would be which differs from $\oP_{0\up T}(\bstf)$ in general. This is one of the properties of probability measures that does not transfer to outer probability measures. In the context of filtering, we will be mostly interested in conditioning with respect to the past so that $\oP_{0\up T}$ will be used predominantly.
The result is obvious for $T = 0$. Let $p_{0:T}$ denote a probability distribution on $\boX_{0:T}$ that is induced by a family $\{p_t(\cdot \given x_{0:t-1})\}_{t\in\bbT}$ of probability distribution dominated by $\{\oP_t(\cdot \given x_{0:t-1})\}_{t\in\bbT}$ and assume that the results holds for the set $\{0, \dots, T-1\}$, then the information can be summed up through the two following inequalities: which hold for any $\bstf \in \boL^{\infty}(\boX_{0:T-1})$, any $\tf \in \boL^{\infty}(\boX_T)$ and any $x_{0:T-1} \in \boX_{0:T-1}$. It follows that for any $\bstf' \in \boL^{\infty}(\boX_{0:T})$, so that This concludes the proof of the theorem.
\[rem:independentOuterMeas\] If for any $t \in \bbT$, the distribution $P_t(\cdot \given x_{0:t-1})$ does not actually depend on $x_{0:t-1}$ and if a subset $B$ of the form $B = B_0 \times \dots \times B_T$ is considered then collapses to In this case, for any separable function $\bstf(\bsx) = \bstf_1(\bsx_1)\dots\bstf_T(\bsx_T)$ in $\boL^{\infty}(\boX_t)$, it holds that $\oP_{0\up T}(\bstf) = \oP_{T\down 0}(\bstf)$ since the individual terms in can now be commuted.
Let $X$ and $X'$ be two uncertain variables on the respective spaces $\boE$ and $\boF$ and let $\oP$ be an outer measure describing information about the joint $(X,X')$ on the product space $\boE \times \boF$. If there exist outer measures $\oP_X$ and $\oP_{X'}$ such that for every separable function $\bstf = \tf \times \tf'$ in $\boL^{\infty}(\boE \times \boF)$ it holds that then $X$ and $X'$ are said to be *weakly independent*.
If two uncertain variables are at least partially random then their weak independence is unrelated to their statistical independence. Weak independence only means that the relation between the two uncertain variables is unknown. It is therefore meaningful to introduce a third concept, *strong independence*, to describe the case where two possibly-random uncertain variables are (statistically) independent as well as weakly independent. To sum up, in terms of independence however neither does statistical independence imply weak independence nor the other way around.
If for any time $t \in \bbT$, it holds that $P_t(\cdot \given x_{0:t-1}) = \delta_{f_t(\cdot \given x_{0:t-1})}$ where $f_t$ is a *conditional possibility*, i.e. it is such that $f_t(\cdot \given x_{0:t-1}) \in \boL(\boX_t)$ for any $x_{0:t-1} \in \boX_{0:t-1}$, then for any $\bstf \in \boL^{\infty}(\boX_{0:T})$, where $f_{0:T}$ is a joint possibility in $\boL(\boX_{0:T})$ defined as
Hidden Markov models and outer measures
---------------------------------------
Hidden Markov models are often considered when dealing with estimation for dynamical systems [@Cappe2005]. It is therefore of interest to generalise the concept of Markov chain to outer measures describing collections of uncertain variables. We propose the following approach: the uncertainty about a collection $\{X_t\}_{t \in \bbN}$ of uncertain variables has the Markov property if for any $t \in \bbN$ it holds that for all $x_{0:t-1} \in \boX_{0:t-1}$ and for all $\tf \in \boX_t$. Note that in this case, the property is more about the available knowledge than about the uncertain variables themselves. For instance, at the final time $T$, we might be given information that the physical system has never been twice in the same state, in which case the uncertainty would cease to have the Markov property.
### Principle {#principle .unnumbered}
It is assumed that the system of interest can be characterised by a collection $\{X_t\}_{t\in\bbT}$ of uncertain states and its observation is described by a collection $\{Y_t\}_{t\in\bbT}$ of observations on the space $\boY_t$. This can be summed up by where $F_t$ and $O_t$ are respectively the state transition and the observation function at time $t$ and where $\{V_t\}_{t\in\bbT}$ is a sequence of strongly independent uncertain variables. In some cases, the uncertain variable $V_t$ will be equivalent to a random variable, e.g. when describing the motion of particle in turbulent water, however, in many other cases, it will represent an unknown but non-random change in the model, e.g. a plane manoeuvring or a pedestrian changing direction.
The mechanism behind the acquisition of information through the observation process is different. We assume that the observation is non-random[^5] but the usual assumption that $Y_t$ is received directly is not considered. Instead, it is assumed that what is received is information about $Y_t$ rather than $Y_t$ itself. Information about $Y_t$ is given under the form of an outer measure on $\boY_t$ (this representation will be formalised subsequently). For example, the observation $Y_t$ may be known to be in some subset of the observation space (e.g. $Y_t \in A$ where $A$ is one or several pixels of a camera) or information about $Y_t$ may be given more indirectly under the form of a natural language statement. Numerous other modelling examples can be considered.
Since we have assumed that all the information that will be available about the collection $\{X_t,Y_t\}_{t \in \bbT}$ will have the Markov property, the overall choice of model is still referred to as a hidden Markov model.
### Formalisation {#formalisation .unnumbered}
The uncertainty about the collection $\{X_t\}_{t\in\bbT}$ has the Markov property by construction since $X_t$ only depends on $X_{t-1}$ and since the uncertainty induced by $V_t$ is independent of the one at previous times. The transition can therefore be encoded into a Markov kernel $Q_t(x_{t-1},\cdot)$ on $\boL(\boX_t)$, which contains information on $\boX_t$ conditional on the state in $x_{t-1} \in \boX_{t-1}$ but not directly on $\boX_{t-1}$ or any previous state space.
The information about the observation $Y_t$ at time $t$ is assumed to be weakly independent of the information at other times and is given under the form of a probability measure $R_t$ on $\boL(\boY_t)$, whose projection onto $\boL(\boX_t)$ by $O_t$ is the pullback measure $O_t^* R_t$ (it can also be assumed for simplicity that $\boY_t = \boX_t$ and $O_t$ is the identity).
The initial state $X_0$ is an uncertain variable described by the outer measure $\oP_0$ induced by the distribution $P_0$ on $\boL(\boX_0)$.
Translating operations of probability theory to outer measures {#sec:operations}
==============================================================
The equivalent of the standard operations of probability theory have to be derived for the considered class of outer measures in order to generalise the usual filtering and smoothing algorithms. Other useful operations that do not exist under the usual framework are also introduced. We start with the equivalent of the push-forward $\xi_* p = p(\xi^{-1}(\cdot))$ of a probability measure $p$ on $\boE$ by a measurable mapping $\xi$ from $\boE$ to another set $\boF$. For a given outer measure $\oP$, the objective is to characterise the outer measure $\oP'$ verifying for any appropriate subset $B$ of $\boF$, where the use of square brackets in the expression $\xi^{-1}[B]$ of the inverse image of the subset $B$ by $\xi$ emphasizes that the result is a set. The solution is given in the next proposition.
Let $P$ be a distribution on $\boL(\boE)$ and let $\xi$ be a measurable mapping from $(\boE,\calB(\boE))$ to $(\boF,\calB(\boF))$, then the probability distribution $P'$ which implies that holds is equal to the push-forward $\vec{\xi}_* P$ where $\vec{\xi}$ is a mapping from $\boL(\boE)$ to $\boL(\boF)$ defined as for any $f \in \boL(\boE)$.
The term $\xi^{-1}[x]$, which is shorthand for $\xi^{-1}[\{x\}]$, is a set which is a singleton if $\xi$ is bijective. As a consequence, the simplest examples of this equivalent of push-forward are found when $\xi$ is bijective as explained in the following remark.
If $\xi$ is bijective then the expression of $\vec{\xi}$ simplifies to $\vec{\xi}(f) = f \circ \xi^{-1}$ for any $f \in \boL(\boE)$. Therefore, $P'$ gives mass $P(\d f)$ to the function $f \circ \xi^{-1}$, so that, for instance, if $\xi$ is the transformation from Cartesian coordinates in $\boE = \bbR^2\setminus \{(0,0)\}$ to polar coordinates systems in $\boF = [0,2\pi) \times (0,\infty)$ and if $f$ is the indicator of the disk $\{(x,y) \in \boE \st \sqrt{x^2+y^2} \leq 1 \}$ then $f \circ \xi^{-1}$ is simply the indicator of the set $\{ (a,r) \in \boF \st r \leq 1 \}$.
Very often, the interest lies in non-bijective mappings with the simple case of a projection being studied in the following example.
\[ex:projection\] If $\boE = \boX_{t-1} \times \boX_t$ and $\boF = \boX_t$ for some time $t \in \{1,\dots,T\}$ and if $\xi$ is the canonical projection $(x_{t-1},x_t) \mapsto x_t$, then for any $f \in \boL(\boX_{t-1} \times \boX_t)$. This operation can be seen as marginalisation for possibility functions. As will be practically verified later, operations for possibility functions are the same as for probability density functions except that integrals are replaced by supremums. The consequence for the outer measures $\oP'$ is that, for any $\tf \in \boL^{\infty}(\boX_t)$, it holds that which can be written as $\oP'(\tf) = \oP(\tf)$ by seeing $\tf$ as the function on $\boX_{t-1} \times \boX_t$ such that $\tf : (x',x) \mapsto \tf(x)$ in the r.h.s. of the equality. This abuse of notations will be used when there is no possible confusion. If $\oP$ is the single-possibility outer measure verifying $P = \delta_{f_{t-1,t}}$ for some $f_{t-1,t} \in \boL(\boX_{t-1} \times \boX_t)$ then, using obvious notational choices, it can be written that where $f_t$ is the possibility function such that $P' = \delta_{f_t}$. This result motivates the choice of performing operations directly on possibility functions in the case of single-possibility outer measures.
In standard probability theory, the inverse of the push-forward operation by $\xi$ applied to a probability measure $p$ is ill-defined since there might be several *pullback* measures $p'$ verifying the identity $\xi_* p' = p$. However, all these probability measures are dominated by a given outer measure, so that the operation is meaningful for the latter. For a given outer measure $\oP$, the objective is to characterise the outer measure $\oP'$ verifying for any appropriate subset $B$. Note that although $\xi[B]$ might not be measurable even if $B$ is, outer measures are not limited to measurable subsets. The solution is given in the next proposition.
Let $P$ be a distribution on $\boL(\boF)$ and let $\xi$ be a measurable mapping from $(\boE,\calB(\boE))$ to $(\boF,\calB(\boF))$, then the probability distribution $P'$ which implies that holds is equal to the push-forward $\cev{\xi}_* P$ where $\cev{\xi}$ is the mapping
For the sake of compactness, the push-forward $\cev{\xi}_* P$ can be denoted $\xi^* P$ since there is no possible confusion with existing notations. The distribution $\xi^* P$ is called the *pullback* of $P$ by $\xi$. The case of a bijective $\xi$ is not so interesting here since the pullback is the same of the push-forward by the inverse in this case. The projection studied in \[ex:projection\] is however of central interest since there is no equivalent for probability measures in this case. The following example is in the continuation of \[ex:projection\].
\[ex:inverseProjection\] If $\boE = \boX_{t-1} \times \boX_t$ and $\boF = \boX_t$ for some time $t \in \{1,\dots,T\}$ and if $\xi$ is the canonical projection $(x_{t-1},x_t) \mapsto x_t$, then for any $f \in \boL(\boX_t)$. This operation is indeed the inverse of marginalisation where no knowledge on the added state space is assumed. The consequence for the outer measures $\oP'$ is that for any $\bstf \in \boL^{\infty}(\boX_{t-1} \times \boX_t)$. If $\oP$ is the single-possibility outer measure verifying $P = \delta_{f_t}$ for some $f_t \in \boL(\boX_t)$ then, using obvious notational choices, it can be written that where $f_{t-1,t}$ is the possibility function such that $P' = \delta_{f_{t-1,t}}$. It follows that $\sup f_{t-1,t}(x_{t-1},\cdot) = 1$ for any $x_{t-1} \in \boX_{t-1}$, which means that nothing is known on $\boX_{t-1}$ as expected.
Continuing in the spirit of examples \[ex:projection\] and \[ex:inverseProjection\], it can be verified that if $f$ is a possibility function on $\boX_{t-1} \times \boX_t$ then there exists a function $f_{t-1} \in \boL(\boX_{t-1})$ and a function $f_{t|t-1}(\cdot \given x')$ on $\boL(\boX_t)$ for every $x' \in \boX_{t-1}$ such that for any $(x_{t-1},x_t) \in \boX_{t-1} \times \boX_t$, so that Once again, the usual operations of probability theory can be seen to hold for possibility functions with integrals replaces by supremums. The analogue of Bayes’ theorem on the state space for the considered class of outer measures, however, will be seen to take a different form in the next section.
Information assimilation
========================
In order to describe the result of the combination of two strongly independent pieces of information, an additional notation has to be introduced: if $f \in \boL^{\infty}(\boE)$ then $f^{\scl} = f/\ninf{f} \in \boL(\boE)$ is the rescaled version of $f$ which has supremum $1$.
\[thm:fusion\] Let $P$ and $P'$ be two probability measures on $\boL(\boE)$ describing respectively the uncertain variables $X$ and $X'$. If $X$ and $X'$ are strongly independent, then the posterior distribution $P \star P'$ based on $P$ and $P'$ can be expressed as for any measurable subset $F$ of $\boL(\boE)$ as long as $P$ and $P'$ are *compatible*, i.e. as long as the denominator is strictly positive.
The strong independence considered in \[thm:fusion\] is analogous to the statistical independence assumed in the standard Bayes’ theorem. The denominator of is a scalar in the interval $(0,1]$ and quantifies how likely it is that $P$ and $P'$ represent the same system. The rescaling $\cdot^{\scl}$ ensures that $P \star P'$ is a probability measure supported by possibility functions rather than an arbitrary measure supported by arbitrary functions of the form $f \cdot f'$ for some $f,f' \in \boL(\boE)$. Rescaling is not necessary if the outer measure $\overline{P \star P'}$ induced by $P \star P'$ is considered instead, since it can simply be written that for any $\tf \in \boL^{\infty}(\boE)$. Several special cases of the use of the operation $\star$ are given in [@Houssineau2016_dataAssimilation].
If $X$ and $X'$ are uncertain variables that (at least partially) characterise the same random phenomenon, i.e. they have some statistical dependence, then the associated outer measures $P$ and $P'$ cannot be fused together using \[thm:fusion\]. For instance, if two observers study a biased coin and independently determine that the probability of heads is $3/4$ then it is erroneous to combine these information and conclude that the probability of heads must be $(3/4 \times 3/4) / (1/4 \times 1/4 + 3/4 \times 3/4) = 9/10$. However, if the coin is tossed and two observers witness the experiment but are unsure of the outcome, e.g. they are both $75\%$ sure that the result was tails, then it is possible to combine these independent pieces of information and claim that the outcome was tails with a likelihood of $9/10$. This result also holds if one observer has studied the coin and the other has independently witnessed the experiment.
Both $P$ and $P'$ can be seen as priors and the probability measure $P \star P'$ can be seen as a Bayesian posterior given that $P$ and $P'$ represent the same system. This can be highlighted by assuming that the system of interest is fully characterised by its state in $\boE$, so that the event “$P$ and $P'$ represent the same system” corresponds to the diagonal $\Delta$ of $\boE \times \boE$. In this case, we can define a joint probability measure $\breve{P} = P \times P'$ and a likelihood $\ell(\Delta \given f,f') = \ninf{f \cdot f'}$ giving the compatibility between $f$ and $f'$, e.g. $\ell(\Delta \given \ind{A},\ind{A'}) = 0$ if $A$ and $A'$ are disjoint subsets. With these notations, we can compute the posterior distribution for any measurable subset $\hat{F}$ of $\boL(\boE) \times \boL(\boE)$. However, since we are only interested in the value of the function $\bsf = (f,f')$ on the diagonal $\Delta$, i.e. the values of the function $\hat{f}(x) = f(x)f'(x)$, we introduce a kernel $K((f,f'),F) = \delta_{(f\cdot f')^{\scl}}(F)$ which projects compatible possibilities to a single posterior possibility, and the distribution $P \star P'$ on $\boL(\boE)$ is found to be equal to the projection of $\hat{P}(\cdot \given \Delta)$ in the following way: for any measurable subset $F$ of $\boL(\boE)$. The presence of the kernel $K$ is not usual, but it is just a projection, and the usual ingredients of Bayes theorem such as the prior $\breve{P}$ and the likelihood $\ell(\Delta \given \cdot)$ can be identified.
If $\oP_{0\up T}$ and $\oP'_{0\up T}$ are two joint outer measures induced by $\{P_t(\cdot \given x_{0:t-1})\}_{t\in\bbT}$ and $\{P'_t(\cdot \given x_{0:t-1})\}_{t\in\bbT}$ then the operation $\star$ can be applied component-wise and gives the posterior joint outer measure $\oP^{\star}_{0\up T}$ characterised by for any $\bstf \in \boL^{\infty}(\boX_{0:T})$, with $\oP^{\star}_t(\cdot)(x_{0:t-1})$ the outer measure on $\boX_t$ induced by $P_t(\cdot \given x_{0:t-1}) \star P'_t(\cdot \given x_{0:t-1})$ for any $t \in \bbT$. Note that in general, $\oP_{0\up T}$ can also be combined with an outer measure of the form $\oP'_{0:T}$ but not with one of the form $\oP'_{T\down 0}$.
Smoothing {#sec:smoothing}
=========
The objective in this section is to derive an expression of the posterior outer measure on the joint space $\boX_{0:T}$ induced by the combination of all the information available up to time $T$. The Markov property is not sufficient to simplify the predicted outer measure $\oP_{0\up T}$ on $\boX_{0:T}$ which takes the form for any $\bstf \in \boL^{\infty}(\boX_{0:T})$. The observed information across time can be expressed as another outer measure $\oR_{0:T}$ on $\boY_{0:T}$ characterised by for any separable function $\bstf(\bsy) = \tf_0(\bsy_0) \dots \tf_T(\bsy_T)$ in $\boL^{\infty}(\boY_{0:T})$. This can also be expressed through a single probability distribution $R_{0:T}$ on $\boL(\boY_{0:T})$ defined as the product $R_{0:T} = R_0 \times \dots \times R_T$. The smoothed outer measure $\oP_{0\up T|T}$ is the posterior outer measure based on $\oP_{0\up T}$ and $\oR_{0:T}$, that is for any $\bstf \in \boL^{\infty}(\boX_{0:T})$, where $\oP_{0|0}$ is the outer measure induced by $P_0 \star (O_0^*R_0)$ and where $\oQ_{t|t}(\cdot)(x_{t-1})$ is the conditional outer measure induced by $Q_t(x_{t-1},\cdot) \star (O_t^* R_t)$ for any $x_{t-1} \in \boX_{t-1}$ and for all $t \in \{1,\dots,T\}$.
One way of simplifying the form of $\oP_{0\up T|T}$ is to make the composition of “$\int\sup (\cdot) P(\d f)$” collapse by retaining a single term in each integral as in the following theorem. The other natural way is to cancel out the supremums, but this requires $P_0$ to be equivalent to a probability measure on $\boX_0$ and all the Markov kernels $Q_t$ to be equivalent to Markov kernels on $\boX_t$, which leads back to a formulation that resemble the classical Bayesian formulation (except for the observed information).
\[thm:smoothing\] If for any $t \in \{1,\dots,T\}$ there exists a function $g_t(x,\cdot) \in \boL(\boX_t)$ such that $Q_t(x,\cdot) = \delta_{g_t(x,\cdot)}$ for any $x \in \boX_{t-1}$, then the smoothed outer measure $\oP_{0:T|T}$ is characterised by for any $\bstf \in \boL^{\infty}(\boX_{0:T})$, where $u_{0:T|T} \in \boL^{\infty}(\boX_{0:T})$ depends implicitly on $f_0$ and $h_0,\dots,h_T$ and is characterised by for every $\bsx \in \boX_{0:T}$.
The statement of \[thm:smoothing\] involves the function $u_{0:T|T}$ that is not a possibility function in general as in . This is only for the sake of compactness as the rescaled version of $u_{0:T|T}$ could be used instead if compensating by its supremum norm $\ninf{u_{0:T|T}}$.
It follows from the assumption of the theorem that $\oQ_t(\tf)(x') = \ninf{\tf \cdot g_t(x',\cdot)}$ for any $\tf \in \boL(\boX_t)$ and for any $\bstf \in \boL(\boX_{0:T})$. The associated distribution $P_{0:T}$ on $\boL(\boX_{0:T})$ is the push-forward measure $\zeta_* P_0$ with $\zeta$ the mapping from $\boL(\boX_0)$ to $\boL(\boX_{0:T})$ characterised by for any $f \in \boL(\boX_0)$ and any $\bsx \in \boX_{0:T}$. The mapping $\zeta$ is implicitly assumed to be measurable. Since both $\oP_{0:T}$ and $\oR_{0:T}$ take unconditional forms, the posterior distribution $P_{0:T|T}$ which integrates all the observed information can be stated simply as for any measurable subset $F$ of $\boL(\boX_{0:T})$, where $O = O_0 \times \dots \times O_T : \boX_{0:T} \to \boY_{0:T}$ and where the pointwise product $f \cdot (h\circ O)$ can be expressed for any $f$ and any $h$ in the support of $P_{0:T}$ and $R_{0:T}$ respectively as for any $\bsx \in \boX_{0:T}$ and for some $f_0 \in \boL(\boX_0)$ and some $\{h_t\}_{t\in\bbT}$ such that $\zeta(f_0) = f$ and $h(\bsy) = h_0(\bsy_0) \dots h_T(\bsy_T)$. The form taken by the smoothed outer measure $\oP_{0:T|T}$ can then be easily deduced.
\[ex:singleFunctionSmoothing\] If the prior knowledge $P_0$ and the observed information $\{R_t\}_{t\in\bbT}$ are further simplified to $P_0 = \delta_{f_0}$ and $R_t = \delta_{h_t}$ for all $t \in \bbT$, then $\oP_{0:T|T}(\bstf) = \ninf{\bstf \cdot f_{0:T|T}}$ for any $\bstf \in \boL^{\infty}(\boX_{0:T})$, with which has the exact same form as the usual smoothing distribution [@Briers2010] with $\ell_t(y_t \given x) = h_t(O_t(x))$ the likelihood of a standard observation $y_t$ at time $t \in \bbT$, and where probability density functions are written with the same notation as their corresponding measure. The only difference between these two expressions is that possibility functions replace probability distributions. The expression $p_{0:T|T}$ can also be recovered from $\oP_{0:T|T}$ by assuming that $P_t$ and $Q_t$ are equivalent to the distribution $p_t$ and Markov kernel $q_t$ at each time $t$. This does not however limit the modelling options of the observed information.
Filtering {#sec:filtering}
=========
The objective is now to compute the information at successive times in a recursive fashion. The predicted and updated filtering outer measures $\oP_{t|t-1}$ and $\oP_{t|t}$ at time $t \in \bbT$ could be simply expressed as the marginals of predicted smoothing outer measure $\oP_{0:t|t-1}$ and the updated smoothing outer measure $\oP_{0:t|t}$, that is as with $\tf \in \boL^{\infty}(\boX_t)$. However, as in the standard approach, this gives little insight into how to actually compute these terms. Instead, the predicted outer measure $\oP_{t|t-1}$ at time $t$ has to be expressed as a function of the updated outer measure $\oP_{t-1|t-1}$ at the previous time and, similarly, the updated outer measure $\oP_{t|t}$ at time $t$ has to be expressed as a function of the predicted one.
We assume that at a given time $t-1$, $\oP_{t-1|t-1}$ is in the single-variate form with $\tf \in \boL^{\infty}(\boX_{t-1})$. The predicted outer measure $\oP_{t|t-1}$ is the marginal on $\boX_t$ of the outer measure $\oP_{t-1|t-1} \oQ_t$ on the joint space $\boX_{t-1}\times\boX_t$, which can be expressed as for any $\tf \in \boL^{\infty}(\boX_t)$. As with smoothing, this expression does not reduce to a single-variate outer measure in general so that special cases are considered in the following sections. We proceed as in \[sec:smoothing\] to obtain a closed-form expression of the filtering equations.
If for any $t \in \{1,\dots,T\}$ there exists a function $g_t(x,\cdot) \in \boL(\boX_t)$ such that $Q_t(x,\cdot) = \delta_{g_t(x,\cdot)}$ for any $x \in \boX_{t-1}$ then the predicted and updated distributions $P_{t|t-1}$ and $P_{t|t}$ are characterised by where the mapping $\xi_t$ from $\boL(\boX_{t-1})$ to $\boL(\boX_t)$ is characterised by for any $f \in \boL(\boX_{t-1})$.
With the considered assumption, simplifies to The outer measure $\oP_{t|t-1}$ is now single-variate and the corresponding distribution on $\boL(\boX_t)$ is $P_{t|t-1} \defeq (\xi_t)_* P_{t-1|t-1}$. The next step is to incorporate the observed information $R_t$ in the predicted distribution $P_{t|t-1}$. Since the operation $\star$ defined in can be directly applied to these single-variate distributions, we find that $P_{t|t} = P_{t|t-1} \star (O_t^* R_t)$. To sum up, the filtering equations can be expressed in terms of probability distributions on $\boL(\boX_{t-1})$ and $\boL(\boX_t)$ since all the outer measures involved are single-variate under the considered assumptions.
To understand the mapping $\xi_t$, assume that $g_t(x',\cdot) = \ind{G_{x'}}$ for some subset $G_{x'}$ of $\boX_t$, i.e. if the considered system is in state $x'$ at time $t-1$ then it is only known that its state at time $t$ is within the subset $G_{x'}$. It follows that This can be written as $\xi_t(\ind{A'}) = \ind{A}$ with If $G_{x'}$ is translation invariant, i.e. the extent of the set $G_{x'}$ does not depend on $x'$, then, in the language of mathematical morphology, $A$ is a *dilatation* of $A'$ by $G_{x'}$. If $P_{t-1|t-1} = \delta_{\ind{A'}}$ then where the condition $\ind{A'} \in \xi_t^{-1}(F)$ is equivalent to $\xi_t(\ind{A'}) = \ind{A} \in F$ so that $(\xi_t)_* P_{t-1|t-1} = \delta_{\ind{A}}$ as expected.
If the initial information $P_0$ is equivalent to a probability measure $p_0$ then a particle representation $\{x_i\}_{i=1}^N$ of $p_0$ can be used to approximate $P_0$ as $P_0 \approx N^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^N \delta_{\ind{x_i}}$. The recursion can then be more easily applied.
The filtering equations imply that if the information provided at time $t$ via $R_t$ takes the form of a probability measure $r_t$ on the state space, then $P_{t|t}$ will also be equivalent to some probability measure $p_{t|t}$ on $\boX_t$. The predicted information $P_{t+1|t}$ will however tend to take a slightly more complicated form: it will give probability mass $p_{t|t}(\d x')$ to the function $g_{t+1}(x',\cdot)$ on $\boX_{t+1}$. If at time $t+1$, the observation $R_{t+1}$ is once again equivalent to a probability measure $r_{t+1}$ on $\boX_{t+1}$, then the distribution $P_{t+1|t+1} = P_{t+1|t} \star R_{t+1}$ will be of the form that is $P_{t+1|t+1}$ will be equivalent to a probability measure on $\boX_{t+1}$. If, additionally, $p_{t|t}$ and $r_t$ are Gaussian distributions and $g_{t+1}(x',x)$ is the Gaussian possibility function $\bar\calN(x; \bsF_{t+1} x',\bsQ_{t+1})$ for some matrices $\bsF_{t+1}$ and $\bsQ_{t+1}$ then $P_{t+1|t+1}$ is equivalent to the corresponding posterior Gaussian distribution of the Kalman filter.
Special cases and related results
=================================
We first detail two special cases of the approach introduced in \[sec:filtering\] where the filtering recursion is expressed without measure-theoretic notations by reducing the functional integrals to finite sums. The second case restricts the system to be linear and based on Gaussian possibility functions.
Filtering with finite sum of possibility functions
--------------------------------------------------
Assume that the predicted distribution $P_{t-1|t-1}$ and the observed information $R_t$ take the form of a finite sum of functions as follows: for some indexed families $\{ (w^i_{t-1},f_{t-1|t-1}^i) \}_{i \in I_{t-1}}$ and $\{(v^l_t, h_t^l)\}_{l \in L_t}$ of pairs of weights and functions, then the predicted and updated distributions $P_{t|t-1}$ and $P_{t|t}$ can be expressed as where $I_t = I_{t-1} \times L_t$ and where with $f^{j,l}_{t,t-1} = f^j_{t|t-1} \cdot (h^l_t \circ O_t)$ for any $(j,l) \in I_t$.
This recursion could be easily computed if the considered possibility functions are part of a parametric family of functions such as indicator functions or Gaussian possibility functions.
In the simplest case where $P_{t-1|t-1}=\delta_{f_{t-1|t-1}}$ and $R_t = \delta_{h_t}$, the filtering equations can be expressed in standard notations as As in \[ex:singleFunctionSmoothing\], these filtering equations are similar to the ones of the standard formulation but with integrals replaced by supremums and distributions replaced with possibility functions. It is interesting to study under Kalman-like assumptions of Gaussianity and linearity as in the following section.
Filtering for linear system with Gaussian possibility function
--------------------------------------------------------------
A natural question that arises from the simple form of the filtering equations is: how would such a recursion perform under assumptions of linearity and when only Gaussian possibility functions are involved? Since the information that is given to the algorithm is weaker when compared to the one given to the standard Kalman filter [@Anderson1979], one might expect that the algorithm based on possibilities will be more robust to modelling discrepancies. However, it might also be expected to be less accurate than the standard Kalman filter when dynamics and observation are indeed generated according to the assumed Gaussian distributions. The following theorem shows that, interestingly, both algorithms are equivalent when characterised by their respective means and variance/spread.
\[thm:Kalman\] Assume that the transition function $F_t( \cdot , V_t)$ and the observation function $O_t$ are linear. Also, assume that the noise $V_t$ is additive and described by a Gaussian possibility function. If the prior possibility function $f_{t-1|t-1}$ and the observed-information $h_t$ are Gaussian, then the mean and spread of the possibility functions in follow the standard Kalman filter recursion.
The assumptions on the transition, observation and prior possibility function can be expressed as for some $y_t \in \boY_t$ representing the observation in the usual way, some $m_{t-1} \in \boX_{t-1}$ and some matrices $\bsP_{t-1}$, $\bsF_t$, $\bsQ_t$, $\bsR_t$ and $\bsO_t$ of appropriate size. Using an equivalent formulation to the standard Kalman filter identity (easily obtained by Sylvester’s determinant theorem), expressed as with $\bsK = \bsP\bsF^T(\bsF\bsP\bsF^T + \bsQ)^{-1}$, it follows that for some state $m'$ and some matrix $\bsP'$. The supremum in the r.h.s. of this expression is equal to $1$ so that the Kalman filter time-prediction is recovered: The Kalman-filter observation update can be recovered in a similar fashion and is found to be with $\bsK_t = \bsP_{t|t-1}\bsO_t^T(\bsO_t\bsP_{t|t-1}\bsO_t^T + \bsR)^{-1}$. The Kalman filter recursions are then recovered in spite of the presence of supremums instead of integrals in .
A related result, named the Kalman evidential filter [@Mahler2007], has been proved in the context of fuzzy Dempster-Shafer theory with a fully-known Markov transition. This assumption however does not allow for recovering the Kalman filter exactly, but yields a recursive algorithm that bears some similarities.
Backward smoothing recursion
----------------------------
Obtaining the expression of the distribution $P_{t|T}$ on $\boL(\boX_t)$ representing the uncertainty at time $t$ given all the observed information up to time $T$ is useful for recovering the smoothed distribution after one filtering pass on the set $\bbT$ of all time steps.
\[thm:backwardSampling\] If for any $t \in \{1,\dots,T\}$ there exists $g_t(x,\cdot) \in \boL(\boX_t)$ such that $Q_t(x,\cdot) = \delta_{g_t(x,\cdot)}$ for any $x \in \boX_{t-1}$, then the smoothed outer measure $\oP_{0:T|T}$ can be expressed as for any $\bstf \in \boL^{\infty}(\boX_{0:T})$, where the conditional outer measure $\oP'_{t|t}(\tf)(x_{t+1})$ is defined for any $\tf \in \boL^{\infty}(\boX_t)$ and any $x_{t+1} \in \boX_{t+1}$ as
The probability distribution $P_{0:T|T}$ on $\boL(\boX_{0:T})$ defined in \[thm:smoothing\] is supported by possibility functions of the form with The outer measure $\oP_{T\down 0|T}$ can then expressed as in where, for any $t \in \{0,\dots,T-1\}$, $\oP'_{t|t}$ is induced by a distribution $P'_{t|t}(\cdot \given x_{t+1})$ supported by possibility functions of the form $f'_{t|t}(\cdot \given x_{t+1})$ for any $x_{t+1} \in \boX_{t+1}$. However, the possibility function $f'_{t|t}$ can be recognised as the one yielded by the combination of $Q_{t+1}$ and $P_{t|t}$, which implies that $\oP'_{t|t}$ can be equally expressed as , hence proving the theorem.
Filtering with known transition
-------------------------------
The general recursion can also be made closed-form by following an approach that is the exact opposite of the one considered in \[sec:filtering\], that is by making the Markov kernel extremely informative: it is assumed that for any $x \in \boX_{t-1}$ the transition $Q_t(x,\cdot)$ is equivalent to a Markov kernel $q_t(x,\cdot)$ from $\boX_{t-1}$ to $\boX_t$, that is $Q_t(x,\cdot)$ gives mass $q_t(x,\d x')$ to the degenerate possibility function $\ind{x'}$. From this assumption, the outer measure $\oQ_t$ verifies for any $B \in \calB(\boX_t)$. However, this assumption is not sufficient for to simplify unless $P_{t-1|t-1}$ is also equivalent to a probability measure $p_{t-1|t-1}$ on $\boX_{t-1}$, in which case becomes the standard time prediction for any $B \in \calB(\boX_t)$. The update requires $R_t$ to be restricted to non-random uncertainty, otherwise the observed information would be incompatible with the predicted information. The observation update becomes for any $B \in \calB(\boX_t)$, so that both the predicted and the updated uncertainties take the form of probability measures on the state space and only the observed information takes a more general form. This approach has been previously proposed in the context of random set theory [@Mahler2007] and has also been used for multi-target tracking within the proposed framework in [@Houssineau2016_HISP; @Delande2017].
As an example, if we assume that $R_t$ takes the form $R_t = \sum_{l \in L_t} v^l_t \delta_{h_t^l}$ for some index set $L_t$ and some collections of weights $\{v^l_t\}_{l \in L_t}$ and functions $\{h_t^l\}_{l \in L_t}$, then it holds that The recursion based on the standard prediction and this update can be computed using sequential Monte Carlo methods where the likelihood is replaced by a potential $\sum_{l\in L_t} v^l_t h^l_t$.
Concluding Remarks
==================
Building on a recently introduced framework for the representation of uncertainty [@Houssineau2015; @Houssineau2016_dataAssimilation], it has been demonstrated that filtering and smoothing algorithms can be generalised to outer measures belonging to a specific class based on functional integrals of supremums. An important observation was that the structure of the usual filtering and smoothing equations reappears in the generalised recursion under the form of possibility functions upon which the outer measures were defined. Simplifications to finite sums of possibility functions as well as single possibility functions have been studied and gave results that were not only intuitive but also implementable. The recursion in terms of mean and spread of the Kalman filter has been recovered by considering appropriately defined Gaussian possibility functions, giving yet another setting in which the Kalman filter appears naturally.
Future work may include the application of Monte Carlo-like methods to the proposed estimation framework. The results obtained in this article raise numerous other questions, both of a practical and theoretical nature. For example:
1. Given the result of \[thm:Kalman\], it is natural to inquire about inference in the non-Gaussian case. In the standard approach, the most straightforward generalisation is based on Gaussian mixtures [@Sorenson1971; @Alspach1972] of the form for some integer $N$ and some collections $\{\tilde{w}_i\}_{i=1}^N$, $\{m_i\}_{i=1}^N$, $\{\bsP_i\}_{i=1}^N$ of $[0,1]$-valued scalars, states in $\bbR^d$ and $d\times d$ positive definite matrices respectively. In particular, it holds that $\sum_{i=1}^N \tilde{w}_i = 1$. In the considered framework, mixtures become *max-mixtures* and take the form with $\{w_i\}_{i=1}^N$ a collection of $[0,1]$-valued scalars such that $\max_{1\leq i\leq N} w_i = 1$. Inference for these max-mixtures requires adequate mixture reduction techniques.
2. As mentioned shortly after \[def:GaussianPossibility\], the parameters $m$ and $\bsP$ in the Gaussian possibility function $\bar\calN(\cdot; m, \bsP)$ are referred to as mean and spread only as a useful abuse of language. It would however be important, both from the theoretical and practical viewpoints, to formally introduce these concepts. In particular, the law of large numbers and central limit theorem, assuming they can be reformulated to suit outer measures, would provide insight and theoretical backup for a meaningful generalised definition of the concepts of mean and variance.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
J. Houssineau was with Data61 (CSIRO) and is now with the National University of Singapore. A.N. Bishop is with the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) and Data61 (CSIRO). He is also an adjunct Fellow at the Australian National University. He is supported by Data61 and the Australian Research Council (ARC) via a Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DE-120102873). His work was partly supported by DST Group under TTCP CREATE (2017).
[^1]: Measure-theoretic questions associated with the introduction of a measure on a set of functions are discussed in [@Houssineau2015].
[^2]: The following convention is considered: the term *mapping* or *map* is used whatever the domain and co-domain while the term *function* is reserved for real-valued maps, i.e. for maps whose co-domain is a subset of $\bbR$.
[^3]: Possibility functions are called “possibility distributions” in the context of possibility theory [@Dubois2015] and the associated outer measures are called “possibility measures”.
[^4]: The term $x_{0:t-1}$ stands for the sequence $(x_0,\dots,x_{t-1})$, which is the empty sequence when $t=0$.
[^5]: This assumption is not crucial, it is only used to simplify the following statements. Alternatively, an additional Markov kernel $S_t(x_t,\cdot)$ on $\boL(\boY_t)$ can be defined for any $x_t \in \boX_t$ in order to model the knowledge about a perturbed observation function $O_t(\cdot,W_t)$ where $\{W_t\}_{t \in \bbT}$ is a sequences of strongly independent uncertain variables that are independent of $\{V_t\}_{t\in\bbT}$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We summarize the x-ray properties of the complete samples of millisecond pulsars (MSPs) detected in our [*Chandra*]{} observations of the globular clusters 47 Tuc and NGC 6397. The 47 Tuc MSPs are predominantly soft sources suggestive of thermal emission from the neutron star polar cap and have x-ray luminosities in a surprisingly narrow range (1–4 10$^{30}$ [erg s\^[-1]{}erg s$^{-1}$]{}). The single MSP in NGC 6397 is both hard and apparently extended, probably due to shocked hot gas evaporating from its main sequence companion. In contrast to MSPs in the field and the cluster M28, which show correlation between x-ray luminosity and spindown luminosity $\propto$ $^{\beta}$ with $\beta$ 1 - 1.4, the 47 Tuc (and NGC 6397) sample display a relatively tight correlation with $\beta = 0.5\pm0.15$. The correlations of vs. and light cylinder magnetic field values are also different. It is possible the magnetic field configuration has been altered (by episodic accretion) for old MSPs in dense cluster cores.'
author:
- 'J.E. Grindlay, C.O. Heinke and P.D. Edmonds'
- 'F. Camilo'
title: '[*Chandra*]{} on Millisecond Pulsars in Globular Clusters'
---
/cm2sec[erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$]{} 2[erg cm$^{-2}$]{} 3[pc$^{-3}$ ]{} -3[cm[$^{-3}$]{} ]{} /s[km s$^{-1}$ ]{}
å[A&A]{}
1.25in .125in .25in
Introduction
============
X-ray studies of millisecond pulsars (MSPs) can constrain fundamental properties of their emission regions and, when combined with radio timing studies, their underlying neutron stars (NSs). In globular clusters both MSPs and low mass x-ray binaries (LMXBs), their likely progenitors, are significantly enhanced (per unit mass) over their values in the galactic disk by stellar and binary interactions. The dense cluster (core) environment needed for their excess formation may also alter their evolution. Thus cluster vs. field MSPs, as studied in x-rays and radio, can constrain intrinsic vs. extrinsic (evolutionary) properties of these oldest NS systems.
We have conducted a deep [*Chandra*]{} survey for MSPs as well as quiescent LMXBs and cataclysmic variables (CVs) in the globular clusters 47 Tuc (Grindlay et al. 2001a; GHE01a) and NGC 6397 (Grindlay et al. 2001b; GHE01b). The full details of the MSP survey are given in Grindlay et al. (2001c; GCH01). Here we present the highlights of this study, focusing on just the x-ray properties of the 16 MSPs with radio timing positions in 47 Tuc (Freire et al. 2001a, Freire 2001) and the one in NGC 6397 (D’Amico et al. 2001; DPM) as well as their comparison with the field MSP population (cf. Becker & Trumper 1997, 1999; BT97, BT99). We defer to the full paper the discussion of the total MSP populations and spatial distributions, which probe cluster dynamics.
X-ray Colors and Emission Models
================================
The 47 Tuc MSPs were found initially (GHE01a) to be soft sources. In GCH01 we give the detected counts in 3 bands: softcts (0.2–1keV), mediumcts (1–2keV) and hardcts (2–8keV) for each of the 14 resolved MSPs, with counts for 47 Tuc-G and -I (unresolved) estimated. From these bands, we form the hardness ratios HR1 = mediumcts/softcts and HR2 = hardcts/mediumcts and plot the MSPs, with counting statistics errors, in the color-color diagram shown in Figure 1 (left). The MSP colors are clustered in a relatively narrow range of HR1 and HR2 with 47 Tuc-J clearly harder, as was evident in the Xcolor distributions in GHE01a.
Using the PIMMS tool, we construct values of HR1 and HR2 for 3 simple models: thermal bremsstrahlung (TB), blackbody (BB) and power law (PL), with index values (kT or photon index) given in the caption of Figure 1 (left). The observed range of HR1-HR2 is roughly consistent with TB spectra with kT 1keV, BB spectra with kT 0.2–0.3keV (except for 47 Tuc-J) or PL spectra with photon index 3. The weighted mean colors for all but 47 Tuc-J are consistent with a BB spectrum with kT 0.22keV, giving x-ray luminosities (0.5-2.5keV) 1-4 10$^{30}$ [erg s\^[-1]{}erg s$^{-1}$]{} and thus mean bolometric L$_{x-bol}$ = 2.6 10$^{30}$ [erg s\^[-1]{}erg s$^{-1}$]{}.
The x-ray colors rule out TB models (surrounding column densities inconsistent with the MSP dispersion measures; DM) and PL fits (spectral indices implausible). Simple BB fits for L$_{x-bol}$ give emission radii of only 0.1km whereas H (or He)-atmosphere models (Rajagopal & Romani 1996) typically give temperatures reduced (from BB) by a factor of 2 and thus radii increased to 0.4km. Either case suggests soft x-ray emission from a region smaller than the entire polar cap, as predicted in recent models of Harding & Muslimov (2001) for polar cap heating. Although the 3.2s temporal resolution of [*Chandra*]{}-ACIS prevents a pulsation analysis, the small thermal emission area suggests the emission would be pulsed, with a sinusoidal pulse shape appropriate to the fractional visibility of the isotropically radiating thermal polar cap. In contrast, the narrower pulse duty cycles of 10% for some field MSPs (and one in the globular cluster M28; BT99) are probably due to non-thermal beamed emission.
\
X-ray vs. Pulsar Spin Properties
=================================
A key question for this rich [*Chandra*]{} dataset is the correlation of x-ray luminosity and pulsar spindown luminosity $\dot E$, which is found for field MSPs (with much more uncertain distances) to scale as (0.1-2.4keV) 10$^{-3}$ (BT97) and with a possibly steeper logarithmic slope (1.4) for in the 2-10keV band (Possenti et al. 2001; PCC). We derive instrinsic period derivatives, $\dot P_i$, corrected for the cluster acceleration by estimating the 3D positions of each MSP in the cluster from the observed DM value and the observed hot gas and thus electron density in the cluster (Freire et al. 2001b) and then subtracting the cluster acceleration using a King model with cluster parameters derived by Meylan & Mayor (1986). Using a standard NS moment of inertia $I=10^{45}$gcm$^2$, we then derive = $4\pi^2 I \dot P_i/P^3$ for each MSP and plot them vs. (0.5-2.5keV) in Figure 1 (right). Uncertainties in the values are typically 0.2–0.5 in the log but are not shown for clarity; uncertainties in log(L$_x$) are typically 0.2, and extrapolating to the [*ROSAT*]{} band, 0.1-2.4keV, would increase log(L$_x$) only by 0.1. For comparison with 47 Tuc, we plot the MSP in NGC 6397 (GHE01b), for which the uncertainty is small, and updated values (cf. GCH01) for the 10 field MSPs previously detected in x-rays as well as in the globular cluster M28.
Whereas the MSPs in the field and M28 show (Figure 1, right) a correlation log(0.1-2.4keV) = (1.13$\pm0.15$)log- 7.5$\pm5$, the MSPs in 47 Tuc appear to have a weaker dependence: log(0.5-2.5keV) = ($0.47\pm0.10$)log+ $14.2\pm3.4$ for the nominal cluster model with central velocity dispersion = 11.6kms$^{-1}$, where the errors ($\pm$1$\sigma$) in both correlations are due to just the scatter in the points. Allowing for uncertainties in the cluster model and distance gives slope $0.48\pm0.21$ and intercept $13.8\pm7.5$. Including the errors for the values estimated for the 47 Tuc MSPs, but with the approximation that unequal errors (on $\dot E$) are simply averaged (which biases the slope to steeper values, since the unequal errors are much larger for smaller values of $\dot E$), increases the logarithmic slope to $\beta = 0.62\pm0.29$ and offset to $9.0\pm10.8$. The best (median) estimate for the 47 Tuc MSPs alone is thus $\beta$ $0.55\pm0.2$. Apart from the uncertain detection of 47 Tuc-C (GCH01), the MSPs in 47 Tuc have (0.5–2.5keV) values within a factor of 4 despite a range of 25 in $\dot E$. Figure 1 (right) shows that 6397-A, the MSP in NGC 6397, is consistent with the - correlation shown by the 47 Tuc MSPs. Including 6397-A in the fit yields $\beta = 0.50\pm0.08$ (scatter only) or 0.55$\pm0.15$ (with averaged $\pm1\sigma$ errors for the 47 Tuc values).
The smaller $\beta$ values for 47 Tuc and NGC 6397 may be due to the different formation histories and possibly different physical parameters of their MSPs vs. the field objects. In Figure 2 (left) we plot vs. spindown ages, $P/2\dot P_i$, for MSPs in the field (and M28) vs. the 47 Tuc and NGC 6397 sample. Error bars on the age parameter are not shown, for clarity, but are typically $\sim ^{+0.3}_{-0.1}$ in the log and primarily due to the 47 Tuc acceleration model. Despite the uncertainties, the correlation is striking: the field MSPs show a declining with “age,” and the 47 Tuc MSPs appear to fall on this trend but with a flatter vs. age slope. However, spindown ages correspond only approximately to actual ages, and while these estimates are consistent with the formation of most 47 Tuc MSPs early in the cluster history, this would not by itself provide an explanation for the different vs. correlations found for MSPs in 47 Tuc and NGC 6397 vs. the field.
Another possible physical difference between the 47 Tuc and field MSPs might be magnetic field strength at the light cylinder (at which the corotation speed equals $c$), since this likely affects the relative importance of non-thermal (magnetospheric) emission. For an assumed dipole field, this is given by $B_{\rm lc} = 9.35 \times 10^5 \dot P_{i}^{1/2} P_{\rm msec}^{-5/2}$ G, with $\dot P_{i}$ in units of 10$^{-20}$. In Figure 2 (right) we plot vs. $B_{\rm lc}$. Again, considered as a homogeneous group, the MSPs in the field (and M28) lie on a steeper slope than the 47 Tuc MSPs. In support of the hypothesis that $B_{\rm lc}$, rather than the field $B_{\rm surf} = 3.2 \times 10^{19}$ ($P\dot{P}$)$^{1/2}$G at the NS surface, is more closely related to is the fact that the correlation of with $B_{\rm surf}$ is less defined and with larger scatter, and with logarithmic slopes differing even more: 0.05$\pm0.27$ for the 47 Tuc MSPs vs. 2.80$\pm0.99$ for the field MSPs. We note that 3 out of the 4 MSPs with $B_{\rm lc} \ga 10^{5.5}$G display x-ray emission that is seemingly magnetospheric, with the nature of emission from the 4th (the eclipsing MSP B1957+20) indeterminate (BT99; Takahashi et al. 2001). Conversely, field pulsars with $B_{\rm lc} < 10^{5}$G have x-ray emission that is typically either thermal or of indeterminate character (BT99). Considering the small numbers of such pulsars studied, and that most of them have highly uncertain distances, it seems possible that field pulsars with $B_{\rm lc} \la 10^{5}$G may show an L$_x$–$B_{\rm lc}$ trend that is fairly flat and roughly consistent with the better determined relation for the 47 Tuc MSPs. However for this interpretation to hold, a few field MSPs with relatively well determined distances (e.g. 0437$-$4715 and 1744$-$1134; cf. GCH01) must be accounted for and the even larger deviations of 0751+1807 and 1024$-$0719 from the 47 Tuc correlation line would require factor 3 adjustments in these MSP distances.
Conclusions
===========
The MSPs in 47 Tuc are primarily very soft x-ray sources, consistent with thermal emission from the pulsar polar caps. The MSPs in both 47 Tuc and NGC 6397 seem to have a less efficient conversion of rotational spindown energy ($\dot E$) into soft x-rays (L$_x$) than most field MSPs, even those with correspondingly low values of their magnetic field at the light cylinder. For $\propto$ $^{\beta}$, the 47 Tuc-NGC 6397 samples are fit by $\beta
= 0.5\pm0.15$ whereas the updated (GCH01) field (and M28) sample are consistent with the value $\beta \sim 1 - 1.4$ found previously (BT97; PCC and references therein).
The soft colors for the 47 Tuc MSPs and the extended emission from 6397-A (GCH01) indicate a lack of beamed magnetospheric emission, which may suggest they have different $B_{\rm lc}$ values or configurations. We speculate their B fields may have a multipole field geometry (and thus lower dipole component) and be less efficient particle accelerators. Unlike MSPs in the field, those in dense cluster cores have a possibility of being driven back into contact and an accretion phase, as a re-cycled LMXB (from a MSP)! Renewed accretion (and 6397-A is presently close to filling its Roche lobe; cf. DPM) would likely continue the B-field burial process thought to be responsible (e.g. Romani 1990) for field decay from the $\ga10^{11}$G fields at NS birth to the $\la10^9$G values typical of MSPs. The 47 Tuc MSPs have spent their $\tau
\ga 1$Gyr lifetime in a dense ($n \sim 10^5\,{\rm pc}^{-3}$) cluster core, where they undergo scattering interactions with both single stars and other binaries. Such scattering causes the binding energy $x$ of a hard binary to secularly increase. Thus, while angular momentum transfer to the secondary acts to detach the binary, scattering events tend to drive it back toward contact.
A complication in this picture is that since MSPs are extremely hard binaries, the secular increase in $x$ is largely the result of infrequent strong scattering events, which are likely to eject the binary from the cluster core or even the cluster. Nevertheless, it appears plausible that a typical old ($\tau
\ga 1$Gyr) MSP in a *dense* cluster core might undergo one or more MSP-LMXB transformation cycles. Thus a few percent of the MSPs at any one time may be in (or near) this recurrent LMXB phase. This might explain the puzzling luminous qLMXBs X5 and X7 (GHE01a and Heinke et al. 2002) in 47 Tuc: they might be recently ($\sim10^{5-6}$yr) detached LMXBs, in which their underlying MSP nature is hidden by their evaporating (from MSP-driven winds?) fossil disks, thus explaining their lack of any detectable low-level accretion signatures.
The younger system in NGC 6397 has the advantages of having been recently scattered out of a still higher density (10$^6$ pc$^{-3}$) core collapsed cluster core and possibly having exchanged its companion (Ferraro et al. 2001, GHE01b). Either or both would likely have restored an accretion phase. Thus 6397-A need not be just “born,” as suggested by Ferraro et al. (2001); it may instead have just been reborn. In contrast, the MSP in M28 is both 10 younger, single and in a lower density core and so is unlikely to have gone through a renewed accretion phase.
We thank H. Cohn and P. Lugger for discussions of MSP recycling, described in GCH01. This work was supported in part by NASA grants GO0-1098A and HST-AR-09199.01-A (JG) and NAG5-9095 (FC).
Becker, W., & Trumper, J. 1997, å, 326, 682 (BT97)
Becker, W., & Trumper, J. 1999, å, 341, 803 (BT99)
D’Amico, N., Possenti, A., Manchester, R. N., Sarkissian, J., Lyne, A. G., & Camilo, F. 2001, ApJ, 561, L89 (DPM)
Ferraro, F. R., Possenti, A., D’Amico, N., & Sabbi, E. 2001, ApJ, 561, L93
Freire, P. C. 2001, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Manchester
Freire, P. C., Camilo, F., Lorimer, D. R., Lyne, A. G., Manchester, R. N., & D’Amico, N. 2001a, MNRAS, 326, 901
Freire, P. C., Kramer, M., Lyne, A. G., Camilo, F., Manchester, R. N., & D’Amico, N. 2001b, , 557, L105
Grindlay, J. E., Heinke, C. O., Edmonds, P. D., & Murray, S. S. 2001a, Science, 292, 2292 (GHE01a)
Grindlay, J. E., Heinke, C. O., Edmonds, P. D., Murray, S. S., & Cool, A. M. 2001b, ApJ, 563, L53 (GHE01b)
Grindlay, J. E., Camilo, F., Heinke, C. O., Edmonds, P. D., Cohn, H. & Lugger, P. 2001c, , submitted (GCH01)
Harding, A. K. & Muslimov, A. G. 2001, ApJ, submitted
Heinke, C. O., Grindlay, J. E., Lloyd, D. A., & Edmonds, P. D. 2002, , submitted (see also Heinke et al., these proceedings)
Meylan, G., & Mayor, M. 1986, å, 166, 122
Possenti, A., Cerutti, R., Colpi, M. and Mereghetti, S. 2001, å, submitted (http://xxx.lanl.gov/archive/astro-ph/0109452) (PCC)
Rajagopal, M. & Romani, R. 1996, ApJ, 461, 327
Romani, R. 1990, Nature, 347, 741
, M. [et al.]{} 2001, ApJ, 554, 316
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The Equivalence Theorem states that, for a given weight on the alphabet, every linear isometry between linear codes extends to a monomial transformation of the entire space. This theorem has been proved for several weights and alphabets, including the original MacWilliams’ Equivalence Theorem for the Hamming weight on codes over finite fields. The question remains: What conditions must a weight satisfy so that the Extension Theorem will hold? In this paper we provide an algebraic framework for determining such conditions, generalising the approach taken in [@greferath06].
Keywords: MacWilliams’ Equivalence Theorem, Extension Theorem, Weight Functions, Ring-Linear Codes.
AMS Subject Classification: 94B05, 11T71, 05E99
author:
- 'Marcus Greferath, Cathy Mc Fadden, and Jens Zumbrägel [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'biblio1.bib'
title: |
Characteristics of Invariant Weights\
Related to Code Equivalence over Rings
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Two linear codes of the same length over a given alphabet are said to be equivalent if there exists a (weight preserving) monomial transformation mapping one to the other. MacWilliams in her doctoral thesis [@macwilliams63] proved that when the alphabet is a finite field any linear Hamming isometry between linear codes will extend to a monomial transformation. Thus the equivalence question can be seen as an extension problem. A character theoretic proof of this Extension Theorem in [@ward96] led to a generalisation of this theorem for codes over finite Frobenius rings in [@wood97]. Indeed in [@wood08] it was shown that linear Hamming isometries extend precisely when the ring is Frobenius.
In the seminal paper on ring linear coding [@hammons94] it was noticed that weights other than the Hamming weight would play a significant role, such as the Lee weight over ${\mathbb Z}_{4}$. The concept of a homogenous weight was first introduced in [@constantinescu96a] where a combinatorial proof of the Extension Theorem for this weight and codes over ${\mathbb Z}_{m}$ is provided. In [@greferath00] we see that every homogeneous isometry is a Hamming isometry yielding the Extension Theorem for the homogeneous weight and codes over finite Frobenius rings. This paper followed the combinatorial tack of [@constantinescu96a] for the ${\mathbb Z}_{m}$ case. For the more general case of codes over modules the Extension Theorem holds for Hamming weights as seen in [@greferath04].
Following from the chain ring result of [@greferath05], obtained by examining the generation of invariant weights, a complete characterisation of those weights for which the Equivalence Theorem holds for codes over ${\mathbb Z}_{m}$ is supplied in [@greferath06]. Here we extend the ideas of that paper to more general rings, outlining a strategy for attaining necessary and sufficient conditions for a weight to satisfy the Extension Theorem.
We begin in Section \[sec:prelims\] by revising some key properties of the Möbius Function and chain rings. In Section \[sec:weightdefs\] we define codes, weights and the equivalence condition for the ring case. In Section \[sec:convcorr\] we describe the structural context so crucial to the elegance and seeming simplicity of our results. Then, after a short section on finite products of chain rings, we finally provide in Section \[sec:modgen\] a sufficient condition for an invariant weight to satisfy the generalised MacWilliams’ Equivalence Theorem.
Algebraic and Combinatorial Preliminaries {#sec:prelims}
=========================================
In the following sections we will harness the power of Möbius Inversion to prove our most vital results. We state the key points here, for more details see [@roman92].
\[mobiusdefn\] Consider a field ${\mathbb F}$ and a finite partially ordered set $P$ with partial ordering $\leq$. The [*Möbius function*]{}, $\mu : P \times P \longrightarrow {\mathbb F}$, is defined by $\mu(x,y)=0$ for $x\nleqslant y$, and any of the four equivalent statements:
$ \mu (x,x) = 1$ and $\displaystyle
\sum_{x \leq z \leq y}{\mu(z,y)} = 0$ for $x<y$
$ \mu (x,x) = 1$ and $\displaystyle
\sum_{x \leq z \leq y}{\mu(x,z)} = 0$ for $x<y$
$ \mu (x,x) = 1$ and $\displaystyle
\mu (x,y) = -\! \sum_{x < z \leq y}{\mu(z,y)} $ for $x<y$
$ \mu (x,x) = 1$ and $\displaystyle
\mu (x,y) = -\! \sum_{x \leq z < y}{\mu(x,z)} $ for $x<y$
Let $P$, ${\mathbb F}$, and $\mu$ be as above and let $f,g$ be functions from $P$ to ${\mathbb F}$. If $P$ has least element 0 then: $$g(x) = \sum_{ y \leq x}{f(y)} \;\;\mbox{for all $x\in P$}\quad
\Leftrightarrow \quad f(x) = \sum_{y \leq x}{g(y) \mu (y,x)} \;\;
\mbox{for all $x\in P$}.$$ If additionally the partially ordered set $P$ has a greatest element 1 then: $$g(x) = \sum_{ x \leq y}{f(y)} \;\;\mbox{for all $x\in P$}\quad
\Leftrightarrow \quad f(x) = \sum_{x \leq y}{g(y) \mu (x,y)}\;\;
\mbox{for all $x\in P$}.$$
Now we include a brief summary of the key properties of chain rings (c.f. [@lang02], [@mcdonald74], [@Kasch82]). In all of our discussion let $R$ be a finite associative ring with identity 1. Denote by $R^{\times}$ the group of multiplicatively invertible elements of $R$.
A ring $R$ is called a [*left chain ring*]{} if the set of left ideals of $R$ forms a chain under the partial ordering of inclusion. Similarly for [*right chain ring*]{}. If $R$ is both a left and right chain ring then it is called a [*chain ring*]{}.
The following theorem, combining Theorem 1.1 of [@nechaev73] and Lemma 1 of [@clarke73], demonstrates the numerous equivalent definitions of a finite chain ring. Recall a [*principal left ideal ring*]{} is a ring with identity in which each left ideal is left principal, and a [*principal ideal ring*]{} is a ring which is both a principal left ideal ring and a principal right ideal ring.
The following are equivalent:
$R$ is a local principal ideal ring.
$R$ is a left chain ring.
$R$ is a chain ring.
$R$ is a local ring and ${\rm rad}(R)$ is a left principal ideal.
Every one-sided ideal of $R$ is two-sided and belongs to the chain\
$R \rhd {\rm rad}(R) \rhd ... \rhd {\rm rad}(R)^{n-1}
\rhd {\rm rad}(R)^{n} = \{0\}$, for some $n \in {\mathbb N}$.
Note that in the above if $n > 1$, then ${\rm rad}(R)^i = R \pi^i =
\pi^i R$ for any $\pi \in {\rm rad}(R) \setminus {\rm rad}(R)^2$, $i \in \{1 \dots n\}$. Wood noted in [@wood00] that $${\rm rad}(R)^i \setminus {\rm rad}(R)^{i+1} = R^{\times} \pi^i
= \pi^i R^{\times} \:.$$ This property extends in a natural way to finite direct products of chain rings and, combined with our structural approach, facilitates the proof of the main theorems herein.
Weight Functions and the Equivalence Theorem {#sec:weightdefs}
============================================
Let the left symmetry group of any function $f: R \to {\mathbb C}$ be given by ${\rm Sym}_\ell(f) := \{u \in R^{\times} \mid f(x) = f(ux)\
\forall x \in R \}$ and the right symmetry group by ${\rm Sym}_r(f) :=
\{u \in R^{\times} \mid f(xu) = f(x)\ \forall x \in R\}$. By a weight on $R$ we mean any function $w : R \to {\mathbb C}$ satisfying $w(0) =
0$. A weight $w$ is called [*invariant*]{} if both symmetry groups are maximal, i.e. if they coincide with $R^\times$. Note that for a finite ring $Rx \, =\, Ry$ implies $R^{\times}x = R^{\times}y$, as detailed in [@wood99b], hence if ${\rm Sym}_\ell(w)= R^{\times}$ then $w(x) \, =\, w(y)$.
An invariant weight $w$ on $R$ is called [*homogeneous*]{}, if there exists a real number $c\geq 0$ such that for all $x\in R$ there holds: $$\sum_{y\in Rx} w(y) \; = \; c \,|Rx|\quad \mbox{ if } x\neq 0 \:.$$
The concept of a homogeneous weight was originally introduced in [@constantinescu96] and further generalised in two different directions: one is given in the work by Nechaev and Honold [@nechaev99], in which the term homogeneous weight is reserved for those with constant average weight on [*every*]{} nonzero ideal. The other can be seen in the work by Greferath and Schmidt [@greferath00], where the constant average property is postulated only for principal ideals. Both definitions are equivalent for the class of finite Frobenius ring.
This article follows the line given in [@greferath00] and hence, every finite ring allows for a homogeneous weight. The case of average value $1$ is referred to as the [*normalised*]{} homogeneous weight $w_{\rm hom}$.
The normalised homogeneous weight $w_{\rm hom}: R \to \mathbb{R}$ is given by $$w_{\rm hom} (x) = 1 - \frac{\mu(0, Rx)}{|R^\times x|} \:,$$ where $\mu$ is the Möbius function on the lattice of principal ideals of $R$, from Definition \[mobiusdefn\], and $|R^\times x|$ counts the number of generators of the ideal $Rx$ as proved in [@greferath00].
Given a positive integer $n$, any weight $w : R \to {\mathbb C}$ shall be extended to a function on $R^{n}$ by defining $w(x) := w(x_1) + w(x_2)
+ \dots + w(x_n)$ for $x \in R^{n}$. Suppose that $C$ is a linear code of length $n$ over $R$, i.e. an $R$-submodule of ${}_RR^{n}$. A map $\phi : C \to {}_RR^{n}$ is called a $w$-isometry if $w ( \phi(x) )
= w(x)$ for all $x \in C$.
A bijective module homomorphism $\phi : {}_RR^{n} \to {}_RR^{n}$ is called a [*monomial transformation*]{} if there exists a permutation $\pi$ of $\{1 \dots n\}$ and units $u_1, \dots, u_n \in
R^{\times}$ such that $\phi(x) = ( x_{\pi(1)} u_1 , \dots , x_{\pi(n)}
u_n )$ for every $x =(x_1 , \dots , x_n ) \in R^{n}$. If all the units $u_{i}$ are contained in a subgroup $G$ of $R^{\times}$ we call it a [*$G$-monomial transformation*]{}.
Clearly any ${\rm Sym}_r(w)$-monomial transformation will be a $w$-isometry for any weight $w$ and hence restricts to a $w$-isometry on every linear code $C \subseteq {}_RR^{n}$. Conversely we may ask if a given linear $w$-isometry $\phi : C \to {}_RR^{n}$, defined on a linear subcode $C$ of $R^{n}$ is a restriction of an appropriate monomial transformation of $R^{n}$. This is the essence of MacWilliams’ Equivalence Theorem:
Every linear Hamming isometry between linear codes of the same length over a finite field can be extended to a monomial transformation of the ambient vector space.
Suppose $w$ is an arbitrary weight. We say that [*MacWilliams’ Equivalence Theorem*]{} (or the [*Extension Theorem*]{}) holds for $w$ on $R$ if for each positive integer $n$, linear code $C$ in ${}_RR^{n}$ and linear $w$-isometry $\phi : C \to {}_RR^{n}$ there exists a ${\rm Sym}_r(w)$-monomial transformation of $R^{n}$ which extends $\phi$.
An obvious necessary condition for MacWilliams’ Equivalence Theorem to hold for a weight $w$ on $R$ is that all $w$-isometries are injective.
Convolution and Correlation {#sec:convcorr}
===========================
Two key operations, convolution and correlation, allow us to define a module of weights over an algebra of complex functions. Consider the set ${\mathbb C}^R$ of all functions $\{ f \mid f:R \to {\mathbb C}\}$. For $f, g \in {\mathbb C}^R$ and for $\lambda \in {\mathbb C}$ we define addition and scalar multiplication by $$\begin{aligned}
(f + g)(x) &:= f(x) + g(x) \\
(\lambda f)(x) &:= \lambda f(x) \:, \end{aligned}$$ then $V = [{\mathbb C}^R, +, 0; {\mathbb C}]$ is a ${\mathbb C}$-vector space.
Let $f$ and $g$ be elements of ${\mathbb C}^R$. We define the [ *multiplicative convolution*]{} as a mapping: $$\begin{aligned}
\ast : {\mathbb C}^R \times {\mathbb C}^R {\longrightarrow}{\mathbb C}^R, \ \ \
(f,g) \mapsto f \ast g \\
\mbox{where } \ \ ( f \ast g ) (x) :=
\sum_{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a,b \in R,}{ ab=x}}}{f(a) g(b)} \:.
\end{aligned}$$
For each element $r\in R$ denote by $\delta_r$ the function defined by: $$\delta_r(x) := \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
1 & \ :\ & x = r\\
0 & : & \mbox{otherwise} \:.
\end{array}
\right.$$ We extend the notation to each subset $A$ of $R$ by defining $\delta_A
= \sum_{a \in A}{\delta_a}$. The multiplicative identity of the $\ast$ operation is $\delta_1$.
${\mathbb C}^R$, with addition and scalar multiplication as above and the operation $\ast$, is an algebra over ${\mathbb C}$, which we call ${\mathbb C}[R, \ast]$, or simply ${\mathbb C}[R]$.
It is clear that convolution is associative and additively distributive and that $\delta_{1}$ is indeed an identity. If $\lambda$ in ${\mathbb C}$, then $\lambda(f \ast g) = (\lambda f) \ast
g = f \ast (\lambda g).$ Thus ${\mathbb C}[R]$ is indeed a complex algebra.
Note that $\delta_r \ast \delta_s = \delta_{r s}$ and that the set ${\left\{ \delta_r \mid r \in R \right\}}$ forms a ${\mathbb C}$-basis of ${\mathbb C}[R]$.
Let $f, g$ and $w$ be elements of ${\mathbb C}^R$. The left and right [*multiplicative correlations*]{} are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\circledast': S \times W &{\longrightarrow}W \:, \qquad (f,w) \mapsto f \circledast' w\\
\circledast\,: W \times S &{\longrightarrow}W\:, \qquad (w,g) \mapsto w \circledast g
\end{aligned}$$ respectively, where $$\begin{aligned}
( f \circledast' w ) (x) &\;:=\; \sum_{r \in R}{ f(r) w(xr) } \\
( w \circledast g ) (x) &\;:=\; \sum_{r \in R}{ w(rx) g(r) } \:.
\end{aligned}$$
Let $f,g,w \in {\mathbb C}^R$, then convolution and correlation have the following relationships: $$\begin{aligned}
(f \ast g) \circledast' w &= f \circledast' (g \circledast' w) \\
w \circledast (f \ast g) &= ( w \circledast f) \circledast g \\
g \circledast'( w \circledast f) &= (g \circledast' w) \circledast f \:.
\end{aligned}$$
The complex vector space $V = [{\mathbb C}^R, +, 0; {\mathbb C}]$ is a ${\mathbb C}[R]$-bimodule under the left and right ${\mathbb C}[R]$-ring multiplications $$\begin{aligned}
(f,w) &{\longrightarrow}f \circledast' w \\
(w,g) &{\longrightarrow}w \circledast g.
\end{aligned}$$
Combining additive distribution with the preceeding Lemma the result is evident.
The set ${\mathbb C}\delta_0 $ is a two-sided ideal in the algebra ${\mathbb C}[R, \ast]$ where $${\mathbb C}\delta_0 = \{ c \delta_0 \mid c \in {\mathbb C}\} \:.$$
With this two-sided ideal we can immediately form the factor algebra ${\mathbb C}[R, \ast]/ {\mathbb C}\delta_0 $ which we call ${\mathbb C}_0[R]$.
We define the set $V_0$ to be those functions $w$ in $V$ which satisfy $w(0) = 0$. $$V_0 := \{ w \in V \mid w(0) = 0 \} \:.$$
As $w \circledast \delta_0 = 0$ for all $w \in V_0$ this induces a natural right action of ${\mathbb C}_0[R]$ on $V_0$ by $$w \circledast (f + {\mathbb C}\delta_0 ) := w \circledast f \:,$$ where $g = f + {\mathbb C}\delta_0 $ is any element of ${\mathbb C}_0[R]$ and $w \in V_0$. Similarly there exists a left action via $\circledast'$.
Direct Product of Chain Rings {#sec:dirprod}
=============================
From now on let the ring $R$ be a finite product of finite chain rings $R_i$, say $R = R_1 \times R_2 \times \dots \times R_r$, with Jacobson radicals generated by $p_1, p_2, \dots, p_r$ of nilpotency $d_1, d_2,
\dots, d_r$ respectively. We view elements of $R$ as $r$-tuples of chain ring elements i.e. $a\in R$ represented as $a = (a_1, a_2,
\dots, a_r)$ where each $a_i\in R_i$. Operations, including multiplication, are performed component-wise. The set of generators of the ideals of $R$ is given by $\{R^{\times}e \mid e \in E \}$ where $E$ are the representatives $$E = \{ {p_1}^{e_1} {p_2}^{e_2} \dots {p_r}^{e_r} =
e \mid 0 \leq e_i \leq d_i \} \:.$$ The lattice of principal left ideals of $R$ may be described by $E(_RR) = {\{ Re \mid e \in E \}}$.
We have for $e = p_1^{e_1}\dots p_r^{e_r}, f = p_1^{f_1}\dots
p_r^{f_r}\in E$ the relations $e_i\le f_i\ \forall i$ if and only if $Re\ge Rf$, and in this case we write $e\ge f$. The [*socle*]{} of any $R$-module ${}_RM$ is the sum of the minimal submodules of ${}_RM$. When ${}_RM$ is the ring as a left module over itself this is the sum of the minimal left ideals. Here the representative of the socle is $s = {p_1}^{d_1-1}{p_2}^{d_2-1} \dots{p_r}^{d_r-1}$ by the nature of the direct product.
Let us take a look at how the Möbius function behaves on the partially ordered set of principal ideals. For a chain ring $T$, where $\pi$ generates the radical with nilpotency index $h$, the function is described by: $$\mu(T \pi ^x, T \pi ^y) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
1 & \ :\ & x = y \\
-1 & : & x = y + 1 \\
0 & : & x > y + 1 \:. \end{array}
\right.$$ Translation invariance in the lattice of principal ideals of a direct product of finite chain rings means we are only interested in the values of the Möbius function takes within the socle. The nature of the lattice, combined with binomial theorem arguments, allows us to determine those values we will be interested in.
\[mobiuslem\] The Möbius function takes values for all $e = p_1^{e_1}\dots
p_r^{e_r}\in E$, $$\mu(0,Re) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
(-1)^{\Sigma{(d_{i}- e_{i})}} & \ :\ & Re \leq \rm{Soc}(R)\\
0 & : & Re \nleqslant \rm{Soc}(R) \:.
\end{array}
\right.$$
MacWilliams’ Extension Theorem by Module Generation {#sec:modgen}
===================================================
For any functions $f, g \in {\mathbb C}[R]$ note that ${\rm Sym}_\ell(f
\ast g) \supseteq {\rm Sym}_\ell(f)$ and in a similar line we have ${\rm Sym}_r(f \ast g) \supseteq {\rm Sym}_r(g)$.
Symmetry groups are inherited as follows for correlation $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Sym}_\ell (w \circledast g) &\supseteq {\rm Sym}_r (g) \\
{\rm Sym}_r (f \circledast ' w) &\supseteq {\rm Sym}_\ell (f) \:.
\end{aligned}$$
Define $S = \{ f \in {\mathbb C}_0[R] \mid f(x u) = f(x)\ \forall
x \in R, u \in R^{\times} \}$ and let the invariant weights from Section \[sec:weightdefs\] be denoted by $W = \{ w \in V_0 \mid
{\rm Sym}_\ell (w) = R^{\times} = {\rm Sym}_r (w) \}$. Then $W$ is a right $S$-module under correlation $\circledast$ in a naturally inherited way.
We illustrate this by considering the correlation $w \circledast f$ at $ux$ and $xu$. $$\begin{aligned}
w \circledast f (ux) &= \sum_{r \in R}{w (rux) f(r)} \\
&= \sum_{s \in R}{w (sx) f(s u^{-1})}\end{aligned}$$ When $f$ is right invariant this will be simply $w \circledast f
(x)$. Now $$w \circledast f (xu) = \sum_{r \in R}{ w(rxu)f(r)}$$ which will be $w \circledast f (x)$ when $w$ is right invariant. Hence the correlation is in $W$ when $w \in W$ and $f \in S$.
We re-examine the Extension Theorem with this new perspective. We aim to classify all weights that generate $W$ as a right $S$-module. This will then yield MacWilliams’ Equivalence Theorem for these weights due to the following results, equivalent to those in [@greferath05].
\[lemiso\] If $\phi$ is a $w$-isometry then $\phi$ is a $(w \circledast
s)$-isometry for all $s \in S$.
Let $\phi$ be a $w$-isometry. Then $w(\phi(x)) = w(x)$. Examine $(w
\circledast s)(\phi(x))$: $$\begin{aligned}
w \circledast s (\phi(x)) &= \sum_{r \in R}{w (r\phi(x)) s(r)} \\
&= \sum_{r \in R}{w (\phi(rx)) s(r)} \\
&= \sum_{r \in R}{w (rx) s(r)}
\end{aligned}$$ which is $w \circledast s (x)$ and thus $\phi$ is a $(w \circledast
s)$-isometry.
Let $R$ be a Frobenius ring. If $w \circledast S = W$ then $w
\circledast h = w_{H}$ for some $h \in S$ where $w_{H}$ denotes the Hamming weight. Since every $w$-isometry is a $(w \circledast
h)$-isometry, by Lemma \[lemiso\], we have that MacWilliams’ Extension Theorem holds for $w$.
Continuing with our notation for $R$ as before we define the natural basis for $S$.
For each $e \in E$ define the basis element $$\varepsilon_e :=
\ \frac{1}{{\left\vertR^{\times}e\right\vert}} \sum_{a \in R^{\times}e}{\delta_{a}} =
\ \frac{1}{{\left\vertR^{\times}e\right\vert}} \ \delta_{R^{\times}e} \:.$$
By abuse of notation for all $e \in E$ we denote by $e^{\bot}$ the orthogonal ideal to $Re$, namely $e^{\bot} = (Re)^{\bot} = {\left\{r \in
R \mid rs = 0\ \forall s \in Re\right\}}$. Note that when $e = p_1^{e_1}\dots
p_r^{e_r}$ and $e^{\bot} = p_1^{e_1^{\bot}}\dots p_r^{e_r^{\bot}}$ then $e_i^{\bot} = d_i-e_i$. We define the set $\{ \eta_{x} \mid x\in E\setminus\{0\} \}$ in $S$ by $$\eta_x := \sum_{x^{\bot} \le t } {\mu (0,Rxt) \ \varepsilon_t } \:,$$ where $\mu$ is the Möbius function induced by the lattice of left principal ideals under the partial order of inclusion. The values are as given in Lemma \[mobiuslem\]. Since $\mu(0, Rz)=0$ for $Rz
\nleqslant Soc(R)$ we need only include those $z = xt$ with indices $z_i = d_i$ or $z_i = d_i -1$ in the sum.
The set $\{ \eta_x \mid x\in E\setminus\{0\} \}$ as defined above is a basis of $S$.
Define the indicator function $$\mathbf{1}_{a \leq b} = \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
1 & \ :\ & Ra \leq Rb\\
0 & : & Ra \nleqslant Rb \:.
\end{array}
\right.$$ The matrix $(\mathbf{1}_{a \leq b} )_{a, b \in E}$ will be upper triangular and invertible with respect to the usual rank ordering. Thus the matrix given by $$\left( \mu (0, Ra^{\bot} b)
\mathbf{1}_{a \leq b} \right)_{a,b \in E}$$ will be invertible if and only if $\mu (0, Ra^{\bot} b)$ is nonzero when $b=a$. By applying the permutation $a \mapsto a^{\bot}$ we acquire an equivalent statement: $$\left( \mu (0, Ra b) \mathbf{1}_{a^{\bot}
\leq b} \right)_{a,b \in E} \mbox{ is invertible } \quad
\Leftrightarrow \quad \mu (0, Ra a^{\bot}) \neq 0$$ which is true by orthogonality. As this matrix describing the transform from ${\left\{\varepsilon_{e}\right\}}$ to ${\left\{\eta_{x}\right\}}$ is invertible it is clear that the ${\left\{\eta_{x}\right\}}$ form a basis of $S$.
We examine the action of correlation on this basis of $S$.
$$( w \circledast \eta_{x})(y) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
\sum_{x^{\bot} \leq t}{\mu(0,Rxt) w(ty)} & : & Rx \leq Ry\\
0 & \;\;:\;\; & Rx \nleqslant Ry \:.
\end{array}
\right.$$
First we expand the correlation to the formula above (with which we will examine the case when $Rx \nleqslant Ry$). $$\begin{aligned}
w \circledast \eta_x (y) &= \sum_{r \in R}{ w(ry) \eta_x (r) } \\
&= \sum_{r \in R}{ w(ry) \sum_{x^{\bot} \leq t }{\mu (0, Rxt) \
\varepsilon_t (r) }}\\
&= \sum_{x^{\bot} \leq t}{ \mu(0, Rxt) \sum_{r \in R}{ w(ry) \
\varepsilon_t (r) }}
\end{aligned}$$ The second sum will be nonzero only for those $r$ in $R^{\times}t$ each of which will contribute $ \frac{1}{{\left\vertR^{\times} t\right\vert}} w (t
y)$. This yields the desired description.
We use the notation $x = p_1^{x_1}\dots p_r^{x_r}$, $y =
p_1^{y_1}\dots p_r^{y_r}$, $t = p_1^{t_1}\dots p_r^{t_r}$, etc. Suppose $Rx \nleqslant Ry$, so there exists a $k$ such that $y_{k} > x_{k}$ and it follows $x_{k} < d_{k}$. Take $t$ in the sum above, $Rx^{\bot} \leq Rt$ and $Rxt \leq $ Soc$(R)$. The implications are $d_{i} - x_{i} \geq t_{i}$ and $x_{i} + t_{i} \geq
d_{i} -1$. Hence either $t_{k} = d_{k} -x_{k}$ or $t_{k} = d_{k} -
x_{k} -1$. This implies $(ty)_{k} = t_{k} + y_{k} \geq d_{k}$ since $y_{k} - x_{k} -1 \geq 0$. Thus $w(ty)$ will be the same for either option of $t_{k}$, namely $w(tp_{k} y) = w(ty)$ when $t_{k} = d_{k}
- x_{k} -1$. We divide the sum into two parts, splitting over the value of $t_{k}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{x^{\bot} \leq t}{ \mu (0, Rxt) w (t y)}
&= \sum_{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x^{\bot} \leq t}{t_{k}=d_{k} - x_{k} }}}{ \mu (0, Rxt) w (t y)}
+ \sum_{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x^{\bot} \leq t}{t_{k}=d_{k} -x_{k} -1}}}{ \mu (0, Rxt) w (t y)} \\
&= \sum_{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x^{\bot} \leq t}{t_{k}=d_{k} - x_{k} -1}}}{ \mu (0, Rxtp_{k})
w (t p_{k} y) + \mu (0, Rxt) w(t y)} \\
&= \sum_{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x^{\bot} \leq t}{t_{k}=d_{k}-x_{k}-1}}}{ (\mu (0, Rxtp_{k})
+ \mu (0, Rxt) ) w(t y)}
\end{aligned}$$ Now since $\mu (0, Rxt) = (-1)^{\sum{d_j - x_j -t_j}}$, it follows that $\mu (0, Rxt) + \mu (0, Rxtp_k) = 0$. Hence $w \circledast
\eta_x (y) = 0$ when $Ry \nleqslant Rx$.
Thus the matrix of coefficients of the weight $w$ with respect to the basis $\{ \eta_x \mid x \in E\setminus\{0\}\}$ is triangular. We require for $w$ to generate $W$ that the diagonal elements are nonzero, indeed this is sufficient. Combining all of these elements we arrive at our main theorem.
Let $R$ be a finite direct product of finite chain rings with $E$ the set of representatives of the ideals of $R$. If $w \in W$ with $$\sum_{x^{\bot} \leq t}{\mu(0, Rxt) w(tx)} \neq 0 \quad
\mbox{ for all } x \in E\setminus\{0\} \:,$$ then MacWilliams’ Equivalence Theorem holds for $w$.
We remark that a finite commutative ring is a direct product of chain rings if and only if it is a principal ideal ring. Hence the theorem applies in particular to finite commutative principal ideal rings.
Conclusion {#conclusion .unnumbered}
==========
By considering the module of invariant weights in terms of an algebra of complex functions we have determined the conditions an invariant weight defined on a direct product of chain rings must satisfy for MacWilliams’ equivalence theorem to hold. Thus provided these conditions are satisfied all isometries of that weight will extend to monomial transformations.
[^1]: School of Mathematical Sciences, University College Dublin, and Claude Shannon Institute for Discrete Mathematics, Coding, Cryptography, and Information Security, Dublin, Republic of Ireland. Email: {marcus.greferath, cathy.mcfadden, jens.zumbragel}@ucd.ieThis work was supported in part by the Science Foundation Ireland under Grants 06/MI/006 and 08/IN.1/I1950.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study of the directional distribution function of nodal lines for eigenfunctions of the Laplacian on a planar domain. This quantity counts the number of points where the normal to the nodal line points in a given direction. We give upper bounds for the flat torus, and compute the expected number for arithmetic random waves.'
address:
- 'School of Mathematical Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel'
- 'Department of Mathematics, King’s College London, UK'
author:
- Zeév Rudnick and Igor Wigman
title: Points on nodal lines with given direction
---
Introduction
============
Nodal directions
----------------
One of the more intriguing characteristics of a Laplace eigenfunction on a planar domain is its nodal set. Much progress has been achieved in understanding its length, notably the work of Donnelly and Fefferman [@Donnelly-Fefferman], and the recent breakthrough by Logunov and Mallinikova [@LM; @Logunov1; @Logunov2], and several researchers have tried to understand the number of nodal domains (the connected components of the complement of the nodal set), starting with Courant’s upper bound on that number, see [@Bourgain; @Pleijel] for the latest result. In this note, we propose to study a different quantity, the [*directional distribution*]{}, measuring an aspect of the curvature of nodal lines.
Let $\Omega$ be a planar domain, with piecewise smooth boundary, and let $f$ be an eigenfunction of the Dirichlet Laplacian, with eigenvalue $E$: $-\Delta f=Ef$. Given a direction $\zeta\in S^{1} $, let $ N_{\zeta}(f)$ be the number of points $x$ on the nodal line $\{x\in \Omega: f(x)=0\}$ with normal pointing in the direction $\pm \zeta$: $$\label{eq:Nzeta=f=nablf=zeta def}
N_{\zeta}(f)= \#\left\{x\in\Omega:\: f(x)=0, \frac{\nabla f(x)}{\|\nabla f(x)\|} = \pm \zeta \right\}.$$ In particular requires that $\nabla f(x)\neq 0$, i.e. $x$ is a non-singular point of the nodal line.
In a few separable cases, such as an irrational rectangle, or the disk, one can explicitly compute $N_\zeta(f)$: For the irrational rectangle, the nodal line is a grid and $N_\zeta(f)=0,\infty$, while for the disk the nodal line is a union of diameters and circles, and we find $N_\zeta(f)\ll \sqrt{E}$ except for $O(\sqrt{E})$ choices of $\zeta$, when $N_\zeta(f)=\infty$, see Appendix \[sec:separable\]. However, in most cases one cannot explicitly compute $N_\zeta(f)$. The following heuristic suggests that generically the order of magnitude of $N_{\zeta}(f)$ is about $E$: We expect a “typical" eigenfunction to have an order of magnitude of $E$ nodal domains [@Sodin-Nazarov], and looking at several plots of nodal portraits such as Figure \[fig:nod tor\] would lead us to believe that many of the nodal domains are ovals, or at least have a controlled geometry, with $O(1)$ points per nodal domain with normal parallel to any given direction. Therefore we are led to expect that the total number of points on the nodal line with normal parallel to $\pm \zeta$ should be about $E$ (if it is finite).
![The nodal line of the toral eigenfunction $$\sin (2 \pi (8 x-y))+\sin (2 \pi (4 x+7 y))+\cos (2 \pi (4 x-7 y)).$$ A significant proportion of its components are ovals.[]{data-label="fig:nod tor"}](nodaltorus.pdf){height="60mm"}
To try and validate this heuristic, we study $N_\zeta(f)$ on the standard flat torus ${\mathbb{T}}={\mathbb{R}}^2/{\mathbb{Z}}^2$ (equivalently taking $\Omega$ to be the square, and imposing periodic, rather than Dirichlet, boundary conditions), for both random and deterministic eigenfunctions. We prove deterministic upper bounds, and compute the expected value of $N_{\zeta}$ for “arithmetic random waves" described below.
A deterministic upper bound
---------------------------
We want to establish individual upper bounds on $N_\zeta(f)$. Strictly speaking, this is not possible, since there are cases where $N_\zeta(f)= \infty$. For instance, the nodal set of the eigenfunctions $f(x,y)=\sin(2\pi mx)\sin(2\pi ny)$ ($m,n\geq 1$) is a union of straight lines with $N_\zeta(f)=0$ unless $\zeta=\pm(1,0),\pm(0,1)$ in which case $N_\zeta(f)=\infty$. More generally, one can construct toral eigenfunctions $f$ so that their nodal lines contain a closed geodesic, but also curved components, see Figure \[fig:nod line geodesic\] where we display the eigenfunction $$\begin{split}
f(x,y) &= 2\Big(
\sin 8x \sin y + \sin 7x \sin 4y +\sin x \sin 8y +\sin 4x\sin 7y \Big)
\\ &= 4\sin(x)\sin(y)\Big(\cos x+\cos y\Big) h(x,y)
\end{split}$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\label{formula for h}
h(x,y)= 2 \cos (3 x-5 y)-2 \cos (2 x-4 y)-2 \cos (4 x-4 y)+4 \cos (x-3 y)
+4 \cos (3 x-3 y) \\ +2 \cos (5 x-3 y) -4 \cos (2 x-2 y)-2 \cos (4 x-2 y)
+6 \cos (x-y)+4 \cos (3 x-y)+6 \cos (x+y)
+4 \cos (3 x+y)
\\
-4 \cos (2 x+2 y) -2 \cos (4 x+2 y)
+4 \cos (x+3 y)+4 \cos (3 x+3 y)
+2 \cos (5 x+3 y)
-2 \cos (2 x+4 y)
\\ -2 \cos (4 x+4 y)+2 \cos (3 x+5 y)
-4 \cos (2 x)
+2 \cos (6 x)-4 \cos (2 y)+2 \cos (6 y)-2 .
\end{gathered}$$ Theorem \[thm:upper bnd class\] below asserts an upper bound for $N_{\zeta}(f)$ with the only exceptions being when the nodal line contains a closed geodesic. It will follow as a particular case of a structure result on the set $$\label{eq:Aczeta(f) def}
{\mathcal{A}}_{\zeta}(f) = \left\{ x\in\Omega:\: f(x)=0, \langle \nabla f(x), \zeta^{\perp} \rangle = 0 \right\}$$ of “nodal directional points", i.e. the set of nodal points where $\nabla f$ is orthogonal to $\zeta^{\perp}$ (thus co-linear to $\zeta$). Note that, by the definition, in addition to the set on the r.h.s. of , ${\mathcal{A}}_{\zeta}(f)$ contains all the singular nodal points of $f^{-1}(0)$, and could also contain certain closed geodesics in direction orthogonal to $\zeta$, as we shall see below. To state Theorem \[thm:upper bnd class\] we introduce the (standard) notion of “height" for a rational vector.
![Left: nodal set of the eigenfunction $f(x,y) = 2\Big(
\sin 8x \sin y + \sin 7x \sin 4y +\sin x \sin 8y +\sin 4x\sin 7y \Big)
= 4\sin(x)\sin(y)\Big(\cos x+\cos y\Big) h(x,y)$ for the trigonometric polynomial $h(x,y)$ in , on the full square $[0,2\pi]\times [0,2\pi]$. Note the lines $x,y\in\pi {\mathbb{Z}}$, $x\pm y \in \pi(1+2{\mathbb{Z}})$. The scaled function $f(x/2\pi,y/2\pi)$ is a toral eigenfunction. Right: Contours of $h(x,y)$ on the square $[0,\pi]\times [0,\pi]$. []{data-label="fig:nod line geodesic"}](symmetriceigenfunctiondouble.pdf){height="60mm"}
1. A [*rational direction*]{} $\zeta \in {\mathcal{S}}^{1}$ is one which is a multiple of an integer vector. Note that $\zeta$ is rational if and only if the orthogonal direction $\zeta^\perp$ is rational.
2. For a rational vector $\zeta\in{\mathcal{S}}^{1}$ we denote its [*height*]{} by $h(\zeta) = \max(|k_{1}|,|k_{2}|)$ where $(k_1,k_2)$ is a primitive integer vector (unique up to sign) in the direction of $\zeta$: $$\zeta = \pm \frac{(k_{1},k_{2})}{\sqrt{k_1^2+k_2^2}}\; .$$ Note that $h(\zeta)=h(\zeta^\perp)$.
\[thm:upper bnd class\]
Let $\zeta\in{\mathcal{S}}^{1}$ be a direction, and $f$ be a toral eigenfunction: $-\Delta f=Ef$ for some $E>0$.
1. If $\zeta$ is rational, then the set ${\mathcal{A}}_{\zeta}(f)$ consists of at most $$\frac{\sqrt{E}}{\pi h(\zeta)}$$ closed geodesics orthogonal to $\zeta$, at most $\frac{2}{\pi^{2}} \cdot E$ nonsingular points not lying on the geodesics, and possibly, singular points of the nodal set.
2. If $\zeta$ is not rational, then the set ${\mathcal{A}}_{\zeta}(f)$ consists of at most $\frac{2}{\pi^{2}}\cdot E$ nonsingular points, and possibly, singular points of the nodal set.
3. In particular, if ${\mathcal{A}}_{\zeta}(f)$ does not contain a closed geodesic, then $$N_{\zeta}(f) \le \frac{2}{\pi^2} \cdot E.$$
The proof of Theorem \[thm:upper bnd class\], given in section \[sec:det bnd proof\] below, is sufficiently robust to apply verbatim to the more general family of trigonometric polynomials on ${\mathbb{T}}^{2}$ of degree $\le \sqrt{E}$. We note that it is possible to construct Laplace eigenfunctions $f$ of arbitrarily high eigenvalues and $\zeta\in{\mathcal{S}}^{1}$ such that $N_{\zeta}(f)=0$ vanishes, so that a general lower bound for $N_{\zeta}(f)$ cannot exist. For example, $$f(x,y)=2 \cos(2\pi\cdot m x) + \cos(2\pi\cdot m y)$$ has eigenvalue $E=4\pi^2m^2$ and satisfies $N_{\zeta}(f)=0$ for $\zeta = e^{i\theta}$ with $\theta$ near $\pi/2$, see Figure \[fig:vertical nodal\].
![The nodal line of $f(x,y)=2\cos(2\pi \cdot 10x)+ \cos(2\pi\cdot 10 y)$. For the choice $\zeta = e^{i\pi/2}$ we have $N_{\zeta}(f)=0$.[]{data-label="fig:vertical nodal"}](vert_pic.pdf){height="60mm"}
Expected number for arithmetic random waves
-------------------------------------------
A better understanding of several properties of nodal lines is obtained if one studies [*random*]{} eigenfunctions. In 1962, Swerling [@Swerling] studied statistical properties of contour lines of a general class of planar Gaussian processes, and gave a non-rigorous computation of the expected value of $N_\zeta$ for general contour lines, using the result to bound the number of closed connected components of contour lines. We will compute the expected value of $N_\zeta$ for “arithmetic random waves" [@ORW2007; @RW2008]. These are random eigenfunctions on the torus, $$\label{eq:f arith rand wav def}
f(x) =f_{n}(x)= \sum\limits_{\lambda\in {\mathcal{E}}_{n}}c_{\lambda}e(\langle \lambda, x\rangle),$$ where $e(z)=e^{2\pi i z}$ and $$\label{eq:Ecn lattice circle def}
{\mathcal{E}}_{n}=\{\lambda=(\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2})\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{2}: \:\|\lambda\|^{2}=n\}$$ is the set of all representations of the integer $n=\lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2$ as a sum of two integer squares, and $c_\lambda$ are standard Gaussian random variables[^1], identically distributed and independent save for the constraint $$\label{eq:c(-lam),c(lam)}
c_{-\lambda} = \overline{c_{\lambda}}\;,$$ making $f_n$ real valued eigenfunctions of the Laplacian with eigenvalue $$\label{eq:E=4pi^2n}
E=4\pi^2n$$ for every choice of the coefficients $\{c_{\lambda}\}_{\lambda\in{\mathcal{E}}_{\lambda}}$ (i.e. for every sample point).
Equivalently $f_{n}:{\mathbb{T}}^{2}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ is a centred Gaussian random field with covariance $$\label{eq:r covar def}
r(x,y)=r_{n}(y-x) = \frac{1}{N_{n}}\sum\limits_{\lambda\in{\mathcal{E}}_{n}}e(\langle \lambda,y-x \rangle).$$ Since $r(x,y)$ depends only on $y-x$, the random field $f_{n}$ is [*stationary*]{}, meaning that for every translation $$\tau_{z}:f_{n}(\cdot)\mapsto f_{n}(\cdot+z)$$ with $z\in{\mathbb{T}}^{2}$, the law of $\tau_{z} f_{n}$ equals the law of $f_{n}$: $$\label{eq:stat law}
\tau_{z} f_{n} \stackrel{d}{=} f_{n}.$$ This, in turn, is equivalent to the law of the Gaussian multivariate vector $(f_{n}(x_{1}),\ldots, f_{n}(x_{k}))$ being equal to the law of the vector $(f_{n}(x_{1}+z),\ldots, f_{n}(x_{k}+z))$ for every $x_{1},\ldots, x_{k}\in{\mathbb{T}}^{2}$, $z\in{\mathbb{T}}^{2}$.
In [@RW2008] we studied the statistics of the length of the nodal line of $f_{n}$. Since then, very refined data has been obtained on the nodal structure of such random eigenfunctions (see e.g. [@K-K-W; @MPRW; @PR; @Rozenshein; @KW]).
We will compute the expected value of $N_\zeta$ for arithmetic random waves. The answer depends on the distribution of lattice points on the circle of radius $\sqrt{n}$. Let $\mu_{n}$ be the atomic measure on the unit circle given by $$\mu_{n}=\frac{1}{r_{2}(n)}\sum\limits_{\lambda\in{\mathcal{E}}_{n}} \delta_{\lambda/\sqrt{n}},$$ where $r_{2}(n):=\#{\mathcal{E}}_{n}$, and let $$\widehat{\mu_{n}}(k) =\frac{1}{r_{2}(n)}\sum\limits_{\lambda=(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)\in{\mathcal{E}}_{n}} \left(\frac{\lambda_1+i\lambda_2}{\sqrt{n}}\right)^k\in{\mathbb{R}}$$ be its Fourier coefficients.
\[thm:E\[Nxi\] d=2\] For $\zeta=e^{i\theta} \in S^1$, the expected value of $N_\zeta(f)$ for the arithmetic random wave is $$\label{eq:E[Nxi] d=2}
{\mathbb{E}}[N_{\zeta}] = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}n\cdot \left(1+\widehat{\mu_{n}}(4)\cdot \cos(4\theta)\right)^{1/2}.$$
The statement of Theorem \[thm:E\[Nxi\] d=2\] is valid even if the r.h.s. of vanishes, i.e. if $$\widehat{\mu_{n}}(4)\cdot \cos(4\theta)=-1:$$ either $$\mu_{n} = \frac{1}{4}\left(\delta_{\pm 1}+\delta_{\pm i}\right)$$ (“Cilleruelo measure") and $\theta = \pm\frac{\pi}{4},\pm \frac{3\pi}{4}$, or $\mu_{n}$ is the rotation by $\frac{\pi}{4}$ of the latter measure (“tilted Cilleruelo") and $\zeta$ is parallel to one of the axes. These cases are exceptional in the following sense: It is known [@NS; @KW] that for every probability measure $\mu$ on the unit circle ${\mathcal{S}}^{1}$ there exists a constant $c_{NS}(\mu)\ge 0$ (the “Nazarov-Sodin constant") such that if the measures $\mu_n$ converge weak-$*$ to $\mu$, then the expectation of the number ${\mathcal{C}}(f_{n})$ of nodal domains of $f_n$ is $${\mathbb{E}}[{\mathcal{C}}(f_{n})] = (c_{NS}(\mu)+o(1))\cdot n.$$ Moreover, the Nazarov-Sodin constant $c_{NS}(\mu)=0$ vanishes, if and only if $\mu$ is one of these exceptional measures [@KW]. In that case it was shown [@KW] that most of the nodal components are long and mainly parallel to one of the axes (perhaps, after rotation by $\frac{\pi}{4}$); with accordance to the above, our computation implies in particular that $c_{NS}(\mu)=0$ for $\mu$ (tilted) Cilleruelo measure, i.e. the “if" part of the aforementioned statement from [@KW].
One can study an analogous quantity $N_\zeta(f)$ for eigenfunctions on the $d$-dimensional torus ${\mathbb{T}}^d = {\mathbb{R}}^d/{\mathbb{Z}}^d$, $d\ge 3$ with eigenvalue $4\pi^2n$. We can establish a result analogous to Theorem \[thm:E\[Nxi\] d=2\] in the higher dimensional case, showing that for $d\geq 3$, $${\mathbb{E}}[N_{\zeta}] \sim C_{d} n^{d/2} ,\quad n\rightarrow\infty,$$ for some positive constant $C_{d}>0$ independent of $\zeta$, assuming that $n\neq 0,4,7 \bmod 8$ if $d=3$, and $n\neq 0\bmod 8$ if $d=4$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
We thank Jerry Buckley, Suresh Eswarathasan, Manjunath Krishnapur, Mark Shusterman and Mikhail Sodin for their comments. The work was supported by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC grant agreement n$^{\text{o}}$ 320755 (Z.R.) and n$^{\text{o}}$ 335141 (I.W.).
Deterministic upper bound: proof of Theorem \[thm:upper bnd class\] {#sec:det bnd proof}
===================================================================
Before giving a proof for Theorem \[thm:upper bnd class\] we will need some preparatory results, all related to the identification of the trigonometric polynomials on ${\mathbb{T}}^{2}$ with Laurent polynomials in ${\mathbb{C}}[z_{1},z_{2}]$, via the natural embedding ${\mathbb{T}}^{2}={\mathcal{S}}^{1}\times {\mathcal{S}}^{1} \hookrightarrow{\mathbb{C}}^{2}$ (see below).
From trigonometric polynomials to (Laurent) polynomials
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be the space of all complex valued trigonometric polynomials on ${\mathbb{T}}^{2}$. We define an operator $\Phi:{\mathcal{P}}\rightarrow{\mathbb{C}}[z_{1},z_{2},z_{1}^{-1},z_{2}^{-1}]$ between ${\mathcal{P}}$ and the complex Laurent polynomials in the following way. For $g:{\mathbb{T}}^{2}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ a trigonometric polynomial $$\label{eq:g=trig pol}
g(x)=\sum\limits_{\substack{\lambda\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{2}\\\text{finite sum}} }c_{\lambda}e^{2\pi i \langle \lambda, x \rangle},$$ we associate the Laurent polynomial $\widetilde{G}=\Phi(g)\in {\mathbb{C}}[z_{1},z_{1}^{-1},z_{2},z_{2}^{-1}]$ via the embedding ${\mathbb{T}}^{2}={\mathcal{S}}^{1}\times {\mathcal{S}}^{1} \hookrightarrow{\mathbb{C}}^{2}$ $$\label{eq:Tb->C2 embed}
(x_{1},x_{2})\mapsto (z_{1},z_{2})=\left(e^{2\pi i x_{1}}, e^{2\pi i x_{2}}\right),$$ or, explicitly, $$\widetilde{G}(z) = g(x) = \sum\limits_{\lambda\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{2}}c_{\lambda}z^{\lambda},$$ where for $z=(z_{1},z_{2})\in{\mathbb{C}}^{2}$ and $\lambda\in{\mathcal{E}}_{n}$ we denote $z^{\lambda}:=z_{1}^{\lambda_{1}}\cdot z_{2}^{\lambda_{2}}$.
2. For $k=1,2$ let $D_{k}:{\mathbb{C}}[z_{1},z_{2}] \rightarrow{\mathbb{C}}[z_{1},z_{2}]$ be the operator $$D_{k}:p(z)\mapsto z_{k}\frac{\partial p(z)}{\partial z_k} .$$
3. For $\xi\in{\mathcal{S}}^{1}$ denote the operator $$D_{\xi} = \langle (D_{1},D_{2}), \xi\rangle = \xi_{1}D_{1}+\xi_{2}D_{2}.$$
The following properties are immediate from the definitions:
\[lem:dir der corr pol\]
1. For every $\xi\in{\mathcal{S}}^{1}$ the operator $D_{\xi}$ (in particular, $D_{1}$ and $D_{2}$) is a derivation, i.e. it is a linear operator satisfying the Leibnitz law $$D_{\xi}(p(z)q(z)) = D_{\xi}p(z)\cdot q(z)+p(z)\cdot D_{\xi}q(x).$$
2. For every $g$, a trigonometric polynomial as in , and $x=(x_{1},x_{2})\in {\mathbb{T}}^{2}$, we have $$\label{eq:g(x)=G(z)}
g(x) = (\Phi g)(z) = \widetilde{G}(z),$$ where $z=z(x)$ is given by and $\widetilde{G}=\Phi g$.
3. For $\xi\in{\mathcal{S}}^{1}$, if $\widetilde{G}=\Phi g$, then $$\label{eq:der corr derivation}
\frac{1}{2\pi i}\Phi(\partial_{\xi}g) = D_{\xi} \widetilde{G},$$ i.e. if under $\Phi$, $g$ maps to $g\mapsto \widetilde{G}$, then its (normalised) directional derivative $\frac{1}{2\pi i}\partial_{\xi}g$ maps to $D_{\xi}\widetilde{G}$.
Auxiliary lemmas
----------------
\[lem:nonsing no mult\] Let $g:{\mathbb{T}}^{2}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ be a trigonometric polynomial , $x_{0}\in g^{-1}(0)$ a nonsingular zero, $\widetilde{G}=\Phi(g)\in{\mathbb{C}}[z_{1},z_{1}^{-1},z_{2},z_{2}^{-1}]$, and $G(z)=z^{\delta}\widetilde{G}(z) \in {\mathbb{C}}[z_{1},z_{2}]$, so that $$G(z_{0}) = g(x_{0}) = 0,$$ where $z_{0}=z(x_{0})\in{\mathbb{C}}^{2}$ is the point corresponding to $x_{0}$ via . Suppose also that $P\mid G$ is an irreducible factor of $G$ such that $P(z_{0}) = 0$. Then $P^{2}\nmid G$.
Assume by contradiction that, under the assumptions of Lemma \[lem:nonsing no mult\], we have that $$\label{eq:P^2|G}
P^{2}\mid G$$ we then claim that in this case necessarily $\nabla g(x_{0}) = 0$, contradicting the non-singularity of $x_{0}$ as a zero of $g$. We show that $\frac{\partial g}{\partial x_{k}}(x_{0}) = 0$, $k=1,2$.
Since $D_{k}$ is a derivation in ${\mathbb{C}}[z_{1},z_{2}]$, and by we have that $$\label{eq:Phi(der) chain}
\Phi\left(\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{\partial g}{\partial_{x_{k}}}\right) = D_{k}\widetilde{G} = D_{k}(z^{-\delta}G) = z^{-\delta}\cdot D_{k}G +
G\cdot D_{k}z^{-\delta}.$$ Since both $G$ and $D_{k}G$ are divisible by $P$ by our assumption , we have $G(z_{0})=D_{k}G(z_{0}) = 0$. Substituting this into , and bearing in mind , this yields that $\frac{\partial g}{\partial x_{k}}(x_{0}) = 0$. Thus $x_{0}$ is a singular zero of $g$, contradicting our assumption.
\[lem:irred fact scal der\] Let $\widetilde{G}\in{\mathbb{C}}[z_{1},z_{1}^{-1},z_{2},z_{2}^{-1}]$ be a Laurent polynomial, $\delta\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{2}_{\geq 0}$ so that $$\label{eq:G=zdelt*tildG}
G(z)=z^{\delta}\widetilde{G}(z) \in {\mathbb{C}}[z_{1},z_{2}]$$ is a polynomial, with $\delta$ minimal in the sense that $z_j\nmid G$. Let $\widetilde{Q}_{\xi}(z) = D_{\xi}(G)(z)$ and $$\label{eq:Q=zdelt*tildQ}
Q_{\xi}(z):=z^{\delta}\cdot\widetilde{Q}_{\xi}(z)\in{\mathbb{C}}[z_{1},z_{2}].$$ Suppose that $$\label{eq:P|gcd(G,Q)}
P\mid \gcd(G,Q_{\xi})$$ is an irreducible polynomial, such that $P^{2}\nmid G$. Then necessarily $D_{\xi}P$ is a scalar multiple of $P$, i.e. there exists $t\in{\mathbb{C}}$ so that $$\label{eq:phiP=tP}
D_{\xi}P = t\cdot P.$$
First, since by Lemma \[lem:dir der corr pol\], $D_{\xi}$ is a derivation, we have that $$\label{eq:phixiG chain}
\begin{split}
D_{\xi}G &= D_{\xi}(z^{\delta}\cdot z^{-\delta}G) = D_{\xi}(x^{\delta}\cdot \widetilde{G}) =
D_{\xi}(x^{\delta})\cdot \widetilde{G} + x^{\delta}\cdot D_{\xi}(\widetilde{G}) \\&= \langle\delta,\xi\rangle x^{\delta}\cdot\widetilde{G}
+x^{\delta}\widetilde{Q}_{\xi} = \langle\delta,\xi\rangle G + Q_{\xi},
\end{split}$$ by and . Hence, since, by assumption , both summands on the r.h.s. of are divisible by $P$, so is $D_{\xi}G$, i.e. $$\label{eq:P|phixi(G)}
P\mid D_{\xi}G.$$
Now let us write $$\label{eq:G=PA}
G=P\cdot A$$ for some $A\in{\mathbb{C}}[z_{1},z_{2}]$; since by assumption $P$ is irreducible, and $P^{2}\nmid G$ by Lemma \[lem:nonsing no mult\], this necessarily implies $$\label{eq:gcd(P,A)=1}
\gcd(P,A)=1.$$ Applying the derivation $D_{\xi}$ on we obtain: $$D_{\xi}G = D_{\xi}(P)\cdot A+P\cdot D_{\xi}A,$$ which, together with yields that $$P\mid D_{\xi}(P)\cdot A,$$ which, by , forces $$\label{eq:P|dir der P}
P\mid D_{\xi}(P).$$ Note that if $$P(z)=\sum\limits_{\alpha\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}^{2}}p_{\alpha}z^{\alpha}$$ is a finite sum, then $$D_{\xi}(P)(z)=\sum\limits_{\alpha\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}^{2}}\langle\xi,\alpha \rangle p_{\alpha}z^{\alpha}$$ is of degree at most the degree of $P$. Hence implies that $D_{\xi}P$ is a scalar multiple of $P$.
\[lem:P=phixiP xi rat,P\] Let $\xi\in{\mathcal{S}}^{1}$, $t\in{\mathbb{C}}$, and $P\in{\mathbb{C}}[z_{1},z_{2}]$ nonconstant irreducible polynomial such that $z_{1},z_{2}\nmid P$, and $$\label{eq:phixiP=tP}
D_{\xi}P = t\cdot P.$$ Then the following hold:
1. The direction $\xi$ is rational (i.e. the vector $\xi$ is a multiple of a rational vector).
2. The polynomial $P$ is necessarily of the form $$\label{eq:P=p1z1^k1+p2z2^k2}
P(z) = p_{1}z_{1}^{k_{1}}+p_{2}z_{2}^{k_{2}}$$ for some $p_{1},p_{2}\in{\mathbb{C}}\backslash \{0\}$, and $(k_{2},k_{1})\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}^{2}$ is a primitive vector (unique up to sign) satisfying $$\frac{(k_{2},k_{1})}{\|(k_{2},k_{1})\|} = \pm \xi.$$
Writing $P$ as a finite sum $$P(z) = \sum\limits_{\alpha}\langle\xi,\alpha \rangle p_{\alpha}z^{\alpha},$$ (the finite sum over $\alpha\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}^{2}$), the equality is equivalent to $$\langle \xi,\alpha\rangle \cdot p_{\alpha}=t\cdot p_{\alpha}$$ for every $\alpha\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}^{2}$, i.e. $$\label{eq:<xi,alpha>=t}
\langle \xi,\alpha\rangle = t$$ for every $\alpha\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}^{2}$ with $p_{\alpha} \ne 0$. Note that $P$ is not a monomial (as otherwise $P$ would be divisible by either $z_{1}$ or $z_{2}$), hence is valid for at least two distinct $\alpha$. Therefore, for these $\alpha$, one has $$\langle \xi,\alpha-\alpha'\rangle=0,$$ which forces $\xi$ to be [*rational*]{}, i.e. yields the first statement of Lemma \[lem:P=phixiP xi rat,P\].
Now assume that the rational vector $\xi=\frac{u}{\|u\|}$ is a multiple of a primitive integer vector $u\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{2}$. We may then rewrite as $$\label{eq:<u,alpha>=s}
\langle u,\alpha\rangle = s,$$ with $s=\|u\|\cdot t$, uniquely determined by $\xi$ and $t$, and to have any solution to , necessarily $s\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. The integer solutions to , considered as an equation in $\alpha$, are $$\label{eq:alph=alph0+kv}
\alpha=\alpha^{0}+k\cdot v,$$ where $\alpha^{0}$ is a particular solution to , and $v\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{2}$ is the primitive integer vector orthogonal to $u$, unique up to sign, some of whose coordinates might be negative. Note that $$\zeta = \frac{v}{\|v\|}$$ is a unit vector orthogonal to $\xi$.
Since the collection $$\{\alpha\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{2}:\: p_{\alpha}\ne 0\}$$ is finite (corresponding to a finite collection of $k$ in ), we can choose $\alpha^{0}$ a particular solution of so that $$\label{eq:palpha0 ne 0}
p_{\alpha^{0}}\ne 0,$$ and the numbers $k$ in satisfy $0\le k\le K$ for some $K>0$; by we necessarily have $\alpha_{0}\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0 }^{2}$. We may then write: $$\label{eq:P(z)=xalpha0*Q(zv)}
P(z) = \sum\limits_{k=0}^{K}p_{k}z^{\alpha^{0}+k\cdot v} = z^{\alpha^{0}}\cdot \sum\limits_{k=0}^{K}(z^{v})^{k} =
z^{\alpha^{0}}\cdot Q(z^{v}),$$ where $Q(w)\in{\mathbb{C}}[w]$ is a (one variable) complex polynomial, which, by above, is not a monomial.
We claim that the irreducibility of $P$ implies the irreducibility of $Q$, which, in turn, implies that $Q$ is [*linear*]{}. For if $Q$ were reducible, we could write $$\label{eq:Q=AB}
Q(w)=A(w)\cdot B(w)$$ for some nonconstant polynomials $A,B\in{\mathbb{C}}[w]$. Substituting into , we obtain $$\label{eq:P=zalphaAB}
P(z) = z^{\alpha^{0}} \cdot A(z^{v})B(z^{v}).$$ As one or both components of $v$ might be negative, does not immediately imply that $P$ is reducible. Write $$A(z^{v}) = z^{-\alpha^{1}}\widetilde{A}(z),$$ $$B(z^{v}) = z^{-\alpha^{2}}\widetilde{B}(z),$$ where $\alpha^{1},\alpha^{2}\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}^{2}$ are minimal so that $\widetilde{A}(z), \widetilde{B}(z)\in{\mathbb{C}}[z]$ are polynomial, so that $\widetilde{A},\widetilde{B}$ are not divisible by $z_{1},z_{2}$. We then have $$\label{eq:P=za0-a1-a2AB}
P(z) = z^{\alpha^{0}-\alpha^{1}-\alpha^{2}} \cdot \widetilde{A}(z)\widetilde{B}(z).$$ Since $P$ is not divisible by $z_{1},z_{2}$ and neither are $A$ and $B$, the equality implies that $\alpha^{0}-\alpha^{1}-\alpha^{2} = 0$, so that $$P(z)=\widetilde{A}(z)\cdot\widetilde{B}(z)$$ is a factorization of $P$ into nonconstant polynomials, contradicting the assumption that $P$ is irreducible, and hence $Q$ as in is itself irreducible in ${\mathbb{C}}[w]$, so $$\label{eq:Q=q0+q1w}
Q(w)=q_{0}+q_{1}w$$ with $q_{0},q_{1}\in {\mathbb{C}}^{*}$, is linear.
Substituting into gives $$\label{eq:P=q0za0+q1za0+v}
P(z) = q_{0}z^{\alpha_{0}} + q_{1}z^{\alpha_{0}+v},$$ and $\alpha_{0},\alpha_{0}+v \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0 }^{2}$. Since $\alpha_{0}\ne \alpha_{0}+v$ and $z_{1},z_{2}\nmid P$, the form of $P$ reduces to , and it also forces $$v = (-k_{1},k_{2}),$$ hence $(k_{2},k_{1})$ is a primitive lattice point of ${\mathbb{Z}}^{2}$, co-linear with $\xi$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:upper bnd class\]
----------------------------------------
Let $f=f_{n}$ be a toral eigenfunction (it is a monochromatic trigonometric polynomial whose frequency set ${\mathcal{E}}_{n}$ is given by ), and $$\widetilde{G}=\Phi(f)\in{\mathbb{C}}[z_{1},z_{1}^{-1},z_{2},z_{2}^{-1}]$$ be the Laurent polynomial associated to $f$ as in Lemma \[lem:dir der corr pol\], so that $$\label{eq:G(z)=g(x0)}
\widetilde{G}(z) = f(x) = \sum\limits_{\lambda\in{\mathcal{E}}_{n}}c_{\lambda}z^{\lambda} .$$ Note that for $\lambda\in {\mathcal{E}}_{n}$, we have $|\lambda_1|+\lambda_2|\leq \sqrt{2n}$. To make $\widetilde{G}$ into a polynomial in ${\mathbb{C}}[z_{1},z_{2}]$ we multiply $\widetilde{G}$ by a monomial $z^{\delta}$ with $\delta\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}^{2}$ satisfying $$\label{eq:|delta|<=sqrt(E)}
\delta_{1}+\delta_{2} \le \sqrt{2n},$$ to write $$\label{eq:F=zdelta*tilde(F)}
G(z)=z^{\delta}\widetilde{G}(z),$$ with $\delta$ minimal, so that, in particular, $G(z)$ is [*not divisible*]{} by $z_{1}$ or $z_{2}$. By and , we have $$\label{eq:deg(G)<=2sqrt(E)}
\deg (G) \le 2\sqrt{2}\cdot\sqrt{n}.$$ Now let $\widetilde{Q}_{\xi}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\Phi(\partial_{\xi}f)$ be the Laurent polynomial corresponding to the directional derivative $\partial_{\xi}f(x)$ of $f$ where $\xi=\zeta^\perp$ is orthogonal to $\zeta$. By Lemma \[lem:dir der corr pol\] we have $$\label{eq:Qtild=der G}
\widetilde{Q}_{\xi}(z) = D_{\xi}(\widetilde{G}(z)) = \frac{1}{2\pi i}\Phi(\partial_{\xi}f)(z)=
\sum\limits_{\lambda\in{\mathcal{E}}_{n}}\langle \lambda,\xi\rangle c_{\lambda}z^{\lambda},$$ and $$\label{eq:Q(z)=zdel Qtild(z)}
Q_{\xi}(z):=z^{\delta}\cdot\widetilde{Q}_{\xi}(z)\in{\mathbb{C}}[z_{1},z_{2}]$$ with $\delta$ same as in , is a polynomial of degree $$\label{eq:deg(Qxi)<=2sqrt(E)}
\deg(Q_{\xi})\le 2\sqrt{2}\cdot\sqrt{n},$$ though might be divisible by $z_{1}$ or $z_{2}$. By , , , and , for some $x_{0}\in{\mathbb{T}}^{2}$ we have $$f(x_{0})=\partial_{\xi}f(x_{0})=0,$$ (without imposing $\nabla f(x_{0})\ne 0$), if and only if $z_{0}=z(x_{0})$ is a joint zero of both $G$ and $Q_{\xi}$, i.e. $$G(z_{0})=Q_{\xi}(z_{0}) = 0.$$
Now let $$D= \gcd(G,Q_{\xi})$$ be the greatest common divisor of $G$ and $Q_{\xi}$ $$G(z) = A(z)\cdot D(z)$$ and $$Q_{\xi}(z) = B(z)\cdot D(z),$$ where $$\label{eq:gcd(A,B)=1}
\gcd(A,B) = 1$$ and $$\label{eq:deg(A),deg(A),deg(B)<<sqrt(E)}
\deg(D),\,\deg(A)\le \deg(G)\le 2\sqrt{2}\cdot\sqrt{n}, \;\;\; \deg(B)\le \deg(Q_{\xi}) \le 2\sqrt{2}\cdot\sqrt{n}$$ by and , and, by the above, we are interested in $z=(z_{1},z_{2})\in {\mathbb{C}}^{2}$, so that $|z_{1}|=|z_{2}|=1$ and $G(z)=Q_{\xi}(z) = 0$.
Given $z_{0}\in{\mathbb{C}}^{2}$ we have that $G(z_{0})= Q_{\xi}(z_{0}) = 0$, if and only if either $$A(z_{0})=B(z_{0}) = 0,$$ or $D(z_{0})=0$ (both cannot occur simultaneously). Denote $$\label{eq:Z1 coprm def}
{\mathcal{Z}}^{1}(G,Q_{\xi}) := \{ z\in{\mathbb{C}}^{2}:\: A(z) = B(z) = 0\}$$ and $$\label{eq:Z2 gcd def}
{\mathcal{Z}}^{2}(G,Q_{\xi}) := \{ z\in{\mathbb{C}}^{2}:\: D(z) = 0\},$$ the nodal directional points of the [*first and second type*]{} respectively. The meaning of the above is that, under the embedding of ${\mathcal{S}}^{1}\times {\mathcal{S}}^{1} \subseteq {\mathbb{C}}^{2} $, $$\label{eq:dir nod pnt decomp pol}
\{x\in{\mathbb{T}}^{2}; f(x)= \langle \nabla f, \xi \rangle = 0\} \mapsto ({\mathcal{Z}}^{1}(G,Q_{\xi}) \cup {\mathcal{Z}}^{2}(G,Q_{\xi}))\cap {\mathcal{S}}^{1}\times{\mathcal{S}}^{1}.$$ Hence understanding of $${\mathcal{Z}}^{1}(G,Q_{\xi}) \cup {\mathcal{Z}}^{2}(G,Q_{\xi})$$ will also allow for bounding the size of the l.h.s. of ; note that, unlike the definition of $N_{\zeta}$, the l.h.s. of includes singular points of $f^{-1}(0)$, having no bearing on giving an upper bound for $N_{\zeta}$ via one for the r.h.s. of . Since $A$ and $B$ are co-prime by , and bearing in mind and the definition , it follows that ${\mathcal{Z}}^{1}(G,Q_{\xi})$ consists of finitely many isolated points, and its cardinality is bounded, by Bézout’s Theorem[^2] $$\label{eq:|Z1|<=4E}
|{\mathcal{Z}}^{1}(G,Q_{\xi})| \le \deg (A)\cdot \deg(B) \le 8n = \frac{2E}{\pi^{2}},$$ on using and .
Now we turn to understanding ${\mathcal{Z}}^{2}(G,Q_{\xi})$ as in . Let $P|D$ be an irreducible divisor of $D=\gcd(G,Q_{\xi})$, and let $x_{0}\in{\mathcal{A}}_{\zeta}(f)\in{\mathbb{T}}^{2}$ be a [*nonsingular*]{} nodal directional point so that $P(z_{0}) = 0$, where $z_{0}=z(x_{0})$, the map in . Then, thanks to Lemma \[lem:nonsing no mult\], $P^{2}\nmid G$, so that we may apply Lemma \[lem:irred fact scal der\] to deduce that $$\label{eq:phixP=tP}
D_{\xi}P = t\cdot P,$$ for some scalar $t\in{\mathbb{C}}$. By invoking Lemma \[lem:P=phixiP xi rat,P\], the equality in turn implies that $\xi$ is a rational direction, and $$P(z) = p_{1}z_{1}^{k_{1}}+p_{2}z_{2}^{k_{2}},$$ where the [*primitive*]{} vector $$\label{eq:k2,k1 co-lin xi}
(k_{2},k_{1})\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{2}_{\ge 0} \text{ is co-linear to } \xi = \zeta^\perp,\quad {\rm i.e. \;orthogonal\; to} \;\zeta.$$
Thus $$\label{eq:D=prod(Pi) E}
D = \left(\prod\limits_{i=1}^{K} P_{j}(z)\right)\cdot E(z),$$ where for every $j=1,2,\ldots K$ the polynomial $P_{j}$ is of the form $$P_{j}(z) = p_{1;j}z_{1}^{k_{1}}+p_{2;j}z_{2}^{k_{2}},$$ for some $p_{1;j},p_{2;j}\in{\mathbb{C}}$, and $E(z)$ is the product of irreducible factors $P\mid D$ of $D$ so that $P^2\mid D$ (corresponding to the singular points $x_{0}\in{\mathbb{T}}^{2}$), and those irreducible $P\mid D$ that don’t vanish on ${\mathcal{S}}^{1}\times {\mathcal{S}}^{1}\subseteq {\mathbb{C}}^{2}$. It then follows that $$K \le \frac{\deg(D)}{\max(k_{1},k_{2})} \le 2\frac{\sqrt{n}}{h(\xi)}=2\frac{\sqrt{n}}{h(\zeta)}$$ by .
Now using on , , we have that, under the embedding , the zeros of $D(z)$ correspond to the zeros of $$\label{eq:d(x)=map D}
d(x):=D(z(x)) = \left(\prod \limits_{j=1}^{K} \left(p_{1;j}e^{2\pi i k_{1} x_1} +p_{2;j}e^{2\pi i k_{2}x_2}\right)\right) \cdot
\tilde E(x),$$ where $\tilde E(x):{\mathbb{T}}^{2}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ is the trigonometric polynomial corresponding to $E(z)=\tilde E(x)$, that only has singular zeros. Let $$h_{j}(x):= p_{1;j}e^{2\pi i x_{1}k_{1}} +p_{2;j}e^{2\pi i x_{2}k_{2}}$$ be a factor of ; by construction we know a priori that the zero locus of $h_{j}$ on ${\mathbb{T}}^{2}$ is non-empty. In this case, necessarily $|p_{1;j}|=|p_{2;j}|$, and upon writing $$-\frac{p_{2;j}}{p_{1;j}} =: e^{2\pi i \varphi}$$ for $\varphi\in [0,1)$, the zero locus of $h_{j}$ is given by $$\begin{split}
h_{j}^{-1}(0) &= \left\{(x_{1},x_{2})\in{\mathbb{T}}^{2}: \: e(x_{1}k_{1}-x_{2}k_{2}) = -\frac{p_{2;j}}{p_{1;j}} \right\} \\&=
\left\{(x_{1},x_{2})\in{\mathbb{T}}^{2}: \: x_{1}k_{1}-x_{2}k_{2} = \varphi \mod{1} \right\},
\end{split}$$ hence is a closed geodesic in ${\mathbb{T}}^{2}$ (it has a single connected component, since, by assumption, $\gcd(k_{1},k_{2})=1$), orthogonal to $(k_{1},-k_{2})$, of length $\sqrt{k_1^2+k_2^2}$, and, recalling , the geodesic $h_{j}^{-1}(0)$ is orthogonal to $\zeta$. In summary, under the embedding , the nonsingular points on $f^{-1}(0)$ corresponding to the set ${\mathcal{Z}}^{2}(G,Q_{\xi})\cap ({\mathcal{S}}^{1}\times {\mathcal{S}}^{1})$ consist of $$\le 2\frac{\sqrt{n}}{h(\xi)}=\frac{\sqrt{E}}{h(\zeta)}$$ closed geodesics orthogonal to $\zeta$, concluding the statement of Theorem \[thm:upper bnd class\].
Expected nodal direction number for arithmetic random waves: proof of Theorem \[thm:E\[Nxi\] d=2\]
==================================================================================================
In this section, we compute the expected value of $N_\zeta$ for arithmetic random waves. The formal computation is along the lines of Swerling’s paper [@Swerling], but his argument relied on several assumptions, some implicit, on the nature of the relevant Gaussian field, which are difficult to isolate and check separately. Thus we carry out the computation [*ab initio*]{}.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:E\[Nxi\] d=2\] {#sec:mean arw d=2}
-------------------------------------
Let $\xi = \zeta^{\perp}$ be the orthogonal vector to $\zeta$, and define, $$\widetilde{N_{\zeta}}(f) = \#\left\{x\in{\mathbb{T}}^{2}:\: f(x)=\langle\nabla f(x),\xi\rangle = 0 \right\}$$ to be the size of the set ${\mathcal{A}}_{\zeta}(f)$ in , finite or infinite. Equivalently, $$\widetilde{N_{\zeta}}(f) = N_{\zeta}(f) + \#{\operatorname{Sing}}(f),$$ where $${\operatorname{Sing}}(f) = \left\{ x\in{\mathbb{T}}^{2}:\: f(x)=0,\, \nabla f(x) = 0 \right\}$$ is the set of singular nodal points of $f$.
Since by Bulinskaya’s Lemma [@AW Proposition 6.12], the singular set ${\operatorname{Sing}}(f)$ is empty almost surely (that the statement of Bulinskaya’s Lemma is valid in our concrete case was established in [@ORW2007 Lemma 2.3]), we have that $$\label{eq:Nzeta=Ntild}
N_{\zeta}(f) = \widetilde{N_{\zeta}}(f) = \#\left\{x\in{\mathbb{T}}^{2}:\: f(x)=\langle\nabla f(x),\xi\rangle = 0 \right\}.$$ That is, upon defining the Gaussian random field $G:{\mathbb{T}}^{2}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}^{2}$ $$\label{eq:G def}
G(x)=G_{\xi}(x) = (f(x),\langle \nabla f(x),\xi \rangle),$$ then $N_{\zeta}$ equals almost surely the number of zeros of $G$. Let $J_{G}(x)$ be the Jacobian of $G$ given by $$\begin{split}
J_{G}(x) &= \det\left(\begin{matrix}
f_{1} &f_{2} \\ f_{11}\xi_{1}+f_{12}\xi_{2} & f_{12}\xi_{1}+f_{22}\xi_{2}
\end{matrix}\right) = f_{1}(f_{12}\xi_{1}+f_{22}\xi_{2}) - f_{2}(f_{11}\xi_{1}+f_{12}\xi_{2}),
\end{split}$$ where we denote $f_{i} = \partial f/\partial x_i$, $f_{ij} = \partial^2 f/\partial x_i\partial x_j$, and all the derivatives of $f$ are evaluated at $x$.
The zero density function is $$\label{eq:K1 phi*E}
K_{1}(x)=K_{1;\xi}(x) = \phi_{G(x)}(0,0)\cdot {\mathbb{E}}[|J_{G}(x)| \big| G(x)=0],$$ where $\phi_{G(x)}$ is the probability density function of the random vector $G(x)\in {\mathbb{R}}^{2}$; by the aforementioned stationarity of $f_{n}$, we have $$K_{1}(x)\equiv K_{1}(0).$$ By Kac-Rice [@AW Theorem 6.3] and , we have that $$\label{eq:E[Nxi]=int(K1) Kac-Rice}
{\mathbb{E}}[N_{\zeta}] = \int\limits_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2}} K_{1}(x)dx,$$ provided that the distribution of $G(x)$ is non-degenerate for every $x\in{\mathbb{T}}^{2}$. By stationarity, it is sufficient to check non-degeneracy of $G(0)$, which is valid since $(f(0),\nabla f(0)) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{3}$ is non-degenerate by the computation below. The statement of Theorem \[thm:E\[Nxi\] d=2\] follows upon substituting the statements of Lemma \[lem:phi(0,0)=1/sqrt(n)\] and Proposition \[prop:|JG(x)||G(x)=0\] below into so that $$K_{1}(x) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}n\cdot \left(1+\widehat{\mu_{n}}(4)\cdot \cos(4\theta)\right)^{1/2},$$ and then finally into .
In course of the proof of Theorem \[thm:E\[Nxi\] d=2\] we used the following results established in §\[sec:2d density comp\] below:
\[lem:phi(0,0)=1/sqrt(n)\] Let $G:{\mathbb{T}}^{2}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^{2}$ be the Gaussian field defined by , and $\phi_{G(x)}$ the probability density function of $G(x)$. Then for every $x\in {\mathbb{T}}^{2}$ we have $$\label{eq:phi(0,0)=1/sqrt(n)}
\phi_{G(x)}(0,0) = \frac{1}{2\pi\sqrt{\det C_{G}(x)}} = \frac{1}{2^{3/2}\pi^{2}\sqrt{n}}.$$
\[prop:|JG(x)||G(x)=0\] Let $G:{\mathbb{T}}^{2}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^{2}$ be the Gaussian field defined by , and $J_{G}(x)$ its Jacobian. Then the conditional expectation of $|J_G(x)|$ conditioned on $G=0$ is $${\mathbb{E}}[|J_{G}(x)|\big|G(x)=0] = 2 \pi^{2} \left(1+\widehat{\mu_{n}}(4)\cdot \cos(4\theta)\right)^{1/2}\cdot n^{3/2}$$
Proofs of Lemma \[lem:phi(0,0)=1/sqrt(n)\] and Proposition \[prop:|JG(x)||G(x)=0\]: evaluating the zero density {#sec:2d density comp}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The covariance matrix of $(f(x),\nabla f(x))$ was computed in [@RW2008 Proposition 4.1] to be $$C_{(f,\nabla f)} = \left(\begin{matrix}
1 \\ &2\pi^{2}nI_{2}
\end{matrix}\right),$$ in particular $f(x)$ is independent of $\nabla f(x)$; hence the covariance matrix of $G$ is $$C_{G}(x) = \left(\begin{matrix}
1 \\&2\pi^{2}n
\end{matrix}\right),$$ where we used $${\operatorname{Var}}(\langle \nabla f(x),\xi\rangle) = \xi_{1}^{2}{\operatorname{Var}}(f_{1})+\xi_{2}^{2}{\operatorname{Var}}(f_{2}) =
2\pi^{2}n,$$ since $$\xi_{1}^{1}+\xi_{2}^{2}=1.$$ Thus $$\phi_{G(x)}(0,0) = \frac{1}{2\pi\sqrt{\det C_{G}(x)}} = \frac{1}{2^{3/2}\pi^{2}\sqrt{n}}.$$
We are going to work under the assumption $\xi_{2}\ne 0$; one can easily see that the same result holds for $\xi_{2} = 0$ true, e.g. by switching between $\xi_{1}$ and $\xi_{2}$; by stationarity we may assume $x=0$. Since $f$ is a Laplace eigenfunction of eigenvalue $4\pi^{2}n$, we have that[^3] $$f(x) = - \frac{1}{4\pi^{2}n}(f_{11}+f_{22}),$$ and therefore $${\mathbb{E}}[|J_{G}(x)|\big| G(x)=0] = {\mathbb{E}}[|J_{G}(x)| \big| f_{11}+f_{22}=0,\,f_{1}\xi_{1}+f_{2}\xi_{2}=0].$$ Then (recall that we assumed $\xi_{2}\ne 0$) $$\begin{split}
&{\mathbb{E}}[|J_{G}(x)||G(x)=0] \\&= {\mathbb{E}}[|J_{G}(x)| \big| f_{11}+f_{22}=0,\,f_{1}\xi_{1}+f_{2}\xi_{2}=0]
\\&=
{\mathbb{E}}[\left| f_{1}(f_{12}\xi_{1}+f_{22}\xi_{2}) - f_{2}(f_{11}\xi_{1}+f_{12}\xi_{2})\right| \, \big| f_{11}+f_{22}=0,\, f_{1}\xi_{1}+f_{2}\xi_{2}=0]
\\&= {\mathbb{E}}[\left| f_{1}(f_{12}\xi_{1}-f_{11}\xi_{2}) - f_{2}(f_{11}\xi_{1}+f_{12}\xi_{2})\right| \, \big| f_{11}+f_{22}=0,\, f_{1}\xi_{1}+f_{2}\xi_{2}=0]
\\&={\mathbb{E}}\left[\left| f_{1}\cdot \left( f_{12}\xi_{1}-f_{11}\xi_{2} + f_{11}\frac{\xi_{1}^{2}}{\xi_{2}}+f_{12}\xi_{1} \right)\right| \big| f_{11}+f_{22}=0,\, f_{1}\xi_{1}+f_{2}\xi_{2}=0 \right]
\\&=
{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left| f_{1}\cdot \left( 2f_{12}\xi_{1}-f_{11}\frac{\xi_{1}^{2}-\xi_{2}^{2}}{\xi_{2}}\right)\right| \big| f_{11}+f_{22}=0,\, f_{1}\xi_{1}+f_{2}\xi_{2}=0 \right].
\end{split}$$ Hence we are interested in the distribution of $(f_{1},f_{11},f_{12})(x)$ conditioned on $$f_{11}+f_{22}=0,\, f_{1}\xi_{1}+f_{2}\xi_{2}=0.$$ The covariance matrix of $(f_{1},f_{2},f_{11},f_{12},f_{22})$ is given by Lemma \[lem:covar deriv\], we will then compute the covariance matrix of $(f_{1},f_{11},f_{12},f_{1}\xi_{1}+f_{2}\xi_{2},f_{11}+f_{22})$, and then condition on the last two variables. To avoid carrying on the constants we transform the variables $$((X_{1},X_{2}),(X_{3},X_{4},X_{5})) = \left(\frac{1}{(2\pi^{2})^{1/2}\sqrt{n}}(f_{1},f_{2}), \frac{1}{(2\pi^{4})^{1/2}n}(f_{11},f_{12},f_{22})\right)$$ with covariance matrix $$C_{X_{1},\ldots, X_{5}} =
\left( \begin{matrix}
I_{2\times 2} &
\\ 0 &A_{3\times 3}
\end{matrix}\right),$$ with $$A = \left( \begin{matrix}
3+\widehat{\mu_{n}}(4) &0 &1- \widehat{\mu_{n}}(4) \\
0 &1- \widehat{\mu_{n}}(4) &0 \\
1- \widehat{\mu_{n}}(4) &0 &3+\widehat{\mu_{n}}(4),
\end{matrix} \right)$$ and we are to compute $$\label{eq:E[JG] terms X}
\begin{split}
&{\mathbb{E}}[|J_{G}(x)| \big| G(x)=0] =
\\2\pi^{3}n^{3/2} \cdot &E\left[\left| X_{1}\cdot \left( 2X_{4}\xi_{1}-X_{3}\frac{\xi_{1}^{2}-\xi_{2}^{2}}{\xi_{2}}\right)\right| \big| X_{3}+X_{5}=0,\, X_{1}\xi_{1}+X_{2}\xi_{2}=0 \right].
\end{split}$$
Next we compute the covariance matrix of $(X_{1},X_{3},X_{4},X_{3}+X_{5},X_{1}\xi_{1}+X_{2}\xi_{2})$ to be $$C_{(X_{1},X_{3},X_{4},X_{3}+X_{5},X_{1}\xi_{1}+X_{2}\xi_{2})} =
\left(\begin{matrix}
B_{3\times 3} &D_{3\times 2} \\ D^{t}_{2\times 3} &E_{2\times 2}
\end{matrix} \right),$$ where $B=C_{X_{1},X_{3},X_{4}}$ is the covariance matrix of $(X_{1},X_{3},X_{4})$, $E=C_{X_{3}+X_{5},X_{1}\xi_{1}+X_{2}\xi_{2}}$ is the covariance matrix of $$(X_{3}+X_{5},X_{1}\xi_{1}+X_{2}\xi_{2}),$$ and $$D={\mathbb{E}}[(X_{1},X_{3},X_{4})^{t}(X_{3}+X_{5},X_{1}\xi_{1}+X_{2}\xi_{2})].$$ From the above it follows directly that $$B = \left(\begin{matrix}
1 & &\\ &3+\widehat{\mu_{n}}(4)\ \\ & &1- \widehat{\mu_{n}}(4)
\end{matrix}\right),$$ $$D = \left(\begin{matrix}
0 &\xi_{1} \\ 4 & 0 \\ 0 &0
\end{matrix}\right),$$ $$E=\left( \begin{matrix}
8 & 0 \\ 0 &1
\end{matrix} \right).$$
Let $Y=(Y_{1},Y_{2},Y_{3})$ be the vector $(X_{1},X_{3},X_{4})$ conditioned on $$X_{3}+X_{5}=X_{1}\xi_{1}+X_{2}\xi_{2}=0,$$ so that under the new notation is $$\label{eq:EJG terms Y}
\begin{split}
&{\mathbb{E}}[|J_{G}(x)| \big| G(x)=0] \\&= 2\pi^{3}n^{3/2}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left| Y_{1}\cdot \left( 2Y_{3}\xi_{1}-Y_{2}\frac{\xi_{1}^{2}-\xi_{2}^{2}}{\xi_{2}}\right)\right|\right].
\end{split}$$ The covariance matrix of $Y$ is $$\begin{split}
C_{Y}=B-DE^{-1}D^{t} &= \left(\begin{matrix}
1-\xi_{1}^{2} \\&1+ \widehat{\mu_{n}}(4) \\ & &1- \widehat{\mu_{n}}(4)
\end{matrix} \right) \\&= \left(\begin{matrix}
\xi_{2}^{2} \\ &1+ \widehat{\mu_{n}}(4) \\ & &1- \widehat{\mu_{n}}(4)
\end{matrix} \right),
\end{split}$$ where for the above we computed $$\begin{split}
DE^{-1}D^{t} &= \left(\begin{matrix}
0 &\xi_{1} \\ 4 & 0 \\ 0 &0
\end{matrix}\right) \cdot \left( \begin{matrix}
\frac{1}{8} \\ & 1
\end{matrix} \right) \cdot \left( \begin{matrix}
0 &4 &0 \\ \xi_{1} & 0 &0 \end{matrix}\right)
\\&= \left( \begin{matrix}
0 &\xi_{1} \\ \frac{1}{2} & 0 \\ 0 &0
\end{matrix} \right) \cdot \left( \begin{matrix}
0 &4 &0 \\ \xi_{1} & 0 &0\end{matrix}\right) = \left( \begin{matrix}
\xi_{1}^{2} \\ &2 \\ & & 0
\end{matrix} \right)
\end{split}$$
We may simplify the expression using the fact that the $Y_{j}$ are independent: $$\label{eq:EJG terms Z}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}[|J_{G}(x)| \big| G(x)=0] &= 2\pi^{3}n^{3/2}{\mathbb{E}}[|Y_{1}|]
\cdot {\mathbb{E}}\left[\left|2Y_{3}\xi_{1}-Y_{2}\frac{\xi_{1}^{2}-\xi_{2}^{2}}{\xi_{2}}\right|\right]
\\&= 2^{1/2}\pi^{5/2}n^{3/2}\cdot
{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left| \left( 2Y_{3}\xi_{1}\xi_{2}-Y_{2}\left(\xi_{1}^{2}-\xi_{2}^{2}\right)\right)\right|\right]
\\&= 2^{1/2}\pi^{5/2}n^{3/2}\cdot {\mathbb{E}}\left[ |Z_{1}\sin(2\theta)+Z_{2}\cos(2\theta) | \right],
\end{split}$$ where $(Z_{1}=Y_{3},Z_{2}=-Y_{2})$ is a centered Gaussian with covariance $$\left(\begin{matrix}
1-\widehat{\mu_{n}}(4) \\ &1+ \widehat{\mu_{n}}(4)
\end{matrix} \right) ,$$ also valid for $\xi_{2}=0$ ($\theta$ is the direction of $\zeta$, or of $\xi$ by the sign invariance of the distribution of $Z_{1}$, $Z_{2}$).
The random variable $$A:=Z_{1}\sin(2\theta)+Z_{2}\cos(2\theta)$$ is centered Gaussian, whose variance is $${\operatorname{Var}}(A) = (1- \widehat{\mu_{n}}(4))\sin(2\theta)^{2} + (1+ \widehat{\mu_{n}}(4))\cos(2\theta)^{2} = 1+\widehat{\mu_{n}}(4)\cos(4\theta),$$ and is $$\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}[|J_{G}(x)| \big| G(x)=0] &= 2^{1/2}\pi^{5/2}n^{3/2} \cdot {\mathbb{E}}[|A|]\\& = 2^{1/2}\pi^{5/2}n^{3/2}\cdot \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \sqrt{{\operatorname{Var}}(A)}
\\&= 2 \pi^{2}n^{3/2} \cdot (1+\widehat{\mu_{n}}(4)\cos(4\theta))^{1/2},
\end{split}$$ which is the statement of Proposition \[prop:|JG(x)||G(x)=0\].
Auxiliary lemmas
----------------
\[lem:sum lambda1\^4,lambda1\^2lambda2\^2\] We have $$\begin{split}
\frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{\lambda\in{\mathcal{E}}_{n}}\lambda_{1}^{4} = n^{2}\left(\frac{3}{8}+\frac{1}{8}\widehat{\mu_{n}}(4)\right),
\end{split}$$ and $$\begin{split}
\frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{\lambda\in{\mathcal{E}}_{n}}\lambda_{1}^{2}\lambda_{2}^{2} =
\frac{n^{2}}{8}\left(1- \widehat{\mu_{n}}(4) \right) .
\end{split}$$
\[lem:covar deriv\] Let $f=f_{n}$ be the arithmetic random waves (the random field where $c_{\lambda}$ are assumed to be i.i.d. standard Gaussian save to ), and $X=(f_{1},f_{2},f_{11},f_{12},f_{22})$ vector of various derivatives evaluated at $x=0$. Then $X$ is centered multivariate Gaussian with covariance matrix $$\begin{split}
&C_{f_{1},f_{2},f_{11},f_{12},f_{22}} \\&=
\left( \begin{matrix}
2\pi^{2}n &0 &0 &0 &0 \\
0 & 2\pi^{2}n &0 &0 &0 \\
0 &0 &2\pi^{4}n^{2}\left(3+\widehat{\mu_{n}}(4)\right) &0 &2\pi^{4} n^{2}\left(1- \widehat{\mu_{n}}(4) \right) \\
0 &0 &0 &2\pi^{4}n^{2}\left(1- \widehat{\mu_{n}}(4)\right) &0 \\
0 &0 &2\pi^{4} n^{2}\left(1- \widehat{\mu_{n}}(4)\right) &0 &2\pi^{4}n^{2}\left(3+\widehat{\mu_{n}}(4)\right)
\end{matrix} \right).
\end{split}$$
Recall that the covariance function of $f_{n}$ is given by . We have, using the symmetries, $${\mathbb{E}}[f_{1}(x)^{2}]=-r_{11}(0)={\mathbb{E}}[f_{2}(x)^{2}] = 2\pi^{2}n$$ $${\mathbb{E}}[f_{1}(x)f_{2}(x)]=-r_{12}(0) = 0,$$ $${\mathbb{E}}[f_{1}(x)f_{11}(x)] =-r_{111}(0)= 0,$$ $${\mathbb{E}}[f_{1}(x)f_{12}(x)]=-r_{112}(0)=0,$$ $$\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}[f_{11}(x)^{2}]&={\mathbb{E}}[f_{22}(x)^{2}] =r_{1111}(0) = \frac{16\pi^{4}}{N}\sum\limits_{\lambda\in{\mathcal{E}}_{n}}\lambda_{1}^{4}
\\&= 16\pi^{4}n^{2}\left(\frac{3}{8}+\frac{1}{8}\widehat{\mu_{n}}(4)\right) = 2\pi^{4}n^{2} \left(3+\widehat{\mu_{n}}(4)\right)
\end{split}$$ by Lemma \[lem:sum lambda1\^4,lambda1\^2lambda2\^2\], and $$\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}[f_{12}(x)^{2}]&= {\mathbb{E}}[f_{11}(x)f_{22}(x)] =
\frac{16\pi^{4}}{N}\sum\limits_{\lambda\in{\mathcal{E}}_{n}}\lambda_{1}^{2}\lambda_{2}^{2}
= 2\pi^{4} n^{2}\left(1- \widehat{\mu_{n}}(4) \right).
\end{split}$$
Separable domains {#sec:separable}
=================
We describe some cases when the nodal sets, hence $N_\zeta(f)$, can be explicitly computed.
Irrational rectangles
---------------------
Take a rectangle with width $ \pi/\sqrt{\alpha}$ and height $ \pi$, with aspect ratio $\sqrt{\alpha} $, and assume that $\alpha$ is irrational. Then the eigenvalues of the Dirichlet Laplacian consist of the numbers $ \alpha m^2+n^2$ with integers $m,n\geq 1$, and the corresponding eigenfunctions are $$f_{m,n}(x,y) =\sin(\sqrt{\alpha}mx)\sin(ny) \;.$$ The nodal lines consist of a rectangular grid, and one has $N_\zeta(f_{m,n})=0\;{\rm or}\;\infty$.
The unit disk
-------------
Let $\Omega = \{|x|\leq 1\}$ be the unit disk, and $(r,\theta)$ be polar coordinates. The eigenfunctions of the Dirichlet Laplacian are $$f_{m,k}(r,\theta) = J_m(j_{m,k}r)\cos(m\theta+\phi)$$ where $J_m(z)$ is the Bessel function, with zeros $\{j_{m,k}:k\geq 1\}$, and $\phi\in [0,2\pi)$ is arbitrary. The corresponding eigenvalue is $$\label{eq:eigval disk}
E=j_{m,k}^2.$$ In particular, for $m\geq 1$ the eigenspaces have dimension two.
We will need McCann’s inequality [@McCann] $$\label{McCann ineq}
j_{m,k}^2 \geq \pi^2(k-\frac 14)^2 +m^2.$$ For $m=0$ (the radial case), the eigenfunctions are $f_{0,k}(r,\theta) =J_0(j_{0,k}r)$, $0\leq r\leq 1$, and have $k-1$ interior nodal lines, which are the concentric circles $r=j_{0,\ell}/j_{0,k}$, $\ell=1,\dots, k-1$. Thus for any direction $\zeta\in S^1$, we have $$N_\zeta(f_{0,k}) = 2(k-1).$$
For $m\geq 1$, the nodal line of the eigenfunction $f_{m,k}$ is a union of the $m$ diameters $\cos(m\theta+\phi)=0$ and $k-1$ concentric circles $r=j_{m,\ell}/j_{m,k}$, $\ell=1,\dots,k-1$ (for $k=1$ there are only diameters), see Figure \[fig:diskm3k5\]. Thus there are $2m$ values of $\zeta$ where $N_\zeta(f_{m,k})=\infty$, and for all other directions we have $$N_\zeta(f_{m,k})=2(k-1).$$ Using McCann’s inequality , and , the above yields that for $m\geq 0$, $k\geq 1$, except for $2m\leq 2\sqrt{E}$ directions where $N_\zeta(f_{m,k})=\infty$, we have $$N_\zeta(f_{m,k}) \leq \frac 2\pi \sqrt{E} \;.$$
![The nodal line of the disk eigenfunction $f_{3,5}(x) = J_3(j_{3,5}r)\cos(3\theta)$, which consists of $3$ diameters and $4$ circles.[]{data-label="fig:diskm3k5"}](diskm3k5.pdf){height="60mm"}
[99]{}
J.-M. Azaïs, M. Wschebor, [*Level sets and extrema of random processes and fields*]{}, John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2009.
J. Bourgain, [*On Pleijel’s nodal domain theorem*]{}. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2015, no. 6, 1601–1612.
M.-C. Chang, H. Nguyen, O. Nguyen and V. Vu. [*Random eigenfunctions on flat tori: universality for the number of intersections.* ]{} arXiv:1707.05255 \[math.PR\]
H. Donnelly, and C. Fefferman [*Nodal sets of eigenfunctions on Riemannian manifolds*]{}, Invent. Math. [**93**]{} (1988), 161–183.
P. Kurlberg and I. Wigman, [*Variation of the Nazarov-Sodin constant,*]{} available online <https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.00766>. Announcement C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 353 (2015), no. 2, 101–104.
M. Krishnapur, P. Kurlberg and I. Wigman. *Nodal length fluctuations for arithmetic random waves*, Ann. Math. (2) 177, no. 2, 699–737 (2013).
A. Logunov [*Nodal sets of Laplace eigenfunctions: polynomial upper estimates of the Hausdorff measure*]{}. Annals of Math., 187 (2018), Issue 1 221–239. arXiv:1605.02587 \[math.AP\]
A. Logunov [*Nodal sets of Laplace eigenfunctions: proof of Nadirashvili’s conjecture and of the lower bound in Yau’s conjecture*]{}. Annals of Math., 187 (2018), Issue 1 241–262. arXiv:1605.02589 \[math.AP\]
A. Logunov and E. Malinnikova [*Nodal sets of Laplace eigenfunctions: estimates of the Hausdorff measure in dimension two and three*]{}, arXiv:1605.02595 \[math.AP\]
D. Marinucci, G. Peccati, M. Rossi and I. Wigman, [*Non-universality of nodal length distribution for arithmetic random waves*]{}. Geom. Funct. Anal. 26 (2016), no. 3, 926–960.
R.C. McCann. Lower bounds for the zeros of Bessel functions. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 64 (1977), no. 1, 101–103.
G. Peccati and M. Rossi. [*Quantitative limit theorems for local functionals of arithmetic random waves.*]{} arXiv:1702.03765 \[math.PR\]
F. Nazarov and M. Sodin, [*On the number of nodal domains of random spherical harmonics*]{}. Amer. J. Math. 131 (2009), no. 5, 1337–1357.
Nazarov, F.; Sodin, M. [*Asymptotic laws for the spatial distribution and the number of connected components of zero sets of Gaussian random functions.*]{} Zh. Mat. Fiz. Anal. Geom. 12 (2016), no. 3, 205–278.
F. Oravecz, Z. Rudnick and I. Wigman [*The Leray measure of nodal sets for random eigenfunctions on the torus*]{}. Annales de l’institut Fourier, Volume 58 (2008) no. 1 , p. 299–335
Y. Rozenshein, [*The Number of Nodal Components of Arithmetic Random Waves*]{}. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2017, no. 22, 6990–7027. arXiv:1604.00638 \[math.CA\]
Z. Rudnick and I. Wigman. [*On the volume of nodal sets for eigenfunctions of the Laplacian on the torus*]{}. Ann. Henri Poincaré 9 (2008), no. 1, 109–130.
P. Swerling. [*Statistical properties of the contours of random surfaces*]{}. IRE Trans. IT-8 1962 315–321.
[^1]: After understanding the Gaussian case, one may try non-Gaussian ensembles, see e.g. [@CNNV].
[^2]: which states that if $A,B\in {\mathbb{C}}[z_1,z_2]$ are co-prime polynomials, then the number of common zeros of $A$ and $B$ is bounded by $\deg A\cdot \deg B$.
[^3]: This fact helps in simplifying the computation of the first intensity by allowing us to reduce the size of the covariance matrix, as seen in another few steps.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Data center networks need load balancing mechanisms to dynamically serve a large number of flows with different service requirements. However, traditional load-balancing approaches do not allow the full utilization of network resources in a simple, programmable, and scalable way. In this context, this paper proposes `RDNA Balance` that exploits elephant flow isolation and source routing in core nodes. Flow classification operations are performed on the edge using features of the OpenFlow protocol. The results show that with this approach it is possible to provide a simple, scalable, and programmable load balancing for data centers.'
author:
- 'Rodolfo V. Valentim, Rodolfo S. Villaca, Moises R. N. Ribeiro, Magnos Martinello'
- 'Cristina K. Dominicini, Diego R. Mafioletti'
bibliography:
- 'reference.bib'
title: '`RDNA Balance`: Load Balancing by Isolation of Elephant Flows using Strict Source Routing'
---
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Understanding glasses is considered to be one of the most fundamental problems in statistical physics. A theoretical approach to unravel their universal properties is to consider the validity of equilibrium concepts such as temperature and thermalization in these out-of-equilibrium systems. Here we investigate the autocorrelation and response function to monitor the aging of a colloidal glass. At equilibrium, all the observables are stationary while in the out-of-equilibrium glassy state they have an explicit dependence on the age of the system. We find that the transport coefficients scale with the aging-time as a power-law, a signature of the slow relaxation. Nevertheless, our analysis reveals that the glassy system has thermalized at a [*constant*]{} temperature independent of the age and larger than the bath, reflecting the structural rearrangements of cage-dynamics. Furthermore, a universal scaling law is found to describe the global and local fluctuations of the observables.'
author:
- 'Ping Wang, Chaoming Song, Hernán A. Makse'
title: Dynamic particle tracking reveals the aging temperature of a colloidal glass
---
[**Introduction.—**]{} Increasing the volume fraction of a colloidal system slows down the Brownian dynamics of its constitutive particles, implying a limiting density, $\phi_g$, above which the system can no longer be equilibrated with its bath [@Pusey]. Hence, the thermal system falls out of equilibrium on the time scale of the experiment and thus undergoes a [*glass transition*]{} [@Cugliandolo]. Even above $\phi_g$ the particles continue to relax, but the nature of the relaxation is very different to that in equilibrium. This phenomenon of a structural slow evolution beyond the glassy state is known as “aging” [@Struik]. The system is no longer stationary and the relaxation time is found to increase with the age of the system, $t_w$, as measured from the time of sample preparation. This picture applies not only to structural glasses such as colloids, silica and polymer melts, but also to spin-glasses, ferromagnetic coarsening, elastic manifolds in quenched disorder and jammed matter such as grains and emulsions [@Cugliandolo; @Kurchan_prl; @Bouchaud]. Theories originally developed in the field of spin-glasses [@Kirkpatrick] attempt to develop a common framework for the understanding of aging. For example, the structural glass and spin-glass transitions have been coupled by the low temperature extension of the Mode-Coupling Theory (MCT) [@Kurchan_MCT; @Kurchan_prl; @Bouchaud]. More generally, this approach is related to analogous ideas developed in the field of granular matter such as compactivity [@Edwards; @Ono; @Makse_nature; @Anna; @Song], and the inherent structure formalisms [@Stillinger], adapted to the energy landscape of glasses [@Sciortino].
One of the important features of this scenario is a separation of time-scales where the observables are equilibrated at different temperatures, even though the system is far from equilibrium. While theoretical results have flourished, the difficulties in the experimental testing of the fundamental predictions of the theories have hampered the development of an understanding of aging in glasses [@Israeloff; @Bellon; @Herisson; @Buisson; @Abou]. Experiments so far have shown conflicting results which are usually masked by large intermittent fluctuations in the observables [@Buisson]; a behavior which seems beyond the current theoretical formalisms [@Cugliandolo]. On the other hand, some numerical results are more favorable [@Parisi; @Barrat_Kob; @Berthier]. Furthermore, the concept of temperature has been shown to be useful to describe other far form equilibrium systems such as non-thermal granular materials [@Ono; @Makse_nature; @Anna; @Song].
Here we use a model glass which is one of the simplest systems undergoing a glass transition: a colloidal glass of micrometer size particles, where the interactions between particles can be approximated as hard core potentials [@Pusey; @Kegel; @Weeks_sci]. The system is index matched to allow the visualization of tracer particles in the microscope [@Weeks_sci]. Owing to the simplicity of the system, we are able to follow the trajectories of magnetic tracers embedded in the colloidal sample and use this information as an ideal “thermometer" to measure the temperature for the different modes of relaxation. In turn, we measure the autocorrelation function of the displacements and the integrated response to an external magnetic field as an indicator of the dynamics via a Fluctuation-Dissipation Theorem (FDT). For this system we show that, even though the diffusivities and mobilities of the tracers scale with the age of the system, there exists an effective temperature which is uniquely defined and remains constant independent of the age. This effective temperature is larger than the bath temperature and controls the slow relaxation of the system, as if the system were at “equilibrium". We find a scaling behavior with the waiting time, which describes in a unified way not only the global but also the local fluctuations of the correlations and responses as well as the cage dynamics in the system.
[**Correlations and responses.—**]{} Our experiments use a colloidal suspension consisting of a mixture of poly-(methylmethacrylate) (PMMA) sterically stabilized colloidal particles (radius $a_{p}=1.5\ \mu m$, density $\rho_{p}=1.19\
g/cm^{3}$, polydispersity $\sim 14\%$) plus a small fraction of superparamagnetic beads (radius $a_{m}=1.6\ \mu m$ and density $\rho_{m}=1.3\ g/cm^{3}$, from Dynal Biotech Inc.) as the tracers (More details in the [**Method**]{} section). In order to investigate the dynamical properties of the aging regime, we first consider the autocorrelation function as the mean square displacement (MSD) averaged over 82 tracer particles, $C(t,t_w)
\equiv \langle\Delta x^{2}(t, t_w)\rangle/2=\langle[x(t_w+\Delta
t, t_w)-x(t_w, t_w)]^2\rangle/2$, at a given observation time, $t=t_w+\Delta t$, after the sample has been aging for $t_w$ as measured from the end of the stirring process (see Appendix \[data\]). Then, we measure the integrated response function (by adding the external magnetic force, $F$) given by the average position of the tracers, $\chi(t,t_w) \equiv \langle x(t_w +\Delta
t, t_w ) - x(t_w ,t_w ) \rangle /F$.
Analytical extensions of the MCT for supercooled liquids to the low temperature regime of glasses allow for the interpretation of the aging of global correlation and response functions [@Cugliandolo; @Bouchaud]. In these frameworks, the evolution of $C(t,t_w)$ and $\chi(t,t_w)$ are separated into a stationary part (short time) and an aging part (long time): $C(t,t_w)=C_{\rm st}(t-t_w)+C_{\rm ag}(t,t_w)$ and $\chi(t,t_w)=\chi_{\rm st}(t-t_w)+\chi_{\rm ag}(t,t_w)$, where we have included the explicit dependence on $t_w$ in the aging part.
This result can be rationalized in terms of the so-called “cage dynamics". As the density of the system increases the particles are trapped in cages. The motion inside the cage is still equilibrated at the bath temperature and is determined by the Gibbs distribution of states. This dynamics gives rise to the stationary part of the response and correlation functions, which satisfy the usual equilibrium relations such as the FDT. However, the correlation does not decay to zero but remains constant since particles are trapped in cages for a long time. Thermal activated motions lead to a second structural relaxation which is responsible for the aging part of the dynamics. In this regime the system is off equilibrium and correlations and responses depend not only on the time of observation $t$ but also on the waiting time, $t_w$. Slow, non-exponential relaxation ensues and a strong violation of the FDT is expected. However, the interesting result is that this breakdown leads to a new definition of temperature for the slow modes which has been proposed to be the starting point of a unifying description of aging in glassy systems [@Cugliandolo].
Figure \[msd\]a shows $\langle\Delta x^{2}(t, t_w)\rangle$ as a function of $\Delta t$ at a fixed $t_w =100$s calculated for the three colloidal samples at $\phi_{C}<\phi_{g}<\phi_{A}<\phi_{B}$, and Fig. \[msd\]b shows the age dependence for the glassy sample A. Sample B shows $t_w$ dependence similar to sample A, while sample C, being at equilibrium, is independent of $t_w$, i.e. it is stationary (see Appendix \[sample B and C\]). The cage dynamics is evidenced by the plateau observed in the MSD in the two glassy samples. The rattling of particles inside the cages is too fast ($\sim
10^{-2}s$) [@Megen_prl] to be observed with our visualization capabilities. Since we focus mainly on the long relaxation time regime, the stationary parts, $C_{st}$ and $\chi_{st}$, are negligible compared with $C_{ag}$ and $\chi_{ag}$, in the following we concentrate only on the aging part of the observables and drop the subscript ${\rm ag}$: $C=C_{\rm ag}$ and $\chi=\chi_{\rm ag}$. The tracers’ motion is confined by the cage, which persists for a time of the order of the relaxation time $\tau(t_w)$. As expected for an aging system, this relaxation time increases with $t_w$ as observed in Fig. \[msd\]b. For longer times, $\Delta t >
\tau(t_w)$, structural rearrangements lead to a second increase of the MSD, defining a diffusion regime characterized by a diffusion constant, $D(t_w)$, which depends on the waiting time. We find an asymptotic form:
$$\label{diffusivity}
\langle [x(t_w +\Delta t, t_w ) - x(t_w ,t_w )]^{2} \rangle \sim
2D(t_w )\Delta t, ~~~~ \mbox{for $\Delta t > \tau(t_w)$}.$$
Figure \[msd\]c shows the average displacement of the magnetic beads under the external force as a function of time $\Delta t$, for various aging times, $t_w $, in sample A. The magnetic force is set as small as possible to observe the linear response regime, $F=1.7\times 10^{-14}N$ (see Appendix \[linear\]). Contrary to the behavior of the MSD, the integrated response function does not display the plateau characteristic of the cage effect. The data can be fitted to: $$\langle x(t_w +\Delta t, t_w ) - x(t_w ,t_w ) \rangle \sim M(t_w
)F\Delta t,$$ where $M(t_w)$ is the mobility of the tracers which is again waiting time dependent as seen in the figure.
To investigate the nature of the scaling behavior of the aging regime, we study the dynamical behavior with respect to $t_w $. Figure \[d\_m\_scaling\] shows both the diffusivity and mobility as a function of $t_w $ for sample A. Both $D(t_w)$ and $M(t_w)$ decrease with $t_w $ signaling the slowing down in the dynamics. More importantly, they decrease according to a power-law with the same exponent for both quantities:
$$D(t_w ) \propto {t_w }^{-\gamma} ~~~ \mbox{and} ~~~ M(t_w )
\propto {t_w }^{-\gamma}, \label{gamma}$$
with $\gamma=0.32\pm0.08$. This result is consistent with previous work in a similar aging colloidal system, where it was found that the MSD $\langle \Delta x^{2} \rangle$ has a power law decay with $t_w $ [@Weeks_aging]. The fact that all the quantities scale as power laws indicates that the aging regime lasts for a very long time, perhaps without ever equilibrating.
[**Effective temperature.—**]{} The same power law decay of the diffusivity and mobility implies that the system has thermalized at a constant effective temperature $T_{\rm eff}$ independent of $t_w $. This temperature is given by an extension of the Stokes-Einstein relation or FDT to out-of-equilibrium systems. Even though both $D$ and $M$ depend on the age of the system, their ratio is constant: $$T_{\rm eff}(t_w ) \equiv \frac{D(t_w )}{{k_B}M(t_w )} =
(690\pm100) \mbox{K}. \label{einstein}$$ The inset of Fig. \[d\_m\_scaling\] plots the $T_{\rm{eff}}$ as a function of $t_w $. We obtain $T_{\rm eff}\approx 690$K which is more than double the ambient temperature of 297K. For very large $t_w $, $T_{\rm{eff}}$ shows large fluctuations that are mainly due to the larger statistical error (due to the limited number of tracers) in obtaining the mobilities and diffusivities in the large $\Delta t$ and $t_w$ regime. It remains a question whether the long waiting time regime may show interrupted aging.
Equation (\[einstein\]) is easy to understand when the system is at equilibrium: we extract energy from many identical tracers located in distant regions of the colloidal system and transfer it to the thermometer system. The thermometer receives work from the diffusive motion of the tracers, and it dissipates energy through the viscosity of the system. These two opposing effects make the thermometer stabilize at a temperature guaranteed by the Einstein relation. Naturally, we have applied the diffusion-mobility calculations to dilute sample C and find that it is equilibrated at the bath temperature (see Appendix \[sample B and C\]). On the other hand, the colloidal sample is aging out of equilibrium. Nevertheless, the fact that the ratio of diffusion to mobility yields a constant temperature can be taken as an indication that the long time behavior of the system has thermalized at a larger effective temperature $T_{\rm
eff}\approx 690$K.
Although it may seem counterintuitive that the slow relaxation at long times corresponds to a temperature that is actually higher than the equilibrium bath temperature, there is an interesting physical picture that rationalizes this observation. One can think of the energy landscape of configurations of the colloidal glass being explored less frequently, yet the amplitude of the jumps between basins corresponds to “hotter" explorations of a boarder distribution of energy states. While this mechanism violates the usual relations between particle motion and temperature, it gives rise to the effective temperature measured in our experiments.
[**Scaling ansatz for the global correlations and responses.—**]{} Further insight into the understanding of the slow relaxation can be obtained from the study of the universal dynamic scaling of the observables with $t_w$. Based on spin-glass models, different scaling scenarios have been proposed [@Cugliandolo; @Henkel] for correlation and response functions. Our analysis indicates that the observables can be described as
\[scaling-laws\] $$\begin{aligned}
C(t_w +\Delta t, t_w )&=\langle \Delta x^{2} \rangle/2 =
t_w^{-\alpha}f_{D}(\frac{\Delta
t}{{t_w }^{\beta}}),\label{scaling-laws1}\\
\chi(t_w +\Delta t, t_w )&=\frac{\langle \Delta x \rangle}{F} =
t_w^{-\alpha}f_{M}(\frac{\Delta t}{{t_w
}^{\beta}}),\label{scaling-laws2}\end{aligned}$$
where $f_{D}$ and $f_{M}$ are two universal functions and $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are the aging exponents. Evidence for the validity of these scaling laws is provided in Fig. \[scaling\] where the data of the correlation function and the integrated response function collapse onto a master curve when plotted as $
t_w^{\alpha}C(t_w +\Delta t,t_w )$ and $t_w^{\alpha}\chi(t_w
+\Delta t,t_w )$ versus $\Delta t/{t_w }^{\beta}$. By minimizing the $\sigma^2$ value of the difference between the master curve and the data (see Appendix \[exponents\]) we find that the best data collapse is obtained for the following aging exponents: $\alpha + \beta = 0.34\pm0.05$ and $\beta = 0.48\pm0.05$. We find (Fig. \[scaling\]) that the scaling functions satisfy the following asymptotic behavior:
$$\begin{aligned}
f_{D}(y)&\sim \{\begin{array}{lll}y^{0.3}&\ y \ll 1,\\y&\ y \gg 1,
\end{array}
\\
f_{M}(y)&\sim y,\end{aligned}$$
in agreement with the fact that the motion of the particles is diffusive at long times, $\langle \Delta x^{2} \rangle \sim \Delta t$, and the existence of a well-defined mobility, respectively. Therefore at long times, both the correlation and response functions display the same power law decay:
$$\begin{aligned}
C(t_w +\Delta t,t_w ) & \sim t_w^{-(\alpha+\beta)} \Delta t,\\
\chi(t_w +\Delta t,t_w ) & \sim t_w^{-(\alpha+\beta)} \Delta t.\end{aligned}$$
The result $C(t_w +\Delta t, t_w) \sim \chi(t_w+\Delta t, t_w)
\sim t_w^{-0.34}$ confirms our previous result, Eq. (\[gamma\]), $D(t_w )\sim M(t_w) \sim t_w ^{-0.32}$. This is in further agreement with the finding that $T_{\rm eff}$ is independent of the age of the system, $t_w$. For short times, the MSD scaling function crosses over to a sub-diffusive behavior of the particles. We obtain, $\langle x^2(t_w +\Delta t,t_w )\rangle
\sim t_w^{-\alpha}(\Delta t/t_w^{\beta})^{0.3}=t_w^{-0.004}\Delta
t^{0.3}$. Since the trapping time corresponds to the size of the cages denoted by $q(t_w)$, we can determine the cage dependence on $t_w$ as $q(t_w)\sim t_w^{-0.002}$. The resulting exponent is so small that we can say that the cages are not evolving with the waiting time, within experimental uncertainty. Furthermore, the scaling ansatz of Eq. (\[scaling-laws\]) indicates that the relaxation time of the cages scales as $\tau(t_w)\sim t_w^{\beta}$ since this is the time when the sub-diffusive behavior crosses-over to the long time diffusive regime.
From Fig. \[scaling\] we see that the asymptotic $\Delta
t$-linear regime appears when the reduced variable $\Delta
t/{t_w}^{\beta}$ is larger than 10, $\Delta t/{t_w}^{\beta} > 10$. The time separation between $\Delta t$ and $t_w$ can be determined using the cut-off: $\Delta t/{t_w}^{0.48} \sim 10$. For smaller times, $\Delta t/{t_w}^{\beta} < 10$, we obtain a subdiffusion regime (with exponent 0.3), which is characteristic of the cage dynamics. For longer times, $\Delta t/{t_w}^{\beta} > 10$, we observe the asymptotic $\Delta t$-linear regime where the diffusivity is calculated. The measurement of MSD in Fig. 1 extends up to $t_w = 6000$s. For this $t_w$, the separation of time scales appears when $\Delta t > 10*6000^{0.48} \simeq 10^3$s. Our measurements for MSD extend to $10^4$s, ensuring a separation of time scales even for this longest waiting time. For the smaller $t_w$ considered in the calculation of $T_\texttt{eff}$, the separation of time scales is even more pronounced. For instance, for a typical $t_w=1000$s where the $T_{\texttt{eff}}$ is calculated, the separation of time scales occurs at $10*1000^{0.48} \simeq 275$s, again ensuring a well defined long time asymptotic behavior for $\Delta t = 10^4$s.
Although the existence of an effective temperature can be rationalized using theoretical frameworks of disordered spin-glass models [@Kurchan_prl], we find that the scaling forms of the correlations and responses are not consistent with such models. Based on invariance properties under time reparametrization, spin-glass models predict a general scaling form $C_{\rm ag}(t,t_w
) = C_{\rm ag}(h(t)/h(t_w))$, where $h(t)$ is a generic monotonic function [@Cugliandolo]. We find that the scaling of our observables from Eqs. (\[scaling-laws1\]), (\[scaling-laws2\]) cannot be collapsed with the ratio $h(t)/h(t_w)$. The scaling with $h(t)/h(t_w)$ is expected for system in which the correlation function saturates at long times [@Cug_Dou]. On the other hand, our system is diffusive, and the studied correlation function is not bounded. Indeed, similar scaling as in our system has been found in the aging dynamics of anther unbounded system: an elastic manifold in a disordered media [@Bustingorry]. The suggestion is that this problem and the particle diffusing in a colloidal glass may belong to the same universality class. Furthermore our results can be interpreted in terms of the droplet picture of the aging of spin glass, where the growth of the dynamical heterogeneities control the aging.
[**Local fluctuations of autocorrelations and responses.—**]{} Previous work has revealed the existence of dynamical heterogeneities, associated with the cooperative motion of the particles, as a precursor to the glass transition as well as in the glassy state [@Kegel; @Weeks_sci; @Weeks_aging; @Kob]. Instead of the average global quantities studied above, the existence of dynamical heterogeneities requires a microscopic insight into the structure of the glassy. Earlier studies focused mainly on probability distributions of the particles displacement near the glass transition. More recent analytical work in spin glasses [@Castillo] shows that the probability distribution function (PDF) of the local correlation $P(C)$ and the local integrated response $P(\chi)$ could reveal essential features of the dynamical heterogeneities.
Here we perform a systematic study of $P(C)$ and $P(\chi)$ in sample A, and the resulting PDFs are shown in Fig. \[pdf\]. The scaling ansatz of Eq. (\[scaling-laws\]) implies that $P(C)$ and $P(\chi)$ should be collapsed by rescaling the time $\Delta t$ by $t_w^{\beta}$ and the local fluctuations by $t_w^{\alpha}$ (see Appendix \[local\] for more details). Indeed, this scaling ansatz provides the correct collapse of all the local fluctuations captured by the PDFs, as shown in Fig. \[pdf\]a, \[pdf\]b and \[pdf\]c for $P(C)$ and in Fig. \[pdf\]d for $P(\chi)$.
The PDF of the autocorrelation function displays a universal behavior following a modified power-law $t_w^{-\alpha}P(C)\propto(t_w^\alpha C+C_0)^{-\lambda}$, where $C_0$ and $\lambda$ only depend on the time ratio $\Delta
t/t_w^\beta$. For the smaller values of $C$ ($C<t_w^{-\alpha}
C_0$), the existence of a flat plateau in $P(C)$ indicates that the tracers are confined in the cage. For larger values of $C$, the salient feature of the PDF is the very broad character of the distribution, with an asymptotic behavior $P(C)\sim
C^{-\lambda}$. This large deviation from a Gaussian behavior is a clear indication of the heterogeneous character of the dynamics. Furthermore, the exponent $\lambda$ decreases from 2.6 to 1.4 with the time ratio $\Delta t/t_w^{\beta}$ ranging from 10 to 60. We notice that $\lambda =2$ corresponds to the crossover between the short-time and long-time regime in Fig. \[scaling\], where $\Delta t/t_w^\beta\approx40$. The significance of $\lambda=2$ is seen in the integral $\int
P(C)CdC$. For $\lambda>2$ ($\Delta t/t_w^\beta < 40$) the plateau dominates over the power law tail in the integral and the dynamics is less heterogeneous. For $\lambda<2$ ($\Delta t/t_w^\beta > 40$) the power law tail dominates and this regime corresponds to the highly heterogeneous long-time regime (see Appendix \[power law\]).
On the contrary, $P(\chi)$, shown in Fig. \[pdf\]d, displays a different behavior. The fluctuations are more narrow and the PDF can be approximated by a Gaussian. This is consistent with the fact that we did not find cage dynamics for the global response in Fig. \[msd\]c. Moreover, numerical simulations of spin-glass models [@Castillo] seem to indicate a narrower distribution as found here. We have presented experimental results on an aging colloidal glass showing a well-defined temperature for the slow modes of relaxation of the system. This $T_{\rm eff}$ is larger than the bath temperature since it implies large scale structural rearrangements of the particles. In other words, it controls the cooperative motion of particles needed to relax the cages. The interesting result is that this temperature remains constant independent of the age, even though both the diffusivity and the mobility are age dependent. The power-law scaling found to describe the transport coefficients indicates the slow relaxation of the system. A universal scaling form is found to describe all the observables. That is, not only the global averages, but also the local fluctuations. The scaling ansatz, however, cannot be described under present models of spin-glasses, but it is more akin to that observed in elastic manifolds in random environments suggesting that our system may share the same universality class.
**Method: Experimental details**
The colloidal suspension is immersed in a solution containing $76\%$ weight fraction of cyclohexylbromide and $24\%$ cis-decalin which are chosen for their density and index of refraction matching capabilities [@Weeks_sci]. For such a system the glass transition occurs at $\phi_{g}\approx 0.57 - 0.58$ [@Pusey; @Kegel; @Weeks_sci]. In our experiments we consider three samples at different densities and determine the glassy phase for the samples that display aging. The main results are obtained for sample A just above the glass transition $\phi_{\rm A}= 0.58\pm0.01$. We also consider a denser sample B with $\phi_{\rm B}=0.60\pm0.01$, although this sample is so deep in the glassy phase that we are not able to study the slow relaxation of the system and the dependence of the waiting time within the time scales of our experiments. Finally, we also consider a sample C below the glass transition $\phi_{\rm C}=0.13\pm0.01 < \phi_g$ for which we find the usual equilibrium relations (see below). Prior to our measurements, the samples are homogenized by stirring them for two hours to achieve a reproducible initial time (see Appendix \[experiment\] for a full discussion). We use a magnetic force as the external perturbation to generate two-dimensional motion of the tracers [@Song] (see Appendix \[experiment\]) on a microscope stage following a simplified design of [@magnetic_stage]. Video microscopy and computerized image analysis are used to locate the tracers in each image. We calculate the response and correlation functions in the x-y plane.
Pusey, P. N. & van Megen, W. Phase behavior of concentrated suspensions of nearly hard colloidal spheres. [*Nature*]{} [**320**]{}, 340-342 (1986).
Cugliandolo, L. F. in [*Slow Relaxations and Nonequilibrium Dynamics in Condensed Matter*]{}, Barrat, J. -L. et al. (eds.) (Springer-Verlag, 2002).
Struik, L. C. E. in [*Physical Ageing in Amorphous Polymer and other Materials*]{}, (Elsevier, Houston, 1978).
Cugliandolo, L. F. & Kurchan, J. Analytical solution of the off-equilibrium dynamics of a long-range spin-glass model [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**71**]{}, 173-176 (1993).
Bouchaud, J. -P., Cugliandolo, L. F., Kurchan, J., & Mézard, M. in [*Spin-Glasses and Random Fields*]{}, (World Scientific, 1998).
Kirkpatrick, T. R. & Thirumalai, D. p-spin-interaction spin-glass models: connections with the structural glass problem. [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**36**]{}, 5388-5397 (1987).
Bouchaud, J. -P., Cugliandolo, L. F., Kurchan, J. & Mézard, M. Mode-coupling approximations, glass theory and disordered systems. [*Physica A*]{} [**226**]{}, 243-273 (1996).
Edwards, S. F. The role of entropy in the specification of a powder, in [*Granular matter: an interdisciplinary approach*]{} (ed. Mehta, A.) 121-140 (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994).
Ono, I. K., O’Hern, C. S., Durian, D. J., Langer, S. A., Liu, A. J. & Nagel, S. R. Effective temperatures of a driven system near jamming. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**89**]{}, 095703 (2002).
Makse, H. A. & Kurchan, J. Testing the thermodynamic approach to granular matter with a numerical model of a decisive experiment. [*Nature*]{} [**415**]{}, 614-617 (2002)
D’Anna, G. & Gremaud, G. The jamming route to the glass state in weakly perturbed granular media. [*Nature*]{} [**413**]{}, 407-409 (2003).
Song, C., Wang, P. & Makse, H. A. Experimental measurement of an effective temperature for jammed granular materials. [*Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.*]{} [**102**]{}, 2299-2304 (2005).
Stillinger, F. H. A topographic view of supercooled liquids and glass formation. [*Science*]{} [**267**]{}, 1935-1939 (1995).
Kob, W., Sciortino, F., & Tartaglia, P. Aging as dynamics in configurations space. [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**49**]{}, 590-596 (2000).
Israeloff, N. E. & Grigera, T. S. Low-frequency dielectric fluctuations near the glass transition. [*Europhys. Lett*]{} [**43**]{}, 308-313 (1998).
Bellon, L., Ciliberto, S. & Laroche, C. Violation of the fluctuation-dissipation relation during the formation of a colloidal glass. [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**53**]{}, 511-517 (2001).
Hérisson, D. & Ocio, M. Fluctuation-dissipation ratio of a spin glass in the aging regime. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**88**]{}, 257202 (2002).
Buisson, L., Ciliberto, S. & Garcimartín, A. Intermittent origin of the large violations of the fluctuation-dissipation relations in an aging polymer glass. [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**63**]{}, 603-609 (2003).
Abou, B. & Gallet, F. Probing a nonequilibrium Einstein relation in an aging colloidal glass. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**93**]{}, 160603 (2004).
Parisi, G. Off-equilibrium fluctuation-dissipation relation in fragile glasses. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**79**]{}, 3660-3663 (1997).
Barrat, J. -L. & Kob, W. Fluctuation-dissipation ratio in an aging Lennard-Jones glass. [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**46**]{}, 637-642 (1999).
Berthier, L. & Barrat, J. -L. Nonequilibrium dynamics and fluctuation-dissipation in a sheared fluid. [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**116**]{}, 6228-6242 (2002).
Kegel, W. K. & van Blaaderen, A. Direct observation of dynamical heterogeneities in colloidal hard-sphere suspensions. [*Science*]{} [**287**]{}, 290-293 (2000).
Weeks, E. R., Crocker, J. C., Levitt, A. C., Schofield, A. & Weitz, D. A. Three-dimensional direct imaging of structural relaxation near the colloidal glass transition. [*Science*]{} [**287**]{}, 627-631 (2000).
Megen, W. van, Underwood, S. M. Glass transition in colloidal hard spheres: Mode-coupling theory analysis. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**70**]{}, 2766-2769 (1993).
Courtland, R. E., Weeks, E. R. Direct visualization of ageing in colloidal glasses. [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{} [**15**]{}, S359-S365 (2003).
Henkel, M., Pleimling, M., Godrèche, G. & Luck, J. -M. Aging, phase ordering, and conformal invariance. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**87**]{}, 265701 (2001).
Cugliandolo, L. F., Kurchan, J., & Doussal, P. L. Large Time Out-of-Equilibrium Dynamics of a Manifold in a Random Potential. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**76**]{}, 2390-2393 (1996).
Bustingorry, S., Cugliandolo, L. F., & Dominguez, D. Out-of-Equilibrium Dynamics of the Vortex Glass in Superconductors. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**96**]{}, 027001 (2006).
Kob, W., Donati, C., Plimpton, S. J., Poole, P. H., & Glotzer, S. C. Dynamical heterogeneities in a supercooled Lennard-Jones liquid. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**79**]{}, 2827-2830 (1997).
Castillo, H. E., Chamon, C., Cugliandolo, L. F. & Kennett, M. P. Heterogeneous aging in spin glasses. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**88**]{}, 237201 (2002).
Amblard, F., Yurke, B., Pargellis, A. N. & Leibler, S. A magnetic manipulator for studying local rheology and micromechanical properties of biological systems. [*Rev. Sci. Instrum.*]{} [**67**]{}, 818-827 (1996).
Habdas, P. [*et al*]{}. Forced motion of a probe particle near the colloidal glass transition. *Europhys. Lett.* [**67**]{}, 477-483 (2004).
Rapaport, D. C. (1995) [*The Art of Molecular Dynamics Simulation*]{}, (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.).
Weeks, E. R., Weitz, D. A. Properties of Cage Rearrangements Observed near the Colloidal Glass Transition. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**89**]{}, 095704 (2002)
We wish to thank M. Shattuck for help in the design of the experiments and J. Brujić and S. Mistry for providing the colloidal particles and illuminating discussions. We acknowledge the financial support from DOE and NSF. Correspondance should be addressed to H. A. Makse.
FIG. \[msd\]. Autocorrelation and response functions. (a) Mean square displacement of tracers as a function of $\Delta t$ for the three samples $\phi_{C}=0.13<\phi_{g}<\phi_{A}=0.58<\phi_{B}=0.60$ at $t_w =100$s. The straight dash lines indicate estimates for the diffusivity $D(t_w)$. (b) Mean square displacement of tracers in sample A as a function of time $\Delta t$, for various aging times $t_w $. The dashed straight lines indicate the fitting regime to calculate the diffusivity $D(t_w)$. (c) Mean displacement of tracers under the magnetic force in sample A for various aging times $t_w $.
FIG. \[d\_m\_scaling\]. Diffusivity (red dash-dot line) and mobility (blue dot line) as a function of aging time for sample A. A straight dash line is added to guide the eyes, which shows $D(t_w ) \sim {t_w }^{-\gamma}$ and $M(t_w ) \sim {t_w
}^{-\gamma}$ with $\gamma=0.32\pm 0.08$. For convenience of comparison with diffusivity, mobility is scaled by $k_BT_{\rm
eff}$, with $k_B$ the Boltzmann constant and the effective temperature $T_{\rm eff}=690K$. The inset shows the effective temperature as a function of waiting time. Error bars are added only to some representative points for clarity.
FIG. \[scaling\]. Scaling plot of sample A for the scaled autocorrelation, ${t_w }^{\alpha}C$, and scaled integrated response, $k_{B}T_{\rm eff}{t_w }^{\alpha}\chi$, as a function of the time ratio, $\Delta{t}/{t_w }^{\beta}$, for different waiting times. The black dash line is a linear fit which indicates that $T_{\rm eff}=690K$. The inset is a plot of sample B for autocorrelation, $C$, and integrated response, $k_{B}T_{\rm
eff}\chi$, as a function of $\Delta{t}$ at $t_{w}=100s$. The black dash line is a linear fit which indicates that $T_{\rm
eff}=1600K$.
FIG. \[pdf\]. (a) PDF of the scaled local correlation $t_w^{\alpha}C$ for $\Delta t/t_w ^{\beta}=10$ with $\Delta t$ from 155s to 650s. Solid line corresponds to the modified power-law fit $t_w^{-\alpha}P(C)\propto(t_w^\alpha
C+C_0)^{-\lambda}$, with $C_0=500$ and $\lambda=2.6$. (b) Same as (a), for $\Delta t/t_w ^{\beta}=40$ with $\Delta t$ from 620s to 2600s. The resulting distribution can be fitted (solid line) by a modified power law with $C_0=500$ and $\lambda=1.9$. (c) Same as (a), for $\Delta t/t_w ^{\beta}=60$ with $\Delta t$ from 930s to 3900s. The solid line is the best fit, with parameters $C_0=300$ and $\lambda=1.4$. (d) PDF of the scaled local integrated response for $\Delta t/t_w ^{\beta}=1$ shows a Gaussian decay. For the convenience of the comparison with (a), (b), (c), we rescale the response by $k_BT_{\rm eff}$, where $T_{\rm eff} = 690$K.
Details of the experimental set up {#experiment}
==================================
The experimental set up is shown in Fig. \[images\]a and Fig. \[images\]b. We use a Zeiss microscope with a 50$\times$ objective of numerical aperture 0.5 and a working distance of 5mm. We work with a field of view $194\mu m\times155\mu m$ by using a digital camera with the resolution of 1288 pixels $\times$ 1032 pixels. We locate the center of each bead position with sub-pixel accuracy, by using image analysis. For the condensed samples A and B, we use the low frame rate $1/3$ frame/sec, while for the dilute sample C, we record the images at $1$ frame/sec. The long working distance of the objective is necessary to allow the pole of the magnet to reach a position near the sample. An example of the images of the tracers obtained in sample A is shown in Fig. \[images\]a where we can see the black magnetic tracers embedded in the background of nearly transparent PMMA particles. An example of the trajectory in the x-y plane of a tracer diffusing without magnetic field is shown in Fig. \[images\]d. We note that this particular tracer moves away from two cages in a time of the order of $4$ hours.
The magnetic field is produced by one coil made of 1200 turns of copper wire. We arrange the pole of the coil perpendicular to the vertical optical axis, and generate a field with no vertical component. Thus, the tracers move in the x-y plane with a slight vertical motion which is generated by a density mismatch between the tracers and the background PMMA particles. This vertical motion is very small at the high volume fraction of interest here, and therefore we calculate all the observables in the x-y plane.
The magnetic force is calibrated for a given coil current by replacing the suspension with a mixture of $50:50$ water-glycerol solution with a few magnetic tracers. The distance between the top of the magnetic pole and the vertical optical axis is always fixed, which means that the magnetic force at the local plane depends only on the coil current. At a given current, we determine the velocity of the magnetic tracers at the focal point and calculate the magnetic force from Stokes’s law, $F = 6\pi\eta
a_{m}v$, where $\eta$ is the viscosity of the water-glycerol solution, $a_{m}$ is the tracer radius, and $v$ is the observed velocity of the tracer. The uncertainty in the obtained force comes from: (a) the uncertainty in the coil current which is $1\%$, (b) the beads, which are not completely monodisperse in their magnetic properties, causes a $10\%$ uncertainty [@Weeks_force], and (c) the magnetic field is slowly decaying in the field of view, causing a $4\%$ uncertainty.
Sample Preparation at $t_w=0$ {#inistate}
=============================
It is important to correctly determine the initial time of each measurement to reproduce the subsequent particle dynamics. We initialize the system by stirring the sample for two hours with an air bubble inside the sample (see Fig. \[images\]b) to homogenize the whole system and break up any pre-existing crystalline regions. Then we place the sample on the magnetic stage and take images to obtain the trajectories of the tracers that appear in the field of view. The initial times $t = t_w = 0$ are defined at the end of the stirring. After measuring all the tracers appearing in the field of view, a new stirring is applied, the waiting time is reset to zero, and the measurements are repeated for a new set of tracers. We have analyzed the pair-distribution function, $g(r)$, and two-time intensity autocorrelation function, $g_{2}(t_w,t_w+ \Delta t)$, in order to test our rejuvenation technique.
First, Fig. \[gr\] plots the pair-distribution functions of sample A and sample B right after the stirring procedure. We calculate the pair-distribution functions by reconstructing the packings from 3D confocal microscopy images of size $60\mu
m{\times}60\mu m{\times}15\mu m$. We find that the samples do not show obvious crystallized region by directly looking either at the pair-distribution function or the images taken from confocal microscopy. For these measurements we use a Leica confocal microscope. The PMMA particles are fluorescently dyed so that they are ready to be observed by confocal microscopy. We load the samples sealed in a glass cell on the confocal microscope stage and use a Leica HCX PL APO 63x, 1.40 numerical aperture, oil immersion lens for 3D particle visualization in order to calculate the volume fraction and the pair-distribution function.
Second, we analyze $g_2(t_w+ \Delta t, t_w)$ and show that the sample has been rejuvenated by the stirring process. We plot $g_2(t_w+ \Delta t, t_w)$ for 3 situations: (a) after the first stirring process ($t_w=0$), (b) after the sample has aged for a long time ($t_w=4000s$), (c) we then apply the stirring again and immediately plot the autocorrelation function for the new initial time (${t_w}^{'}=0$). The plot show the lack of correlation for the two individual measurements $t_w=0$ and ${t_w}^{'}=0$, thus demonstrating that the sample has been rejuvenated. Technically, we record the temporal image sequence of sample A and sample B, and study the aging by calculating two images’ correlation defined as:
$$g_{2}(t_w,t_w+ \Delta t)=\frac{\langle I(t_w)I(t_w+\Delta
t)\rangle}{\langle I(t_w)^2\rangle},$$
where $I$ is the average gray-scale intensity of a small box (20 pixels $\times$ 20 pixels, PMMA particles’ diameter is roughly equal to 20 pixels), and $I(t_w)$ and $I(t)$ come from the images at different times $t_w$ and $t$, respectively. We cut one image (1288 pixels $\times$ 1032 pixels) into many boxes, and calculate the correlation of two boxes located at the same position in the two images. The average $\langle...\rangle$ is taken over all the boxes in one image. Fig. \[g2\] plots the correlation function, $g_{2}(t_w,t_w+ \Delta t)$, of sample A and sample B, which shows aging behavior (see the inset). Fig. \[g2\] shows how $g_{2}(t_w,t_w+ \Delta t)$ calculated after two stirring processes at $t_w=0$ and ${t_w}^{'}=0$ coincide, indicating that the sample can be fully rejuvenated to its initial state by our stirring technique.
Data analysis {#data}
=============
The average $\langle\cdot\cdot\cdot\rangle$ used to calculate the MSD $\langle\Delta x^{2}(t ,t_w)\rangle$ and the mean displacement $\langle\Delta x(t ,t_w)\rangle$ denotes an ensemble average over the tracers and over the initial time $t_{0}$ which is varied over a small time interval centered at $t_w $. We choose a small coarse-grained time interval compared to $t_w $, so that we can ignore the aging effect in such short time. We then regard all the trajectories in this interval region as having the same waiting time $t_w $. In practice, at a given $t_w $ and a given $\Delta t=t-t_w =t_{1}-t_{0}$, $(t>t_w ,t_{1}>t_{0})$, we use the common method ([@window_average], pages 118-122) of opening a small time window $[t_w -t_{r},t_w +t_{r}]$ and perform an average over all the $\Delta t$ with $t_{0}\in[t_w -t_{r},t_w +t_{r}]$ and $t_{1}\in[t_w -t_{r}, t_{max}]$ in order to measure the transport coefficients. We note that $t_{r} < t_w $ and that $t_{max}$ is the maximum time of our measurements. The diffusion and mobility constants are then obtained by averaging not only over the tracers but also over the initial time $t_{0}$. This common technique allows us to obtain an estimation of the diffusion constant and mobility constant by using 82 tracers and 75 tracers respectively for this particular system. We check that by reducing the region size $t_{r}$ we obtain the same behavior of $D(t_w )$ and $M(t_w
)$, so that the transport coefficients are independent of the averaging technique. We collect all the tracers’ trajectories from several measurements since our system is well reproducible as described in Appendix \[experiment\]. In each measurement, we consider tracers that are separated by at least 10 particle diameters from the sample boundary and from each other. This guarantees that the tracer-tracer magnetic interaction can be ignored.
$\Delta t$-linear regime
========================
In this appendix we address the issue of the proper determination of the long $\Delta t$-linear regime in the MSD where the diffusivity is calculated. The crossover from the cage dynamics regime to the long time diffusive regime seems to be very gradual in Fig. \[msd\]b (see for instance the case of $t_w=6000$s). We notice that due to the existence of the plateau in the MSD, the fitting to the long $\Delta t$-linear regime is of the form $\langle \Delta x^2\rangle
\sim A(t_w) + 2 D(t_w) \Delta t$, where $A(t_w)$ is a constant dependent only on $t_w$ and $D(t_w)$ is the diffusion constant. Thus, in the log-log plot of Fig. \[msd\], such a linear relation would not be a complete straight line. \[note that the logarithmic plot is necessary to observe the different time scales in the experiment, and the fitting constant $A(t_w)$ is the y-intercept of the fitting of the long $\Delta t$-linear regime, for which there is no particular physical meaning\].
In order to address the issue of the existence of the long-time linear regime we compare a log-log plot of the MSD with a linear-linear plot of the same quantity for the sample A in Fig. \[linear\_regime\]a and Fig. \[linear\_regime\]b, respectively. We check our results for $t_w = 3000$s and $t_w = 6000$s.
First we note that the log-log plot of Fig. \[linear\_regime\]a naturally emphasizes the short time scales of the cage dynamics. Thus, a linear fitting function plus a constant, $\langle\Delta x^2\rangle=A(t_w)+ 2 D(t_w) \Delta t$ would be represented as a smoothly varying curve for long $\Delta t$ in such a log-log plot, giving the impression that the long-time linear regime is not well-defined. In order to determine more clearly the large time regime we have plotted the MSD in a linear-linear plot in Fig. \[linear\_regime\]b. The $\Delta t$-linear regime and the fitting region can be more clearly seen from the linear-linear plot. The smaller $t_w$ are also plotted in the figure ($t_w=3000$s). As discussed above the linear-linear plot shows more clearly the existence of the linear regime while the log-log plot shows the existence of the cage dynamics regime.
We also note that the fast motion inside the cage is determined by the viscosity of the surrounding fluid, and not by the macroscopic viscosity which determines the $T_\texttt{eff}$ at long times. Indeed, the motion inside the cage is supposed to be equilibrated at room temperature and satisfies the regular FDT according to previous studies, for instance see simulations of Lennard-Jones liquids [@Barrat_Kob]. The time scales for this microscopic viscosity to dominate is of the order of $10^{-2}$s, as obtained in light scattering experiments of colloidal glasses [@Megen_prl]. These time scales are too fast to be studied with our visualization schemes. Our measurements start at $\Delta
t \sim 1$s and go on up to $10^4$s. In this long time regime the microscopic viscosity does not dominate the dynamics and indeed we find the $T_\texttt{eff}$ is dominated by the macroscopic viscosity given by the particles.
From Stokes-Einstein relation, $F=6\pi a_m \eta \upsilon$, with $F
\sim 10^{-14}N$, $\eta \sim 10^{-3}N.s.{m}^{-2}$ the viscosity of the decalin-bromide solution, $a_m \sim 3\mu m$ the tracer’s diameter and $\Delta t \sim 10^{-2}$s, we find $\Delta x \sim
0.002\mu m$. At this length scale the particle experience the viscosity of the surrounding liquid alone. Since we measure much larger displacements, we conclude that the tracers are experiencing the macroscopic viscosity and the effective temperature is therefore well defined.
Therefore, we believe that we have achieved the necessary separation of length scales which allows us to define a $T_\texttt{eff}$. The small displacements observed in the response function are due to the fact that the magnetic forces ought to be small enough to achieve the linear response regime. The small displacements obtained in our measurements are consistent with previous confocal microscopy studies of colloidal suspensions near the glass transition [@Weeks_prl], which found motions of the order of $1/10$ of the particle diameter.
Study of samples C {#sample B and C}
==================
Figure \[sample C\] shows the parametric plot of correlation function $C$ versus integrated response function $k_{B}\chi$ for the dilute sample C, $\phi_C=0.13$. We find $M=3.28\times10^7$ms$^{-1}$N$^{-1}$ and $D=1.46\times10^{-13}$m$^{2}$s$^{-1}$, corroborating that this sample is equilibrated at the bath temperature $T=(323\pm30)$K within the uncertainty of the experiment.
Linear response regime {#linear}
======================
It is important to test for a well-defined linear response regime for small enough external forces where the mobility becomes independent of the force. Indeed, previous work [@Weeks_force] did not find a linear regime, but instead there is a threshold force below which the particles are trapped even under the influence of the external force. On the contrary, here we find that if the observable time is larger than the cage life time, particles are always able to explore the structural relaxation leading to cage rearrangements, either in the presence or in the absence of the external force and therefore the linear response regime ensues. This is because the present experiments focus on larger time scales than previous work.
In order to find the linear response regime, we apply different forces for samples A and B. The results are shown in Fig. \[lresponse\]a and Fig. \[lresponse\]b. The collapsing of the results onto a single curve of $\langle\Delta x\rangle/F$ suggest a linear response for lower forces. The insets show the relationship between the velocity, $V_x=\langle\Delta
x\rangle/\Delta t$, of the tracers along the force direction and the force $F$, which indicates that the external force cannot be larger than $4\times 10^{-14}$N and $6\times 10^{-14}$N to keep the linear response for samples A and B, respectively. It then confirms that the force $F=1.7\times 10^{-14}$N used in our studies is in the linear response regime.
It is important to investigate the age-dependence of the linear response. As we addressed in the original manuscript, many measurements have to be taken to reveal the aging behavior for one value of the external force. Therefore to measure the aging effect in Fig. \[msd\]c, we measured over 75 trajectories to achieve a statistically reliable average. In order to find the region of forces in the linear response regime, many experiments have to be run at different forces. Thus, for the determination of the linear response we are obliged to use a smaller number of tracers (roughly 10). In this case, in order to improve the statistical average, we average over the waiting time $t_w$ and obtain a single velocity $V_x$ for each force, as shown in Fig. \[lresponse\]. (The aging dependence is ignored, and the response functions as shown in Fig. \[lresponse\] are calculated by regular time-translation-invariance methods). This average is only applied to find the value of the external force in the linear response regime. Once this force is identified, then we perform the full aging analysis by measuring a larger amount of tracers.
Sedimentation of magnetic tracers
=================================
The density of the magnetic tracers is very close to the background PMMA particles. Since the sedimentation is proportional to the mismatch between the density of the tracers and the surrounding liquid (which is the same as the PMMA density), then we expect that the effect of sedimentation would be small.
In principle, this effect is negligible in the more dense sample B since the tracers remain in the x-y plane for few hours without any noticeable sedimentation effect. In the case of the less concentrated sample A, sedimentation of tracers can be seen after one hour of observation. Since we measure up to $t_w=6000$s, it is important to check the effect of sedimentation on the diffusion of particles for this sample.
Unfortunately, we cannot test directly the effect of this sedimentation, since we cannot match the density of the tracers with that of the fluid and PMMA particles (the tracers are magnetic and therefore slightly heavier than the PMMA particles by construction). However we can indirectly test the main issue at hand: What is the effect of an external driving constant force of the order of gravity ($\sim$pN) on the tracer diffusion?
To this end we apply a magnetic external force of the same value as the sedimentation force and measure the resulting effect on the diffusion constant for sample A. We found that the effect of the external force on diffusion is negligible as long as the force is small enough ($\sim $pN). Figure \[sedimentation\] plots the MSD for the sample A at (a) $t_w = 500$s and (b) $t_w = 6000$s. We obtain the MSD analyzing the trajectories of tracers without magnetic force and with magnetic force (in this case, we properly subtract the average value of the displacements). The figure indicates that the diffusion is the same with or without the external force, thus confirming its negligible effect for this case.
Determination of the aging exponents {#exponents}
====================================
As described in the main manuscript, all the MSD for different aging times $t_w $ collapse onto a master curve when plotted as $t_w^{\alpha}C(t_w ,t_w +\Delta t)$ versus $\Delta t/{t_w
}^{\beta}$. In order to search for the best value of the aging exponents $\alpha$ and $\beta$ that give the correct data collapse, we calculate the standard deviation of all the curves as defined below:
$$\begin{split}
&\sigma^2 = \sum_{\ln(\Delta t/t_w^{\beta})}\sum_{\ln(t_w)}\\
&[\ln(t_w^{\alpha}C(t_w,\Delta
t/t_w^{\beta}))-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{\ln(t_w)}\ln(t_w^{\alpha}C(t_w,\Delta
t/t_w^{\beta}))]^2.
\end{split}$$
We search a wide range of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ to minimize $\sigma^2$. The result is plotted in Fig. \[chi\] showing that the best data collapsing with $\sigma^2=0.1$ can be achieved at $\alpha + \beta = 0.34\pm0.05$ and $\beta = 0.48\pm0.05$ as reported in the main text.
Spin-glass models predict a general scaling form $C_{\rm ag}(t,t_w
) = C_{\rm ag}(h(t)/h(t_w))$, where $h(t)$ is a generic monotonic function [@Cugliandolo]. In particular, a familiar form is $h(t)\sim t^\mu$ where $\mu$ is a power law exponent giving rise to the cases of simple aging, $\mu=1$, super aging, $\mu>1$, and sub-aging, $\mu<1$. Assuming the above form, the linear behavior $C_{\rm ag}(t_w +\Delta t,t_w ) \sim \Delta t$ for larger $\Delta
t$ requires $\mu=1$. This is just a special case of our scaling ansatz Eq. (\[scaling-laws1\]) with $\beta = 1$. As we show in Fig. \[chi\], our data cannot be collapsed for this parameter.
Scaling behavior of local fluctuations {#local}
======================================
The local correlation function $C$ and local integrated response function $\chi$ studied in the manuscript are calculated from each individual tracer trajectory. In a condensed colloidal sample, the tracer trajectories are always confined at a local position. Therefore, the correlation $C$ and response $\chi$ for an individual particle can be regarded as the coarse-grained [*local*]{} fluctuations of the observables as investigated in [@Castillo].
Furthermore, in order to improve the statistics of our results, the PDF $P(C)$ is calculated not only for all the tracers, but also over a time interval much smaller than the age of the system. In practice, we calculate the $i-$th tracer’s local correlation function as $C_{i}(t_w+\Delta t, t_w)$. At a given $\Delta t$, we open a small time window $[\Delta t-t_{s},\Delta t+t_{s}]$ ($t_s
\ll \Delta t$) and count all the $C_{i}(t_w+\Delta t_j, t_w)$ with $\Delta t_j\in[\Delta t-t_{s},\Delta t+t_{s}]$ into the statistics of $P(C)$. The calculated $P(C)$ is a mixture of the local and the temporal fluctuations of the observables. Similar technique is performed to calculate $P(\chi)$.
Below we derive the scaling law for the PDF of the local correlation function, Let us first recall the scaling behavior of the global correlation function in Eq. (\[scaling-laws\]),
$$\label{gC}
t_w^{\alpha}\overline{C(t_w +\Delta t,t_w )}=f_D({\Delta t}/{{t_w
}^{\beta}}),$$
where we add a bar to $\overline{C}$ to distinguish the global correlations from the local $C$. The average is taken over all the tracer particles. We can rewrite the global correlation function as the integration of the PDF $P(C)$ as:
$$\label{lC}
\overline{C}= \int P(C)CdC.$$
Furthermore, we obtain the relation of $f_D$ and $P(C)$ by substituting Eq. (\[lC\]) into Eq. (\[gC\]):
$$\label{sC}
f_D({\Delta t}/{{t_w }^{\beta}})=t_w^\alpha\overline{C}= \int
t_w^{-\alpha}P(C)(t_w^\alpha C) d(t_w^\alpha C).$$
For a given ${\Delta t}/{{t_w }^{\beta}}$, $f_D$ is equal to a constant, and Eq. (\[sC\]) requires that $t_w^{-\alpha}P(C)$ should only depend on $t_w^\alpha C$. In other words, $t_w^{-\alpha}P(C)$ is a function of ${\Delta t}/{{t_w }^{\beta}}$ and $t_w^\alpha C$. Then we define $F_D$ as:
$$F_D(t_w^\alpha C, \Delta t/t_w^\beta)=t_w^{-\alpha}P(C).$$
A similar formula can be obtained for $P(\chi)$. Eventually, we obtain the scaling ansatz of $P(C)$ and $P(\chi)$ shown in Fig. \[pdf\]:
$$\begin{aligned}
P(C)&=t_w^{\alpha}F_D(t_w^\alpha C, \Delta
t/t_w^\beta),\\
P(\chi)&=t_w^{\alpha}F_M(t_w^\alpha \chi, \Delta t/t_w^\beta),\end{aligned}$$
where the universal functions $F_D(x,y)$ and $F_M(x,y)$ satisfy
$$\begin{aligned}
\int F_D(x,y)dx = f_D(y),\\
\int F_M(x,y)dx = f_M(y).\end{aligned}$$
Study of the PDF of the autocorrelation function {#power law}
================================================
The PDF of the autocorrelation function follows a modified power law $t_w^{-\alpha}P(C)\propto(t_w^\alpha C+C_0)^{-\lambda}$, as we see in Figs. \[pdf\]a, \[pdf\]b and \[pdf\]c. From Eq. (\[sC\]), we have $$\begin{split}
t_w^\alpha\overline{C}&= \int_{0}^{C_{cut}}
t_w^{-\alpha}P(C)(t_w^\alpha C) d(t_w^\alpha C)\\
&= \frac{\int_{0}^{C_{cut}} (x+C_0)^{-\lambda} x
dx}{\int_{0}^{C_{cut}} (x+C_0)^{-\lambda} dx}.
\end{split}$$ The cutoff $C_{cut}$ ($C_{cut}\gg C_0$) is introduced to make the integral converge and we always take $\lambda \geq 1$, then $$t_w^\alpha\overline{C}=
\frac{C_0}{\lambda-2}[1-(\lambda-1)(\frac{C_{cut}}{C_0}+1)^{2-\lambda}].
\label {C0Ccut}$$
For $\lambda > 2$, the last term in Eq. (\[C0Ccut\]) is negligible and $t_w^\alpha\overline{C}\approx C_0/(\lambda-2)$ mainly depends on the short-time parameter $C_0$. For $\lambda < 2$, we have $t_w^\alpha\overline{C}\approx
\frac{\lambda-1}{2-\lambda}C_0(\frac{C_{cut}}{C_0})^{2-\lambda}$ and the long-time parameter $C_{cut}$ dominates.
Following the previous discussion of $P(C)$, we define the $i$-th tracer’s local correlation function as:
$$C_{i}(t_w+\Delta t, t_w)=\langle\Delta x(t_w+\Delta
t,t_w)^2\rangle_i/2,$$
where the average $\langle ... \rangle_i$ is calculated for only the $i$-th tracer’s trajectory by opening a small time window $[\Delta t-t_{s},\Delta t+t_{s}]$ ($t_s \ll \Delta t$) at a given $\Delta t$, and counting all the $C_{i}(t_w+\Delta t_j, t_w)$ with $\Delta t_j\in[\Delta t-t_{s},\Delta t+t_{s}]$ into the statistics of $P(C)$. We should note that if there is no average $\langle ...
\rangle_i$, $P(C)$ can be reduced to a simple form:
$$P(C)=P(\langle\Delta x^2\rangle_i/2)\xrightarrow{\langle ...
\rangle_i\rightarrow 0} P(\Delta x^2/2).$$
This form can be further reduced since $$P(\Delta x^2/2)d(\Delta x^2/2)=P(\Delta x)dx,$$ therefore at the limit of the average $\langle ...
\rangle_i\rightarrow 0$, $$\label{Px}
P(C)=P(\langle\Delta x^2\rangle_i/2)\xrightarrow{\langle ...
\rangle_i\rightarrow 0} P(\Delta x^2/2)=P(\Delta x)/{\Delta x}.$$
Therefore our $P(C)$ is relate to the probability $P(\Delta x)$ usually studied in previous works [@Weeks_sci]. We find that $P(\Delta x)$ can be approximately fitted by a broad tail power law behavior for large $\Delta x$, consistent with equation \[Px\]. However the data of $P(\Delta x)$ can be better fitted by stretch exponential rather than power law, which is consistent with previous works [@Weeks_sci]. On the contrary, $P(\langle\Delta x^2\rangle_i/2)$ can not be fitted by stretch exponential. Thus we believe that the power law fit is more proper to describe our result of $P(C)$. The difference with other studies might be due to the fact that our samples are glassy while others work in the supercooled regime.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
---
**[S. K. Q. Al-Omari]{}**
Department of Applied Sciences; Faculty of Engineering Technology; Al-Balqa’
Applied University; Amman 11134; Jordan
[email protected]
****
**Abstract**
Some $q$-analogues of classical integral transforms have recently been investigated by many authors in diverse citations. The $q$-analogues of the Natural transform are not known nor used. In the present paper, we are concerned with definitions and investigations of the $q$-theory of the Natural transform and some applications. We present two types of $q$-analogues of the cited transform on given sets and get results of the nominated analogues for certain class of functions of special type. We declare here that given results are new and they complement recent known results related to $q$-Laplace and $q$-Sumudu transforms. Over and above, we present some supporting examples to illustrate effectiveness of the given results .
**Keywords :** $q$-Sumudu transform; $q$-Laplace transform; $q $-Natural transform; $q$-Bessel function.
Introduction
============
The study of $q$-analogues of classical integral transforms has not yet been developed to a great extent. This partially can be explained by the fact that one is not very familiar with the $q$-theory and that basic $q$-integral transforms do not occur frequently in physics. It by no means our aim to give in this paper a new general results in the theory of $q$-calculus. But we restrict our selves to the necessary theory to give some $q $-analogues of an integral transform named as the Natural transform and to estimate the transform relevant properties. The classical theory of the Natural transform is closely related to the classical theory of Laplace and Sumudu transforms, two of the best known of all integral transforms. The Natural transform for functions of exponential order is defined over the set $A,$$$A=\left\{ f\left( t\right) \left\vert \exists M,\tau _{1}\text{ and/or }\tau
>0\text{: }\left\vert f\left( t\right) \right\vert <Me^{\frac{\left\vert
t\right\vert }{\tau _{j}}},\text{ }t\in \left( -1\right) ^{j}\times \left[
0,\infty \right) ,\text{ }j=1,2\right. \right\} \tag{1}$$by the integral equation$$N\left( f\right) \left( u;v\right) =\dint\nolimits_{0}^{\infty }f\left(
ut\right) \exp \left( -vt\right) dt, \tag{2}$$where $\func{Re}v>0$ and $u\in \left( -\tau _{1},\tau _{2}\right) ,$ $u$ and $v$ being the transform variables.
The Natural transform strictly converges to the Sumudu transform (See $\left[
28,29,30\right] $ ) for $v=1$ and it strictly converges to the Laplace transform for $u=1.$ Further fundamental properties of this transform and its application to differential equations are given by $\left[ \text{14}\right] $ and $\left[ 15,16,17\right] $, respectively$.$
We organize this paper as follows. In section 2, we recall some definitions and notations from the $q$-calculus. In Section 3, we specify the $q$-analogues of the Natural transform in terms of a series representation. In Section 4, we apply the first of two analogues of the Natural transform to a certain class of special functions and pick up some results by considering $q $-Laplace and $q$-Sumudu transforms. In Section 5, we figure out some values of the second representation of the $q$-transform and extend the resulting theorems to the case of $q$-Laplace and $q$-Sumudu transforms. In Section 6 and 7, we derive certain results concerning Fox’s $H_{q}$-function and propose some counter examples as an application to the previous theory.
The $q$-Calculus
================
For the convenience of the reader, we provide a summary of mathematical notations used in this paper. Throughout this paper, wheresoever it appears , $q$ statisfies the condition that $0<q<1.$
The $q$-calculus begins with the definition of the $q$-analogue $d_{q}f\left( x\right) $ of the differential of the function, i.e.,$$d_{q}f\left( x\right) =f\left( x\right) -f\left( qx\right) ,$$and the $q$-analogue of the derivative$,$$$\frac{d_{q}f\left( x\right) }{d_{q}x}=\frac{f\left( x\right) -f\left(
qx\right) }{\left( q-1\right) x}.$$On certain additional requirements, the $q$-analogue may be unique, but sometimes it is useful to consider several $q$-analogues of the same object.
The $q$-analogues of an integer $n$ ($q$-integer), a factorial of $n$ ($q$-factorial of $n$)$,$ and the binomial coefficient $\binom{n}{k}$($q$-binomial coefficient) are respectively given as$$\left[ n\right] _{q}=\frac{1-q^{n}}{1-q},\text{ }\left( \left[ n\right]
_{q}\right) !=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\prod\limits_{1}^{n}\left[ k\right] _{q}\text{ }, & n=1,2,3,... \\
1\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }, & \text{ }n=0\end{array}\right. \text{ and }\left[
\begin{array}{c}
n \\
k\end{array}\right] _{q}=\dprod\limits_{1}^{n}\frac{1-q^{n-k+1}}{1-q^{k}}.$$
Clearly, $$\lim_{q\rightarrow 1}\left[ n\right] _{q}=n,\text{ }\lim_{q\rightarrow
1}\left( \left[ n\right] _{q}\right) !=n!\text{ and }\lim_{q\rightarrow 1}\left[
\begin{array}{c}
n \\
k\end{array}\right] _{q}=\binom{n}{k}.$$If $\alpha \in
\mathbb{C}
,$ then the $q$-analogue of $\alpha $ is given as $\dfrac{1-q^{\alpha }}{1-q}
$ and, it sometimes makes sense when $\alpha $ is not, $\left[ \infty \right]
_{q}=\dfrac{1}{1-q}.$
If $n\in
\mathbb{N}
,$ then the $q$-analogue of $\left( x+a\right) ^{n}$ and the derivative are respectively given as $$\left. \left( x+a\right) _{q}^{n}=\prod\limits_{j=0}^{n-1}\left(
x+q^{j}a\right) \text{\ and }D_{q}\left( x+a\right) _{q}^{n}=\left[ n\right]
\left( x+a\right) _{q}^{n-1},\text{ }\left( x+a\right) _{q}^{0}=1\right\} .
\tag{3}$$If $x=1$ and $a=x,$ then the above formula makes sense for $n=\infty ,$ giving$$\left( 1+x\right) _{q}^{\infty }=\prod\limits_{0}^{\infty }\left(
1+q^{k}x\right) . \tag{4}$$The $q$-Jackson integral from $0$ to $a$ is given by Jackson $\left[ 11\right] $ as$$\int\nolimits_{0}^{a}f\left( x\right) d_{q}x=\left( 1-q\right)
a\sum_{0}^{\infty }f\left( aq^{k}\right) q^{k}, \tag{5}$$provided the sum converges absolutely.
The $q$-Jackson integral in a generic interval $\left[ a,b\right] $ is given by $\left[ 11\right] $ $$\int\nolimits_{b}^{a}f\left( x\right) d_{q}x=\int\nolimits_{0}^{b}f\left(
x\right) d_{q}x-\int\nolimits_{0}^{a}f\left( x\right) d_{q}x. \tag{6}$$The improper integral is defined as $\left[ 5\right] $$$\int\nolimits_{0}^{\frac{\infty }{A}}f\left( x\right) d_{q}x=\left(
1-q\right) \sum_{n\in
\mathbb{Z}
}\frac{q^{k}}{A}f\left( \frac{q^{k}}{A}\right) . \tag{7}$$The $q$-analogues of the gamma function are defined by $\left[ 5\right] $$$\left.
\begin{array}{l}
\Gamma _{q}\left( \alpha \right) =\dint\nolimits_{0}^{\frac{1}{1-q}}x^{\alpha -1}E_{q}\left( q\left( 1-q\right) x\right) d_{q}x,\text{ } \\
\\
_{q}\Gamma \left( \alpha \right) =K\left( A;\alpha \right)
\dint\nolimits_{0}^{\frac{\infty }{A\left( 1-q\right) }}x^{\alpha
-1}e_{q}\left( -\left( 1-q\right) x\right) d_{q}x,\end{array}\right.$$where $\alpha >0$ and that$$\left. K\left( A;t\right) =A^{t-1}\dfrac{\left( -q/A;q\right) _{\infty }}{\left( -q^{t}/A;q\right) _{\infty }}\dfrac{\left( -A;q\right) _{\infty }}{\left( -Aq^{1-t};q\right) _{\infty }},\right. \tag{8}$$$$\left( a;q\right) _{n}=\prod\limits_{0}^{n-1}\left( 1-aq^{k}\right) ,\text{ }\left( a;q\right) _{\infty }=\underset{n\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\left(
a;q\right) _{n}\text{ }. \tag{9}$$for all $t\in
\mathbb{R}
.$
The useful notations we need here are $\left[ 10\right] $$$\Gamma _{q}\left( x\right) =\dfrac{\left( q;q\right) _{\infty }}{\left(
q^{x};q\right) _{\infty }}\left( 1-q\right) ^{1-x}\text{ and }\left(
a;q\right) _{t}=\dfrac{\left( a;q\right) _{\infty }}{\left( aq^{t};q\right)
_{\infty }},\text{ }t\in
\mathbb{R}
. \tag{10}$$The $q$-analogues of the exponential function are given as$$\left.
\begin{array}{l}
E_{q}\left( t\right) =\dsum\limits_{0}^{\infty }\left( -1\right) ^{n}\dfrac{q^{\frac{n\left( n-1\right) }{2}}}{\left( q;q\right) _{n}}t^{n}=\left(
t;q\right) _{\infty },\text{ }t\in
\mathbb{C}
\\
\\
e_{q}\left( t\right) =\dsum\limits_{0}^{\infty }\dfrac{1}{\left( q;q\right)
_{n}}t^{n}=\dfrac{1}{\left( t,q\right) _{\infty }},\text{ }t<1.\end{array}\right\} \tag{12}$$
The $q$-analogues of the hypergeometric function are defined in two ways as$$\begin{aligned}
_{r}\phi _{s}\left[ \left.
\begin{array}{c}
a_{1},a_{2},...,a_{r} \\
b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{s}\end{array}\right\vert q,z\right] &=&\sum_{0}^{\infty }\frac{\left(
a_{1},a_{2},...,a_{r};q\right) _{n}}{\left( b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{s};q\right)
_{n}}\frac{z^{n}}{\left( q;q\right) _{n}} \TCItag{13} \\
&&\text{and} \notag \\
_{m-k}\Phi _{m-1}\left[ \left.
\begin{array}{c}
a_{1},a_{2},...,a_{m-k} \\
b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{m-1}\end{array}\right\vert q,z\right] &=&\sum_{0}^{\infty }\frac{\left(
a_{1},...,a_{m-k};q\right) _{n}}{\left( b_{1},...,b_{m-1};q\right) _{n}}\left[ \left( -1\right) ^{n}q^{\binom{n}{2}}\right] ^{k}\frac{z^{n}}{\left(
q;q\right) _{n}}, \notag \\
&& \TCItag{14}\end{aligned}$$where $\left( a_{1},a_{2},...,a_{p};q\right) _{n}=\prod\limits_{0}^{p}\left(
a_{k},q\right) _{n}.$
For $\left\vert z\right\vert <2$, some $q$-analogues of the Bessel function are defined as$$\begin{aligned}
J_{v}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( z;q\right) &=&\frac{\left( q^{v+1};q\right)
_{\infty }}{\left( q;q\right) _{\infty }}\left( \frac{z}{2}\right)
^{2}{}_{2}\Phi _{1}\left[ \left.
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0 \\
q^{v+1} &
\end{array}\right\vert q,\frac{-z^{2}}{2}\right] =\left( \frac{z}{2}\right)
^{v}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\frac{\left( \frac{-z^{2}}{4}\right) ^{n}}{\left(
q;q\right) _{v+n}}\left( q;q\right) _{n}, \notag \\
&& \TCItag{15}\end{aligned}$$$$J_{v}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( z;q\right) =\tfrac{\left( q^{v+1};q\right)
_{\infty }}{\left( q;q\right) _{\infty }}\left( \tfrac{z}{2}\right) ^{v}\text{ }_{0}\Phi _{1}\left[ q^{v+1}\left\vert q,\frac{-q^{v+1}z^{2}}{4}\right. \right] =\left( \tfrac{z}{2}\right) ^{v}\sum_{0}^{\infty }\dfrac{q^{n\left( n+v\right) }}{\left( q;q\right) _{v+n}\left( q;q\right) _{n}}\left( \frac{-z^{2}}{4}\right) ^{n}, \tag{16}$$$$J_{v}^{\left( 3\right) }\left( z;q\right) =\frac{\left( q^{v+1};q\right)
_{\infty }}{\left( q;q\right) _{\infty }}z^{v}{}_{1}\Phi _{1}\left[ \left.
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
q^{v+1}\end{array}\right\vert q,qz^{2}\right] =z^{v}\sum_{0}^{\infty }\frac{\left( -1\right)
^{n}q^{\frac{n\left( n-1\right) }{2}}}{\left( q;q\right) _{v+n}\left(
q;q\right) _{n}}\text{ }.\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } \tag{17}$$
The $q$-Analogues of the Natural Transform
==========================================
Theory and applications of $q$-integral transforms are evolving rapidly over the recent years. Since Jackson $[11]$ presented a precise definition of so-called $q$-Jackson integral and developed $q$-calculus in a systematic way. It was well known that, in the literature, there are two types of $q$-analogues of integral transforms studied in detail by many authors in the recent past such as Abdi $\left[ 2\right] ,$ Hahn $\left[ 18\right] ,$ Purohit and Kalla $\left[ 3\right] ,$ Albayrak $\left[ 25\right] $, Uçar and Albayrak $\left[ 4\right] ,$ Albayrak et al. $\left[ 5\right] $ and $\left[ 6\right] ,$ Yadav and Purohit $\left[ 7\right] ,$ Fitouhi and Bettaibi $\left[ 8\right] $ and $\left[ 9\right] $ and many others, to mention but a few.
In this section of this paper we deem it proper to give the definition of the $q$-analogues of the Natural transform as in the following definition.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Definition 1.</span>* Let* $\hat{A}$ *and* $\check{A}$ *be defined by*
$\begin{array}{c}
\hat{A}=\left\{ f\left( t\right) \left\vert \exists M,\tau _{1}\text{
\textit{and/or} }\tau >0\text{: }\left\vert f\left( t\right) \right\vert
<ME_{q}\left( \frac{\left\vert t\right\vert }{\tau _{j}}\right) ,\text{ }t\in \left( -1\right) ^{j}\times \left[ 0,\infty \right) ,\text{ }j=1,2\right. \right\} \\
\text{\textit{and}} \\
\check{A}=\left\{ f\left( t\right) \left\vert \exists M,\tau _{1}\text{
\textit{and/or} }\tau >0\text{: }\left\vert f\left( t\right) \right\vert
<Me_{q}\left( \tfrac{\left\vert t\right\vert }{\tau _{j}}\right) ,\text{ }t\in \left( -1\right) ^{j}\times \left[ 0,\infty \right) ,\text{ }j=1,2\right. \right\} ,\end{array}$
*respectively. Then, we have the following definitions.*
$\left( \mathtt{i}\right) $ *Over the set* $\hat{A},$ *we define the* $q$*-analogue of the Natural transform of first type as*$$N_{q}\left( f\right) \left( u;v\right) =\frac{1}{\left( 1-q\right) u}\dint\nolimits_{0}^{\frac{u}{v}}f\left( t\right) E_{q}\left( q\frac{v}{u}t\right) d_{q}t, \tag{18}$$*provided the integral exists.*
$\left( \mathtt{ii}\right) $ *Over the set* $\check{A},$ *we define the* $q$*-analogue of the Natural transform of type two as*$$_{q}N\left( f\right) \left( u;v\right) =\frac{1}{\left( 1-q\right) }\dint\nolimits_{0}^{\infty }f\left( t\right) e_{q}\left( -\frac{v}{u}t\right) d_{q}t, \tag{19}$$*when the integral exists.*
It seems very benificial to us to notice the following relations$$\left.
\begin{array}{c}
N_{q}\left( f\right) \left( 1;v\right) =\left( L_{q}f\right) \left( v\right)
,\text{ \ \ }_{q}N\left( f\right) \left( 1;v\right) =\left( _{q}Lf\right)
\left( v\right) , \\
\\
N_{q}\left( f\right) \left( u;1\right) =\left( S_{q}f\right) \left( u\right)
,\text{ \ \ }_{q}N\left( f\right) \left( u;1\right) =\left( _{q}Sf\right)
\left( u\right) ,\end{array}\right. \tag{20}$$where $L_{q}\left( S_{q}\right) $ and $_{q}L\left( _{q}S\right) $ are respectively the $q$-analogues of the Laplace $\left( \text{Sumudu}\right) $ transforms of first $\left( \text{second }\right) $ types; see, for example, $\left[ \text{4}\right] \left( \text{ resp.},\left[ 6\right] \right) $.
In terms of Jackson integral series representation, the $q$-analogue of $\left( 18\right) $ can be expressed as$$N_{q}\left( f\right) \left( u;v\right) =\frac{\left( q;q\right) _{\infty }}{v}\sum_{k\geq 0}\frac{q^{k}f\left( \dfrac{u}{v}q^{k}\right) }{\left(
q;q\right) _{k}}, \tag{21}$$whereas, the $q$-analogue of $\left( 19\right) $ can similarly be performed in terms of that series as $$_{q}N\left( f\right) \left( u;v\right) =\sum_{k\in
\mathbb{Z}
}^{\infty }\frac{\left( q;q\right) _{\infty }}{v}\frac{f\left( q^{k}\right)
}{\left( -\dfrac{u}{v}q^{k};q\right) _{\infty }}.$$Hence, on parity of the fact $\left( a;q\right) _{k}=\dfrac{\left(
a;q\right) _{\infty }}{\left( aq^{k};q\right) _{\infty }}$ $($ for $a=\dfrac{-v}{u}),$ the previous equation has the series representation$$_{q}N\left( f\right) \left( u;v\right) =\frac{1}{\left( -\dfrac{v}{u};q\right) _{\infty }}\sum_{k\in
\mathbb{Z}
}^{\infty }q^{k}f\left( q^{k}\right) \left( -\dfrac{u}{v};q\right) _{k}
\tag{22}$$that we shall use in later investigations.
$N_{q}$ of Some Special Functions
=================================
In this section of this paper, we apply the analogue $N_{q}$ for certain functions of special type and extend the work to $q$-Laplace and $q$-Sumudu transforms. We assume the functions, unless otherwise stated, are of power series form,$$f\left( x\right) =\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}x^{n}, \tag{23}$$where $A_{n}$ is some bounded sequence .
In what follows, we establish the following three main theorems of this section.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Theorem 1.</span> *Let* $\alpha $* be a positive real number and* $f\left( x\right) =\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}x^{n}$*. Then, we have*$$N_{q}\left( x^{\alpha -1}f\left( x\right) \right) \left( u;v\right) =\frac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha -1}}{v^{\alpha }}u^{\alpha -1}\sum\limits_{n\geq
0}A_{n}\frac{u^{n}}{v^{n}}\left( 1-q\right) ^{n}\Gamma _{q}\left( \alpha
+n\right) . \tag{24}$$<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proof</span>* Let* $\alpha $ *be a positive real number and* $f\left( x\right) =\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}x^{n}$ *be given. Then, on aid of* $\left( 21\right) ,$ *we write* $$\begin{aligned}
N_{q}\left( x^{\alpha -1}f\left( x\right) \right) \left( u;v\right) &=&\frac{\left( q;q\right) _{\infty }}{v}\sum\limits_{k\geq 0}q^{k}\frac{\left(
\dfrac{u}{v}q^{k}\right) ^{\alpha -1}f\left( \dfrac{u}{v}q^{k}\right) }{\left( q;q\right) _{k}} \notag \\
&=&\frac{u^{\alpha -1}}{v^{\alpha }}\left( q;q\right) _{\infty
}\sum\limits_{k\geq 0}\frac{q^{\alpha k}}{\left( q;q\right) _{k}}\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}\left( \dfrac{u}{v}q^{k}\right) ^{n} \notag \\
&=&\frac{u^{\alpha -1}}{v^{\alpha }}\left( q;q\right) _{\infty
}\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}\left( \dfrac{u}{v}\right) ^{n}\sum\limits_{k\geq
0}\frac{q^{k\left( \alpha +n\right) }}{\left( q;q\right) _{k}}. \TCItag{25}\end{aligned}$$Hence, taking into account $\left( 11\right) ,$ $\left( 25\right) $ simply reveals$$\begin{aligned}
N_{q}\left( x^{\alpha -1}f\left( x\right) \right) \left( u;v\right) &=&\frac{u^{\alpha -1}}{v^{\alpha }}\left( q;q\right) _{\infty
}\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}\left( \dfrac{u}{v}\right) ^{n}e_{q}\left(
q^{\alpha +n}\right) \notag \\
&=&\frac{u^{\alpha -1}}{v^{\alpha }}\left( q;q\right) _{\infty
}\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}\dfrac{u^{n}}{v^{n}}\frac{1}{\left( q^{\left(
\alpha +n\right) };q\right) _{\infty }}. \TCItag{26}\end{aligned}$$Therefore, by aid of the Equations $\left( 10\right) $ and $\left( 26\right)
$ we get that$$\begin{aligned}
N_{q}\left( x^{\alpha -1}f\left( x\right) \right) \left( u;v\right) &=&\frac{u^{\alpha -1}}{v^{\alpha }}\left( q;q\right) _{\infty
}\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}\left( \frac{u}{v}\right) ^{n}e_{q}\left(
q^{\alpha +n}\right) \\
&=&\frac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha -1}}{v^{\alpha }}u^{\alpha
-1}\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}\frac{u^{n}}{v^{n}}\frac{\Gamma _{q}\left(
\alpha +n\right) }{\left( 1-q\right) ^{-n}} \\
&=&\dfrac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha -1}}{v^{\alpha }}u^{\alpha
-1}\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}\dfrac{u^{n}\left( 1-q\right) ^{n}}{v^{n}}\Gamma _{q}\left( \alpha +n\right) .\end{aligned}$$This completes the proof of the theorems.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Theorem 2.</span> *Let* $\alpha $* be a positive real number. Then, the following hold.*
$\left( \mathtt{i}\right) $ *Let* $\Gamma _{q}\left( \alpha \right) $ *be the q-gamma function of the first type*$.$* Then, we have*$$N_{q}\left( x^{\alpha -1}f\left( x\right) \right) \left( u;v\right) =\dfrac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha -1}}{v^{\alpha }}u^{\alpha -1}\Gamma _{q}\left(
\alpha \right) .$$
$\left( \mathtt{ii}\right) $ *Let* $a\in
\mathbb{R}
$ *and* $f\left( x\right) =_{m-k}\Phi _{m-1}\left[ \left.
\begin{array}{c}
a_{1},a_{2},...,a_{m-k} \\
b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{m-1}\end{array}\right\vert q,ax\right] .$ *Then, we have*$$\begin{aligned}
\left( N_{q}x^{\alpha -1}f\left( x\right) \right) \left( u;v\right) &=&\dfrac{\Gamma _{q}\left( \alpha \right) \left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha
-1}u^{\alpha -1}}{v^{\alpha }} \notag \\
&&\text{ }_{m-k+1}\Phi _{m}\left[ \left.
\begin{array}{c}
a_{1},a_{2},...,a_{m-k}q^{\alpha } \\
b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{m-1},0\end{array}\right\vert q,\frac{au}{v}\right] . \TCItag{27}\end{aligned}$$<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proof of</span> $\left( \mathtt{i}\right) $ By assuming $A_{0}=1$ and $A_{n}=0,$ $\forall n\geq 1,$ it follows from $\left( 23\right) $ that $f\left( x\right) =1.$
Hence, the first part obviously follows.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proof of</span> $\left( \mathtt{ii}\right) $ Appealing to the $q$-analogue $\left( 14\right) ,f\left( x\right) $ can fairly be written as$$f\left( x\right) =\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}\frac{\left(
a_{1},a_{2},...,a_{m-k};q\right) _{n}}{\left(
b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{m-1};q\right) _{n}}\left( \left( -1\right) ^{n}q^{\frac{n\left( n-1\right) }{2}}\right) \frac{q^{n}}{\left( q;q\right) _{n}}x^{n}.$$
On setting$$A_{n}=\frac{\left( a_{1},a_{2},...,a_{m-k};q\right) _{n}}{\left(
b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{m-1};q\right) _{n}}\left( \left( -1\right) ^{n}q^{\frac{n\left( n-1\right) }{2}}\right) ^{k}a^{n}, \tag{28}$$we get the power series representation of type $\left( 23\right) .$ Hence, Theorem 1 reveals$$N_{q}\left( x^{\alpha -1}f\left( x\right) \right) \left( u;v\right) =\frac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha -1}}{v^{\alpha }}u^{\alpha -1}\sum\limits_{n\geq
0}A_{n}\frac{u^{n}}{v^{n}}\left( 1-q\right) ^{n}\Gamma _{q}\left( \alpha
+n\right) .$$Therefore, on using the identity of the gamma function $\left[ 1\right] $$$\Gamma _{q}\left( x+j\right) =\frac{\left( q^{x};q\right) _{j}}{\left(
1-q\right) _{j}}\Gamma _{q}\left( x\right) , \tag{29}$$the previous equation consequently gives$$\begin{aligned}
N_{q}\left( x^{\alpha -1}f\left( x\right) \right) \left( u;v\right) &=&\frac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha -1}}{v^{\alpha }}u^{\alpha -1}\sum\limits_{n\geq
0}A_{n}\frac{u^{n}}{v^{n}}\left( q^{\alpha };q\right) _{n}\text{ }\Gamma
_{q}\left( \alpha \right) \\
&=&\frac{\Gamma _{q}\left( \alpha \right) \left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha
-1}u^{\alpha -1}}{v^{\alpha }}\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}\frac{u^{n}}{v^{n}}\left( q^{\alpha };q\right) _{n}\frac{u^{n}}{v^{n}} \\
&=&\frac{\Gamma _{q}\left( \alpha \right) \left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha
-1}u^{\alpha -1}}{v^{\alpha }}\text{ }_{m-k+1}\Phi _{m}\left[ \left.
\begin{array}{c}
a_{1},a_{2},...,a_{m-k}q^{\alpha } \\
b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{m-1},0\end{array}\right\vert q,\frac{au}{v}\right] .\end{aligned}$$This completes the proof of the theorem.
An inspection of the previous two main theorems leads to the following list of inclusions:
On setting $k=m=1,$ Theorem $2\left( \mathtt{ii}\right) \left(
\text{for }\alpha =1\right) $ yields$$N_{q}\left( E_{q}\left( ax\right) \right) \left( u;v\right) =\frac{1}{v}\text{ }_{1}\Phi _{1}\left[ \left.
\begin{array}{c}
q \\
0\end{array}\right\vert q,\frac{au}{v}\right] . \tag{30}$$Similarly, by inserting $\alpha =1$, Theorem $2\left( \mathtt{i}\right) $ instantly shows$$\left( N_{q}\left( 1\right) \right) \left( u;v\right) =\frac{1}{v}. \tag{31}$$Moreover, by setting $\alpha =n+1$ in the first part of the theorem$,$ it yields $$N_{q}\left( x^{n}\right) \left( u;v\right) =\frac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{n}}{v^{n+1}}u^{n}\left( \left[ n\right] _{q}\right) !\text{ }. \tag{32}$$Therefore, $\left( 31\right) $ and $\left( 32\right) $ when designated reveal$$N_{q}\left( 1+x^{2}+...+x^{n}\right) \left( u;v\right) =\sum\limits_{k\geq 0}\frac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{k}}{v^{k+1}}u^{k}\left( \left[ k\right]
_{q}\right) !\text{ }.$$We finally establish the main third theorem of this section.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Theorem 3.</span> *Let* $f\left( x\right) $* be given as* $f\left( x\right) =$ $_{r}\phi _{p}\left[ \left.
\begin{array}{c}
a_{1},a_{2},...,a_{r} \\
b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{p}\end{array}\right\vert q,ax\right] $ *and* $\alpha >0.$* Then, we have*$$N_{q}\left( x^{\alpha -1}f\left( x\right) \right) \left( u;v\right) =\frac{\Gamma _{q}\left( \alpha \right) \left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha -1}u^{\alpha -1}}{v^{\alpha }}\text{ }_{r+1}\phi _{p}\left[ \left.
\begin{array}{c}
a_{1},a_{2},...,a_{r},q^{\alpha } \\
b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{p}\end{array}\right\vert q,a\frac{u}{v}\right] . \tag{33}$$
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proof</span> By taking into account $\left( 13\right) ,$ $f\left( x\right) $ is given the series representation$$f\left( x\right) =\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}\frac{\left(
a_{1},a_{2},...,a_{m-k};q\right) _{n}}{\left(
b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{m-1},q\right) _{n}}\frac{a^{n}}{\left( q;q\right) _{n}}x^{n}.$$On setting $A_{n}=\dfrac{\left( a_{1},a_{2},...,a_{m-k};q\right) _{n}}{\left( b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{m-1},q\right) _{n}}\dfrac{a^{n}}{\left( q;q\right)
_{n}}$ and using $\left( 21\right) $ and $\left( 29\right) ,$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
N_{q}\left( x^{\alpha -1}f\left( x\right) \right) \left( u;v\right) &=&\frac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha -1}u^{\alpha -1}}{v^{\alpha }}\sum\limits_{n\geq
0}A_{n}\frac{u^{n}}{v^{n}}\left( 1-q\right) ^{n}\Gamma _{q}\left( \alpha
+n\right) \\
&=&\frac{\Gamma _{q}\left( \alpha \right) \left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha
-1}u^{\alpha -1}}{v^{\alpha }}\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}\left( q^{\alpha
};q\right) _{n}\frac{u^{n}}{v^{n}} \\
&=&\frac{\Gamma _{q}\left( \alpha \right) \left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha
-1}u^{\alpha -1}}{v^{\alpha }}\text{ }_{r+1}\phi _{\rho }\left[ \left.
\begin{array}{l}
a_{1},a_{2},...,a_{r},q^{\alpha } \\
b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{p}\end{array}\right\vert q,a\frac{u}{v}\right] .\end{aligned}$$This completes the proof of the theorem.
By setting $p=0,\alpha =1$ and $r=0$ in $\left( 33\right) $, the above theorem leads to$$N_{q}\left( e_{q}\right) \left( ax\right) \left( u;v\right) =\frac{1}{v}\text{ }_{1}\phi _{0}\left[ q;-\left\vert q,a\frac{u}{v}\right. \right] =\frac{1}{v}\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}\left( \frac{au}{v}\right) ^{n}=\frac{1}{v-au},\text{ }\left\vert au\right\vert <v. \tag{34}$$Further, by fixing $v=1$ and taking account of $\left( 20\right) ,$ $\left(
34\right) $ spreads the result to the case of $q$-Sumudu transform giving $$S_{q}\left( e_{q}\right) \left( ax\right) \left( u\right) =\frac{1}{1-au},\text{ }\left\vert au\right\vert <1.$$Similarly, by fixing $u=1$ and consulting $\left( 20\right) $ yield the following case of $q$-Laplace transform $$L_{q}\left( e_{q}\left( ax\right) \right) \left( v\right) =L_{q}\left(
e_{q}\left( ax\right) \right) \left( v\right) =\frac{1}{v-a},\text{ }\left\vert a\right\vert <v.$$From above investigations, we, further, deduce$$N_{q}\left( \sin _{q}ax\right) \left( u;v\right) =N_{q}\left( \dfrac{e_{q}\left( iax\right) -e_{q}\left( -iax\right) }{2i}\right) \left(
u;v\right) =\frac{au}{v^{2}+a^{2}u^{2}},\text{ }\left\vert au\right\vert <v,
\tag{35}$$
and$$N_{q}\left( \cos _{q}ax\right) \left( u;v\right) =N_{q}\left( \dfrac{e_{q}\left( iax\right) +e_{q}\left( -iax\right) }{2i}\right) \left(
u;v\right) =\frac{v}{v^{2}+a^{2}u^{2}},\text{ }\left\vert au\right\vert <v.
\tag{36}$$Hence, by virtue of $\left( 35\right) $ and $\left( 36\right) $ we state without proof the following corrollary.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Corrollary 4.</span> *Let* $a$* be a real number. Then, the following hold.*
$\left( \text{i}\right) S_{q}\left( \sin _{q}ax\right) \left( u\right) =\dfrac{au}{1+a^{2}u^{2}},$ $\left\vert au\right\vert <1;$ $\ \ \ \left(
\text{ii}\right) S_{q}\left( \cos _{q}ax\right) \left( u\right) =\dfrac{1}{1+a^{2}u^{2}},$ $\left\vert au\right\vert <1,$
$\left( \text{iii}\right) L_{q}\left( \sin _{q}ax\right) \left( v\right) =\dfrac{a}{v^{2}+a^{2}},$ $\left\vert a\right\vert <v;$ $\ \ \ \ \ \left(
\text{iv}\right) L_{q}\left( \cos _{q}ax\right) \left( v\right) =\dfrac{v}{v^{2}+a^{2}},$ $\left\vert a\right\vert <v.$
From Theorem 1 we state and prove the following corrollary.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Corrollary 5.</span> *Let* $a$* be a real number and* $f\left( x\right) =\dsum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}x^{n}$*. Then, we*$\ $*have *
$N_{q}\left( x^{\alpha -1}J_{2\mu }^{\left( 1\right) }\left( 2\sqrt{ax};q\right) \right) \left( u;v\right) =\dfrac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha
-1}u^{\alpha -1}}{v^{\alpha }}\Gamma _{q}\left( \alpha \right)
\dsum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}\dfrac{u^{n}}{v^{n}}\left( q^{\alpha };q\right)
_{n}.$
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proof</span> Let $a$ be a real number, then by aid of $\left(
15\right) ,$ we consider to write $$J_{2\mu }^{\left( 1\right) }\left( 2\sqrt{ax};q\right) =x^{\mu
}\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}\frac{\left( -1\right) ^{n}a^{\mu +n}}{\left(
q;q\right) _{2\mu +n}\left( q;q\right) _{n}}x^{n}.$$By replacing $\alpha $ by $\alpha -\mu -1,$ and setting $A_{n}=\dfrac{\left(
-1\right) ^{n}a^{\mu +n}}{\left( q;q\right) _{2\mu +n}\left( q;q\right) _{n}},$ we, partially, get$$x^{\alpha -1}J_{2\mu }^{\left( 1\right) }\left( 2\sqrt{ax};q\right)
=x^{\alpha -1}\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}x^{n}=x^{\alpha -1}f\left( x\right) .$$Hence, by Theorem 1, we obtain$$\begin{aligned}
N_{q}\left( x^{\alpha -1}J_{2\mu }^{\left( 1\right) }\left( 2\sqrt{ax};q\right) \right) \left( u;v\right) &=&\frac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha
-1}u^{\alpha -1}}{v^{\alpha }}\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}\frac{u^{n}}{v^{n}}\left( q^{\alpha };q\right) _{n}\Gamma _{q}\left( \alpha \right) \\
&=&\frac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha -1}u^{\alpha -1}}{v^{\alpha }}\Gamma
_{q}\left( \alpha \right) \sum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}\frac{u^{n}}{v^{n}}\left( q^{\alpha };q\right) _{n}.\end{aligned}$$This completes the proof of the corrollary.
In view of Corrollary 5, we have the following easy statement.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Corrollary 6.</span> *Let* $a$* be a real number. Then, we have*
$N_{q}\left( J_{2\mu }^{\left( 1\right) }\left( 2\sqrt{ax};q\right) \right)
\left( u;v\right) =\dsum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}u^{n}\left( q^{\alpha
};q\right) _{n}.$
Further, Corrollary 5 is expressed in terms of $q$-Sumudu and $q$-Laplace transforms as in the following results.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Corrollary</span>**** ****<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">7</span>. *Let* $a$* be a positive real number. Then, the following hold.*
$\left( \text{i}\right) $ $S_{q}\left( x^{\alpha -1}J_{2\mu }^{\left(
1\right) }\left( 2\sqrt{ax};q\right) \right) \left( u\right) =\left(
1-q\right) ^{\alpha -1}u^{\alpha -1}\Gamma _{q}\left( \alpha \right)
\dsum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}u^{n}\left( q^{\alpha };q\right) _{n},$
$\left( \text{ii}\right) $ $L_{q}\left( x^{\alpha -1}J_{2\mu }^{\left(
1\right) }\left( 2\sqrt{ax};q\right) \right) \left( v\right) =\dfrac{\left(
1-q\right) ^{\alpha -1}}{v^{\alpha }}\Gamma _{q}\left( \alpha \right)
\dsum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}\dfrac{1}{v^{n}}\left( q^{\alpha };q\right) _{n},$
*where* $A_{n}=\left( -1\right) ^{n}\dfrac{a^{\mu +n}}{\left( q;q\right) _{2\mu +n}\left( q;q\right) _{n}}.$
Corrollary 6 extends the results to the case of $q$-Sumudu and $q$-Laplace transforms as follows.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Corrollary 8</span>. *Let* $a$* be a real number. Then, the following hold.*
$\left( \text{i}\right) S_{q}\left( J_{2\mu }^{\left( 1\right)
}\left( 2\sqrt{ax};q\right) \right) \left( u\right) =\sum\limits_{n\geq
0}A_{n}u^{n}\left( q^{\alpha };q\right) _{n};\ \left( \text{ii}\right)
L_{q}\left( J_{2\mu }^{\left( 1\right) }\left( 2\sqrt{ax};q\right) \right)
\left( v\right) =\dfrac{1}{v}\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}\dfrac{\left(
q^{\alpha };q\right) _{n}}{v^{n}}.$
$_{q}N$ Transform of Special Functions
======================================
In this section of this paper, we are concerned with the study of the $q$-analogue $_{q}N$ of some special functions. We are precisely concerned with the series representation of the transform and getting some results related to $q$-Laplace and $q$-Sumudu transforms.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Theorem 9.</span> *Let* $f\left( x\right)
=\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}x^{n}$* and* $\alpha >0.$* Then, we have*$$_{q}N\left( x^{\alpha -1}f\left( x\right) \right) \left( u;v\right) =\left(
\frac{u}{v}\right) ^{\alpha }\left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha -1}\Gamma _{q}\left(
\alpha \right) \sum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}\frac{\left( q^{\alpha };q\right)
_{n}}{k\left( \dfrac{u}{v};\alpha +n\right) }\left( \frac{u}{v}\right) ^{n}.
\tag{37}$$<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proof</span> Let the hypothesis of the theorem be satisfied for some $\alpha >0.$ Then, on account of $\left( 22\right) ,$ we declare that$$\begin{aligned}
_{q}N\left( x^{\alpha -1}f\left( x\right) \right) \left( u;v\right) &=&\frac{1}{\left( -\frac{v}{u};q\right) _{\infty }}\sum_{k\in
\mathbb{Z}
}q^{\alpha k}\sum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}q^{kn}\left( -\frac{v}{u};q\right)
_{k} \notag \\
&=&\frac{1}{\left( -\frac{v}{u};q\right) _{\infty }}\sum\limits_{n\geq
0}A_{n}\left( \frac{u}{v}\right) ^{\alpha +n}\sum_{k\in
\mathbb{Z}
}\left( \frac{q^{k}}{\frac{u}{v}}\right) ^{\alpha +n}\left( \frac{-v}{u};q\right) _{k}\text{ }. \TCItag{38}\end{aligned}$$Hence, by taking into account the fact that$$\Gamma _{q}\left( \alpha \right) =\frac{K\left( A;\alpha \right) }{\left(
1-q\right) ^{\alpha -1}\left( -\left( 1/A\right) ;q\right) _{\infty }}\sum_{k\in
\mathbb{Z}
}\left( \frac{q^{k}}{A}\right) ^{\alpha }\left( \frac{-1}{A};q\right) _{k}$$where $K\left( A;\alpha \right) =A^{\alpha -1}\dfrac{\left( -q/\alpha
;q\right) _{\infty }}{\left( -q^{t}/\alpha ;q\right) _{\infty }}\dfrac{\left( -\alpha ;q\right) _{\infty }}{\left( -\alpha q^{1-t}/;q\right)
_{\infty }}$ \[25, Equ.$\left( 24\right) ]$ (for $A=\dfrac{u}{v}$ and $\alpha
=\alpha +n),$ we get$$\begin{aligned}
_{q}N\left( x^{\alpha -1}f\left( x\right) \right) \left( u;v\right)
&=&\sum_{k\in
\mathbb{Z}
}A_{n}\left( \frac{u}{v}\right) ^{\alpha +n}\frac{\Gamma _{q}\left( \alpha
+n\right) \left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha +n-1}}{K\left( \frac{u}{v};\alpha
+n\right) } \\
&=&\left( \frac{u}{v}\right) ^{\alpha }\left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha -1}\Gamma
_{q}\left( \alpha \right) \sum\limits_{n\geq 0}A_{n}\frac{\left( q^{\alpha
};q\right) _{n}}{K\left( \frac{u}{v};\alpha +n\right) }\left( \frac{u}{v}\right) ^{n}.\end{aligned}$$This completes the proof of the theorem.
As a straightforward corrollary of Theorem 9, the previous theorem (for $A_{0}=1,A_{n}=0,$ for $n\geq 1)$ gives $$_{q}N\left( x^{\alpha -1}\right) \left( u;v\right) =\dfrac{\left( \frac{u}{v}\right) ^{\alpha -1}\left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha -1}\Gamma _{q}\left( \alpha
\right) }{K\left( \frac{u}{v};\alpha \right) }. \tag{39}$$
Also, Equ. $\left( 39\right) $ reveals :
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Corrollary 10.</span> *The following hold true.*$$\begin{aligned}
\left( \mathtt{i}\right) \text{ \ }_{q}L\left( x^{\alpha -1}\right) \left(
v\right) &=&\dfrac{1}{v^{\alpha -1}}\frac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha
-1}\Gamma _{q}\left( \alpha \right) }{K\left( \frac{1}{v};\alpha \right) }.\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }
\TCItag{40} \\
\left( \mathtt{ii}\right) \text{ }_{q}S\left( x^{\alpha -1}\right) \left(
u\right) &=&\frac{u^{\alpha -1}\left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha -1}\Gamma
_{q}\left( \alpha \right) }{K\left( u;\alpha \right) }. \TCItag{41}\end{aligned}$$Further, $\left( 39\right) $ and $\left( 41\right) $ jointly lead to the conclusion $\left( _{q}N\left( 1\right) \right) \left( u;v\right) =\dfrac{1}{K\left( \frac{u}{v};\alpha \right) }.$ Therefore, we are directed to the results$$_{q}L\left( 1\right) \left( v\right) =\dfrac{1}{K\left( v;1\right) }\text{
and }\left( _{q}S\left( 1\right) \right) \left( u\right) =\dfrac{1}{K\left(
u;1\right) }.$$
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Theorem 11.</span> *Let* $a$* be a real number and* $f\left( x\right) =$ $_{m-k}\Phi _{m-1}\left[ \left.
\begin{array}{l}
a_{1},a_{2},...,a_{m-k},q^{\alpha } \\
b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{m-1}\end{array}\right\vert q,ax\right] .$ *Then, we have*$$\begin{aligned}
_{q}N\left( x^{\alpha -1}f\left( x\right) \right) \left( u;v\right) &=&\frac{\left( \frac{u}{v}\right) ^{\alpha }\left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha -1}\Gamma
_{q}\left( \alpha \right) }{K\left( \frac{u}{v};\alpha \right) } \\
&&\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }_{m-k+1}\Phi _{m-1}\left[
\left.
\begin{array}{l}
a_{1},a_{2},...,a_{m-k},q^{\alpha } \\
b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{m-1}\end{array}\right\vert q,\frac{au}{vq^{\alpha }}\right] .\end{aligned}$$<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proof</span> Let the hypothesis of the theorem be satisfied. A charity of $\left( 14\right) $ gives$$f\left( x\right) =\sum\limits_{0}^{\infty }\frac{\left(
a_{1},a_{2},...,a_{m-k};q\right) _{n}}{\left(
b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{m-1},q\right) _{n}}\left( \left( -1\right) ^{n}q^{\frac{n\left( n-1\right) }{2}}\right) ^{k}\frac{a^{n}}{\left( q;q\right) _{n}}x^{n}.$$On setting $A_{n}=\dfrac{\left( a_{1},a_{2},...,a_{m-k};q\right) _{n}}{\left( b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{m-1},q\right) _{n}}\left( \left( -1\right) ^{n}q^{\frac{n\left( n-1\right) }{2}}\right) ^{k}\dfrac{a^{n}}{\left( q;q\right)
_{n}}$ and using Theorem 9 it implies$$_{q}N\left( x^{\alpha -1}f\left( x\right) \right) \left( u;v\right) =\left(
\frac{u}{v}\right) ^{\alpha }\left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha -1}\Gamma _{q}\left(
\alpha \right) \sum\limits_{0}^{\infty }A_{n}\frac{\left( q^{\alpha
};q\right) _{n}}{K\left( \frac{u}{v};\alpha +n\right) }\left( \frac{u}{v}\right) ^{n}.$$By using the fact that $K\left( A,\alpha \right) =q^{\alpha -1}K\left(
A,\alpha -1\right) ,$ the preceding equation gives$$\begin{aligned}
_{q}N\left( x^{\alpha -1}f\left( x\right) \right) \left( u;v\right)
&=&\left( \frac{u}{v}\right) ^{\alpha }\frac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha
-1}\Gamma _{q}\left( \alpha \right) }{K\left( \frac{u}{v};\alpha \right) }\sum\limits_{0}^{\infty }A_{n}\left( q^{\alpha };q\right) _{n} \\
&&\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\left( \left( -1\right) ^{n}q^{\frac{n\left( n-1\right) }{2}}\right) ^{-1}\left( \frac{-1}{q^{\alpha }}\right)
^{n}\left( \frac{u}{v}\right) ^{n} \\
&=&\frac{\left( \frac{u}{v}\right) ^{\alpha }\left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha
-1}\Gamma _{q}\left( \alpha \right) }{K\left( \frac{u}{v};\alpha \right) }\text{ } \\
&\text{ \ \ }&\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }_{m-k+1}\Phi _{m-1}\left[
\left.
\begin{array}{c}
a_{1},a_{2},...,a_{m-k},q^{\alpha } \\
b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{m-1}\end{array}\right\vert q,\frac{au}{vq^{\alpha }}\right] .\end{aligned}$$Hence the theorem is completely proved.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Corrollary 12.</span> *Let* $a$* be a real number and* $f\left( x\right) $* be defined in terms of the* $q$*-hypergeometric function*$$f\left( x\right) =_{m-k+1}\Phi _{m-1}\left[ \left.
\begin{array}{c}
a_{1},a_{2},...,a_{m-k}, \\
b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{m-1}\end{array}\right\vert q;ax\right] .$$*Then, the following identities hold.*
$\left( \mathtt{i}\right) _{q}L\left( x^{\alpha -1}f\left(
x\right) \right) \left( v\right) =\dfrac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{\alpha
-1}\Gamma _{q}\left( \alpha \right) }{K\left( \frac{1}{v};\alpha \right) }\
_{m-k+1}\Phi _{m-1}\left[ \left.
\begin{array}{l}
a_{1},a_{2},...,a_{m-k},q^{\alpha } \\
b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{m-1}\end{array}\right\vert q,\dfrac{a}{vq^{\alpha }}\right] .$
$\left( \mathtt{ii}\right) _{q}S\left( x^{\alpha -1}f\left(
x\right) \right) \left( u\right) =\dfrac{u^{\alpha }\left( 1-q\right)
^{\alpha -1}\Gamma _{q}\left( \alpha \right) }{K\left( u;\alpha \right) }$ $_{m-k+1}\Phi _{m-1}\left[ \left.
\begin{array}{l}
a_{1},a_{2},...,a_{m-k},q^{\alpha } \\
b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{m-1}\end{array}\right\vert q,\dfrac{au}{q^{\alpha }}\right] .$
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proof</span> is straightforward from Theorem 11. Details are therefore omitted.
Let $\alpha =m=k=1$ and $a>0.$ Then, Corrollary 12 gives$$_{q}N\left( E_{q}\left( ax\right) \right) \left( u;v\right) =\dfrac{u}{vK\left( \frac{u}{v},1\right) }\text{ }_{1}\Phi _{0}\left[
\begin{array}{c}
q \\
\end{array}\left\vert q,-\dfrac{au}{qv}\right. \right] .$$Hence, it follows$$\left.
\begin{array}{l}
\left( \mathtt{i}\right) _{q}L\left( E_{q}\left( ax\right) \right) \left(
v\right) =\dfrac{1}{vK\left( \frac{1}{v},1\right) }\text{ }_{1}\Phi _{0}\left[
\begin{array}{c}
q \\
\end{array}\left\vert q,-\dfrac{a}{qv}\right. \right] . \\
\left( \mathtt{ii}\right) _{q}S\left( E_{q}\left( ax\right) \right) \left(
u\right) =\dfrac{u}{K\left( u,1\right) }\text{ }_{1}\Phi _{0}\left[
\begin{array}{c}
q \\
\end{array}\left\vert q,-\dfrac{au}{q}\right. \right] .\end{array}\right.$$Also, readers may easily verify that$$_{1}\Phi _{0}\left[
\begin{array}{c}
q \\
\end{array}\left\vert q,-\frac{au}{qv}\right. \right] =\sum\limits_{0}^{\infty }\left(
\frac{au}{qv}\right) ^{n}=\dfrac{au}{qv+au},\text{ }\left\vert au\right\vert
<qv. \tag{42}$$From above and the fact that $K\left( s,1\right) =1$ we have the following corrollary.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Corrollary 13.</span> *Let* $a$* be a real number. Then, we have*$$_{q}N\left( E_{q}\left( ax\right) \right) \left( u,v\right) =\dfrac{qu}{\left( qv+au\right) },\text{ }\left\vert au\right\vert <qv. \tag{43}$$
Hence, $\left( 43\right) $ indeed reveals
$\left( \mathtt{i}\right) $ $_{q}L\left( E_{q}\left( ax\right) \right)
\left( v\right) =\dfrac{q}{\left( qv+a\right) },$ $\left\vert a\right\vert
<qv;$ $\ \left( \mathtt{ii}\right) $ $_{q}S\left( E_{q}\left( ax\right)
\right) \left( u\right) =\dfrac{qu}{\left( q+au\right) },$ $\left\vert
au\right\vert <q.$
It may also be mentioned here that Corrollary 13 and the identities$$_{q}\sin x=\frac{E_{q}\left( ix\right) -E_{q}\left( -ix\right) }{2i}\text{
and }_{q}\cos x=\frac{E_{q}\left( ix\right) -E_{q}\left( -ix\right) }{2}
\tag{44}$$state, without proof, the following result.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Corrollary 14.</span> *Let* $a$* be a real number. Then, we have*
$\left( \mathtt{i}\right) $ $_{q}N\left( _{q}\sin ax\right) \left(
u;v\right) =\dfrac{-qau^{2}}{q^{2}v^{2}+a^{2}u^{2}},$ $\left\vert
au\right\vert <qv.$
$\left( \mathtt{ii}\right) $ $_{q}N\left( _{q}\cos ax\right) \left(
u;v\right) =\dfrac{q^{2}uv}{q^{2}v^{2}+a^{2}u^{2}},$ $\left\vert
au\right\vert <qv.$
Further, Corrollary 14 suggests to have the following conclusions proclaimed.
$\left( \mathtt{i}\right) $ $_{q}L\left( _{q}\sin ax\right) \left( v\right) =\dfrac{-qa}{q^{2}v^{2}+a^{2}},$ $\left\vert a\right\vert <qv;$ $\ \ \ \ \ \
\left( \mathtt{ii}\right) $ $_{q}L\left( _{q}\cos ax\right) \left( v\right) =\dfrac{q^{2}v}{q^{2}v^{2}+a^{2}},$ $\left\vert a\right\vert <qv.$
$\left( \mathtt{iii}\right) $ $_{q}S\left( _{q}\sin ax\right) \left(
u\right) =-\dfrac{qa}{q^{2}+a^{2}u^{2}},$ $\left\vert au\right\vert <qv;$ $\left( \mathtt{iv}\right) $ $_{q}S\left( _{q}\cos ax\right) \left( u\right) =\dfrac{q^{2}}{q^{2}+a^{2}u^{2}},$ $\left\vert au\right\vert <qv.$
Further results concerning some other special functions can be obtained similarly.
$q$-Analogues of $N$-Transforms for the $q$-Fox’s $H$-Function
==============================================================
Let $\alpha _{j}$ and $\beta _{j}$ be positive integers and $0\leq
m\leq N;$ $0\leq n\leq M.$ Due to $\left[ 27\right] ,$ the $q$-analogue of the Fox’s $H$-function is given as
$H_{M,N}^{m,n}\left[ x;q\left\vert
\begin{array}{c}
\left( a_{1},\alpha _{1}\right) ,\left( a_{2},\alpha _{2}\right) ,...,\left(
a_{\mu },\alpha _{M}\right) \\
\left( b_{1},\beta _{1}\right) ,\left( b_{2},\beta _{2}\right) ,...,\left(
b_{N},\beta _{N}\right)\end{array}\right. \right] =$
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \dfrac{1}{2\pi i}\dint\nolimits_{C}\dfrac{\dprod\limits_{j=1}^{m}G\left( q^{b_{j}-\beta
_{j}s}\right) \dprod\limits_{j=1}^{n}G\left( q^{1-a_{j}+\alpha _{j}s}\right)
\pi x^{s}}{\dprod\limits_{j=m+1}^{N}G\left( q^{1-b_{j}+\beta _{j}s}\right)
\dprod\limits_{j=n+1}^{M}G\left( q^{a_{j}-\alpha _{j}s}\right) G\left(
q^{1-s}\right) \sin \pi s}d_{q}s$$$\tag{45}$$where $G$ is defined in terms of the product$$G\left( q^{^{\alpha }}\right) =\dprod\limits_{0}^{\infty }\left( 1-q^{\alpha
-k}\right) ^{-1}=\frac{1}{\left( q^{^{\alpha }},q\right) _{\infty }}.
\tag{46}$$
The contour $C$ is parallel to $\func{Re}\left( ws\right) =0,$ with indentations in such away all poles of $G\left( q^{b_{j}-\beta
_{j}s}\right) ,$ $1\leq j\leq m,$ are its right and those of $G\left(
q^{1-a_{j}+\alpha _{j}s}\right) ,$ $1\leq j\leq n,$ are the left of $C.$ The integral converges if $\func{Re}\left( s\log x-\log \sin \pi s\right)
<0, $ for large values of $\left\vert s\right\vert $ on $C.$ Hence,$$\left\vert \arg \left( x\right) -w_{2}w_{1}^{-1}\log \left\vert x\right\vert
\right\vert <\pi ,\text{ }\left\vert q\right\vert <1,\text{ }\log
q=-w=-w_{1}-iw_{2},$$where $w_{1}$ and $w_{2}$ are real numbers.
Indeed, for $\alpha _{i}=\beta _{j}=1,$ for all $i,j,$ $\left(
45\right) $ gives the $q$-analogue of the Meijer’s $G$-function$$G_{M,N}^{m,n}\left[ x;q\left\vert
\begin{array}{c}
a_{1},a_{1},...,a_{M} \\
b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{N},\end{array}\right. \right] =\frac{1}{2\pi i}\dint\nolimits_{C}\frac{\dprod\limits_{j=1}^{m}G\left( q^{b_{j}-s}\right) \dprod\limits_{j=1}^{n}G\left(
q^{1-a_{j}+s}\right) \pi x^{2}}{\dprod\limits_{j=m+1}^{N}G\left(
q^{1-b_{j}+s}\right) \dprod\limits_{j=n+1}^{M}G\left( q^{a_{j}-s}\right)
G\left( q^{1-s}\right) \sin \pi s}d_{q}s$$where $0\leq m\leq N;$ $0\leq n\leq M$ and $\func{Re}\left( s\log
x-\log \sin \pi s\right) <0$.
We have the following main result of this section.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Theorem 15.</span> $\left( \mathtt{i}\right) $ *Let* $\lambda $* be any complex number and* $k\in \left( 0,\infty \right)
. $* The* $q$*-Natural transform* $N_{q}$* of the Fox’s* $H_{q}$*-Function is given as*
$N_{q}\left( x^{\lambda }H_{M,N}^{m,n}\left[ \lambda x^{k};q\left\vert
\begin{array}{l}
\left( a_{1},\alpha _{1}\right) ,\left( a_{1},\alpha _{1}\right) ,...,\left(
a_{M},\alpha _{M}\right) \\
\left( b_{1},\beta _{1}\right) ,b_{2},...,\left( b_{N},\beta _{N}\right)\end{array}\right. \right] \right) \left( u;v\right) =\dfrac{u^{\lambda }}{v^{\lambda
+1}G\left( q\right) }$
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ H_{M+1N}^{m,n+1}\left[ \lambda \dfrac{u^{k}}{v^{k}};q\left\vert
\begin{array}{l}
\left( -\lambda ,k\right) ,...,\left( a_{M},\alpha _{M}\right) \\
\left( b_{1},\beta _{1}\right) ,...,\left( b_{N},\beta _{N}\right)\end{array}\right. \right] .$
$\left( \mathtt{ii}\right) $ *Let* $\lambda $* be any complex number and* $k\in \left( -\infty ,0\right) .$* The* $q$*-Natural transform* $N_{q}$* of the Fox’s* $H_{q}$*-Function is given as*
$N_{q}\left( x^{\lambda }H_{M,N}^{m,n}\left[ \lambda x^{k};q\left\vert
\begin{array}{l}
\left( a_{1},\alpha _{1}\right) ,\left( a_{1},\alpha _{1}\right) ...,\left(
a_{M},\alpha _{M}\right) \\
\left( b_{1},\beta _{1}\right) ,b_{2},...,\left( b_{N},\beta _{N}\right)\end{array}\right. \right] \right) \left( u;v\right) =\dfrac{u^{\lambda }}{v^{\lambda
+1}G\left( q\right) }$
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ H_{M,N+1}^{m+1,n}\left[
\lambda \dfrac{u^{k}}{v^{k}};q\left\vert
\begin{array}{l}
\left( a_{1},\alpha _{1}\right) ,...,\left( a_{M},\alpha _{M}\right) \\
\left( 1+\lambda ,-k\right) ,\left( b_{1},\beta _{1}\right) ,...,\left(
b_{N},\beta _{N}\right)\end{array}\right. \right] .$
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proof</span> We prove Part $\left( \mathtt{i}\right) $ since proof of Part $\left( \mathtt{ii}\right) $ is similar. By considering $\left( 45\right) ,$ we have
$N_{q}\left( x^{\lambda }H_{M,N}^{m,n}\left[ \lambda x^{k};q\left\vert
\begin{array}{l}
\left( a_{1},\alpha _{1}\right) ,\left( a_{1},\alpha _{1}\right) ,...,\left(
a_{M},\alpha _{M}\right) \\
\left( b_{1},\beta _{1}\right) ,b_{2},...,\left( b_{N},\beta _{N}\right)\end{array}\right. \right] \right) \left( u;v\right) =$
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \dfrac{1}{2\pi i}\dint\nolimits_{C}\frac{\dprod\limits_{j=1}^{m}G\left( q^{b_{j}-\beta _{j}z}\right)
\dprod\limits_{j=1}^{n}G\left( q^{1-a_{j}+\alpha _{j}z}\right) \pi \left(
\lambda \right) ^{z}}{\dprod\limits_{j=m+1}^{N}G\left( q^{1-b_{j}+\beta
_{j}z}\right) \dprod\limits_{j=n+1}^{M}G\left( q^{a_{j}-\alpha _{j}z}\right)
G\left( q^{1-z}\right) \sin \pi z}N_{q}\left( x^{\lambda +kz}\right) \left(
u;v\right) d_{q}z.$$$\tag{49}$$By virtue of Theorem 2, $\left( 49\right) $ gives
$N_{q}\left( x^{\lambda }H_{M,N}^{m,n}\left[ \lambda x^{k};q\left\vert
\begin{array}{l}
\left( a_{1},\alpha _{1}\right) ,\left( a_{1},\alpha _{1}\right) ,...,\left(
a_{M},\alpha _{M}\right) \\
\left( b_{1},\beta _{1}\right) ,b_{2},...,\left( b_{N},\beta _{N}\right)\end{array}\right. \right] \right) \left( u;v\right) =$
$\ \ \ \ \dfrac{1}{2\pi i}\dint\nolimits_{C}\frac{\dprod\limits_{j=1}^{m}G\left( q^{b_{j}-\beta _{j}z}\right) \dprod\limits_{j=1}^{n}G\left(
q^{1-a_{j}+\alpha _{j}z}\right) \pi \left( \lambda \right) ^{z}}{\dprod\limits_{j=m+1}^{N}G\left( q^{1-b_{j}+\beta _{j}z}\right)
\dprod\limits_{j=n+1}^{M}G\left( q^{a_{j}-\alpha _{j}z}\right) G\left(
q^{1-z}\right) \sin \pi z}\dfrac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{\lambda +kz}}{v^{\lambda +kz+1}}\Gamma _{q}\left( \lambda +kz+1\right) d_{q}z.$
The fact that $\left( 1-q\right) ^{\lambda +kz}\Gamma _{q}\left(
\lambda +kz+1\right) =\dfrac{G\left( q\right) ^{\lambda +kz}}{G\left(
q\right) }$ gives
$N_{q}\left( x^{\lambda }H_{M,N}^{m,n}\left[ \lambda x^{k};q\left\vert
\begin{array}{l}
\left( a_{1},\alpha _{1}\right) ,\left( a_{1},\alpha _{1}\right) ,...,\left(
a_{M},\alpha _{M}\right) \\
\left( b_{1},\beta _{1}\right) ,b_{2},...,\left( b_{N},\beta _{N}\right)\end{array}\right. \right] \right) \left( u;v\right) =$
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \dfrac{1}{2\pi i}\dint\nolimits_{C}\frac{\dprod\limits_{j=1}^{m}G\left( q^{b_{j}-\beta _{j}z}\right)
\dprod\limits_{j=1}^{n}G\left( q^{1-a_{j}+\alpha _{j}z}\right) \dprod \left(
\lambda \right) ^{z}u^{\lambda +kz}}{\dprod\limits_{j=m+1}^{N}G\left(
q^{1-b_{j}+\beta _{j}z}\right) \dprod\limits_{j=n+1}^{M}G\left(
q^{a_{j}-\alpha _{j}z}\right) G\left( q^{1-z}\right) \sin \pi zv^{\lambda
+kz+1}}\frac{G\left( q^{\lambda +kz}\right) }{G\left( q\right) }d_{q}z$
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ =\dfrac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{u^{\lambda }}{v^{\lambda +1}G\left( q\right) }\dint\nolimits_{C}\frac{\dprod\limits_{j=1}^{m}G\left( q^{b_{j}-\beta _{j}z}\right)
\dprod\limits_{j=1}^{n}G\left( q^{1-a_{j}+\alpha _{j}z}\right) G\left(
q^{\lambda +kz}\right) \dprod \left( \lambda \frac{u^{k}}{v^{k}}\right) ^{z}}{\dprod\limits_{j=m+1}^{N}G\left( q^{1-b_{j}+\beta _{j}z}\right)
\dprod\limits_{j=n+1}^{M}G\left( q^{a_{j}-\alpha _{j}z}\right) G\left(
q^{1-z}\right) \sin \pi z}d_{q}z$
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ =\dfrac{u^{\lambda }}{v^{\lambda +1}G\left(
q\right) }H_{M+1,N}^{m,n+1}\left[ \lambda \dfrac{u^{k}}{v^{k}};q\left\vert
\begin{array}{l}
\left( -\lambda _{1},k\right) ,\left( a_{1},\alpha _{1}\right) ,...,\left(
a_{M},\alpha _{M}\right) \\
\left( b_{1},\beta _{1}\right) ,...,\left( b_{N},\beta _{N}\right)\end{array}\right. \right] ,$
for $k>0$
This completes the proof of Part $\left( \mathtt{i}\right) $ of the theorem. Proof of Part $\left( \mathtt{ii}\right) $ is quite similar.
Hence the theorem is completely proved.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Corrollary 16.</span> $\left( \mathtt{a}\right) $ *Let* $\lambda $* be any complex number and* $k\in \left( 0,\infty \right)
. $* Then, we have*
$\left( \mathtt{i}\right) L_{q}\left( x^{\lambda }H_{M,N}^{m,n}\left[
\lambda x^{k};q\left\vert
\begin{array}{c}
\left( a_{1},\alpha _{1}\right) ,...,\left( a_{M},\alpha _{M}\right) \\
\left( b_{1},\beta _{1}\right) ,...,\left( b_{N},\beta _{N}\right)\end{array}\right. \right] \right) \left( v\right) =\dfrac{1}{v^{\lambda +1}G\left(
q\right) }\times $
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ H_{M+1,N}^{m,n+1}\left[ \dfrac{\lambda }{v^{k}};q\left\vert
\begin{array}{l}
\left( -\lambda _{1},k\right) ,\left( a_{1},\alpha _{1}\right) ,...,\left(
a_{\mu },\alpha _{M}\right) \\
\left( b_{1},\beta _{1}\right) ,...,\left( b_{N},\beta _{N}\right)\end{array}\right. \right] .$
$\left( \mathtt{ii}\right) S_{q}\left( x^{\lambda }H_{M,N}^{m,n}\left[
\lambda x^{k};q\left\vert
\begin{array}{c}
\left( a_{1},\alpha _{1}\right) ,...,\left( a_{M},\alpha _{M}\right) \\
\left( b_{1},\beta _{1}\right) ,...,\left( b_{N},\beta _{N}\right)\end{array}\right. \right] \right) \left( u\right) =\dfrac{u^{\lambda }}{G\left(
q\right) }\times $
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ H_{M+1,N}^{m,n+1}\left[ \lambda
,u^{k};q\left\vert
\begin{array}{l}
\left( -\lambda _{1},k\right) ,\left( a_{1},\alpha _{1}\right) ,...,\left(
a_{\mu },\alpha _{M}\right) \\
\left( b_{1},\beta _{1}\right) ,...,\left( b_{N},\beta _{N}\right)\end{array}\right. \right] .$
$\left( \mathtt{b}\right) $ *Let* $\lambda $* be any complex number and* $k\in \left( -\infty ,0\right) .$* Then, we have*
$\left( \mathtt{i}\right) L_{q}\left( x^{\lambda }H_{M,N}^{m,n}\left[
\lambda x^{k};q\left\vert
\begin{array}{c}
\left( a_{1},\alpha _{1}\right) ,...,\left( a_{M},\alpha _{M}\right) \\
\left( b_{1},\beta _{1}\right) ,...,\left( b_{N},\beta _{N}\right)\end{array}\right. \right] \right) \left( v\right) =\dfrac{1}{v^{\lambda +1}G\left(
q\right) }\times $
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ H_{M,N+1}^{m+1,n}\left[ \lambda x^{k};q\left\vert
\begin{array}{l}
\left( a_{1},\alpha _{1}\right) ,...,\left( a_{M},\alpha _{M}\right) \\
\left( 1+\lambda ,-k\right) ,\left( b_{1},\beta _{1}\right) ,...,\left(
b_{N},\beta _{N}\right)\end{array}\right. \right] .$
$\left( \mathtt{ii}\right) S_{q}\left( x^{\lambda }H_{M,N}^{m,n}\left[
\lambda x^{k};q\left\vert
\begin{array}{c}
\left( a_{1},\alpha _{1}\right) ,...,\left( a_{M},\alpha _{M}\right) \\
\left( b_{1},\beta _{1}\right) ,...,\left( b_{N},\beta _{N}\right)\end{array}\right. \right] \right) \left( u\right) =\dfrac{u^{\lambda }}{G\left(
q\right) }\times $
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ H_{M,N+1}^{m+1,n}\left[ \lambda u^{k};q\left\vert
\begin{array}{l}
\left( a_{1},\alpha _{1}\right) ,...,\left( a_{M},\alpha _{M}\right) \\
\left( 1+\lambda ,-k\right) ,\left( b_{1},\beta _{1}\right) ,...,\left(
b_{N},\beta _{N}\right)\end{array}\right. \right] .$
Concrete Examples
=================
By virtue of Theorem 15 and the elementary extentions of some $q$-analogues of $\sin _{q}x,$ $\cos _{q}x,$ $\sinh _{q}x$ and $\cosh _{q}x$ in terms of Fox’s H-function; see $\left[ 26\right] ,$ we introduce the following examples.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Example 1.</span> *Let* $k=2$* and* $\lambda =\dfrac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{2}}{4}$* in Theorem* 15*, then we have*$$\begin{aligned}
N_{q}\left( x^{\dfrac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{2}}{4}}\sin _{q}x\right) \left(
u;v\right) &=&\frac{\sqrt{\pi }\left( 1-q\right) ^{\frac{-1}{2}}G\left(
q\right) u^{\left( 1-q\right) ^{2}/4}}{v^{\frac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{2}}{4}+1}} \\
&\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }&H_{1,3}^{1,1}\left[ \frac{\left( 1-q\right)
^{2}}{4}\frac{u^{2}}{v^{2}};q\left\vert
\begin{array}{l}
-\frac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{2}}{4},2 \\
\left( \frac{1}{2},1\right) ,\left( 0,1\right) ,\left( 1,1\right)\end{array}\right. \right] .\end{aligned}$$
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Example 2.</span> *On setting* $k=2$* and* $\lambda =\dfrac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{2}}{4}$* in Theorem* 15*, we get*$$\begin{aligned}
N_{q}\left( x^{\frac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{2}}{4}}\cos _{q}x\right) \left(
u;v\right) &=&\frac{\sqrt{\pi }\left( 1-q\right) ^{\frac{-1}{2}}G\left(
q\right) u^{\left( 1-q\right) ^{2}/4}}{v^{\frac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{2}}{4}+1}} \\
&\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }&H_{1,3}^{1,1}\left[ \frac{\left(
1-q\right) ^{2}}{4}\frac{u^{2}}{v^{2}};q\left\vert
\begin{array}{l}
\left( -\frac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{2}}{4},2\right) \\
\left( 0,1\right) ,\left( \frac{1}{2},1\right) ,\left( 1,1\right)\end{array}\right. \right] .\end{aligned}$$
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Example 3.</span> *On setting* $k=2$* and* $\lambda =\dfrac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{2}}{4},$* in Theorem* 15* we get*$$\begin{aligned}
N_{q}\left( x^{\frac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{2}}{4}}\sinh _{q}x\right) \left(
u;v\right) &=&\frac{\sqrt{\pi }\left( 1-q\right) ^{\frac{-1}{2}}G\left(
q\right) u^{2}}{iv^{2}} \\
&\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }&H_{1,3}^{1,1}\left[ \frac{-\left(
1-q\right) ^{2}u^{2}}{4v^{2}};q\left\vert
\begin{array}{c}
\left( \frac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{2}}{4},2\right) \\
\left( \frac{1}{2},1\right) ,\left( 0,1\right) ,\left( 1,1\right)\end{array}\right. \right] .\end{aligned}$$<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Example 4.</span> *On setting* $k=2,$* *$\lambda =\dfrac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{2}}{4},$* Theorem* 15* gives*$$\begin{aligned}
N_{q}\left( x^{\frac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{2}}{4}}\cosh _{q}x\right) \left(
u;v\right) &=&\frac{\sqrt{\pi }\left( 1-q\right) ^{\frac{-1}{2}}G\left(
q\right) u^{2}}{v^{2}} \\
&\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }&H_{1,3}^{1,1}\left[ \frac{-\left(
1-q\right) ^{2}u^{2}}{4v^{2}};q\left\vert
\begin{array}{l}
\left( \frac{\left( 1-q\right) ^{2}}{4},2\right) \\
\left( 0,1\right) ,\left( \frac{1}{2},1\right) ,\left( 1,1\right)\end{array}\right. \right] .\end{aligned}$$For similar results of $S_{q}$ and $L_{q}$, we set $u=1$ and $v=1$ in the preceeding Examples.
[99]{} F. H. Jackson, The application of basic numbers to Bessel’s and Legendre’s functions, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 2$\left( 1\right) $, $\left( 1905\right) $, 192-220.
W. H. Abdi, On $q$-Laplace transforms, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. India 29 (1961), 389-408.
S. D. Purohit and S. L. Kalla, On $q$-Laplace transforms of the $q$-Bessel functions, Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 10(2) (2007), 189-196.
F. Uçar and D. Albayrak, On $q$-Laplace type integral operators and their applications, Journal of Difference Equations and Applications, iFirst article, $\left( 2011\right) $, 1-14.
D. Albayrak S. D. Purohit , F. Ucar , On $q$-Sumudu transforms of certain $q$-polynomials, Filomat 27:2 (2013), 413-429.
D. Albayrak, S. D. Purohit and F. Uçar, On $q$-analogues of Sumudu transform, An. St. Univ. Ovidius Constanta 21(1), $\left( 2013\right)
$, 239-260.
R. K. Yadav and S. D. Purohit, On applications of Weyl fractional $q$-integral operator to generalized basic hypergeometric functions, Kyungpook Math. J. 46 (2006), 235-245.
A. Fitouhi and N. Bettaibi, Wavelet transforms in quantum calculus. Journal of Nonlinear Mathematical Physics 13$\left( 3\right) $, (2006), 492-506.
A. Fitouhi , N. Bettaibi, Applications of the Mellin transform in quantum calculus, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 328 (2007), 518-534.
R. Alvarez-Nodarse , M. K. Atakishiyeva , N. M. Atakishiyev, Mellin transforms for some families of $q$-polynomials, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 153 (2003), 9-18$.$
F. H. Jackson, On a $q$-definite integrals, Quart. J. Pure and Appl. Math. 41 (1910), 193-203.
V. G. Kac, P. Cheung, Quantum calculus, Universitext, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2002.
Z. Khan, and W. A. Khan, N-transform properties and applications, NUST Jour. of Engg. Sciences, 1$\left( 1\right) $, $\left(
2008\right) $, 127-133.
F. B. M. Belgacem and R. Silambarasan, Theoretical investigations of the Natural transform, Progress In Electromagnetics Research Symposium Proceedings, Suzhou, China, Sept. (2011), 12-16.
F. B. M. Belgacem and R. Silambarasan, Maxwell’s equations solutions through the Natural transform, Mathematics in Engineering, Science and Aerospace 3(3), (2012), 313-323.
R. Silambarasn and F. B. M. Belgacem, Applications of the Natural transform to Maxwell’s equations, Progress In Electromagnetics Research Symposium Proceedings, Suzhou, China, Sept., $\left( 2011\right) $, 12-16.
S. K. Q. Al-Omari, On the application of the Natural transforms, Inter. J. Pure Appl. Math. 85(4), $\left( 2013\right) $, 729-744.
W. Hahn, Beitrage Zur Theorie Der Heineschen Reihen, die 24 Integrale der hypergeometrischen $q$-diferenzengleichung, das $q$-Analog on der Laplace transformation, Math. Nachr. 2 (1949), 340-379.
F. B. M. Belgacem, and R. Silambarasan, Advances in the Natural transform, AIP Conf. Proc. 1493, 106 (2012); doi: 10.1063/1.4765477.
M. E. H. Ismail, The zeros of basic Bessel functions, the functions $J_{v+ax(x)}$, and associated orthogonal polynomials, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 86$\left( 1\right) $, $\left(
1982\right) $, 1-19.
E. Horwood, Basic hypergeometric functions and applications, Chichester, 1983.
W. Hahn, Die mechanische deutung einer geometrischen differenzengleichung, Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 33 (1953), 270-272.
H. Exton, A basic analogue of the Bessel-Clifford equation, Jnanabha 8 (1978), 49-56.
A. Kiliçman, H. Eltayeb, and R. P. Agarwal, On Sumudu transform and system of differential equations, Abstr. Appl. Anal. Vol. 2010, 1-10.
F. Uçar, $q$-Sumudu transforms of $q$-Analogues of Bessel functions, Scientific World Journal 2014, $\left( 2014\right) $, 1-7.
R. K. Yadav, S. D. Purohit and S. L. Kalla, On generalized Weyl fractional q-integral operator involving generalized basic hypergeometric functions, Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal., 11(2) (2008), 129-142.
R. K. Saxena, G. C. Modi and S. L. Kalla, A basic analogue of Fox’s H-function, Rev. Tec. Ing. Univ. Zulia, 6 (1983), 139-143.
S. K. Q. Al-Omari and A. Kilicman, An estimate of Sumudu transform for Boehmians, Advances in Difference Equations 2013, 2013:77, (2013), 1-13.
G. K. Watugala , Sumudu transform new integral transform to solve differential equations and control engineering problems, Mathematical Engineeringin Industry, 6(4)(1998), 319-329.
G. K. Watugala , The Sumudu transform for functions of two variables, Mathematical Engineering in Industry 8(4)(2002), 293-302.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We show that the $m$-dimensional Euler–Manakov top on $so^*(m)$ can be represented as a Poisson reduction of an integrable Hamiltonian system on a symplectic extended Stiefel variety $\bar{\cal V}(k,m)$, and present its Lax representation with a rational parameter.
We also describe an integrable two-valued symplectic map $\cal B$ on the 4-dimensional variety ${\cal V}(2,3)$. The map admits two different reductions, namely, to the Lie group $SO(3)$ and to the coalgebra $so^*(3)$.
The first reduction provides a discretization of the motion of the classical Euler top in space and has a transparent geometric interpretation, which can be regarded as a discrete version of the celebrated Poinsot model of motion and which inherits some properties of another discrete system, the elliptic billiard.
The reduction of $\cal B$ to $so^*(3)$ gives a new explicit discretization of the Euler top in the angular momentum space, which preserves first integrals of the continuous system.
author:
- |
Yuri N. Fedorov\
Department of Mathematics and Mechanics\
Moscow Lomonosov University, Moscow, 119 899, Russia\
e-mail: [email protected]\
and\
Department de Matemàtica I,\
Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya,\
Barcelona, E-08028 Spain\
e-mail: [email protected]
title: 'Integrable flows and Backlund transformations on extended Stiefel varieties with application to the Euler top on the Lie group $SO(3)$. [^1] '
---
[*Short title*]{}: Flows and Backlund transformations on extended Stiefel varieties
Introduction
============
In most publications the integrable $m$-dimensional Euler top is represented as a flow on the cotangent bundle $T^* SO(m)$ or on the coalgebra $so^*(m)$.
Recently, an alternative description of this problem as a system on a symplectic subvariety of the group product $SO(m) \times SO(m)$ was proposed in [@Bl_Cr; @BCMR].
A first discretization of the free $m$-dimensional top on $T^* SO(m)$ was constructed in [@Ves; @MosVes] by the method of factorization of matrix polynomials. This discretization is represented by a second order Lagrangian correspondence, which does not explicitly involve a time step, it is determined by initial data (a choice of two subsequent points on $SO(m)$).
On the other hand, in [@S] (see also [@SB]) Suris introduced a concept of an integrable discretisation of a finite-dimensional Hamiltonian system as a one parameter family of integrable Poisson maps parameterized by a time step $\epsilon$, which differ from the identity map by $O(\epsilon)$, and whose Poisson structure and the integrals of motion differ at most by $O(\epsilon)$ from those of the continuous-time system.
In the special case where the discretization preserves exactly both the Poisson structure and the integrals of motion, one speak of an “exact discretization”: one has a family of Bäcklund transformations, which map solutions into solutions and are interpolated by a hamiltonian flow generated by some function of the integrals of motion of the continuous system.
A class of implicitly defined Poisson maps $so^*(3) \to so^*(3)$ discretizing the classical Euler top in the space of the angular momentum was indicated in [@Bob_Lorb]. The maps preserve the energy and momentum integrals of the continuous problem and contain explicitly a time step parameter. It was shown that such a map preserves the standard Lie–Poisson structure on $so^*(3)$ if and only if its restriction onto complex invariant manifolds, open subsets of elliptic curves, is a shift, which is constant on each curve.
Recently, another integrable discretization of the top on $so^*(3)$, which is [*explicit*]{}, but does not preserve the integrals of the continuous problem was found in [@Jap] by applying the Hirota method.
#### Contents of the paper.
Our aim is twofold. First, in Section 2, we propose yet another description of the continuous $n$-dimensional Euler–Manakov top as a reduction of a Hamiltonian system on so called extended Stiefel variety $\bar{\cal V}(k,m)$, a symplectic submanifold of dimension $km-k^2/2$ in ${\mathbb R}^{km}$, where $2\le k\le n$ is an even integer. We present a Lax representation of this system with a rational parameter, which, in a sense described below, is dual to Manakov’s Lax pair found in [@Man_so_n].
The system possesses $k/2$ commuting symmetry fields ${\cal R}_l$ generated by Hamiltonians $H_l$. Its Marsden–Weinstein reduction with respect to the action of the fields gives rise to a Hamiltonian system on a rank $k$ coadjoint orbit ${\cal S}_h^{(k)}$ in the coalgebra $so^*(m)$, whereas the original Poisson structure in $\bar{\cal V}(k,m)$ is a pull-back of the standard Lie–Poisson structure of $so^*(m)$ restricted onto the orbit. The reduced Hamiltonian system coincides with the Euler–Manakov system on ${\cal S}_h^{(k)}$. In case of the maximal rank $k$, the level variety $\{H_l=c_l \}\subset \bar{\cal V}(k,m)$ is the group $SO(m)$, and the restriction of the original system onto the group yields a flow describing the motion of the $n$-dimensional top in space.
Second, in Section 3, we present an intertwining relation (discrete Lax pair) generating a explicit $\lambda^*$-depended family of two-valued complex Bäcklund transformations $\cal B_\lambda^*$ of the variety ${\cal V}(2,3)$, which preserve the above Poisson structure and the first integrals of the continuous Hamiltonian system (formula (\[4.10\])).
The restricton of $\cal B_\lambda^*$ onto the group $SO(3)$ provides a discretization of the motion of the classical Euler top in space and has a transparent geometric interpretation, which, in turn, can be regarded as a discrete version of the celebrated Poinsot model of motion and which inherits some properties of another discrete integrable system, the elliptic billiard (Figure 1). On the other hand, the reduction of $\cal B_\lambda^*$ onto the coalgebra $so^*(3)$ gives a new explicit discretization of the classical Euler top, which also preserves its first integrals (formula (\[diff\])).
Like the Moser–Veselov correspondence, the both discretizations do not explicitly involve a time step and their continuous limits depend on the parameter $\lambda^*$.
Hamiltonian Systems on Extended Stiefel Varieties and Rank $k$ Solutions of Frahm–Manakov top
=============================================================================================
Recall that the free motion of an $m$-dimensional rigid body is described by the Euler–Frahm equations ([@FFrahm]) $$\dot M=[M,\Omega ],
\label{2.1}$$ where $\Omega \in so(m)$ is the angular velocity, $M\in so^*(m)$ the angular momentum of the body in the moving frame. Following [@MiFo; @R], these equations are Hamiltonian with respect to the degenerate Lie–Poisson bracket on $so^*(m)$ $$\label{poinsot}
\{ M_{ij}, M_{kl} \}_{so(m)} = \delta_{il} M_{jk} - \delta_{il} M_{kj}
+\delta_{kj} M_{jl} - \delta_{ik} M_{jl}$$ and $\Omega_{ij}=\partial H(M)/\partial M_{ij}$.
The restriction of $\{\cdot, \cdot \}_{so(m)}$ onto orbits of coadjoint action of $SO(m)$ in $so^*(m)$ is nondegenerate. A generic orbit ${\cal S}_h$ parameterized by $[m/2]$ independent Casimir functions of the bracket is thus a symplectic variety of dimension $m(m-1)/2-[m/2]$.
Equations (\[2.1\]) are known to be integrable provided $M$ and $\Omega$ are related as $[M, a]=[\Omega, b]$, where $a,b$ are constant commuting matrices, and all the eigenvalues of $a$ and $b$ are distinct. The integrability follows from the Lax representation with a rational spectral parameter found by Manakov in [@Man_so_n], or from a hyperelliptic Lax pair indicated in [@Fe_AMS]. These Lax pairs provide a complete set of integrals of motion, whose involutivity can be proved by applying $r$-matrix theory.
For the concreteness, in the sequel we consider the case $a=\mbox{diag}(a_1,\dots,a_m)$, $b=a^2$. Then $\Omega=AM+M A$, and equations (\[2.1\]) take the form $$\label{FM_again}
\dot M=[M,aM+Ma]$$
Apart from this “basic” system, there exists a whole hierarchy of “higher Manakov systems”, which are defined by different relations between $\Omega$ and $M$, and which commute with (\[FM\_again\]).
Below we show that the restrictions of the Frahm–Manakov system on rank $k$ orbits of coadjoint representation of $SO(m)$ in $so^*(m)$ are closely related to certain Hamiltonian dynamical systems on extended Stiefel varieties. Recall that the standard Stiefel variety ${\cal V}(k,m)$ is the variety of ordered sets of $k$ orthogonal vectors in ${\mathbb R}^m$ (${\mathbb C}^m$) having fixed squares. It is a smooth variety of dimension $km-k(k+1)/2$ (see e.g., [@Sovr_Geom]).
Namely, as follows from (\[2.1\]), the angular momentum in space is a constant matrix. Hence, due to the Darboux theorem, in the case rank $M=k$ there exist $k$ mutually orthogonal and [*fixed in space*]{} vectors $x^{(l)}, y^{(l)}\in {\mathbb R}^m$, $l=1,\dots,k/2$ such that $|x^{(l)}|^2=|y^{(l)}|^2=h_l$ and the momentum $M$ can be represented in form $$\begin{gathered}
M=\sum_{l=1}^{k/2} x^{(l)}\wedge y^{(l)}\, , \quad \mbox{that is,} \quad
M= {\cal X}^T{\cal Y}-{\cal Y}^T{\cal X} \, , \label{r5.87} \\
{\cal X}^T=(x^{(1)}\, \cdots \, x^{(k/2)})\, , \quad {\cal Y}^T=(y^{(1)}\, \cdots \,
y^{(k/2)})\, . \nonumber\end{gathered}$$ Under the above conditions, the set of $k\times m$ matrices ${\cal Z}=( x^{(1)}\,y^{(1)}\,\cdots\, x^{(k/2)}\,y^{(k/2)})^T$ forms the [*extended* ]{} Stiefel variety $\bar{\cal V}(k,m)$. In contrast to the standard Stiefel variety, for each index $l$, the absolute values $|x^{(l)}|=|y^{(l)}|$ are not fixed. Thus, $\bar{\cal V}(k,m)$ is of dimension $km-k^2/2$, and the $k\times m$ components of $\cal Z$ play the role of excessive coordinates on it.
Let $${\omega}=\mbox{tr}\, (d {\cal X} \wedge d {\cal Y}^T)
=\sum_{l=1}^k \sum_{i=1}^m \, d x^{(l)}_i \wedge d\,y^{(l)}_i\,$$ be the canonical symplectic structure on the space ${\mathbb R}^{km}=\widetilde x^{(1)},y^{(1)},\cdots , x^{(k/2)},y^{(k/2)})$ and let $\bar\omega$ denote the restriction of 2-form $\omega$ onto $\bar{\cal V}(k,m)\subset{\mathbb R}^{km}$. The latter subvariety is defined by conditions $$\begin{gathered}
\label{constraints}
\langle x^{(l)}, x^{(l)}\rangle - \langle y^{(l)}, y^{(l)}\rangle =0, \quad
\langle x^{(l)}, x^{(s)}\rangle
= \langle y^{(l)}, y^{(s)}\rangle =0, \quad
{\cal Y}{\cal X}^T=0, \\
l,s=1,\dots, k/2, \nonumber\end{gathered}$$ which consist of $k^2/2$ independent scalar equations $f_s(x,y)=0$. The matrix of standard Poisson brackets of the constraint functions $f_s$ in ${\mathbb R}^{km}$ is nondegenerate. It follows that 2-form $\bar\omega$ is also nondegenerate and the extended Stiefel variety is symplectic.
Since the vectors are fixed in space, in the frame attached to the top they satisfy the Poisson equations $\dot x^{(l)}=-\Omega x^{(l)}$, $\dot y^{(l)}=-\Omega y^{(l)}$, $\Omega\in so(m)$, which imply $$\dot{\cal X}={\cal X}\Omega\, , \quad \dot{\cal Y}={\cal Y}\Omega \, .
\label{r5.88}$$ As above, we put $\Omega=a M+M a$, $a=\mbox{diag} (a_1,\dots,a_m)$ and define a dynamical system on $\bar{\cal V}(k,m)$, which is generated by (\[r5.88\]), (\[r5.87\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\cal X} &={\cal X}[ a({\cal X}^T {\cal Y}-{\cal Y}^T{\cal X})
+{\cal X}^T{\cal Y}a], \\
\dot{\cal Y} &={\cal Y} [ a ({\cal X}^T{\cal Y}-{\cal Y}^T{\cal X})
-{\cal Y}^T{\cal X} a ] \, . \end{aligned} \label{r588}$$
\[tr5.25\]
[1)]{} Under the substitution $(\ref{r5.87})$ solutions of the system $(\ref{r588})$ give rank $k$ solutions of the Frahm–Manakov system (\[FM\_again\]) on $so^*(m)$.
[2)]{} Up to the action of the discrete group generated by reflections $({\cal X},{\cal Y})\to (-{\cal X},-{\cal Y})$, the system $(\ref{r588})$ is described by $k\times k$ Lax pair with rational parameter $\lambda$ $$\begin{gathered}
\dot L(\lambda)=[\, L(\lambda), A(\lambda)\,]\, , \qquad L,A\in {\rm sp}(k/2), \quad
\lambda\in{\mathbb C} \, , \label{r5.89} \\
L=\begin{pmatrix}-{\cal X} (\lambda{\bf I}-a)^{-1} {\cal Y}^T &
-{\cal X} (\lambda{\bf I}-a)^{-1} {\cal X}^T \\
{\cal Y} (\lambda{\bf I}-a)^{-1} {\cal Y}^T &
{\cal Y} (\lambda{\bf I}-a)^{-1} {\cal X}^T \end{pmatrix}
\equiv \sum_{i=1}^m \frac{ {\cal N}_i} {\lambda-a_i}\, , \label{dual1} \\
{\cal N}_i=\begin{pmatrix} {\bar x}_i {\bar y}_i^T & -{\bar x}_i {\bar x}_i^T \\
-{\bar y}_i {\bar y}_i^T & -{\bar y}_i {\bar x}_i^T \end{pmatrix}, \nonumber \\
A=\begin{pmatrix}
{\cal X} (a+\lambda{\bf I}){\cal Y}^T & {\cal X} (a+\lambda{\bf I}){\cal X}^T \\
-{\cal Y} (a+\lambda{\bf I}) {\cal Y}^T & -{\cal Y} (a+\lambda{\bf I}){\cal X}^T
\end{pmatrix}\,, \label{AA}\end{gathered}$$ where $\bar x_i=\left( x_i^{(1)},\dots,x_i^{(k/2)} \right)^T$ (respectively $\bar y_i=\left( x_i^{(1)},\dots,x_i^{(k/2)}\right)^T)$ is $i$-th column of $\cal X$ [(]{}respectively of $\cal Y)$, and ${\bf I}$ is the unit $m\times m$ matrix.
[*Proof.*]{} The first statement follows directly from the derivation of the system $(\ref{r588})$. Further, we calculate the derivative $\dot L(\lambda)$ by virtue of equations (\[r588\]). In view of matrix relations $(\lambda{\bf I}-a)^{-1} a=\lambda(\lambda{\bf I}-a)^{-1}-{\bf I}$ and ${\cal Y}{\cal X}^T={\cal X}{\cal Y}^T=0$, the derivative coincides with the commutator in $(\ref{r5.89})$. $\boxed{}$
[**Remark 2.1.**]{} Notice that the entries of matrices $$\Phi(\lambda)L(\lambda), \quad \Phi(\lambda)A(\lambda), \quad \mbox{where} \quad
\Phi(\lambda)=(\lambda-a_1)\cdots (\lambda-a_n)$$ are polynomials in $\lambda$, and, under the substitution (\[r5.87\]), the coefficients of the characteristic polynomial $| \Phi(\lambda) L(\lambda)-w{\bf I}|$ can be expressed in terms of $M_{ij}$ only as follows $$\begin{gathered}
|w{\bf I}-L(\lambda)|=w^k +\sum_{l=2}^k w^{k-l} \Psi^{l-1}(\lambda)\,
\widetilde {{\cal I}}_{l}(\lambda,M) \, , \qquad l=2,4,\dots,k, \nonumber \\
\widetilde {\cal I}_{l}(\lambda,M)=\sum^{m}_{I}
\frac{\Phi(\lambda) }{ (\lambda-a_{i_1})\cdots(\lambda-a_{i_l})}\,|M|^{I}_{I} \, ,
\label{cal_I}\end{gathered}$$ where $|M|^{I}_{I}$ are diagonal minors of order $l$ corresponding to multi-indices $I=\{i_1,\ldots i_k\}\subset\{1,\dots,m\}$, $1\le i_1<\cdots<i_l\le m.$ Notice that the leading coefficients $H_{l,m-l}(M)=\sum^{m}_{I} \,|M|^{I}_{I}$ form a complete set of Casimir functions on $so^*(m)$.
The $k\times k$ matrix $L(\lambda)$ in (\[dual1\]) belongs to a wide class of Lax operators of the form $$Y+\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{ G_i^T F_i}{\lambda-a_i},$$ where $Y\in gl(k)$ is a constant matrix and $G_i, F_i$ are $k_i\times k$ matrices. Such Lax matrices can be regarded as images of moment maps to the loop algebra $\widetilde {gl}(k)$, and integrable systems generated by them have been studied in the series of papers [@AHP; @AHH_CMP; @AHH_Lett; @Harnad1] in connection with the duality to so called rank $k$ perturbations of constant diagonal matrices of dimension $n\times n$ (following Moser [@Moser_Chern]). In particular, the $k\times k$ Lax matrix (\[dual1\]) is dual to the $n\times n$ Lax matrix in the Manakov representation, $${\cal L} (\mu) = a +\frac 1\mu ({\cal X}^T{\cal Y}-{\cal Y}^T{\cal X} )\equiv
a +\frac 1\mu M, \label{2.17}$$ in the sense that under the relation (\[r5.87\]) the spectral curves $|L(\lambda)- \mu {\bf I}|=0$ and $|{\cal L}(\mu)- w{\bf I}|=0$ are birationally equivalent and the parameter $\lambda$ plays the role of the eigenvalue parameter for (\[2.17\]). The characteristic polynomials of the dual Lax matrices are related by the Weinstein–Aronjan formula (see [@AHP]).
[**Remark 2.2.**]{} The matrix $A(\lambda)$ in (\[AA\]) can be represented in form $$A(\lambda)\, =[\, \lambda^{-m+2} \Phi(\lambda) L(\lambda) \, ]_+ + (a_1+\cdots +a_n) L_0 , \qquad
L_0=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & {\cal X} {\cal X}^T \\
-{\cal Y} {\cal Y}^T & 0 \end{pmatrix}$$ where $[\;\; ]_+$ denotes the polynomial part in $\lambda$ of the expression. Notice that the Lax equation $\dot L=[L, L_0]$ describes the vector flow $$\label{rot}
\dot{ x^{(l)}} =\langle x^{(l)},x^{(l)}\rangle y^{(l)}, \quad \dot{ y^{(l)}}
=- \langle y^{(l)},y^{(l)}\rangle x^{(l)}, \qquad
l=1,\dots, k/2 .$$ For each index ${\cal R}_l$, equations (\[rot\]) generate rotations ${\cal R}_l$ in 2-planes spanned by the vectors $x^{(l)},y^{(l)}$, which leave the momentum $M$ invariant.
Let $\overline{\{\cdot, \cdot \}}$ be the Poisson bracket on $\bar{\cal V}(k,m)$ obtained as the Dirac restriction of the standard bracket in ${\mathbb R}^{km}$. Symplectic properties of our system are descibed by
\[STAND\] The dynamical system $(\ref{r588})$ on $\bar{\cal V}(k,m)$ is Hamiltonian with respect to $\overline{\{\cdot, \cdot \}}$ with the Hamilton function $\bar H ({\cal X}, {\cal Y}) =-\frac 14 {\rm tr}(M^2 ({\cal X}, {\cal Y}) A)$. In the abundant coordinates ${\cal X}, {\cal Y}$ it admits the canonical representation $$\begin{gathered}
\label{canonical}
\dot x_i ^{(l)} = \frac {\partial \bar H}{\partial y_i ^{(l)} } \bigg |_{\bar{\cal V}(k,m)}\, , \quad
\dot y_i ^{(l)} = -\frac {\partial \bar H}{\partial x_i^{(l)} } \bigg |_{\bar{\cal V}(k,m)}\, , \\
i=1,\dots, n, \quad l=1,\dots,k/2. \nonumber\end{gathered}$$
[*Proof.*]{} The equivalence of equations (\[canonical\]) and (\[r588\]) on $\bar{\cal V}(k,m)$ is verified by direct calculations. Next, according to the Dirac formalizm, the standard bracket and $\overline{\{\cdot, \cdot \}}$ are different by terms containing $\{ f_s, \bar H \}$. The latter equal zero since the constraint functions $f_s$ given by (\[constraints\]) are invariants of the flow generated by $\bar H ({\cal X}, {\cal Y})$ on ${\mathbb R}^{km}$. Hence, equations (\[r588\]) or (\[canonical\]) are Hamiltonian with respect to $\overline{\{\cdot, \cdot \}}$. $\boxed{}$
Rotations ${\cal R}_l$ given by (\[rot\]) are generated by the Hamiltonians $H_l(x,y)$, the restrictions of the functions $\frac 12 \langle x^{(l)},x^{(l)}\rangle \langle y^{(l)},y^{(l)}\rangle$ on $\bar{\cal V}(k,m)$. Clearly, these functions are first integrals of the system (\[r588\]) and moreover they commute with $H$.
Let us fix the values of the Hamiltonians by putting $$\langle x^{(l)},x^{(l)}\rangle =\langle y^{(l)},y^{(l)}\rangle =h_l, \quad h_l={\rm const}\ne 0, \quad l=1,\dots,k/2.$$ These conditions define the customary Stiefel variety ${\cal V}(k,m)$. Under the substitution (\[r5.87\]), the factor variety ${\cal V}(k,m)/ \{ {\cal R}_1,\dots, {\cal R}_{k/2}\}$ coincides with a rank $k$ coadjoint orbit ${\cal S}_h^{(k)}\subset so^*(m)$ of dimension $k\left(m-\frac k2\right)-k$, which is parameterized by the constants $h_1,\dots,h_{k/2}$. Notice that $M^2=h^2_1+\cdots +h^2_{k/2}$.
[1)]{} Under the map $\bar{\cal V}(k,m) \to {\cal S}_h^{(k)}$, the Lie–Poisson bracket on ${\cal S}_h^{(k)}\subset so^*(m)$ is the push-forward of the bracket $\overline{\{\cdot, \cdot \}}$.
[2)]{} The Poisson (Marsden–Weinstein) reduction of the system (\[r588\]) obtained by fixing values of $H_l(x,y)$ and by factorization by ${\cal R}_l$, $l=1,\dots,k/2$ coincides with the restriction of the Frahm–Manakov system with Hamiltonian\
$H(M)=\frac 12 \sum_{i\le j}(a_i+a_j) M_{ij}^2$ onto the orbit ${\cal S}_h^{(k)}$.
[*Proof.*]{} 1). In view of (\[poinsot\]), (\[r5.87\]), $$\{ M_{ij}({\cal X}, {\cal Y}), M_{kl}({\cal X}, {\cal Y}) \}
=\{ M_{ij}, M_{kl}\}_{so(n)} ({\cal X}, {\cal Y}) ,$$ i.e., the canonical bracket on ${\mathbb R}^{km}$ is the pull-back of the bracket $\{\cdot, \cdot\}_{so(n)}$ on ${\cal S}_h^{(k)}\subset so^*(m)$. On the other hand, on $\bar{\cal V}(k,m)$, $$\{ M_{ij}({\cal X}, {\cal Y}), M_{kl}({\cal X}, {\cal Y}) \}
=\overline{ \{ M_{ij}({\cal X}, {\cal Y}), M_{kl}({\cal X}, {\cal Y}) \} } ,$$ since for any $i,j,s$, $\{ M_{ij}({\cal X}, {\cal Y}), f_s ({\cal X}, {\cal Y}) \}=0$. This proves item 1).
2). By item 1) and Proposition \[STAND\], the Poisson reduction of system (\[r588\]) onto ${\cal S}_h^{(k)}$ is described by the Lie–Poisson bracket $\{\cdot, \cdot\}_{so(n)}$ and the Hamiltonian $H(M)=\bar H ({\cal X}, {\cal Y})= \sum_{i\le j}(a_i+a_j) M_{ij}^2$, i.e., it is the corresponding restriction of the Frahm–Manakov system. $\boxed{}$
The reduced system on the orbit ${\cal S}_h^{(k)}$ is integrable and its generic invariant manifolds are tori of dimension $\frac 12 {\rm dim\,} {\cal S}_h^{(k)}$ (see, e.g., [@MiFo]). On the other hand, the preimage of a generic point $M\in {\cal S}_h^{(k)}$ in ${\cal V}(k,m)$ is a $k/2$-fold product of circles $S^1 \times \cdots\times S^1$ (in the complex case ${\mathbb C}^*\times \cdots \times {\mathbb C}^*$). This implies that the original system on $\bar{\cal V}(k,m)$ has generic invariant tori of dimension $\frac 12 {\rm dim\,} {\cal S}_h^{(k)} + k/2=(m-k/2)k/2$, i.e., a half of dimension of the symplectic manifold $\bar{\cal V}(k,m)$. Hence, the original system $(\ref{r588})$ is also integrable.
To get a global view on the above manifolds, we represent them in the following diagram, with the dimension indicated above, where arrows denote the corresponding relations (restrictions or factorizations). $$\begin{CD}
{\mathbb R}^{km}\quad @ > f_s=0 >>
\bar{\cal V}(k,m) \quad @ > |x ^{(l)}|^2=|y ^{(l)}|^2=h_l >>
\quad {\cal V}(k,m) \qquad @ > {\cal R} >> \quad {\cal S}_h^{(k)}
\end{CD}$$ $$\boxed{k\times m} \quad \quad \boxed{k\left(m-\frac k2\right)} \qquad \quad
\boxed{ k\left(m-\frac k2\right)-\frac k2}
\qquad \boxed{k\left(m-\frac k2\right)-k}$$
[**Remark 2.3.**]{} In the case of maximal rank $k$ ($k=m$ or $k=m-1$), when ${\cal S}_h^{(k)}$ is a generic coadjoint orbit ${\cal S}_h$, the Stiefel variety ${\cal V}(k,m)$ is isomorphic to the group $SO(m)$. Then the following commutative diagram holds $$\begin{CD}
\bar{\cal V}(k,m) @ > |x ^{(l)}|^2=|y ^{(l)}|^2=h_l >> SO(m) \\
@ V {\cal R} VV @ V {\cal R} VV \\
so^*(m) @ > H_{l,m-l}(M)=c_l >> {\cal S}_h \, ,
\end{CD}$$ where the values $\{c_l\}$ of nonzero Casimir functions $H_{l,m-l}(M)$ correspond to the constants $\{h_l\}$. The mapping $\begin{CD} SO(m) @ > {\cal R}>> {\cal S}_h \end{CD}$ can be regarded as a multi-dimensional analog of the Hopf fibration $\begin{CD} SO(3) @ >S^1 >> S^2\end{CD}$. The restriction of the system (\[r588\]) onto ${\cal V}(k,m)$ yields an integrable flow on the group $ SO(m)$ which describes the motion of the Frahm–Manakov top in space for the chosen angular momentum.
For $m=3$ such a flow was considered in [@Koz_vortex; @Koz_AMS] from the point of view of its hydrodynamical interpretation.
#### A generalization of the Chasles theorem.
If the rank $k$ is not maximal, then the components of ${\cal X}, {\cal Y}$ themselves are not sufficient to form a complete set of coordinates on $SO(m)$ and to determine the position of the top in space uniquely. However, in this case one can make use of the following geometric property described in [@Fe_AMS]. Let us fix a part of constants of motion by putting in (\[cal\_I\]) $$\label{c's}
\widetilde {\cal I}_{k}(s,M)=c_{0}(s-c_{1})\cdots(s-c_{m-k}), \qquad
c_{0}, c_{1}, \dots, c_{m-k}=\mbox{const}$$ and consider family of confocal cones in ${\mathbb R}^{m}=(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ $$\bar Q(s)= \biggl\{{X^{2}_{1}\over s-a_{1}} +\cdots+
{X^{2}_{n}\over s-a_{n}} =0\biggr\} .$$ Let $\bar {\Lambda} \subset {\mathbb R}^{m}$ be a $k$-plane spanned by the orthogonal vectors $x^{(1)},y^{(1)},\dots , x^{(k/2)},y^{(k/2)}$.
[([@Fe_AMS]).]{} \[prop5.6\]
[1).]{} Under the motion of the Frahm–Manakov top with constants (\[c’s\]) the $k$-plane $\bar{\Lambda}$ is tangent to the fixed cones $\bar Q (c_{1}),\ldots,\bar Q(c_{m-k})$.
[2).]{} Let $\phi^{(\alpha)}$ be a normal vector of the cone $\bar Q(c_{\alpha})$ at a point of the contact line $\bar\Lambda \cap \bar Q(c_{\alpha})$. Then the vectors $\phi^{(1)}, \dots, \phi^{(m-k)}$ together with $x^{(1)}, y^{(1)}, \dots, x^{(k/2)}, y^{(k/2)}$ form an orthogonal frame in ${\mathbb R}^{m}$ which is fixed in space.
For fixed polynomial $\widetilde {\cal I}_{k}(s,M)$, the vectors $\phi^{(l)}$ can be calculated in terms of $x^{(s)}, y^{(s)}$ and, thereby, the position of the top in space is completely determined. Proposition \[prop5.6\] defines a single-valued map $\bar{\cal V}(k,m)\to SO(m)$ under which generic invariant tori of dimension $(m-k/2)k/2$ on $\bar{\cal V}(k,m)$ become tori of the same dimension on the group $SO(m)$.
Note that the above proposition generalizes the celebrated Chasles theorem on the propery of the tangent line to a geodesic on a quadric.
#### The rank 2 case.
In the simplest case $k=2$ the angular momentum can be represented in form $$\label{decom}
M=x \wedge y, \quad x=x^{(1)}=(x_1,\dots,x_m)^T \, ,\quad
y=y^{(1)}=(y_1,\dots,y_m)^T$$ and equations (\[r588\]) describe a Hamiltonian system on the extended Stiefel variety $\bar{\cal V}(2,m)=\left\{ (x,y) \bigg|\,|x|=|y|, \; \langle x,y\rangle =0\right\}$, $$\label{bg}
\begin{aligned}
\dot x &=-\langle y, a x\rangle x +\langle x, a x\rangle y + a y \langle x,x\rangle , \\
\dot y &=-\langle y, a y\rangle x +\langle x,a y\rangle y -a x \langle y,y\rangle
\end{aligned}$$ with the Hamiltonian $$\bar H= \frac 12 \langle x,a x\rangle \langle y,y\rangle
-\langle a x,y\rangle \langle x,y\rangle
+ \frac 12 \langle y,a y\rangle \langle x,x\rangle
= \frac 12 \sum_{i<j}^m (a_i+a_j) M_{ij}^2 .$$
Equivalently, this system describes the evolution of fixed orthogonal vectors $x,y$ in a frame attached to the $m$-dimensional body. The system admits the following $2\times 2$ Lax pair arising from (\[r5.89\]), $$\begin{gathered}
\dot L(\lambda)=[\, L(\lambda), {\cal A} (\lambda)\,]\, , \label{r5.99} \\
L(\lambda)=\Phi(\lambda) \begin{pmatrix}
-\sum_{i=1}^m \frac{x_i y_i}{\lambda-a_i} &
-\sum_{i=1}^m \frac{x_i^2}{\lambda-a_i} \\ \sum_{i=1}^m \frac{y_i^2}{\lambda-a_i} &
\sum_{i=1}^m \frac{x_i y_i}{\lambda-a_i} \end{pmatrix}\, , \nonumber \\
\medskip \nonumber
{\cal A} (\lambda)=\begin{pmatrix}
-\sum_{i=1}^m (\lambda+ a_i){x_i y_i} & -\sum_{i=1}^m (\lambda + a_i)x_i^2 \\
\sum_{i=1}^m (\lambda + a_i)y_i^2 &
\sum_{i=1}^m (\lambda + a_i) {x_i y_i} \end{pmatrix}\, , \nonumber \\
\Phi(\lambda)=(\lambda-a_{1})\cdots(\lambda-a_{m}), \nonumber \end{gathered}$$
The Lax representation (\[r5.99\]) was first indicated in [@AHH_Lett], where it was shown to be dual to an $n\times n$ Lax pair for the rank 2 case found by Moser in [@Moser_Chern].
In view of relation (\[decom\]), the characteristic polynomial $|L(\lambda)-\mu {\bf I} |$ for (\[r5.99\]) can be written in form $\Phi(\lambda) \widetilde {\cal I}_2(\lambda,M) +\mu^2$, where $\widetilde {\cal I}_2(\lambda,M)$ is the family of quadratic integrals defined in (\[cal\_I\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde {\cal I}_2(\lambda,M) &
=\sum_{i<j} \frac { \Phi(\lambda)}{(\lambda-a_{i})(\lambda-a_{j})}M_{ij}^2
\nonumber \\
& =\lambda^{m-2} H_{2,m-2}(M)+\lambda^{m-3} H_{2,m-3}(M)+\cdots+H_{20}(M) .
\label{m2.13} \end{aligned}$$ Notice that $H_{2,m-2}(M)= \sum_{i<j}^m M_{ij}^2=(y,y)(x,x)$ is a Casimir function of the standard Lie–Poisson bracket on $so^*(m)$. With respect to the Poisson bracket $\overline{\{\, , \, \} }$ on $\bar{\cal V}(2,m)$, this function generates permanent rotations of the top in the fixed 2-plane $\bar\Lambda ={\rm span}(y,x)$, which leave the components of $M$ invariant.
Let us fix the constants of motion by putting $$\label{I_2}
\widetilde {\cal I}_2(\lambda,M) =c_0(\lambda-c_1)\cdots (\lambda -c_{m-2}) , \qquad
c_0, c_1,\dots, c_{m-2}=\mbox{const}.$$ This defines hyperelliptic spectral curve in ${\mathbb C}^2=(\lambda,\mu)$ of genus $g=m-2$ $$\label{hypp}
{\cal C}=\{ \mu^2= -c_0\, \Phi(\lambda)\, (\lambda-c_1)\cdots (\lambda -c_{m-2})\} \, .$$
As noticed in [@Acta_bill], the real generic $(g+1)$-dimensional invariant tori of the system can be extended to open subsets of generalized Jacobian varieties Jac$({\cal C},\infty_{\pm})$, which are extensions of the customary $g$-dimensional Jacobian Jac$({\cal C})$ by ${\mathbb C}^*$ and which can be regarded as the factor of ${\mathbb C}^2$ by the lattice generated by $(2g+1)$ independent period vectors of $g$ holomorphic differentials $\bar \omega_1\dots,\bar\omega_g$ and a meromorphic differential of the third kind $\varOmega_{\infty_{\pm}}$ having a pair of simple poles at the infinite points $\infty_{\pm}$ on the curve $\cal C$.
The coefficients of the matrix polynomial $L(\lambda)$ are meromorphic functions on Jac$({\cal C},\infty_{\pm})$, whereas the components of the momentum $M_{ij}$ and the normal vectors $\phi^{(\alpha)}$ are meromorphic on a covering of the Jacobian Jac$({\cal C})$ itself (the ${\mathbb C}^*$-extension is factored out by the action of ${\cal R}=SO(2)$).
In the classical case $m=3$ the curves $\cal C$ become elliptic ones and generic invariant tori in $\bar{\cal V}(2,3)$ and in $SO(3)$ are 2-dimensional. An explicit solution for the components of the rotation matrix in terms of theta-functions and exponents was first given in [@Jac_corps] (see also [@Whitt]). Since now rank $M=$2 in the generic case, the above commutative diagram takes the form $$\begin{CD}
\bar{\cal V}(2,3) @ > |x|^2=|y|^2=h >> SO(3) \\
@ V SO(2) VV @ V SO(2) VV \\
so^*(3) @ > \langle M,M\rangle =h^2 >> S^2_h
\end{CD}$$ $S^2_h$ being the coadjoint orbit (2-dimensional sphere) corresponding to the constant $h$.
Bäcklund transformation on $\bar{\cal V}(2,3)$, $SO(3)$\
and discretization of the clasical Euler top
========================================================
A first integrable discretization of the $m$-dimensional Euler–Manakov top was constructed in [@Ves; @MosVes] by the method of factorization of matrix polynomials. It was represented by the correspondence $(\Omega,M)\to (\widetilde \Omega, \widetilde M)$, $\Omega\in SO(m)\,, M\in so^*(m)$, which, in our notation reads $$\label{step}
M=\Omega^T A- A\Omega, \quad \widetilde M=\Omega M\Omega^T .$$ Given $\widetilde M$, the new matrix $\widetilde \Omega$ is found from equation $\widetilde M=\widetilde \Omega^T A- A\widetilde \Omega$, whose solution is not unique.
In given section we describe a symplectic map $\bar{\cal B}_{\lambda*} \; : \bar{\cal V}(2,3) \to \bar{\cal V}(2,3)$, $\bar{\cal B}_{\lambda*}(x,y) =(\widetilde x,\widetilde y)$ governed by an arbitrary parameter $\lambda^*\in {\mathbb C}$, which preserves the first integrals of the continuous system (\[bg\]) and whose restriction to each generic complex torus, generalized Jacobian Jac$({\cal C},\infty_{\pm})$, is given by shift by the 2-dimensional vector $$S=\int_{E_-}^{E_+}
\left(\frac{d\, \lambda}{\mu} ,\frac{\lambda\, d\, \lambda}{\mu} \right)^T, \qquad
E_{\pm}=(\lambda^*,\pm \mu^*),$$ $E_{\pm}$ being involutive points on the elliptic spectral curve, the simplest case of (\[hypp\]), $${\cal C}= \{\mu^2= -c_0\, (\lambda-a_1)(\lambda-a_2)(\lambda-a_3)\, (\lambda-c_1) \}.$$ Note that $S$ is a correctly defined vector in the generalized Jacobian: under a change of integration path on $\cal C$ it increases by a period vector of Jac$({\cal C},\infty_{\pm})$. We also emphasize that here $\lambda^*$ is a constant parameter, whereas the conjugated coordinate $\mu^*$ depends on the equation of the curve.
#### Bäcklund transformation on $\bar{\cal V}(2,3)$.
As shown in [@Sabaudia] by applying an addition theorem for a class of meromorphic functions on generalized hyperelliptic Jacobians, such a map admits intertwining relation (discrete Lax pair) $$\begin{gathered}
\widetilde L(\lambda) M(\lambda|\lambda^*)=M(\lambda|\lambda^*) L(\lambda), \label{bak4.8} \\
M(\lambda|\lambda^*)=
\begin{pmatrix} -\alpha (\lambda-\lambda^*)+ \beta & 1 \\
-\beta^2 & -\alpha (\lambda-\lambda^*)-\beta \end{pmatrix}, \nonumber \\
\begin{aligned}
\beta(\lambda^*) & = - \frac{\mu^*+L_{11}(\lambda^*)}{L_{12}(\lambda^*)}\equiv
- \frac{\mu^*+ a_1^* a_2^* a_3^* \langle x,(a-\lambda^* {\bf I} )^{-1}y\rangle }
{a_1^* a_2^* a_3^* \langle x,(a-\lambda^* {\bf I} )^{-1}x\rangle }, \\
\alpha & =\frac{\partial\beta(\lambda)}{\partial\lambda} \bigg |_{\lambda=\lambda^*} ,
\quad a^*_i = a_i -\lambda^*,
\end{aligned}
\label{ab}\end{gathered}$$ where $L(\lambda)$ is defined in (\[r5.99\]) and $\widetilde L(\lambda)$ depends on the new variables $\widetilde x, \widetilde y$ in the same way as $L(\lambda)$ depends on $x, y$. In view of (\[m2.13\]) for $m=3$, $$\label{*}
\mu^*=\sqrt{\Phi (\lambda^*) \sum_{k=1}^3 a_k^* (x_i y_j- x_j y_i)^2}\, , \qquad
(i,j,k)=(1,2,3).$$
Now putting in (\[bak4.8\]) subsequently $\lambda=a_1,a_3,a_3$ and calculating the matrices $M(a_i) L(a_i|x, y) M^{-1}(a_i)$, we find $$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde x}_i^2 &=\frac{ (y_i +\beta x_i+ \alpha (a_i-\lambda^*) x_i)^2} { \alpha^2 (a_i-\lambda^*)^2},
\nonumber \\
{\widetilde y}_i^2 &=\frac{ (\beta y_i +\beta^2 x_i - \alpha (a_i-\lambda^*) y_i)^2 }
{ \alpha^2 (a_i-\lambda^*)^2}, \label{sqared} \\
\widetilde x_i \widetilde y_i &=- \frac{(y_i +\beta x_i+ \alpha (a_i-\lambda^*) x_i) \,
(\beta y_i +\beta^2 x_i- \alpha (a_i-\lambda^*) y_i)} {\alpha^2 (a_i-\lambda^*)^2}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ From here the new variables can be recovered up to the action of the group generated by reflections $(\widetilde x_i, \widetilde y_i)\to (-\widetilde x_i, -\widetilde y_i)$. Imposing the condition of the existence of a continuous limit (see below), we choose the following relations $$\begin{gathered}
\widetilde x_i- x_i= \frac{ y_i +\beta x_i}{\alpha (a_i-\lambda^*)}, \quad
\widetilde y_i- y_i= -\frac{\beta(y_i+\beta x_i)}{\alpha (a_i-\lambda^*)}, \qquad
i=1,2,3 . \label{4.10} \end{gathered}$$ These expressions together with (\[ab\]), (\[\*\]) describe the map $\bar{\cal B}_{\lambda*} \; : \bar{\cal V}(2,3) \to \bar{\cal V}(2,3)$ in an [*explicit*]{} form. Since a generic parameter $\lambda^*$ corresponds to two values of $\mu^*$, the map is generally two-valued.
#### Geometric model.
The restriction of the map onto the group $SO(3)$ admits a transparent geometric interpretation, which can be regarded as a “discrete version” of the kinematic Poinsot model (see, e.g., [@Whitt]). Namely, let $|x|=|y|=1$ and let $$R=|| x \; y \;\, x\wedge y || \in SO(3)$$ be rotation matrix defining a position of a rigid body in space. We attach to the body a cone $K_2=\{(X,(a-\lambda^* {\bf I} )^{-1}X)=0\}$, which is fixed in the body frame $(X_1,X_2,X_3)$, and assume that $$\label{real}
0< a_1 < a_2 <a_3, \quad a_1 < \lambda^* < a_2 \quad \mbox{or} \quad a_2 < \lambda^* < a_3 .$$ Under these conditions the cone is real and regular. Let $\Pi$ be 2-plane spanned by $x,y$, which is thus fixed in space and orthogonal to the momentum vector $M=x\wedge y$. Assume also that $x,y$ are such that $\Pi$ has a nonempty real intersection with the cone $K_2$ along lines $L_1, L_2$. One can show that under this condition the coordinates $\mu^*$ defined in (\[\*\]) and the parameters $\alpha, \beta$ are real.
\[proj\_bill\] Let $K_1=\{(X,(a- h {\bf I})^{-1}X)=0\}$, $h=\textup{const}$ be a unique cone attached to the body such that it is confocal to $K_2$ and tangent to the fixed plane $\Pi$. Then then new position of the body defined by the rotation matrix $\widetilde R=|| \widetilde x\;\widetilde y\;\,\widetilde x\wedge \widetilde y ||$ and expressions (\[4.10\]) is obtained from the original position by rotating the cones $K_1, K_2$ about axis $L_1$ or $L_2$ until $K_1$ again touches $\Pi$.
This geometric construction is illustrated on Figure 1. In the new position $\widetilde R$ determined by rotation about $L_2$, the cone $K_2$ intersects $\Pi$ along $L_2$ and another line $L_3$. Then the next iteration is generated by rotation about $L_2$ or $L_3$. The two-valuedness of the map $\bar{\cal B}_{\lambda*}$ is now related to the possibility of rotation about two different axes in ${\mathbb R}^3$. It follows that $N$-th iteration of the map is only $(N+1)$-valued, not $2^N$-valued. By fixing a sign of $\mu^*$ in (\[\*\]), $\bar{\cal B}_{\lambda*}$ becomes single-valued and generates a sequence of points on $SO(3)$.
The geometric model was first proposed in [@Sabaudia] as a certain limit of a kinematical model of motion of 4-dimensional Frahm–Manakov top in space.
Figure 1
[**Remark 3.1.**]{} As follows from (\[4.10\]), the map $\bar{\cal B}_{\lambda*}$ admits particular solutions, for which the vector $M=x\wedge y$ remains to be an eigenvector of the inertia tensor $A=\mbox{diag}(a_1,a_2,a_3)$, whereas $x, y$ themselves rotate by a fixed angle in the plane $\Lambda$. Such solutions can be regarded as analogs of stationary permanent rotations of the classical Euler top about its principal intertia axes.
#### Continuous limit.
Note that when $x,y$ are chosen such that $\Pi$ is (almost) tangent to the cone $K_2$ ($c\to \lambda^*$), $K_1$ and $K_2$ confluent and, according to the above model, the cone $K_1=K_2$ is rolling without sliding over the fixed plane thus giving a continuous limit motion on the group $SO(3)$. From the algebraic geometrical point of view, in the above limit the points $E_-, E_+$ on the spectral curve $\cal C$ come together to a branch point $E_0=(c,0)$ and the shift vector $S$ on the generalized Jacobian tends to zero. Let $\epsilon$ be a small complex parameter. Setting $\mu^*=\epsilon$, $\lambda-\lambda^*=\mbox{const}\cdot \epsilon^2$ in (\[ab\]), we have the expansions $$\beta=-\frac {\langle x,a^{-1}y\rangle }{\langle x,a^{-1}x\rangle}+O(\epsilon), \quad
\alpha= \frac 1\epsilon {\varkappa}{\langle x,a^{-1}x\rangle } +O(1), \qquad
\varkappa=\frac{\partial \mu^2(\lambda)}{\partial \lambda}\bigg |_{\lambda=\lambda^*},$$ where $\varkappa$ is a real nonzero constant. Now we set $$\widetilde x=x+\dot x\epsilon+ O(\epsilon^2), \quad
\widetilde y=y+\dot y\epsilon+ O(\epsilon^2) .$$ Substituting the above expansions into (\[4.10\]), then matching the coefficients at $\epsilon$ in both sides and taking into account relation $$\langle x, (a^*)^{-1}y\rangle ^2= \langle x, (a^*)^{-1}x\rangle
\langle y, (a^*)^{-1}y\rangle + O(\epsilon^2),$$ we obtain the following differential equations describing the limit flow on a subset of $\bar{\cal V}(2,3)$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{cont}
\begin{aligned}
\dot x & = \frac {\det a^*}\varkappa \bigg[\langle x, (a^*)^{-1}y\rangle (a^*)^{-1}x
- \langle x, (a^*)^{-1}x\rangle (a^*)^{-1}y \bigg]
\equiv \frac 1\varkappa x\wedge a^*(x\wedge y), \\
\dot y &= \frac {\det a^*}\varkappa \bigg[\langle y, (a^*)^{-1}y\rangle (a^*)^{-1}x
- \langle x, (a^*)^{-1}y\rangle (a^*)^{-1}x \bigg]
\equiv \frac 1\varkappa y\wedge a^*(x\wedge y) ,
\end{aligned} \\
a^*=a-\lambda^* {\bf I} . \nonumber \end{gathered}$$ These equations are Hamiltonian with the Hamilton function $$H=\frac {\det a^*}{2\varkappa} \bigg[ \langle x, (a^*)^{-1}x\rangle
\langle y, (a^*)^{-1}y\rangle -\langle x,(a^*)^{-1}y\rangle ^2\bigg]
\equiv \frac 1{2\varkappa} \sum_{i=1}^3 (a_i-\lambda^*) M_i^2.$$ Notice that this function equals zero on the limit continuous flow. The restriction of this flow on Jac$({\cal C},\infty_{\pm})$ is tangent to the curve ${\cal C} \subset \mbox{Jac} ({\cal C},\infty_{\pm})$ at the point $E_0$.
The above asymptotic of $\alpha, \beta$ explains the specific choice of sign of $\widetilde x, \widetilde y$ made in the passage from relations (\[sqared\]) to the map (\[4.10\]).
[*Proof of Theorem*]{} \[proj\_bill\]. The condition for $\Pi$ to be tangent to the cone\
$K_1=\{(X,(a- h {\bf I})^{-1}X)=0\}$ has the form $$\sum_{k=1}^3 (h-a_k) (x_i y_j- x_j y_i)^2 \equiv {\cal I}_2(h, M)=0 .$$ Comparing this with the family of integral (\[I\_2\]) for $m=3$, we conclude that $h=c_1$, which is constant under the map, hence the plane spanned by $\widetilde x, \widetilde y$ is again tangent to $K_1$.
Next, any translation in $SO(3)$ is represented as a finite rotation about an axis in ${\mathbb R}^3$. As follows from relations (\[4.10\]), $\widetilde y +\beta\widetilde x = y +\beta x$, hence the line along the vector $\ell=y +\beta x$ is invariant of the action of $\bar{\cal B}_{\lambda*}$ on ${\mathbb R}^3$ and therefore represents the axis of such a rotation. Finally, in view of (\[ab\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \ell,(a^*)^{-1} \ell\rangle &= \langle y, (a^*)^{-1} y\rangle
-2 \frac{\mu^*+L_{11}(\lambda^*)}{L_{12}(\lambda^*)} \langle x,(a^*)^{-1}y\rangle \\
& \quad + \frac{(\mu^*)^2 +2\mu^* L_{11}(\lambda^*)+L_{11}^2(\lambda^*)}
{L_{12}^2(\lambda^*)} \langle x,(a^*)^{-1}x\rangle \\
& = \frac 1 {L_{12}(\lambda^*) }
\left[ \langle y, (a^*)^{-1} y\rangle \langle x,(a^*)^{-1}x\rangle
- \langle x, (a^*)^{-1} y\rangle ^2+ (\mu^*)^2\right] ,\end{aligned}$$ which equals zero by virtue of (\[\*\]). Hence $\langle \ell,(a^*)^{-1} \ell\rangle =0$, which imply that the vector $\ell$ lies on the cone $K_2$. This establishes the theorem. $\boxed{}$
[**Remark 3.2.**]{} When the attached cone $K_{2}$ does not have real intersection with $\Pi=\mbox{span}(x,y)$, the coordinate $\mu^*$ is imaginary and, according to (\[4.10\]), (\[ab\]), the new values $\widetilde x, \widetilde y$ are complex. As a result, under the reality conditions (\[real\]) the map $\bar{\cal B}_{\lambda*}$ is real only on the subset $\bar {\mathfrak R}\subset \bar{\cal V}(2,3)$ defined by unequality $$\sum_{k=1}^3 (\lambda^*-a_k) (x_i y_j- x_j y_i)^2 \le 0$$ On the boundary of $\mathfrak R$, the map tends to the identical one.
#### Reduction to the coalgebra $so^*(3)$.
Under the factorization by rotations of ${\cal R}=SO(2)$, the transformation $\bar{\cal B}_{\lambda*}$ induces a map ${\cal B}_{\lambda*}\, :\, so(3)^* \to so(3)^*$ such that $$\widetilde M \equiv {\cal B}_{\lambda*} M(x,y) =\widetilde x \wedge \widetilde y.$$ The latter map is correctly defined, i.e., it does not depend on a concrete choice of vectors $x,y$ giving the same $M$. It preserves the first integrals of the classical Euler top on $so^*(3)$ and its generic invariant manifolds are open subsets of 4-fold unramified coverings of the complex torus Jac$({\cal C})={\cal C}$. The restriction of ${\cal B}_{\lambda*}$ onto Jac$({\cal C})$ is given by shift by the holomorphic integral $e=\int_{E_-}^{E_+} d\lambda/\mu$, which thus depends only on the constants $c_0, c_1$. According to a theorem in [@Bob_Lorb], this implies that the map ${\cal B}_{\lambda*}$ preserves the standard Lie–Poisson structure on $so^*(3)$.
\[reflection\] Vectors $M, \widetilde M$ satisfy the following symmetric relations $$\begin{gathered}
\label{b-l-s}
\widetilde M -M = \varkappa \, (\widetilde M + M) \wedge a (\widetilde M + M) , \\
\varkappa = \sqrt{2 \langle aM+ a\widetilde M, aM+ a\widetilde M\rangle }\,
\frac {\sqrt {1- \langle M,\widetilde M\rangle/c_0}}
{\sqrt {1+\langle M,\widetilde M\rangle /c_0} }\, ,
\label{kappa} \\
\langle M, a^* M\rangle =\langle \widetilde M, a^* \widetilde M\rangle
= - \langle M,a^*\widetilde M\rangle , \label{bill}\end{gathered}$$ where, as above, $c_0=\langle M,M\rangle =\langle \widetilde M,\widetilde M\rangle$.
Relation (\[b-l-s\]) was previously obtained by another method in [@Bob_Lorb], as an implicit map describing a Poisson discretization of the Euler top in $so^*(3)$.
[*Proof of Proposition*]{} \[reflection\]. In view of relations (\[4.10\]), we find $$\label{times}
\widetilde x \wedge \widetilde y =\widetilde M
= x\wedge y+ \frac 1\alpha \left(a^*\right)^{-1} \ell \wedge \ell,$$ where, as above, $\ell=y+\beta x$, $a^*=a-\lambda^*{\bf I}.$ Note that vector $\left(a^*\right)^{-1} \ell$ is normal to the cone $K_2$ at a point of the intersection line $L_2$ or $L_1$. Hence, $\widetilde M -M$ is orthogonal to $\left(a^*\right)^{-1}\ell$ and $\ell$. Next, since $\ell$ lies in the planes $\Pi, \widetilde \Pi$, this vector is orthogonal to $M, \widetilde M$. This, together with the equality $|M|=|\widetilde M|$ implies that the sum $\widetilde M +M$ is parallel to $\left(a^*\right)^{-1} \ell$ and $a^*(\widetilde M +M)$ is parallel to $\ell$. As a result, (\[times\]) implies (\[b-l-s\]).
To find factor $\varkappa$, we first introduce angle $\phi$ between vectors $\widetilde M$ and $M$. Since $|M|=|\widetilde M|$, the vectors $\widetilde M -M$ and $\widetilde M+M$ are orthogonal, and we have $$|\widetilde M -M|= \frac 12 |\widetilde M+M|\tan \frac\phi 2
\equiv \frac 12|\widetilde M+M| \frac {\sqrt {1-\langle M,\widetilde M\rangle/c_0 }}
{\sqrt {1+\langle M,\widetilde M\rangle/c_0}} \, .$$ On the other hand, since $a^*(\widetilde M+M)$ is orthogonal to $\widetilde M, M$, from (\[b-l-s\]) and the properties of the vector product we deduce $$|\widetilde M -M|= \varkappa \,|\widetilde M+M|\, |a^*(\widetilde M+M)|.$$ Comparing the right hand sides of the above two relations, we obtain (\[kappa\]).
The first equality in (\[bill\]) holds because the map ${\cal B}_{\lambda*}$ preserves the first integrals of the Euler top. Next, since the vector $a^*(\widetilde M +M)$ lies on the cone $K_2$, we have $((\widetilde M +M), a^*(\widetilde M +M))=0$. Expanding this and using the first equality in (\[bill\]) yields the second equality. $\boxed{}$
[**Remark 3.3.**]{} The fact that the difference $\widetilde M -M$ is orthogonal to $\left(a^*\right)^{-1}\ell$ and $\ell$ implies that [*the angle between the normal vector $\left(a^*\right)^{-1}\ell$ and the plane $\Pi$ equals the angle between $\left(a^*\right)^{-1}\ell$ and* ]{} $\widetilde \Pi$. This property can be regarded as a projective version of the Birkhoff condition of elastic impacts, hence the geometric construction of Theorem \[proj\_bill\] illustrated in Figure 1 describes a projective analog of the plane elliptic billiard. (Note that no any plane section of the cones and of the sequence of $\Pi$ gives such a plane billiard.)
To obtain the map ${\cal B}_{\lambda*}\, :\, so^*(3) \to so^*(3)$ in an explicit form, we use the fact that the vector $\ell$ satisfies the system of homogeneous equations $$\langle \ell,(a^*)^{-1} \ell\rangle=0, \quad \langle \ell, M\rangle =0 .$$ One of its solutions, $ \bar\ell =(\bar\ell_1, \bar\ell_2, \bar\ell_3)^T$, normalized by the condition $\bar \ell_3=1$, has the form $$\begin{gathered}
\bar \ell_1= - a_1^* \frac {M_1 M_3 - \sqrt{D}\, a_2^* M_2 }{a_1^* M_1^2 + a_2^* M_2^2}, \quad
\bar\ell_2= - a_2^* \frac {M_2 M_3 + \sqrt{D} \, a_1^* M_1}{a_1^* M_1^2 + a_2^* M_2^2}, \quad
\bar \ell_3=1 \\
D= \frac{a_1^* M_1^2+ a_2^* M_2^2 +a_3^* M_3^2} {a_1^* a_2^* a_3^*} . \label{D}\end{gathered}$$ Substituting this instead of $\ell$ into (\[times\]) and symmeterising obtained expressions, we arrive at the following relations $$\label{diff}
\begin{aligned}
\widetilde M_1 -M_1 &=\chi (a_2 - a_3)
\Big( \Delta_1\, M_2 M_3
- \sqrt{D}\, (a^*_{1}) ^{2} M_1^3 ( a_2^* M_2^2 -a_3^* M_3^{2}) \Big) , \\
\widetilde M_2 -M_2 &=\chi (a_3 - a_1) \Big( \Delta_2\, M_1 M_3
- \sqrt{D}\, (a_{2}^*)^{2} M_2^{3} ( a_3^* M_3^2 -a_1^* M_1^2 ) \Big) , \\
\widetilde M_3 -M_3 &=\chi (a_1 - a_2)
\Big(\Delta_3 M_1 M_2 - \sqrt{D}\, (a_{3}^*)^2 M_3^{3}(a_1^* M_1^2 -a_2^* M_2^2) \Big) ,
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Delta_i=a_{j}^* a_{k}^* M_j^2 M_k^2 - (a^*_i)^2 M_i^4 , \qquad
(i,j,k)=(1,2,3)$$ and $\chi$ is a common factor.
Next, multiplying the both sides of (\[diff\]) by $a_1^*M_1, a_2^*M_2, a_3^*M_3$ respectively, then summing and using the second equality in (\[bill\]), we find the factor $\chi$ in form $$\label{chi}
\chi= - \frac{2\langle M, a^*M\rangle} {\sum a_1 (a_2 - a_3) \bigg[
\Delta_1 M_1 M_2 M_3
-\sqrt{D}(a^*_{1})^{2} M_1^4 ( a_2^* M_2^2 -a_3^* M_3^{2})\bigg]}\, ,$$ where the summation in the denominator ranges over the three terms obtained by the cyclic permutations of indices (1,2,3). Thus the right hand sides of (\[diff\]) are homogeneous expressions of degree -1 in $M_i$.
We summarize our results on the map ${\cal B}_{\lambda*}$ in the following theorem.
The map ${\cal B}_{\lambda*}\, :\, so^*(3) \to so^*(3)$ given by (\[diff\]), (\[chi\]), (\[D\]) preserves the first integrals of the continuous Euler top, as well as the standard Lie–Poisson structure on $so^*(3)$. Under reality conditions (\[real\]), the map is real inside the conical domain $${\mathfrak R} =\left\{ \sum_{k=1}^3 (\lambda^*-a_k) M_k^2 \le 0\right \}.$$ Its restriction onto each regular elliptic curve ${\cal C}$ is represented by the shift by the holomorphic integral $e=\int_{E_-}^{E_+} d\lambda/\mu$. Near the boundary of ${\mathfrak R}$ the energy constant $c_1$ tends to $\lambda^*$ and the shift $e$ tends to zero. The continuous limit of ${\cal B}_{\lambda*}$ coincides with the Euler equations $\dot M=[M,aM]$.
#### Remark 3.4.
Since generic solutions $M_1(t), M_2(t), M_3(t)$ of the classical Euler top are proportional to the elliptic functions $\textup{sn}(u), \textup{cn} (u), \textup {dn}(u)$, with $u=\mbox{const}\cdot t$ and the map ${\cal B}_{\lambda*}$ results in adding $e$ to the argument $u$, the relations (\[diff\]), (\[D\]), (\[chi\]) can be regarded as a set of explicit addition formulae for these functions. However, in this case neither the moduli of the curve $\cal C$ nor the shift parameter are fixed: they depend on initial position of $M$ in $so^*(3)$.
[35]{}
Adams M.R., Harnad J., and Previato E. Isospectral Hamiltonian flows in finite and infinite dimensions. I. Generalized Moser and moment maps in loop algebras. [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**117**]{} (1988), 451–500
Adams M.R., Harnad J., and Hurtubise J. Darboux Coordinates and Liouville–Arnold Integration in Loop Algebras. [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**155**]{} (1993), 385–413
Adams M.R., Harnad J., and Hurtubise J. Darboux Coordinates on Coadjoint Orbits of Lie Algebras. [*Let. Math. Phys.*]{} [**40**]{} (1997), 41–57
Bloch, A.M. and Crouch P. Optimal control and geodesic flows. [*Systems Control Lett.*]{} [**28**]{} , no. 2, (1996), 65-72.
Bloch, A. M., P. Crouch, J. E. Marsden and T. S. Ratiu. The symmetric representation of the rigid body equations and their discretization. [*Nonlinearity*]{} [**15**]{} (2002), no. 4, 1309–1341
Bobenko A. I., Lorbeer B., and Suris Yu. Integrable discretizations of the Euler top [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**39**]{}, no. 12 (1998), 6668–6683
Dubrovin B.A., Novikov S.P., Fomenko A.T. Modern Geometry. Springer–Verlag, 1989
Fedorov Yu. Integrable systems, Lax representations, and confocal quadrics. In: [*Dynamical systems in classical mechanics*]{}, 173–199, Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. Ser. 2, [**168**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1995
Fedorov Yu. Classical integrable systems and billiards related to generalized Jacobians. [*Acta Appl. Math.*]{} [**55**]{} 3 (1999) 251–301
Fedorov Yu. Discrete versions of some algebraic integrable systems related to generalized Jacobians. [*SIDE III—symmetries and integrability of difference equations*]{} (Sabaudia, 1998), 147–160, CRM Proc. Lecture Notes [**25**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2000
Frahm F. Über gewisse Differentialgleichungen. [*Math. Ann.*]{} [**8**]{} (1874), 35–44
Harnad J. Dual Isomonodromic Deformations and Moment Maps in Loop Algebras. [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**166**]{} (1994), 337–365
Jacobi K.G. Sur la rotation d’un corps. In: [*Gesamelte Werke*]{} [**2**]{} (1884), 139–172
Hirota, Ryogo; Kimura, Kinji. Discretization of the Euler top. [*J. Phys. Soc. Japan*]{} [**69**]{} (2000), no. 3, 627–630
Kozlov V.V. The vortex theory of the top. [*Vestn. Moskov. Univ., Ser. I. Mat. Mekh.*]{} No. 4 (1990) 56–62 (Russian)
Kozlov V. V. Hydrodynamics of noncommutative integration of Hamiltonian systems. In: [*Dynamical Systems in Classical Mechanics*]{}, 227–238, Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. Ser. 2, [**168**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1995
Manakov S.V. Note on the integration of Euler’s equations of the dynamics of an $n$-dimensional rigid body. [*Funct. Anal. Appl.*]{} [**10**]{} (1976), 328–329
Mishchenko, A. S. and A. T. Fomenko. On the integration of the Euler equations on semisimple Lie algebras. [*Sov. Math. Dokl.*]{}, [**17**]{}, (1976), 1591–1593.
Moser J. Geometry of quadrics and spectral theory. [*Chern Symposium.*]{} Berkley 1979 (1980), 147–188
Moser J., Veselov A. Discrete versions of some classical integrable systems and factorization of matrix polynomials. [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**139**]{} (1991), 217–243
Ratiu T. The motion of the free $n$-dimensional rigid body. [*Indiana U. Math.*]{} J.,29 (1980), 609-627
Suris, Yu.B. Integrable discretizations for lattice systems: local equations of motion and their hamiltonian properties", [*Rev.Math.Phys.*]{} [**11**]{} (1999), no. 6, 727–822
Suris, Yu.B. The problem of integrable discretization: Hamiltonian approach. Progress in Mathematics, [**219**]{}, Birkhäuser Verlag, 2003
Veselov, A.P. Integrable discrete-time systems and difference operators. [*Funct. An. and Appl.*]{} [**22**]{} (1988), 83–94.
Whittaker E.T. A treatise on analytical dynamics. 4-d ed. , Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge 1960
[^1]: AMS Subject Classification 58F07, 70H99, 76B15
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We show that a commonly accepted transparency threshold for a thin foil in a strong circularly polarized normally incident laser pulse needs a refinement. We present a new analytical model, which correctly accounts for laser absorption. The refined threshold is determined not solely by the laser amplitude, but other parameters are equally or even more important. Our predictions are in a perfect agreement with PIC simulations. The refined criterion is crucial for configuring laser plasma experiments in the high field domain. Besides, an opaque foil steepens the pulse front, this can be important for numerous applications.'
author:
- 'E.G. Gelfer'
- 'A.M. Fedotov'
- 'O. Klimo'
- 'S. Weber'
title: |
Absorption and opacity threshold for a thin foil\
in a strong circularly polarized laser field
---
A key attribute specifying the laser-matter interaction regime is transparency or opaqueness of a target to an incident laser pulse [@mourou2006; @macchibook]. Precise formulation of a relevant discriminating criterion is crucially important for many modern applications, including laser contrast enhancement by plasma shutters [@reed2009; @palaniyappan2012], laser frequency upshift by relativistic electron mirrors [@kiefer2013], plasma based polarizers [@stark2015], generation of gamma-rays [@brady2014; @chang2017], attosecond pulses [@ji2011] and bright neutron bunches [@roth2013] in laser plasmas, as well as for laser plasma ion acceleration [@esirkepov2004; @macchi2009; @gonoskov2009; @yin2011; @mackenroth2016; @matys2019]. The latter can be applied for a wide range of purposes (see the review [@macchi2013]) from fast ignition in fusion targets [@naumova2009] to cancer treatment [@bulanov2004]. As radiation pressure acceleration of ions is most efficient when the target density is kept slightly above the threshold [@esirkepov2004; @macchi2013], it is reasonable to optimize the laser pulse temporal profile to maintain such a condition as long as possible [@bulanov2012] (though other mechanisms [@gonoskov2009; @mackenroth2016] may favor the foil density slightly below the threshold). In contrast, transparent targets are preferable for observation and detailed studies of an impact of radiation friction on plasma dynamics [@tamburini2010; @trapping; @longfield] or strong field QED effects [@dipiazza2012], as otherwise fewer electrons can ever reach the focal region to probe the strongest field. Such studies are planned with the next generation laser facilities under construction [@ELI; @ELINP; @Apollon; @guo2018].
As is well known [@chen], a moderately intense laser pulse (of dimensionless field strength $a_0\equiv eE_0/m\omega c \lesssim 1$) can penetrate through a thick plasma target (of thickness $d\gg\lambda$, where $\lambda$ is the laser carrier wavelength) only if the unperturbed target density $n_0$ is less than the critical value $n_{cr}=m\omega^2/4\pi e^2$. Here $E_0$ is the electric field strength amplitude, $\omega$ is the laser carrier frequency, $m$ and $-e$ are electron mass and charge. For a strong pulse, $a_0\gg1$, this condition is modified to $n_0\lesssim a_0n_c$ [@ap1956; @kaw1970] due to the effect of relativistic self-induced transparency (RSIT), see further discussion on the elaboration of this criterion in [@cattani2000; @goloviznin2000; @weng2012; @siminos2012; @siminos2017; @ji2018].
Here we study an opposite case of a thin foil target ($d\lesssim\lambda$), assuming that the laser pulse has ultrarelativistic intensity ($a_0\gg 1$), is circularly polarized and is incident normally (the latter simplifications are imposed to minimize electrons heating). For such a case the transparency threshold condition obtained in [@vshivkov1998] (see also [@macchi2009]) involves the dimensionless electron areal density $\sigma_0=(n_0/n_{cr})\cdot(\omega d/c)$ of the foil and can be cast to the form $$\label{tc}
\sigma_0<\sigma_0^{th}=2a_0.$$
However, according to the results of PIC simulations [^1], the threshold value in Eq. (\[tc\]) needs a refinement if $a_0$ is a few hundred or higher (see the precise condition (\[vcond\]) below). For example, a foil with $\sigma_0\approx 88$ can still remain opaque to a laser pulse even for $a_0=500$ (see Fig. \[fig1\]a), i.e. for more than an order of magnitude higher value than prescribed by the threshold (\[tc\]). The reason is that in a derivation of the condition (\[tc\]) it is assumed that laser absorption is negligible, so that an incident laser pulse is totally reflected by an opaque target. But it turns out that for high enough values of $a_0$ the absorption can become crucially important, thus setting up a lower areal density limit for RSIT, which then depends more on a laser pulse duration and envelop shape than on its amplitude.
Let us illuminate the role of laser absorption using a 1D laser–foil interaction model with a due consideration of the laser pulse temporal profile. Denote by $a(t)$ the value of the dimensionless laser field strength at time $t$ at the foil position $x_t$. Upon the incidence of a laser pulse on a foil $a(t)$ is gradually growing from zero onward. Let $t_0$ be the least moment when $a(t_0)=\sigma_0/2$. Then, according to Eq. (\[tc\]), while $t<t_0$ the laser pulse front is totally reflected by the foil, as shown in Fig. \[fig1c\]. Hence the field behind the foil vanishes, $\mathbf{E}(t,x>x_t)=0$, and the laser profile eventually takes a step-like form similar to the one shown in Fig. \[fig1\] (a). Such a profile creates a strong longitudinal ponderomotive force, which efficiently accelerates the electrons forward. Electrons in turn pull the ions behind themselves, therefore the whole plasma gets accelerated in front of the laser pulse [@SM]. For $t>t_0$ the reflection alone cannot provide the opacity of the foil and, assuming the transition to transparency is procrastinated, upon the further growth of $a(t)$ the rest of the pulse bulk is being partially reflected and partially absorbed. The absorbed energy is eventually transferred to the ions, enforcing their acceleration [^2]. Energy and momentum transfer to the ions reduces the momentum flux that electrons should reflect backwards to maintain the foil opaque. We are especially interested in an initial stage of the process when the ions remain mildly relativistic. To refine the threshold, it is enough to thoroughly balance the energy of the pulse bulk with the sum of the energies of the reflected wave and those transferred to the ions (the energy gained by electrons is much smaller and can be neglected).
Initially, as long as the ions are slow ($v_i\ll c$), they lag behind the electrons, hence do not overlap with them and the dimensionless charge separation field can be estimated as $\sigma_0$. At this stage the longitudinal component of the ions 4-velocity is $u_i\sim \mu Z \sigma_0\omega(t-t_0)/A$, where $A$ and $Z$ are the ion mass and charge numbers, $\mu$ is the electron-to-proton mass ratio. Importantly, it is taken into account that substantial ion acceleration starts only together with laser absorption. The ions become mildly relativistic, $u_i\sim 1$, at $t=t_0+t_1$, where $$\label{t1}
t_1=\frac{1}{\omega}\frac{A}{Z\mu\sigma_0}$$ is the required duration of their acceleration. The total energy of the ions at this moment can be estimated as $$\label{ei}
\varepsilon_i(t_1)\sim \frac{A\sigma_0}{Z\mu}\frac{n_{cr} S c }{\omega} m_e c^2,$$ where $S$ is the laser pulse cross section. According to [@vshivkov1998], the amplitude of the reflected wave for $t_0<t<t_0+t_1$ is $a_r=\sigma_0/2$ [^3]. Therefore the reflected energy during this time interval can be estimated as $$\label{er}
\varepsilon_r(t_1)\sim \frac{\sigma_0^2t_1 }{4} n_{cr}S m_ec^3\sim\frac{\varepsilon_i(t_1)}{4}.$$ Note that $\varepsilon_r$ approaches saturation for $t>t_0+t_1$, see Fig. \[fig1c\]. This is natural as the foil becomes relativistic, so that the intensity of the wave reflected from the relativistic mirror is suppressed due to the Doppler effect.
Next consider the energy of a part of the laser pulse front having touched the foil by the moment $t_1$ (for the sake of clarity in Figs. \[fig1\] (a) and (b) an imaginary envelope for free propagation of the pulse in the absence of the target is plotted dashed and its corresponding part is hatched). For brevity, in what follows let us call it just the laser front energy. Let us write the initial envelope as $a(\varphi)=a_0 g(\varphi/\omega T)$, where $\varphi$ is the phase, $T$ is the characteristic duration and $g$ is the dimensionless profile function of the order of unity decaying at $|\varphi|\gg \omega T$. Then the energy stored in the front of the laser pulse during $t_0<t<t_0+t_1$ can be estimated by $$\label{ef0}
\varepsilon_f(t_1)\sim a_0^2n_{cr} S m_e c^3\int\limits_{t_0}^{t_0+t_1} g^2(t/T)dt.$$ The integral encountering in Eq. (\[ef0\]) can be approximated as $$\label{appr}
\int_{X_0}^{X_0+X_1} f(\xi)d\xi\approx\frac{ f^2(X_0)}{ f'(X_0)}\left[e^{X_1 f'(X_0)/f(X_0)}-1\right],$$ if $|f''(X_0)f(X_0)/(f'(X_0))^2-1|\ll 1$.
If the foil remains opaque for $t\sim t_0+t_1$ then, due to absence of transmission, this energy should be eventually partially reflected and in the rest part entirely absorbed by the ions and hence should be equal to the sum of (\[ei\]) and (\[er\]), see Fig. \[fig1c\]. Hence, by equating the sum of (\[ei\]) and (\[er\]) to (\[ef0\]) and taking into account (\[appr\]) and that $$\label{asigma}
a_0g(t_0/T)=\sigma_0/2,$$ we arrive at $$\label{zeta}
e^\zeta-1\approx 5\zeta,$$ where $\zeta=2A|g'(t_0/T)|/(Z\mu\sigma_0\omega Tg(t_0/T))$. Equation (\[zeta\]) has an approximate solution $\zeta\approx 2.66$, and finally the refined opacity threshold can be formulated in the form $$\label{opcond}
\mu\omega T\sigma_0\frac{Z}{A}\frac{ g(t_0/T)}{| g'(t_0/T)|}\approx 0.75,$$ where $t_0$ is determined by (\[asigma\]). Note that our threshold value is singled out by the (violated in a deeply overcritical case) assumption of complete charge separation in estimating $t_1$.
Let us briefly discuss the range of applicability of the condition (\[opcond\]). The approximation (\[appr\]) can be used only for $|t_0|\gg T$, as otherwise reflection dominates over the absorption and the usual transparency condition Eq. (\[tc\]) remains valid. It means that $\sigma_0\ll a_0$ and hence $$\label{vcond}
\quad a_0\gg \frac{A}{\omega TZ\mu}.$$ It is also worth to emphasize that our approach is reasonable only for a normally incident circularly polarized pulse as otherwise a double layer consisting of an electron spike followed by the ions \[see Fig. \[fig1\] (a)\] is rapidly messed up due to electron heating [@macchi2005; @klimo2008].
In order to compare Eq. (\[opcond\]) with numerical simulations, let us illustrate it with the two particular examples of Gaussian and linear profiles. Namely, if the function $g(\xi)$ is Gaussian, $g(\xi)=e^{-\xi^2}$, then the threshold areal density $\sigma^G_{th}$ is determined by $$\label{sigmag}
\frac{\sigma^G_{th}}{\sqrt{\ln(2a_0/\sigma^G_{th})}}\approx 1.5\frac{A}{\omega TZ\mu }.$$ Note that the refined threshold depends on the laser field amplitude $a_0$ much weaker than on the remaining parameters (pulse duration, ion mass and charge number). For our second example of a linear profile \[$g(\xi)=0$ for $\xi<0$, $g(\xi)=\xi$ for $0<\xi<1$, and $g(\xi)=1$ for $\xi>1$\] the approximation (\[appr\]) is invalid, but the integral in (\[ef0\]) is easily evaluated directly, so that instead of (\[opcond\]) we arrive at $$\label{sigmal}
\sigma_{th}^L\approx\sqrt{\frac{1.5a_0}{\omega T}\frac{A}{Z\mu}}.$$ One can observe that here the refined threshold is fully determined by the envelope slope rather than by laser pulse amplitude or duration separately.
The obtained estimations Eqs. (\[sigmag\]) – (\[sigmal\]) for the areal threshold densities are compared to the values obtained by 1D PIC simulations in Fig. \[fig3\]. Namely, we performed a set of simulations for several values of pulse duration and for three types of ions: hydrogen ($Z/A=1$), deuterium ($Z/A=0.5$), and tritium ($Z/A=0.33$). The field strength amplitude was taken $a_0=500$, but for a Gaussian pulse we have also checked that the results remained almost unchanged as $a_0$ was increased up to $1000$ and $1500$. We used targets of fixed thickness $d=0.1\lambda$ but varied the density, and considered the foil as opaque, if the intensity of the laser field to the right from the foil is negligible compared with the intensity to the left (compare, e.g. figures \[fig1\] (a) and (b)). One can observe a perfect agreement between the theory and simulations, though, as expected, the simulation results start to deviate from the model when $\sigma_{th}$ is so high that approaches $a_0$.
\
The main additional effect arising in a 2D case is the Rayleigh-Taylor instability (RTI) of a thin foil irradiated by a strong laser pulse. In the case of relativistic motion of the foil its growth time is [@pegoraro_prl2007] $$\label{taurt}
t_{RT}\sim\frac{1}{\omega}\sqrt{\frac{\mu\sigma_0}{A}}\frac{1}{k^{3/2}},$$ where $k$ is the dimensionless wave vector of a perturbation and Eq. (\[asigma\]) is taken into account.
To check reliability of our estimations in 2D we performed 2D PIC simulations for a pulse with Gaussian profiles in both longitudinal and transverse directions (see Fig. \[fig4\]). It turns out that our estimate (\[sigmag\]) for the transparency threshold areal density still remains valid. This can be confirmed by comparing Figs \[fig4\] (a) and (b), where the interaction of laser pulses of different durations but of the same amplitude with identical targets is displayed. The duration of the laser pulse in Fig. \[fig4\] (a) according to the condition (\[sigmag\]) corresponds to opacity, while the pulse in Fig. \[fig4\] (b) is taken twice shorter, resulting in target transparency.
At later times RTI distorts the target and eventually destroys it, see Fig. \[fig4\] (c), therefore it is meaningless to discuss its transparency for times $t\gg t_{RT}$. However, since $t_{RT}$ is proportional to $\sqrt{\sigma_0}$, denser targets survive under RTI longer, see Fig. \[fig4\] (c) and also [@SM]. Besides, similarly to the 1D case, target opaqueness leads to the steepening of a laser front, see Fig. \[fig4\] (d), and after the destruction of the target the resulting steepened pulse with an increased femtosecond level contrast can be used for applications [@reed2009; @wang2011; @palaniyappan2012; @wei2017].
To conclude, we have demonstrated that a commonly accepted threshold for opaqueness of a thin foil to a strong circularly polarized laser pulse needs a revision. It is shown that such a refinement is due to laser absorption not properly taken into account in previous studies. As a consequence, with shorter laser pulses RSIT can be achieved for smaller areal density of a target. Interestingly, it turns out that for Gaussian pulses the refined threshold areal density is almost independent of the field amplitude, depending only on pulse duration and the ions charge-to-mass ratio. Our findings are in excellent agreement with 1D PIC simulations. They are in agreement with 2D simulations as well, though in a 2D case the effect is strongly distorted by the Rayleigh-Taylor instability.
Moreover, if a front part of the pulse gets totally absorbed like in Fig. \[fig1\] (a), then the target acts as a plasma shutter [@reed2009; @wang2011; @palaniyappan2012; @wei2017] steepening the pulse front and increasing laser contrast on a femtosecond level. This can be important for a wide range of applications, including high harmonic generation [@thaury2007; @behmke2011] and laser ion acceleration. In the latter case high contrast enhances the energy [@ceccotti2007] and suppresses the divergence [@green2014; @fang2016] of the accelerated ion beams, it is also crucial for such highly efficient ion acceleration mechanisms as radiation pressure acceleration [@esirkepov2004; @robinson2008; @matys2019] and breakout afterburner [@yin2011]. Though the effect reported here reveals in thick targets as well, see e.g. [@ji2018], its proper description in such a case requires further studies.
We are grateful to M. Grech and Y.J. Gu for valuable discussions. The results of the project LQ1606 were obtained with the financial support of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic as part of targeted support from the National Programme of Sustainability II. The research was performed using the code SMILEI [@SMILEI] and the resources of the ELI Beamlines Eclipse cluster, and was partially supported by the MEPhI Academic Excellence Project (Contract No. ``), Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Grant ``), Czech Science Foundation Project No. 18-09560S, projects ELITAS (ELI Tools for Advanced Simulation) ``, ADONIS (Advanced research using high intensity laser produced photons and particles) `` and HiFI (High-Field Initiative) `` from European Regional Development Fund.
[99]{} G. A. Mourou, T. Tajima, and S. V. Bulanov, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**78**]{}, 309 (2006). A. Macchi, [*A Superintense Laser–Plasma Interaction Theory Primer*]{} (Springer, 2013).
S. A. Reed, T. Matsuoka, S. Bulanov, M. Tampo, V. Chvykov, G. Kalintchenko, P. Rousseau, V. Yanovsky, R. Kodama, D. W. Litzenberg [*et. al.*]{}, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**94**]{}, 201117 (2009). S. Palaniyappan, B. M. Hegelich, H.-C. Wu, D. Jung, D. C. Gautier, L. Yin, B. J. Albright, R. P. Johnson, T. Shimada, S. Letzring [*et. al.*]{}, Nature Physics [**8**]{}, 763-–769 (2012).
D. Kiefer, M. Yeung, T. Dzelzainis, P. S. Foster, S. G. Rykovanov, C. L. S. Lewis, R. S. Marjoribanks, H. Ruhl, D. Habs, J. Schreiber [*et. al.*]{}, Nat. Comms. [**4**]{}, 1763 (2013).
D. J. Stark, C. Bhattacharjee, A. V. Arefiev, T. Toncian, R. D. Hazeltine, and S. M. Mahajan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{}, 025002 (2015).
C. S. Brady, C. P. Ridgers, T. D. Arber, and A. R. Bell, Phys. Plasmas [**21**]{}, 033108 (2014).
H. X. Chang, B. Qiao, Y. X. Zhang, Z. Xu, W. P. Yao, C. T. Zhou, and X. T. He, Phys. Plasmas [**24**]{}, 043111 (2017).
L. Ji, B. Shen, X. Zhang, M. Wen, C. Xia, W. Wang, J. Xu, Y. Yu, M. Yu, and Zh. Xu, Phys. Plasmas [**18**]{}, 083104 (2011).
M. Roth, D. Jung, K. Falk, N. Guler, O. Deppert, M. Devlin, A. Favalli, J. Fernandez, D. Gautier, M. Geissel [*et. al.*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 044802 (2013).
T. Esirkepov, M. Borghesi, S. V. Bulanov, G. Mourou and T. Tajima, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 175003 (2004).
A. Macchi, S. Veghini and F. Pegoraro, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 085003 (2009); A. Macchi, S. Veghini, T. V. Liseykina and F. Pegoraro, New J. Phys. [**12**]{}, 045013 (2010). A. A. Gonoskov, A. V. Korzhimanov, V. I. Eremin, A. V. Kim, and A. M. Sergeev, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 184801 (2009).
L. Yin, B. J. Albright, K. J. Bowers, D. Jung, J. C. Fernandez, and B. M. Hegelich, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 045003 (2011). F. Mackenroth, A. Gonoskov, M. Marklund, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**117**]{}, 104801 (2016). M. Matys, K. Nishihara, M. Kecova, J. Psikal, G. Korn, and S. V. Bulanov, arXiv:1907.03489 (2019).
A. Macchi, M. Borghesi, and M. Passoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**85**]{}, 751 (2013). N. Naumova, T. Schlegel, V. T. Tikhonchuk, C. Labaune, I. V. Sokolov and G. Mourou, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 025002 (2009). S. V. Bulanov, T. Z. Esirkepov, V. S. Khoroshkov, A. V. Kunetsov, and F. Pegoraro, Phys. Lett. A [**299**]{}, 240 (2002).
S. S. Bulanov, C. B. Schroeder, E. Esarey, and W. P. Leemans, Phys. Plasmas [**19**]{}, 093112 (2012).
M. Tamburini, F. Pegoraro, A. Di Piazza, C. H. Keitel, and A. Macchi New J. Phys. **12**, 123005 (2010). A. Gonoskov, A. Bashinov, I. Gonoskov, C. Harvey, A. Ilderton, A. Kim, M. Marklund, G. Mourou, and A. Sergeev, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 014801 (2014); L. L. Ji, A. Pukhov, I. Yu. Kostyukov, B. F. Shen, and K. Akli, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 145003 (2014); A. M. Fedotov, N. V. Elkina, E. G. Gelfer, N. B. Narozhny, and H. Ruhl, Phys. Rev. A [**90**]{}, 053847 (2014). E. Gelfer, N. Elkina, A. Fedotov, Sci. Rep. **8**, 6478 (2018); E. G. Gelfer, A. M. Fedotov, S. Weber, PPCF **60**, 064005 (2018). A. Di Piazza, C. Muller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Rev. Mod. Phys. **84**, 1177 (2012).
http://www.eli-beams.eu http://www.eli-np.ro/ http://portail.polytechnique.edu/luli/en/cilex-apollon/apollon Z. Guo, L. Yu, J. Wang, C. Wang, Y. Liu, Z. Gan, W. Li, Y. Leng, X. Liang, R. Li, Optics Express, [**26**]{}, 26776–26786 (2018).
F. Chen, [*Introduction to Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion*]{} (Springer US, 1984) Volume 1: Plasma Physics.
A. I. Akhiezer and R. V. Polovin, Sov. Phys. JETP **3**, 696–705 (1956). P. Kaw and J. Dawson, Phys. Fluids **13**, 472 (1970).
F. Cattani, A. Kim, D. Anderson, and M. Lisak, Phys. Rev. E [**62**]{}, 1234 (2000). V. V. Goloviznin and T. J. Schep, Phys. Plasmas [**7**]{}, 1564 (2000). S. M. Weng, P. Mulser, and Z. M. Sheng, Phys. Plasmas [**19**]{}, 022705 (2012); S. M. Weng, M. Murakami, P. Mulser, and Z. M. Sheng, New Journal of Physics [**14**]{}, 063026 (2012). E. Siminos, M. Grech, S. Skupin, T. Schlegel, and V. T. Tikhonchuk Phys. Rev. E [**86**]{}, 056404 (2012). E. Siminos, M. Grech, B. Svedung Wettervik, T F[ü]{}l[ö]{}p, New J. Phys. [**19**]{} 123042 (2017). L. Ji, B. Shen, X. Zhang, New J. Phys. [**20**]{}, 053043 (2018).
V. A. Vshivkov, N. M. Naumova, F. Pegoraro, and S. V. Bulanov, Phys. Plasmas [**5**]{}, 2727 (1998).
Supplemental material \[URL to be inserted by publisher\] illustrating the laser-target evolution.
A. Macchi, F. Cattani, T. V. Liseykina, F. Cornolti, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 165003 (2005). O. Klimo, J. Psikal, J. Limpouch, V.T. Tikhonchuk, Phys. Rev. STAB [**11**]{}, 031301 (2008).
F. Pegoraro and S. V. Bulanov, Phys. Rev. Lett **99**, 065002 (2007).
H. Y. Wang, C. Lin, Z. M. Sheng, B. Liu, S. Zhao, Z. Y. Guo, Y. R. Lu, X. T. He, J. E. Chen, and X. Q. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 265002 (2011). W. Q. Wei, X. H. Yuan, Y. Fang, Z. Y. Ge, X. L. Ge, S. Yang, Y. F. Li, G. Q. Liao, Z. Zhang, F. Liu [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Plasmas [**24**]{}, 113111 (2017).
C. Thaury, F. Quere, J.-P. Geindre, A. Levy, T. Ceccotti, P. Monot, M. Bougeard, F. Reau, P. d’Oliveira, P. Audebert, R. Marjoribanks, Ph. Martin, Nat. Phys. [**3**]{}, 424 – 429 (2007). M. Behmke, D. an der Br[ü]{}gge, C. R[ö]{}del, M. Cerchez, D. Hemmers, M. Heyer, O. J['’a]{}ckel, M. K['’u]{}bel, G. G. Paulus, G. Pretzler [*et. al.*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 185002 (2011).
T. Ceccotti, A. Levy, H. Popescu, F. Reau, P. D’Oliveira, P. Monot, J. P. Geindre, E. Lefebvre, and Ph. Martin Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 185002 (2007). J. S. Green, N. P. Dover, M. Borghesi, C. M. Brenner, F. H. Cameron, D. C. Carroll, P. S. Foster, P. Gallegos, G. Gregori, P. McKenna [*et. al.*]{}, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion [**56**]{}, 084001 (2014). Y. Fang, X. L. Ge, S. Yang, W. Q. Wei, T. P. Yu, F. Liu, M. Chen, J. Q. Liu, X. H. Yuan, Z. M. Sheng, and J. Zhang, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion [**58**]{}, 075010 (2016).
A. P. L. Robinson, M. Zepf, S. Kar, R. G. Evans and C. Bellei, New J. Phys. [**10**]{} 013021 (2008).
J. Derouillat, A. Beck, F. Perez, T. Vinci, M. Chiaramello, A. Grassi, M. Fle, G. Bouchard, I. Plotnikov, N. Aunai, J. Dargent, C. Riconda, M. Grech, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**222**]{}, 351–373 (2018).
[^1]: All the simulations in the paper are performed with the code SMILEI [@SMILEI]. The laser pulse propagates from left to right, the target is initially located at $x_0=15\lambda$ having a rectangular density profile $n(x)=n_0\theta(x-x_0)\theta(x_0+d-x)$, where $\theta(x)$ is the Heaviside step function. The cell size is $\lambda/200$, the time step satisfies the the Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy condition. The boundaries are absorptive. Each cell contains $800$ particles of each type and $n_0/n_c$ particles of each type in 1D and 2D case, respectively.
[^2]: Note that since the energy is eventually almost totally transferred form electrons to ions, the specific mechanism of energy absorption by electrons is not important for determining the opacity threshold.
[^3]: See the discussion after Eqs. (48) and (49) in [@vshivkov1998].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present the first computation of the cosmological perturbations generated during inflation up to second order in deviations from the homogeneous background solution. Our results, which fully account for the inflaton self-interactions as well as for the second-order fluctuations of the background metric, provide the exact expression for the gauge-invariant curvature perturbation bispectrum produced during inflation in terms of the slow-roll parameters or, alternatively, in terms of the scalar spectral $n_S$ and and the tensor to adiabatic scalar amplitude ratio $r$. The bispectrum represents a specific non-Gaussian signature of fluctuations generated by quantum oscillations during slow-roll inflation. However, our findings indicate that detecting the non-Gaussianity in the cosmic microwave background anisotropies emerging from the second-order calculation will be a challenge for the forthcoming satellite experiments.'
address:
- '(1)Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Pisa, via Buonarroti 2, I-56100, Pisa, Italy'
- '(2) Dipartimento di Fisica di Padova “G. Galilei”, Via Marzolo 8, Padova I-35131, Italy'
- '(3) INFN, Sezione di Padova, Via Marzolo 8, Padova I-35131, Italy'
author:
- 'Viviana Acquaviva$^1$[^1], Nicola Bartolo$^{2,3}$ [^2], Sabino Matarrese$^{2,3}$ and Antonio Riotto$^3$'
title: 'Second-Order Cosmological Perturbations from Inflation'
---
¶[[P]{}]{} §[[S]{}]{}
Introduction
============
Inflation represents a successful mechanism for the causal generation of primordial cosmological perturbations in the early Universe [@lr]. These fluctuations are then amplified by the gravitational instability to seed structure formation in the Universe, and to produce Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropies. Since the primordial cosmological perturbations are tiny, the generation and evolution of fluctuations during inflation has always been studied within linear theory. On the other hand, there exist physical observables, such as the three-point function of scalar perturbations, or its Fourier transform, the bispectrum, for which a perturbative treatment up to second order is required, in order to obtain a self-consistent result
The importance of the bispectrum comes from the fact that it represents the lowest order statistics able to distinguish non-Gaussian from Gaussian perturbations for which odd-order correlation functions necessarily vanish. An accurate calculation of the primordial bispectrum of cosmological perturbations has become an extremely important issue, as a number of present and future experiments, such as MAP and [*Planck*]{}, will allow to constrain or detect non-Gaussianity of CMB anisotropy data with high precision.
So far, the problem of calculating the bispectrum of perturbations produced during inflation has been addressed by either looking at the effect of inflaton self-interactions (which necessarily generate non-linearities in its quantum fluctuations) in a fixed de Sitter background [@FRS], or by using the so-called stochastic approach to inflation [@Getal][^3], where back-reaction effects of field fluctuations on the background metric are partially taken into account. An intriguing result of the stochastic approach is that the dominant source of non-Gaussianity actually comes from non-linear gravitational perturbations, rather than by inflaton self-interactions.
In this paper we provide for the first time the computation of the scalar perturbations produced during single-field slow-roll inflation up to second order in deviations from the homogeneous background. We achieve different goals. First, we provide a gauge-invariant definition of the comoving curvature ${\cal R}$ at second order of perturbation theory. The importance of the second-order comoving curvature perturbation ${\cal R}$ comes from the fact that it allows to compute the three-point correlation function for the primordial scalar perturbations – or its Fourier transform, the bispectrum – which represent the lowest order statistics able to distinguish non-Gaussian from Gaussian perturbations. Secondly, we show that the second-order comoving curvature perturbation is conserved on super-horizon scales, like its first-order counterpart[^4]. Third, we obtain the expression for the gauge-invariant gravitational potential bispectrum during inflation, in terms of slow-roll parameters or, equivalently, of the spectral indices of the scalar and tensor power-spectra.
An accurate calculation of the primordial bispectrum of cosmological perturbations has become a crucial issue, as a number of present and future experiments, such as MAP and [*Planck*]{}, will allow to constrain or detect non-Gaussianity of CMB anisotropy data with high precision.
The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section II we write the perturbations of the metric for a spatially flat Robertson-Walker background up to second order and we derive consistently the fluctuations of the energy-momentum tensor of a scalar field. In Section III we demonstrate how to find a second-order gauge-invariant definition of the comoving curvature perturbation. Section IV will be devoted to the perturbed Einstein equations up to second order in the metric and in the inflaton fluctuations. We shall explain how to derive the evolution of the curvature perturbation on large scales during a period of cosmological inflation by performing an expansion to lowest order in the slow-roll parameters. Finally, in Section V we draw some concluding remarks relating our findings to the gauge-invariant gravitational potential bispectrum which is the main physical observable which carries information about the primordial non-Gaussianity. We also provide two Appendices where the reader can find various technical details.
Perturbations of a flat Robertson-Walker Universe up to second order
====================================================================
We first write down the perturbations on a spatially flat Robertson-Walker background following the formalism of Refs.[@BMMS; @MMB]. We shall first consider the fluctuations of the metric, and then the fluctuations of the energy-momentum tensor of a scalar field. Hereafter greek indices run from $0$ to $3$, while latin indices label the spatial coordinates from $1$ to $3$. If not otherwise specified we will work with conformal time $\tau$, and a prime will stand for a derivative with respect to $\tau$.
The metric tensor
-----------------
The components of a perturbed spatially flat Robertson-Walker metric can be written as \[metric1\] g\_[00]{}&=&-a\^2()( 1+2 \^[(1)]{}+\^[(2)]{} ) ,\
g\_[0i]{}&=&a\^2()( \_i\^[(1)]{}+ \_i\^[(2)]{} ) ,\
g\_[ij]{}&=&a\^2() . The standard splitting of the perturbations into scalar, transverse ([*i.e*]{} divergence-free) vector parts, and transverse trace-free tensor parts with respect to the 3-dimensional space with metric $\delta_{ij}$, can be performed in the following way: \_i\^[(r)]{}=\_i\^[(r)]{}+\_i\^[(r)]{} , \^[(r)]{}\_[ij]{}=D\_[ij]{}\^[(r)]{}+\_i\^[(r)]{}\_j+\_j\^[(r)]{}\_i +\^[(r)]{}\_[ij]{} , where $(r)=(1),(2)$ stand for the order of the perturbations, $\omega_i$ and $\chi_i$ are transverse vectors ($\partial^i\omega^{(r)}_i=
\partial^i\chi^{(r)}_i=0$), $\chi^{(r)}_{ij}$ is a symmetric transverse and trace-free tensor ($\partial^i\chi^{(r)}_{ij}=0$, $\chi^{i(r)}_{~i}
=0$) and $D_{ij}=\partial_i \partial_j - (1/3) \, \,
\delta_{ij}\, \partial^k\partial_k$ is a trace-free operator [^5]. Here and in the following latin indices are raised and lowered using $\delta^{ij}$ and $\delta_{ij}$, respectively.\
For our purposes the metric in Eq. (\[metric1\]) can be simplified. In fact, first-order vector perturbations are zero in the presence of a scalar field; moreover, the tensor part gives a negligible contribution to the bispectrum. Thus, in the following we can neglect $\omega^{(1)}_i$, $\chi^{(1)}_i$ and $\chi^{(1)}_{ij}$. However the same is not true for the second order perturbations. In the second-order theory the second-order vector and tensor contributions can be generated by the first-order scalar perturbations even if they are initially zero [@MMB]. Thus we have to take them into account and we shall use the metric \[metric2\] g\_[00]{}&=&-a\^2()( 1+2 \^[(1)]{}+\^[(2)]{} ) ,\
g\_[0i]{}&=&a\^2()( \_i\^[(1)]{}+ \_i\^[(2)]{}+ \_i\^[(2)]{} ) ,\
g\_[ij]{}&=&a\^2(). The controvariant metric tensor is obtained by requiring (up to second order) that $g_{\mu\nu}g^{\nu\lambda}=\delta_\mu\, ^\lambda$ and it is given by \[cont\] g\^[00]{}&=&-a\^[-2]{}()( 1-2 \^[(1)]{}-\^[(2)]{} +4( \^[(1)]{})\^2-\^i\^[(1)]{}\_i\^[(1)]{} ) ,\
g\^[0i]{}&=&a\^[-2]{}() ,\
g\^[ij]{}&=&a\^[-2]{}() . Using $g_{\mu\nu}$ and $g^{\mu\nu}$ one can calculate the connection coefficients and the Einstein tensor components up to second order in the metric fluctuations. Their complete expressions are contained in Appendix \[A\].
Energy-momentum tensor of a scalar field
----------------------------------------
We shall consider a scalar field $\varphi(\tau, x^{i})$ minimally coupled to gravity, whose energy-momentum tensor is given by \[EM\] T\_=\_\_- g\_( g\^\_\_+ V()) , where $V(\varphi)$ is the potential of the scalar field. A successfull period of inflation can be attained when the potential $V(\varphi)$ is flat enough.
The scalar field can be split into a homogeneous background $\varphi_0(\tau)$ and a perturbation $\delta \varphi (\tau, x^{i})$ as \[scalarfield\] (, x\^i)=\_0()+(, x\^i)=\_0()+ \^[(1)]{}(, x\^i)+\^[(2)]{} (, x\^i) , where the perturbation has been expanded into a first and a second-order part, respectively. Using the expression (\[scalarfield\]) into Eq. (\[EM\]) and calculating $T^\mu_{~\nu}=g^{\mu\alpha}T_{\alpha\nu}$ up to second order we find T\^\_[ ]{}=T\^[(0)]{}\_[ ]{}+T\^\_[ ]{}+T\^\_[ ]{} , where $T^{\mu(0)}_{~\nu}$ corresponds to the background value, and \[scalT\_00\] T\^[0(0)]{}\_[ 0]{}+T\^[0]{}\_[ 0]{}&=& -[12]{}a\^[-2]{} ’\^[ 2]{}\_0 - V\_0 + a\^[-2]{} \_0’ (\^[(1)]{} \_0’- \^ ) - ,\
\[00\] T\^0\_[ 0]{}&=& ,\
&&\
&&\
\[scalT\_0i\] T\^[0(0)]{}\_[ i]{}+T\^[0]{}\_[ i]{}&=& -a\^[-2]{} (\_0\^ \_i) ,\
\[0i\] &=& (-\_0\^ \_i - \_i \^ + 2\_0\^ \^[(1)]{} \_i ) ,\
&&\
&&\
T\^[i(0)]{}\_[ 0]{}+T\^[i]{}\_[ 0]{}&=& [\_0\^]{}\^2 \^[i]{}\^[(1)]{}+\_0\^ \^[i]{} ,\
\[i0\] &=& ,\
&&\
&&\
T\^[i(0)]{}\_[ j]{}+T\^[i]{}\_[ j]{}&=& \^i\_[ j]{} ,\
\[ij\] &=& , with $V_0=V(\varphi_0)$. A comment is in order here. As it can be seen from Eq. (\[cont\]) and Eqs. (\[00\]),(\[0i\]),(\[i0\]) and (\[ij\]) the second-order perturbations always contain two different contributions, quantities which are intrinsically of second order, and quantities which are given by the product of two first-order perturbations. As a consequence, when considering the Einstein equations to second order in Section \[EE\], first-order perturbations behave as a source for the intrinsically second-order fluctuations. This is an important issue which was pointed out in different works on second-order perturbation theory [@Tomita; @MPS; @MMB] and it plays a central role in deriving our main results on the primordial non-Gaussianity.
The second-order gauge-invariant comoving curvature perturbation
================================================================
Let us now focus on the primordial cosmological perturbations produced during a period of inflation driven by the inflaton $\varphi$. The fluctuations of the inflaton produce an adiabatic density perturbation which is associated with a perturbation of the spatial curvature $\psi$. The density/curvature perturbation can be defined in a gauge-invariant manner as the curvature perturbation $\cal{R}$ on slices orthogonal to comoving wordlines. At first order, the comoving curvature perturbation is given by the gauge-invariant formula [@mfb] \[R1\] [R]{}\^[(1)]{}= \^[(1)]{}+ \^[(1)]{} , where ${\cal H}=a^\prime/a$ is the Hubble rate, $\psi^{(1)}$ is the gauge-dependent first-order curvature perturbation and $\deu \varphi$ is the first-order inflaton perturbation in that gauge. An important feature of ${\cal R}^{(1)}$ is that it remains constant on super-Hubble scales while approaching the horizon entry.\
We want to find the gauge-invariant comoving curvature perturbation ${\cal R}$ up to second order. Thus we expand the curvature perturbation $\psi$ and the inflaton perturbation $\delta\varphi$ as $\psi=\psi^{(1)}+\frac{1}{2}\,\psi^{(2)}$ and $\delta\varphi=\delta^{(1)}\varphi+ \frac{1}{2}\,
\delta^{(2)}\varphi$, according to Eqs. (\[metric1\]) and (\[scalarfield\]). An infinitesimal coordinate change up to second order induces a gauge transformation of the metric and the scalar field perturbations [@BMMS; @MMB]. In particular for a second-order shift of the time coordinate \[timechange\] -\^0\_[(1)]{}+ ([\^[0’]{}\_[(1)]{}]{}\^0\_[(1)]{} -\^0\_[(2)]{}) $\psi^{(2)}$ and $\ded \varphi$ will transform as [@BMMS; @MMB] \[T1\] & = &\^[(2)]{}+2 \^0\_[(1)]{} ( [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ +2 \^[(1)]{} ) - (’ +2 \^2 ) (\^[0]{}\_[(1)]{})\^2 - [\_[(1)]{}\^[0]{}]{}\^ \_[(1)]{}\^[0]{} - \^0\_[(2)]{} -( 2 \^i\^[(1)]{} - \^i \^[0]{}\_[(1)]{} )\_i \^[0]{}\_[(1)]{} ,\
\[T2\] & = &\^[(2)]{}+\^0\_[(1)]{} (”\_[0]{} \^0\_[(1)]{} +’\_[0]{}[\^[0]{}\_[(1)]{}]{}\^+2[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^) + ’\_[0]{}\^0\_[(2)]{} . We find that the gauge-invariant comoving curvature perturbation ${\cal R}={\cal R}^{(1)}+\frac{1}{2}{\cal R}^{(2)}$ is provided by \[R\] [R]{} = [R]{}\^[(1)]{}+ + - \_i\^[(1)]{} \^i\^[(1)]{} . We devote the rest of this section to illustrate how to find such a quantity.
Let us consider the first two terms in Eq. (\[R\]) and how they change under the time coordinate shift of Eq. (\[timechange\]). According to our perturbative expansion +[H]{} = [R]{}\^[(1)]{}+ , and using Eqs. (\[T1\]) and (\[T2\]) this quantity transforms as \[T3\] +[H]{} &=& +[H]{} +\^0\_[(1)]{} T- ( \^0\_[(1)]{} )\^2 -( 2 \^i\^[(1)]{} - \^i \^[0]{}\_[(1)]{} )\_i \^[0]{}\_[(1)]{} , where we have set $T={\psi^{(1)}}^{\prime}+2{\cal H} \psi^{(1)}+ {\cal H}{\deu\varphi}^{\prime}/
\varphi'_0$. Notice that \[T4\] =T+\^0\_[(1)]{} , since the usual first-order transformations for $\psi^{(1)}$ and $\deu \varphi$ are $\widetilde{{\psi}^{(1)}}=\psi^{(1)}
-{\cal H}\, \xi^0_{(1)}$ and $\widetilde{\deu\varphi}=\deu
\varphi+\varphi'_0\,\xi^0_{(1)}$, respectively. Thus Eq. (\[T3\]) can be written as +[H]{} = +[H]{} + ( T+ ) \^0\_[(1)]{} -( 2 \^i\^[(1)]{} - \^i \^[0]{}\_[(1)]{} )\_i \^[0]{}\_[(1)]{} . Solving Eq. (\[T4\]) for $\xi^0_{(1)}$ and using the the first-order transformation $\widetilde{\omega^{(1)}}= \omega^{(1)}-\xi^0_{(1)}$ to express $\partial_i\xi^0_{(1)}$ and $\partial^i\xi^0_{(1)}$ we finally find +[H]{} + - = +[H]{} + - \_i\^[(1)]{} \^i\^[(1)]{} , which shows that ${\cal R}$ – the combination on the r.h.s. of this equation – is indeed gauge-independent.\
Notice that, by replacing $\varphi$ with the energy density $\rho$, we can find in an analogous way a gauge-invariant expression for the curvature perturbation on uniform-density hypersurfaces $\zeta$, which to first order is given by [@bst] $- \zeta^{(1)}=
\psi^{(1)}+{\cal H}
\deu \rho/\rho'_0$, where $\rho_0$ is the background energy density. Thus at second order ${\zeta} = {\zeta}^{(1)}+\frac{1}{2} \zeta^{(2)}$ is \[zeta\] - = - [\^[(1)]{}]{}+ + - \_i\^[(1)]{} \^i\^[(1)]{} .
Einstein Equations {#EE}
==================
In this section we shall derive the behaviour on large scales of the comoving curvature perturbation at second order ${\cal R}^{(2)}$ introduced in Eq. (\[R\]). Our starting point is to calculate the perturbed Einstein equations $\delta^{(2)}G^\mu_{~\nu}=
(\kappa^2/2) \, \delta^{(2)}T^\mu_{~\nu}$ in a generalized longitudinal gauge. Here $\kappa^2=8\pi \,G_{\rm N}$ and $T^\mu_{~\nu}$ is the energy-momentum tensor of the inflaton field. From the Einstein equations in this gauge we shall pick up an equation for a single unknown function – the potential $\phi^{(2)}$ – in a way similar to the procedure used in Ref. [@mfb] to isolate the equation of motion for $\phi^{(1)}$ in the longitudinal gauge [^6]. As in Ref. [@mfb], but at the second-order level in the perturbations, an equation linking $\ded \varphi$ and $\phi^{(2)}$ holds, so that it is possible to obtain an explicit expression for $\ded \varphi$ and hence for the curvature ${\cal R}^{(2)}$, once the equation for $\phi^{(2)}$ has been solved. Indeed there are many differences with respect to the first-order case, as it will be evident to the reader from the details of the calculations which follow. The main difficulties arise due to the fact that – contrary to the first-order perturbation theory – also vector and tensor contributions are present, and to the fact that the two scalar potential $\phi^{(2)}$ and $\psi^{(2)}$ differ even in the longitudinal gauge for the presence of source terms which are quadratic in the first-order perturbations.
Einstein Equations in the generalized longitudinal gauge
--------------------------------------------------------
Up to now we have not choosen any particular gauge. Hereafter we will work in a generalized longitudinal gauge defined as \[metric3\] g\_[00]{}&=&-a\^2()(1+2 \^[(1)]{}+\^[(2)]{}) ,\
g\_[0i]{}&=&0 ,\
g\_[ij]{}&=&a\^2(). One can obtain the Einstein equations in this gauge either by using directly the metric tensor in Eq. (\[metric3\]) or by using the more general metric of Eq. (\[metric2\]), where no gauge choice has been specified yet, and reduce the equations to the longitudinal gauge only at the end. We have performed both the computations to have a cross check for the equations obtained. In Appendix \[A\] we give the expression for the Einstein tensor in the more general form using the metric (\[metric2\]).\
We shall now give the Einstein equations in the longitudinal gauge at first and second order in the perturbations, respectively \^[(1)]{}G\^0\_[ 0]{}=\^2 \^[(1)]{}T\^0\_[ 0]{} & &\
&&\
&6&\^[(1)]{} +6\^-2 = \^2 ( \^[(1)]{}[[\_0]{}\^]{}\^2 - [\_0]{}\^- a\^2 ) \[001\]\
\^[(1)]{}G\^0\_[ i]{}=\^2 \^[(1)]{}T\^0\_[ i]{} & &\
&&\
&-&2\_i \^[(1)]{} - 2\_i [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ = - \^2 [\_0]{}\^ \^i \[0i1\]\
\^[(1)]{}G\^i\_[ j]{}=\^2 \^[(1)]{}T\^i\_[ j]{} & &\
&&\
& &( 2\^ + 4 - 2 + + 4\^ + 2[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ - )\^[i]{}\_[ j]{}\
&-& \^i\_j [\^[(1)]{}]{} + \^i\_j [\^[(1)]{}]{} = \^2 (- [\^[(1)]{}]{}[[\_0]{}\^]{}\^2 + [\_0]{}\^ - a\^2 ) \^i\_[ j]{} \[zero\] \^[(2)]{}G\^0\_[ 0]{}= \^[(2)]{}T\^0\_[ 0]{} & &\
&&\
&3& \^[(2)]{} - \_i\^i\^[(2)]{} + \^[(2)]{} +\^[(2)]{} - 12 ( [\^[(1)]{}]{} )\^2- 3( [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ )\^2 \[34\]\
&-& 8\^[(1)]{}\_i\^i\^[(1)]{} -3\_i\^[(1)]{} \^i \^[(1)]{}\
&=&\^2 (- \^\_0\^ - a\^2 - ( \^ )\^2 - \^i \_i\
&-& ( )\^2 a\^2 - 2( \^[(1)]{} )\^2[\_0\^]{}\^2 + 2\^[(1)]{}\^\_0\^ ) ,\
\[izero\] \^[(2)]{}G\^i\_[ 0]{}= \^[(2)]{}T\^i\_[ 0]{} & &\
&&\
& &\^i [\^[(2)]{}]{}\^+ \^i\^[(2)]{} + \_k\^k( [\^[i(2)]{}]{} )\^ +2[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\^i \^[(1)]{} +8\^[(1)]{}\^i [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\
& & =\^2 ( \_0\^\^i + \^i \^ + 2\_0\^ \^[(1)]{} \^i ) ,\
\[ijd\] \^[(2)]{}G\^i\_[ j]{}= \^[(2)]{}T\^i\_[ j]{} & &\
& & (\^[(2)]{} + \^ + \^[(2)]{} + \^[(2)]{} - \^[(2)]{} + 2\^ + [\^[(2)]{}]{}\^ \[38\]\
&-&8( \^[(1)]{} )\^2 + 4( \^[(1)]{} )\^2 - 8\^[(1)]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ -3\_k \^[(1)]{}\^k \^[(1)]{} - 4 \^[(1)]{}\^[(1)]{}\
&-& ( [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ )\^2 )\^i\_[ j]{}-\^i \_j\^[(2)]{} + \^i\_j \^[(2)]{} + ( \_j [\^[i(2)]{}]{}\^ + \^i [\^[(2)]{}\_j]{}\^ + [\^[i(2)]{}\_[ j]{}]{}\^)\
&+& ( \_j [\^[i(2)]{}]{}\^ + \^i [\^[(2)]{}\_j]{}\^ + [\^[i(2)]{}\_[ j]{}]{}\^) - \^[i(2)]{}\_[ j]{} + 2\^i \^[(1)]{}\_j \^[(1)]{} + 4\^[(1)]{}\^i\_j \^[(1)]{}\
&=& \^2 ( \^\_0\^ - a\^2 + ( \^ )\^2 - \_k \^k + 2( \^[(1)]{} )\^2 [\_0\^]{}\^2\
&-& ( )\^2 a\^2 - 2\^[(1)]{}\^ \_0\^)\^i\_[ j]{}+\^2 (\^i \_j ) . In writing the perturbed Einstein equations at second order we have set throughout $\phi^{(1)}=\psi^{(1)}$, since in the longitudinal gauge at first-order the two scalar potentials are equal in the case of a scalar field, and to obtain Eqs. (\[34\]) and (\[38\]) we have made use of the background relations $a^{\prime\prime}/a={\cal H}^2+{\cal H}^{\prime}$ and $(\kappa^2/2)\,\, {\varphi_0^{\prime}}^2={\cal H}^2-{\cal H}^{\prime}$.\
We shall now describe how to isolate the equation for the potential $\phi^{(2)}$. We use the $(0-0)$-component of Einstein equations, the divergence of the $(i-0)$-component and the trace of the $(i-j)$-component, both performed with the background metric $\delta_{ij}$. Notice that the divergence and the trace operations make the vector and the tensor modes disappear from the equations. Thus, we are left with three equations in the three unknown functions, $\phi^{(2)}, \psi^{(2)}$, and $\delta^{(2)}\varphi$.\
From the divergence of the $(i-0)$-component of Einstein equations it is possible to recover an expression for $\delta^{(2)}\varphi$ $$\label{defidue} \frac{1}{2}\delta^{(2)}\varphi
\,=\,\frac{\left( \psi^{(2)\prime} \,+\,
{\mathcal{H}}\,\phi^{(2)} \,+\, \triangle^{-1}\alpha \right)}
{\kappa^2\,\varphi_0^{\prime}}
\,-\,\frac{\triangle^{-1} \beta}{\varphi_0^{\prime}}\, ,
\nonumber$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha&=&2{\psi^{(1)}}^{\prime}\partial_i \,\partial^i \psi^{(1)} \,
+\, 10\, \partial_i {\psi^{(1)}}^{\prime} \partial^i \psi^{(1)}
+\, 8 \psi^{(1)}\, \partial_i \,\partial^i {\psi^{(1)}}^{\prime}
\label{alpha}\, ,\\
\beta&=&\partial_i \,\partial^i
\delta^{(1)} \varphi \,{\delta^{(1)} \varphi}^{\prime} \,+\,
\partial^i \delta^{(1)} \varphi\,\partial_i {\delta^{(1)}\varphi}^{\prime}
+\, 2\,\psi^{(1)}\,\partial_i \,\partial^i \delta^{(1)}\varphi
\,\varphi_0^{\prime} \,+\, 2\,\partial_i\psi^{(1)} \,\partial^i \delta^{(1)}
\varphi\,\varphi_0^{\prime} \label{beta}\, ,\end{aligned}$$ and $\triangle^{-1}$ is the inverse of the Laplacian operator for the three spatial-coordinates. The expression (\[defidue\]) and its derivative with respect to the conformal time $\tau$ can be used in the trace of the $(i-j)$ equation to obtain \[traccia\] \^[(2)]{}- \^[(2)]{}&=& 8 ( \^[(1)]{} )\^2 - 4 ( )\^2 ( \^[(1)]{} )\^2 + 8 \^[(1)]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + \_i \^[(1)]{}\^i \^[(1)]{} + \^[(1)]{}\_i \^i\^[(1)]{}\
&+& ( [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ )\^2 + \^[-1]{} \^ + 2 \^[-1]{} -\^2 \^[-1]{}\^ - 2\^2 \^[-1]{} + \^2 . Thus a relation between $\psi^{(2)}$ and $\phi^{(2)}$ follows from Eq. (\[traccia\]) $$\label{ST}
\psi^{(2)}=\phi^{(2)}-\triangle^{-1} \gamma,$$ where $\gamma$ stands for three times the R.H.S of Eq. (\[traccia\]). Eq. (\[ST\]) shows that the two scalar potentials $\psi^{(2)}$ and $\phi^{(2)}$ differ for quadratic terms in the first-order perturbations, as anticipated above.\
Using Eq. (\[ST\]) we are now in the position to express the other two unknown functions $\psi^{(2)}$ and $\ded \varphi$ in terms solely of $\phi^{(2)}$. From Eq. (\[defidue\]) we finally obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{deltafidue}
\frac{1}{2}\delta^{(2)}\varphi \, =
\,\frac{\,\left(
\phi^{(2) \prime} \,+\, {\mathcal{H}}\,\phi^{(2)} \,+\,
\triangle^{-1}\alpha \right)}{\kappa^2\,\varphi_0^{\prime}}
-\frac{\triangle^{-1} \beta}{\varphi_0^{\prime}}
-\frac{\triangle^{-1}\gamma^{\prime}}{\kappa^2\,\varphi_0^{\prime}}\, .\end{aligned}$$
Plugging Eqs. (\[ST\]) and (\[deltafidue\]) into the $(0-0)$ Einstein equation, the equation of motion for $\phi^{(2)}$ is derived \[Long\] &[\^[(2)]{}]{}&\^-\_i\^i \^[(2)]{} + 2([H]{}- ) [\^[(2)]{}]{}\^+2([H]{}\^ -) \^[(2)]{}=\
&12&[H]{}\^2(\^[(1)]{})\^2+3([\^[(1)]{}]{}\^)\^[2]{} +8\^[(1)]{}\_i\^i\^[(1)]{}+3 \_i\^[(1)]{} \^i\^[(1)]{} +2([H]{} + )\^[-1]{} -\^[-1]{}\^\
&-&2\^2 ([H]{}+ )\^[-1]{} +\^2\^[-1]{}\^- +( [H]{} -2 )\^[-1]{}\^+\^[-1]{}\^\
&+&\^2 (-( [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ )\^2- \_i \^[(1)]{}\^i \^[(1)]{}- 2 ( \^[(1)]{})\^2 \_0\^[2]{} -( [\^[(1)]{}]{} )\^2 a\^2 + 2 \^[(1)]{} [[\^[(1)]{}]{}]{}\^ \_0\^ ) . Eq. (\[Long\]) is our master equation. Before solving it, let us stress two important points. First, no approximation has been made up to now. In particular notice that this equation is exact at any order in the expansion in terms of the slow-roll parameters. Secondly, the L.H.S. of Eq. (\[Long\]) is exactly the same as in the equation for $\phi^{(1)}$ in the longitudinal gauge at first order (see the footnote \[footnotesufi1\]). However, at second order, the key point is that Eq. (\[Long\]) for $\phi^{(2)}$ is not homogeneous, but there is a source made up of terms which are quadratic in the first-order perturbations. Notice that, as in the first-order calculation, it is not necessary to use the perturbed Klein-Gordon equation to close the system of the evolution equations for the fluctuactions. Nevertheless, we also calculated the Klein-Gordon equation at second order in the inflaton and metric fluctuactions; this is reported in Appendix \[B\].
The large-scale curvature perturbation ${\cal R}^{(2)}$ in the slow-roll approximation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We shall now solve Eq. (\[Long\]) in order to obtain the expression for the comoving curvature perturbation ${\cal R}^{(2)}$ defined in Eq. (\[R\]). First we rewrite Eq. (\[Long\]) in cosmic time $dt=a\, d\tau$, since it is more easy in this way to recognize the slow-roll parameters $\epsilon=-\dot{H}/H^2$ and $\eta =
\epsilon-\left(\ddot\varphi_0/H\dot\varphi_0\right)$ [@lr]. During a period of inflation $\epsilon$ and $\eta$ must be $\ll 1$, but only at a certain point we will perform an expansion to lowest-order in the slow-roll parameters. Moreover, where possible, we shall neglect some terms which give a subdominant contribution on large scales.
Using cosmic time, Eq. (\[Long\]) becomes \[longt\] &\^[(2)]{}&+H ( 1- 2 ) \^[(2)]{}+2 H\^2 ( - ) \^[(2)]{}-\^[(2)]{}=\
&-&24 H\^2 ( 1+ ) ( \^[(1)]{} )\^2-24 H \^[(1)]{} \^[(1)]{}-\_i \^[(1)]{} \^i \^[(1)]{}- H ( 1- )\^[-1]{}\
&-& \^[-1]{} +2 H ( 1- )\^[-1]{}+4 \^[-1]{}-2 \^[-1]{}+\^[-1]{}\
&-& \^2 ( 2 ( \^ )\^2 +8 \^2 ( \^[(1)]{} )\^2- ( )\^2-8 \^[(1)]{} ( \^[(1)]{} )\^ ) , where we have replaced the term $-\gamma$ appearing in Eq. (\[Long\]) with its explicit definition given by Eqs. (\[traccia\]) and (\[ST\]). Notice that in the source on the R.H.S. of Eq. (\[longt\]) there appears always the combination $\Delta^{-1}\left(\kappa^2 \beta/a-\alpha/a\right)$ and its derivative with respect to cosmic time. Let us now calculate such a combination. The quantity $\alpha$ defined in Eq. (\[alpha\]) can be rewritten as =2 ( \^[(1)]{} \^[(1)]{} )+6 ( \_i \^[(1)]{} \^i \^[(1)]{}+\^[(1)]{} \^[(1)]{} ) . Using the equation of motion (\[001\]) to express $\left( \deu \varphi \right)^{\displaystyle{\cdot}}$, the quantity $\beta$, Eq. (\[beta\]), turns out to be &=& ( )\^2 +3 \_i \^[(1)]{} \^i +3 \^[(1)]{}\
&+& \_k \^k ( \^[(1)]{} ) + \^[(1)]{} . Using the equation of motion for $\psi^{(1)}$ in the longitudinal gauge \[psieq\] \^[(1)]{}+H \^[(1)]{}= , which can be derived from Eq. (\[0i1\]) with $\phi^{(1)}=\psi^{(1)}$, we get \^2 -&=& ( )\^2+3 H ( \^[(1)]{} )\^2 -2 ( \^[(1)]{} \^[(1)]{} )\
&+& \_k \^k ( \^[(1)]{} ) + \^[(1)]{} , and therefore \[combination\] \^[-1]{} ( \^2 - ) &=& ( )\^2+3 H ( \^[(1)]{} )\^2 -2 ( \^[(1)]{} \^[(1)]{} )\
&+& \^[-1]{} . The master equation (\[longt\]) can be simplified if we drop those terms which are next to leading-order in the slow-roll parameters &\^[(2)]{}&+H \^[(2)]{}-\^[(2)]{}=\
&-& 12 \^2 H \^[(1)]{} + 3 \^2 H ( )\^2 -12 H \^[(1)]{} \^[(1)]{} +18 H\^2 ( \^[(1)]{} )\^2\
&+&4 \^ -2 \^[-1]{}+\^[-1]{}\
&+& \^[-1]{}\
&+& \^[-1]{} \^ - \_i \^[(1)]{} \^i \^[(1)]{} +\^2 ( )\^2\
&-& ( )\^2 + \^[(1)]{} \^[(1)]{} - \^[(1)]{} , where we have used Eq. (\[psieq\]) so that $-24 H^2 \left( 1+\dot{H}/H^2 \right)
\left( \psi^{(1)} \right)^2-24 H \psi^{(1)} \dot{\psi}^{(1)}=-24 \dot{H}
\left( \psi^{(1)} \right)^2 - 12 \kappa^2 H \deu \varphi\,
\psi^{(1)}\dot{\varphi_0}$, we have used the expression for $\left( \deu \varphi \right)^{\displaystyle{\cdot}}$ from Eq. (\[001\]), and we also explicitly written the combination (\[combination\]).
Let us notice that through Eq. (\[psieq\]) we find &-& 12 \^2 H \^[(1)]{} + 3 \^2 H ( )\^2 -12 H \^[(1)]{} \^[(1)]{} +18 H\^2 ( \^[(1)]{} )\^2=\
&-&18 \^2 H \^[(1)]{}+ 3 \^2 H ( )\^2 + 30 H\^2 ( \^[(1)]{} )\^2 =\
&-&12 H ( \^[(1) 2]{} )\^ + 6 ( \^[(1)]{} )\^2 - \^2 ( )\^2 , where the last passage is valid to lowest-order in the slow-roll parameters. Thus we finally obtain \[eqf\] &\^[(2)]{}&+H \^[(2)]{}+2 H\^2 ( - ) \^[(2)]{}-\^[(2)]{}=\
&-&12 H ( \^[(1) 2]{} )\^ + 6 ( \^[(1)]{} )\^2 +4 \^\
&-&2 \^[-1]{}+\^[-1]{} + \^[-1]{}\
&+& \^[-1]{} \^ - \_i \^[(1)]{} \^i \^[(1)]{}\
&-& ( )\^2 + \^[(1)]{} \^[(1)]{} - \^[(1)]{} . Integrating Eq. (\[eqf\]) we find \[integration\] \^[(2)]{}+H \^[(2)]{}&=&-12 H ( \^[(1)]{} )\^2+ 4 - \^[-1]{} +\^[-1]{}\
&+&6 ( \^[(1)]{} )\^2 dt + \^[-1]{} dt\
&-& 4 ( \_i \^[(1)]{} \^i \^[(1)]{} ) dt - ( )\^2 dt + \^[(1)]{} \^[(1)]{} dt\
&-& \^[(1)]{} dt .
We are now in the position to calculate the second-order comoving curvature perturbation ${\cal R}^{(2)}$. From Eqs. (\[R\]), (\[ST\]) and (\[deltafidue\]) we get \[formula:R2\] [R]{}\^[(2)]{} = &2& -2 \^[-1]{} ( ) -2 \^[-1]{}+ \^[(2)]{}-\^[-1]{}\
&+& , where the last term is the part of ${\cal R}^{(2)}$ in Eq. (\[R\]) which is quadratic in the first-order perturbations. Note that it is of the order of ${\cal O}(\epsilon^2, \eta^2)$ and thus we shall neglect it in the following. In Eq. (\[formula:R2\]) there appears once more the combination $\Delta^{-1}\left(\kappa^2 \beta/a-\alpha/a\right)$ . Thus using Eq. (\[combination\]) and Eq. (\[integration\]) we obtain \[R2\] [R]{}\^[(2)]{}&=&3 H ( )\^2 -12 \^[(1)]{} \^[(1)]{} -6 ( \^[(1)]{} )\^2 + ( \^[(1)]{} )\^2 dt\
&+& \^[-1]{} dt - ( \_i \^[(1)]{} \^i \^[(1)]{} ) dt\
&-& ( )\^2 dt + \^[(1)]{} \^[(1)]{} dt - \^[(1)]{} dt\
&=& -3 H\^2 ( )\^2 +6 ( \^[(1)]{} )\^2 -6 H \^[(1)]{} +3 H\^2 + ( )\^2 dt\
&+& \^[-1]{} dt - ( \_i \^[(1)]{} \^i \^[(1)]{} ) dt\
&-& ( )\^2 dt + \^[(1)]{} \^[(1)]{} dt - \^[(1)]{} dt\
&-& 2 \^[-1]{}-\^[-1]{} , where the last passage is valid to lowest order in the slow-roll parameters and we have used the equation of motion (\[psieq\]). In Eq. (\[R2\]) the terms which are not integrated in time can be safely treated in the long-wavelength limit. To lowest order in the slow-roll parameters and on large scales, $k \ll aH$, $\psi^{(1)}$ can be considered as constant and \^[(1)]{}&=& = H\[psi1\] which can be derived from the equations of motion (\[psieq\]) and (\[KG1L\]) in the longitudinal gauge for $\psi^{(1)}$ and $\deu \varphi$, respectively. On the other hand, from the definition of the comoving curvature perturbation at first order, Eq. (\[R1\]), and using Eq. (\[psi1\]) we can write ${\cal{R}}^{(1)}= H \deu \varphi/\dot{
\varphi_0}$ to lowest order in the slow-roll parameters and on large scales. Thus in these approximations Eq. (\[psi1\]) can be rewritten as \^[(1)]{}&=& \^[(1)]{} . \[psi1bis\] Performing various integrations by parts in expression (\[R2\]), using the perturbation equations at first-order and properly substracting the contributions in the far ultraviolet, we arrive at the final expression for the comoving curvature perturbation \^[(2)]{}= (-3) ( [R]{}\^[(1)]{} )\^2 +[I]{} , where
&=&- \^[(1)]{} \^[(1)]{} dt - ( \_i \^[(1)]{} \^i \^[(1)]{} ) dt\
&-&(\^[(1)]{})\^2 dt +(-)\^[-1]{}\_i R\^[(1)]{} \^i R\^[(1)]{} .
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
In this paper we have provided a complete analysis of the second-order scalar perturbations during inflation leading to the derivation of the gauge-invariant comoving curvature perturbation ${\cal R}$.
The comoving curvature perturbation receives a contribution which is quadratic in ${\cal R}^{(1)}$. The total curvature perturbation will then have a non-Gaussian $(\chi^2)$ component. Reminding that the gauge-invariant potential $\Phi$ (which is related to Bardeen’s variable [@bardeen] by $\Phi=-\Phi_H$) and the curvature perturbation $\cal R$ are related by $\Phi=\frac{3}{5} {\cal R}$, the following simple relation in configuration space holds
$$\Phi({\bf x}) = \Phi_{\rm Gauss}({\bf x}) +
\int\, d^3y\,d^3 z\,{\cal K}\left({\bf y},{\bf z}\right)
\Phi_{\rm Gauss}({\bf x}-{\bf y})\Phi_{\rm Gauss}({\bf x}-{\bf z})+
{\rm constant}
\label{gauss}$$
which is valid on superhorizon scales and where the constant is such that $\langle \Phi({\bf x})\rangle=0$. Here $\Phi_{\rm Gauss}=\frac{3}{5}
{\cal R}^{(1)}$ is a Gaussian random field. The non-Gaussianity kernel in momentum space is given by
([**k**]{}\_1,[**k**]{}\_2)=(-3) + f\_[[K]{}]{}([**k**]{}\_1,[**k**]{}\_2) , where $f_{{\cal K}}\left({\bf k}_1,{\bf k}_2\right)$ is directly related to the function ${\cal I}$ and is first-order in the slow-roll parameters. The gravitational potential bispectrum then reads
([**k**]{}\_1) ([**k**]{}\_2) ([**k**]{}\_3) =(2)\^3\^[(3)]{}([**k**]{}\_1+[**k**]{}\_2+[**k**]{}\_3) , where ${\cal P}_\Phi({\bf k})$ is the power spectrum of the gravitational potential. We can also define an effective “momentum-dependent” parameter $f_{\rm NL}$ given by[^7]
$$\label{pp}
f_{\rm NL} \sim \frac{5}{12} \left(n_S-1 \right)+
f_{{\cal K}}\left({\bf k}_1,{\bf k}_2\right) \, ,$$
where we have made use of the relation between the spectral index $n_S=1 - 6 \epsilon + 2 \eta$ for the scalar perturbations and the slow-roll parameters. In the final expression (\[pp\]) we have not written possible terms of the order of ${\cal O}(\epsilon^2,\eta^2)\Delta N$ which might be sizeable for certain classes of inflationary models ($\Delta N$ is the number of e-foldings from the time at which a given scale crosses the horizon and the end of inflation; for large-scale CMB anisotropies $\Delta N \approx 60$). Whether these terms cancel out, or equivalently whether the curvature perturbation remains constant on super-horizon scales also at next-to-leading order in the slow-roll parameters remains an open issue. However, if present, terms of order of ${\cal O}(\epsilon^2,\eta^2)\Delta N$ resemble those found in Refs. [@FRS; @gup], coming from the self-interactions of the inflaton field. The primordial gauge-invariant potential bispectrum leads to a nonzero CMB bispectrum via the Sachs-Wolfe effect $\left(\Delta T/T\right)_{SW}=
(1/3)\Phi$.
Deviations from a scale-invariant spectrum can make the primordial non-Gaussianity non-negligible. The possible presence of non-Gaussianity in primordial cosmological perturbations is only mildly constrained by existing observations [@Vetal; @v2]. Recent analyses of the angular bispectrum from 4-year COBE data [@ketal] yield a weak upper limit, $\vert f_{\rm NL}\vert < 1.5
\times 10^3$. The analysis of the diagonal angular bispectrum of the Maxima dataset [@setal] also provides a very weak constraint: $\vert f_{\rm NL} \vert < 2330$. According to Ref. [@ks], however, the minimum value of $\vert f_{\rm NL}\vert$ that will become detectable from the analysis of MAP and [*Planck*]{} data, after properly subtracting detector noise and foreground contamination, is about $20$ and $5$, respectively. These results imply that detecting non-Gaussianity at the level emerging from our second-order calculation will represent a challenge for the forthcoming satellite experiments.\
[**Note added**]{}: While revising this paper, a related work by Maldacena, astro-ph/0210603, appeared, where the three-point correlation function for the curvature perturbation is obtained by computing the cubic term contributions to the Lagrangian. Our results, where comparison is possible, agree with those in astro-ph/0210603.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We wish to thank M. Bruni for useful discussions on gauge transformations.
0.2cm
Perturbing gravity at second order {#A}
==================================
Basic notation
--------------
The number of spatial dimensions is $n=3$. Greek indices ($\alpha, \beta, ..., \mu, \nu, ....$) run from 0 to 3, while latin indices ($a,b,...,i,j,k,....
m,n...$) run from 1 to 3. The total spacetime metric $g_{\mu \nu}$ has signature ($-,+,+,+$). The connection coefficients are defined as \[conness\] \^\_= g\^( + - ) . The Riemann tensor is defined as R\^\_[ ]{}= \^\_[,]{}-\^\_[,]{}+ \^\_\^\_- \^\_\^\_ .
The Ricci tensor is a contraction of the Riemann tensor R\_=R\^\_[ ]{} , and in terms of the connection coefficient it is given by $$R_{\mu\nu}\,=\, \partial_\alpha\,\Gamma^\alpha_{\mu\nu} \,-\,
\partial_{\mu}\,\Gamma^\alpha_{\nu\alpha} \,+\,
\Gamma^\alpha_{\sigma\alpha}\,\Gamma^\sigma_{\mu\nu} \,-\,
\Gamma^\alpha_{\sigma\nu} \,\Gamma^\sigma_{\mu\alpha}\,.$$ The Ricci scalar is given by contracting the Ricci tensor R=R\^\_[ ]{} . The Einstein tensor is defined as G\_=R\_-g\_R . The Einstein equations are written as $G_{\mu\nu}=\kappa^2 T_{\mu\nu}$, so that $\kappa^2=8\pi G_{\rm N}$, where $G_{\rm N}$ is the usual Newtonian gravitational constant.\
In the following expressions we have chosen a specific ordering of the terms. In the expressions in which two spatial indices appear, such as Eq. (\[gammaij\]), we have assembled together the terms proportional to $\delta_{ij}$. The intrinsically second-order terms precede the source terms which are quadratic in the first-order perturbations. The second-order fluctuations have been listed in the following order as $\phi^{(2)}$, $\psi^{(2)}$, $\omega^{(2)}$, $\omega^{(2)}_i$, $\chi^{(2)}$, $\chi^{(2)}_i$ and $\chi^{(2)}_{ij}$, respectively. This ordering simplifies the analogy between the first-order and the second-order equations and allows to obtain immediately the expressions in a given gauge.
The connection coefficients
---------------------------
In a spatially flat Robertson-Walker background the connection coefficients are $$\Gamma^0_{00}\,=\, \Aa \,; \qquad
\Gamma^i_{0j}\,=\,\Aa\,\delta^i_{~j}\,; \qquad
\Gamma^0_{ij}\,=\,\Aa\,\delta_{ij}\,;$$ $$\Gamma^i_{00}\quad=\quad\Gamma^0_{0i}\quad=\quad\Gamma^i_{jk}\quad=\quad
0 \,.$$ The first-order perturbed connection coefficients corresponding to first-order metric perturbations in Eq. (\[metric2\]) are &=& [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ ,\
&=& \_i \^[(1)]{} + \_i\^[(1)]{} ,\
&=& \^i \^[(1)]{} + \^i [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + \^i \^[(1)]{} ,\
&=& -2\^[(1)]{}\_[ij]{} - \_i \_j \^[(1)]{} - 2\^[(1)]{}\_[ij]{} - [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\_[ij]{} - D\_[ij]{} \^[(1)]{} + D\_[ij]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ ,\
&=& - [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\_[ij]{} + D\_[ij]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ ,\
&=& \_j \^[(1)]{} \_k\^i - \_k \^[(1)]{} \_j\^i + \^i \^[(1)]{} \_[jk]{} - \^i \^[(1)]{} \_[jk]{} + \_j D\^i\_k \^[(1)]{} + \_k D\^i\_j \^[(1)]{} - \^i D\_[jk]{} \^[(1)]{} . At second order we get: &=&[\^[(2)]{}]{}\^- 2\^[(1)]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + \^k \^[(1)]{}\_k \^[(1)]{} +\^k \^[(1)]{}\_k \^[(1)]{} +\^k \^[(1)]{}\_k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^,\
&=& \_i\^[(2)]{} + (\_i \^[(2)]{} + \_i\^[(2)]{} ) - 2\^[(1)]{}\_i\^[(1)]{} - 2\^[(1)]{}\_i \^[(1)]{}- [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\_i \^[(1)]{}\
&+&\^k \^[(1)]{}D\_[ik]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ ,\
&=& \^i\^[(2)]{} + (\^i \^[(2)]{} + \^[i(2)]{}) + ( \^i [\^[(2)]{}]{}\^ + ( \^[i[(2)]{}]{} )\^ ) +2\^[(1)]{}\^i\^[(1)]{} - [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\^i \^[(1)]{}\
&+& 2\^[(1)]{} \^i \^[(1)]{} + 2\^[(1)]{}\^i [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ - \_k \^[(1)]{} D\^[ik]{}\^[(1)]{} - \_k \^[(1)]{} D\^[ik]{}\^[(1)]{} - \_k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^D\^[ik]{}\^[(1)]{} ,\
\[gammaij\] &=& ( -\^[(2)]{} -[\^[(2)]{}]{}\^ -\^[(2)]{} + 4( \^[(1)]{} )\^2 + 2\^[(1)]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + 4\^[(1)]{}\^[(1)]{} + \^k \^[(1)]{}\_k \^[(1)]{}\
&-& \^k \^[(1)]{}\_k \^[(1)]{} )\_[ij]{} - \_i\_j \^[(2)]{}+ ( D\_[ij]{} [\^[(2)]{}]{}\^ + \_j[\_i\^[(2)]{}]{}\^ + \_i[\^[(2)]{}\_j]{}\^ + ( [\^[(2)]{}\_[ij]{}]{} )\^ )\
&+& ( D\_[ij]{}\^[(2)]{} + \_i\^[(2)]{}\_j + \_j\_i\^[(2)]{} + \^[(2)]{}\_[ij]{}) - ( \_i \^[(2)]{}\_j + \_j \_i\^[(2)]{})\
&+& 2\^[(1)]{}\_i \_j \^[(1)]{}- \_i \^[(1)]{} \_j \^[(1)]{} - \_j \^[(1)]{}\_i \^[(1)]{} - \^[(1)]{}D\_[ij]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + \^k \^[(1)]{} \_i D\_[kj]{}\^[(1)]{}\
&+& \^k \^[(1)]{}\_j D\_[ik]{}\^[(1)]{}- \^k \^[(1)]{} \_k D\_[ij]{}\^[(1)]{} ,\
&=& -[\^[(2)]{}]{}\^\^i\_[ j]{} + ( D\^i\_[ j]{} [\^[(2)]{}]{}\^ + \_j(\^[i(2)]{} )\^ + \^i( \^[(2)]{}\_j )\^ + ( [\^[i(2)]{}\_[ j]{}]{} )\^ ) + ( \_j \^[i(2)]{} - \^i \^[(2)]{}\_j )\
&-& 2\^[(1)]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\^i\_[ j]{} -\^i \^[(1)]{} \_j \^[(1)]{} - \^i \^[(1)]{} \_j \^[(1)]{} + \^[(1)]{}D\^i\_[ j]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^D\^i\_[ j]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&-& D\^[ik]{}\^[(1)]{}D\_[kj]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ ,\
&=& (-\_j\^[(2)]{}\^i\_[ k]{} -\_k\^[(2)]{}\^i\_[ j]{} + \^i\^[(2)]{}\_[jk]{}) + ( \_j D\^i\_[ k]{} \^[(2)]{} + \_k D\^i\_[ j]{} \^[(2)]{} - \^i D\_[jk]{} \^[(2)]{} )\
&+& \_j \_k\^[i(2)]{} + (\_j\^[i(2)]{}\_[ k]{} + \_k\^[i(2)]{}\_[ j]{} - \^i\^[(2)]{}\_[jk]{}) - ( \^i \^[(2)]{} + \^[i(2)]{})\_[jk]{}\
&+& 2\^[(1)]{}(-\_j\^[(1)]{}\^i\_[ k]{} -\_k\^[(1)]{}\^i\_[ j]{} + \^i\^[(1)]{}\_[jk]{}) + 2\^[(1)]{}\^i \^[(1)]{} \_[jk]{} +\^i \^[(1)]{}\_j \_k \^[(1)]{}\
&+&[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\^i \^[(1)]{} \_[jk]{} +\^[(1)]{}( \_j D\^i\_[ k]{} \^[(1)]{} + \_k D\^i\_[ j]{} \^[(1)]{} - \^i D\_[jk]{}\^[(1)]{} ) + \_j \^[(1)]{}D\^i\_[ k]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&+& \_k \^[(1)]{}D\^i\_[ j]{} \^[(1)]{}- \_m \^[(1)]{}D\^[im]{}\^[(1)]{}\_[jk]{} - \^i \^[(1)]{}D\_[jk]{}\^[(1)]{} + \^m \^[(1)]{}D\^i\_[ m]{} \^[(1)]{}\_[jk]{}\
&-& \^i \^[(1)]{} D\_[jk]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^- D\^[im]{}\^[(1)]{}\_j D\_[mk]{}\^[(1)]{} - D\^[im]{}\^[(1)]{}\_k D\_[mj]{}\^[(1)]{} + D\^[im]{}\^[(1)]{}\_m D\_[jk]{}\^[(1)]{} .
The Ricci tensor components
---------------------------
In a spatially flat Robertson-Walker background the components of the Ricci tensor $R_{\mu\nu}$ are given by $$R_{00}\,=\,-\,3\,\Ac \,+\,3\,\Ab \,; \qquad R_{0i}\,=\,0\,;$$ $$R_{ij}\,=\,\left[ \Ac \,+\,\Ab \right]\,\delta_{ij}\,.$$ The first-order perturbed Ricci tensor components are &=& \_i\^i \^[(1)]{} + \_i\^i [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + \_i\^i \^[(1)]{} + 3[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + 3\^ + 3\^ ,\
&=& \_i \^[(1)]{} + ()\^2\_i \^[(1)]{} + 2\_i[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + 2\_i \^[(1)]{} + \_k D\^k\_[ i]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ ,\
&=& \_[ij]{} -\_i\_j [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + D\_[ij]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + D\_[ij]{}\^[(1)]{} + ()\^2 D\_[ij]{}\^[(1)]{} + D\_[ij]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + \_i\_j \^[(1)]{}\
&-& \_i\_j \^[(1)]{} - 2\_i\_j \^[(1)]{} + \_k\_iD\^k\_[ j]{} \^[(1)]{} + \_k\_j D\^k\_[ i]{} \^[(1)]{} - \_k\^k D\_[ij]{} \^[(1)]{} . At second order we obtain R\_[00]{}&=& + \^[(2)]{} + \^[(2)]{} + [\^[(2)]{}]{}\^+ [\^[(2)]{}]{}\^+\_k \^k \^[(2)]{} + \_k \^k [\^[(2)]{}]{}\^\
&-& 6 \^[(1)]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ - \^k \^[(1)]{} \_k \^[(1)]{} - 3 [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + 2\^[(1)]{} \^[(1)]{} - \_k \^[(1)]{} \^k \^[(1)]{}\
&+& 6 \^[(1)]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^+ 6\^[(1)]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + 3 ( [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ )\^2-[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ \^[(1)]{} + \^k \^[(1)]{} \_k \^[(1)]{}\
&+& \^k \^[(1)]{} \_k \^[(1)]{} + \^k \^[(1)]{} \_k \^[(1)]{}- \_k \^[(1)]{} \^k \^[(1)]{} + 2 \^[(1)]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&-& \_k \^[(1)]{} \^k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + 2 \^[(1)]{} \^ + 3 \^k \^[(1)]{} \_k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ -\_k \^[(1)]{} \_i D\^[ik]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&-& \_i \_k \^[(1)]{} D\^[ik]{} \^[(1)]{} - \_i\_k \^[(1)]{} D\^[ik]{} \^[(1)]{} - \_k \^[(1)]{} \_i D\^[ik]{} \^[(1)]{} - \_k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ \_i D\^[ik]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&-& \_i \_k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ D\^[ik]{} \^[(1)]{} + D\^[ik]{} \^[(1)]{} D\_[ki]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + D\^[ik]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^D\_[ki]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + D\^[ik]{} \^[(1)]{} D\_[ki]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ .\
R\_[0i]{} &=& +\_i \^[(2)]{} + \_i [\^[(2)]{}]{}\^ + \_k D\^k\_[ i]{} [\^[(2)]{}]{}\^ + [\^[(2)]{}\_i]{}\^ - \^[(2)]{}\_i\
&+& (\_i \^[(2)]{} + \^[(2)]{}\_i) + (\_i \^[(2)]{} + \^[(2)]{}\_i) - 4 \^[(1)]{} \_i \^[(1)]{} - 2 [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ \_i \^[(1)]{}\
&+&4 [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\_i \^[(1)]{} + 4 \^[(1)]{} \_i [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^-2 \^[(1)]{} \_i \^[(1)]{} - 2\^[(1)]{} \_i \^[(1)]{} - \^ \_i \^[(1)]{}\
&-& \^[(1)]{}\_i \^[(1)]{} - \^k \^[(1)]{} \_i\_k \^[(1)]{} + \_k \^[(1)]{} \_i\_k \^[(1)]{} - \^k \^[(1)]{} \_i\_k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^- \^[(1)]{} \_i \^[(1)]{}\
&-& [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\_i \^[(1)]{} -5 \^\_i \^[(1)]{} - \^k \^[(1)]{} D\^[ik]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^+ \^[(1)]{} \_k D\^k\_[ i]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ \_k D\^k\_[ i]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&-& \_k \^[(1)]{} D\^k\_i [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + \_k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ D\^k\_[ i]{} \^[(1)]{} + \^k \^[(1)]{} D\_[ik]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + \^k \^[(1)]{} D\_[ik]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\
&-& \_k D\^[km]{} \^[(1)]{} D\_[mi]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ - D\^[km]{} \^[(1)]{} \_k D\_[mi]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + D\^[km]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ \_i D\_[mk]{} \^[(1)]{} + D\^[km]{} \^[(1)]{} \_i D\_[mk]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ . The purely spatial part of $\ded \R_{\mu\nu}$ is very long, and for simplicity has been divided into two parts, a diagonal part $\ded {R^d_{ij}}$ which is proportional to $\delta_{ij}$, and a non-diagonal part ${R^{nd}_{ij}}$. &=& \_[ij]{} ,\
&=& - \_i\_j \^[(2)]{} +\_i\_j \^[(2)]{} - \_i\_j \^[(2)]{} - \_i\_j [\^[(2)]{}]{}\^ - ( \_i \^[(2)]{}\_j + \_j \^[(2)]{}\_i)\
&-& ( \_i [\^[(2)]{}\_j]{}\^ + \_j [\^[(2)]{}\_i]{}\^ ) + (+ ) ( D\_[ij]{} \^[(2)]{} + \_i \^[(2)]{}\_j + \_j \^[(2)]{}\_i + \^[(2)]{}\_[ij]{})\
&+& ( D\_[ij]{} [\^[(2)]{}]{}\^ + \_i [\^[(2)]{}\_j]{}\^ + \_j [\^[(2)]{}\_i]{}\^ +( [\^[(2)]{}\_[ij]{}]{} )\^) + \_k\_iD\^k\_[ j]{} \^[(2)]{} - D\_[ij]{} \^[(2)]{}\
&-& \^[(2)]{}\_[ij]{} + ( D\_[ij]{} [\^[(2)]{}]{}\^ + \_i [\^[(2)]{}\_j]{}\^ + \_j [\^[(2)]{}\_i]{}\^ + ([\^[(2)]{}\_[ij]{}]{})\^) + \_i \^[(1)]{} \_j \^[(1)]{}\
&+& 2\^[(1)]{}\_i\_j \^[(1)]{} -\_j \^[(1)]{} \_i\^[(1)]{} - \_i \^[(1)]{}\_j \^[(1)]{} + 3\_i \^[(1)]{}\_j \^[(1)]{} + 2 \^[(1)]{}\_i\_j \^[(1)]{}\
&+& 4 \^[(1)]{}\_i\_j \^[(1)]{} + [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\_i\_j \^[(1)]{} + 2\^[(1)]{} \_i\_j [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + \^[(1)]{} \_i\_j \^[(1)]{}\
&-& \_j \^k \^[(1)]{}\_i \_k \^[(1)]{} -2 \_i \^[(1)]{} \_j \^[(1)]{} - 2\_i \^[(1)]{}\_j \^[(1)]{} - \_i [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\_j \^[(1)]{}\
&-& \_j [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\_i \^[(1)]{} - \_i \^[(1)]{} \_j [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ - \_j \^[(1)]{} \_i [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\_i\_j \^[(1)]{} - 2 \^[(1)]{}D\_[ij]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&-& 2 \^[(1)]{}D\_[ij]{} \^[(1)]{} - 2\^[(1)]{}D\_[ij]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ - \^ D\_[ij]{} \^[(1)]{} -\^D\_[ij]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ - \^[(1)]{}D\_[ij]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\
&+& \_k \^[(1)]{} \_i D\^k\_[ j]{} \^[(1)]{} + \_k \^[(1)]{} \_j D\^k\_[ i]{} \^[(1)]{} - \_k \^[(1)]{} \^k D\_[ij]{} \^[(1)]{} - 3\^D\_[ij]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&+& \^ D\_[ij]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^+ \_k \^[(1)]{} \_i D\^k\_[ j]{} \^[(1)]{} + \_k \^[(1)]{} \_j D\^k\_[ i]{} \^[(1)]{} - \_k \^[(1)]{} \^k D\_[ij]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&+& \^[(1)]{}\_k\_i D\^k\_[ j]{} \^[(1)]{} + \^[(1)]{}\_k\_j D\^k\_[ i]{} \^[(1)]{} - \^[(1)]{}\_k\^k D\_[ij]{} \^[(1)]{} + \_i\^[(1)]{}\_k D\^k\_[ j]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&+& \_j\^[(1)]{}\_k D\^k\_[ i]{} \^[(1)]{} + \_k\_i \^[(1)]{}D\^k\_[ j]{} \^[(1)]{} + \_k\_j \^[(1)]{}D\^k\_[ i]{} \^[(1)]{} + \_k\_i \^[(1)]{} D\^k\_[ j]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\
&+& \_k\_j \^[(1)]{} D\^k\_[ i]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ - \_k\^k \^[(1)]{} D\_[ij]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + \^k \^[(1)]{} \_i D\_[kj]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + \^k \^[(1)]{} \_j D\_[ki]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\
&-&\^k \^[(1)]{} \_k D\_[ij]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^+ \^k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ \_i D\_[kj]{} \^[(1)]{} + \^k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ \_j D\_[ki]{} \^[(1)]{} - \^k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ \_k D\_[ij]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&+& \^k \^[(1)]{} \_i D\_[kj]{} \^[(1)]{} + \^k \^[(1)]{} \_j D\_[ki]{} \^[(1)]{} - \^k \^[(1)]{} \_k D\_[ij]{} \^[(1)]{} - \_k\^k \^[(1)]{} D\_[ij]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&-& D\^k\_i [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ D\_[kj]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ - \_i D\_[mj]{} \^[(1)]{} \_k D\^[km]{} \^[(1)]{} - \_j D\_[mi]{} \^[(1)]{} \_k D\^[km]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&+& \_m D\_[ij]{} \^[(1)]{} \_k D\^[km]{} \^[(1)]{} - \_k\_i D\_[mj]{} \^[(1)]{} D\^[km]{} \^[(1)]{} - \_k\_j D\_[mi]{} \^[(1)]{} D\^[km]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&+& \_k\_m D\_[ij]{} \^[(1)]{} D\^[km]{} \^[(1)]{} + D\^[km]{} \^[(1)]{} \_i\_j D\_[km]{} \^[(1)]{} + \_i D\^[mk]{} \^[(1)]{} \_j D\_[mk]{} \^[(1)]{} .
Ricci scalar
------------
At zeroth order the Ricci scalar $R$ is given by R= . The first-order perturbation of $R$ is R &=& ( -6\_i\^i \^[(1)]{} - 2\_i\^i [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ - 2\_i\^i \^[(1)]{} -6[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ - 6\^ -18\^ .\
&-& . 12\^[(1)]{} + 4\_i\^i\^[(1)]{} + \_k\^i D\^k\_[ i]{} \^[(1)]{} ) . At second order we find R &=& - \^[(2)]{} - 3\^ - 6\^[(2)]{} + 2\^[(2)]{} - 9\^ - 3[\^[(2)]{}]{}\^ - \^\
&-& 3\^[(2)]{} + \_k\_i D\^[ki]{}\^[(2)]{} +24( \^[(1)]{} )\^2 + 2\_k \^[(1)]{}\^k \^[(1)]{} + 4\^[(1)]{}\^[(1)]{}\
&+& 24\^[(1)]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^+ 6[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ +36\^[(1)]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^+ 2 \_k \^[(1)]{} \^k \^[(1)]{} - 4\^[(1)]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&+& 12 \^[(1)]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^-12\^[(1)]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ -36\^\^[(1)]{} + 6\_k \^[(1)]{}\^k \^[(1)]{} + 16\^[(1)]{}\^[(1)]{}\
&+& 6\^k \^[(1)]{}\_k \^[(1)]{} + 12\^[(1)]{}\^[(1)]{} + 4\^[(1)]{}\^ + 2[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\^[(1)]{}\
&-& 5\_k \^[(1)]{}\^k \^[(1)]{} - 6\_k \^[(1)]{}\^k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + \^[(1)]{}\^[(1)]{} - \^i\^k \^[(1)]{}\_i \_k \^[(1)]{}\
&+& 8\_k \^[(1)]{}\^k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^+2\_k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\^k \^[(1)]{} - 4\^[(1)]{}\^ - 12\^[(1)]{}\^[(1)]{}\
&+& 4[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\^[(1)]{} + 2\_k \^[(1)]{}\_i D\^[ik]{} \^[(1)]{} + 2 \_i \_k \^[(1)]{} D\^[ik]{} \^[(1)]{} + 4\^[(1)]{}\_k\_iD\^[ki]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&-& 2 \_k \_i \^[(1)]{}D\^[ik]{}\^[(1)]{} + 3 \_k \^[(1)]{}\^i D\^k\_[ i]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + 6\^k \^[(1)]{}\_i D\^i\_[ k]{} \^[(1)]{} +2\_i [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\_k D\^[ik]{}\^[(1)]{}\
&+& 2 \_k\_i [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^D\^[ik]{}\^[(1)]{} + 6 \_k\_i \^[(1)]{}D\^[ki]{}\^[(1)]{} - D\^[ik]{}\^[(1)]{}D\_[ik]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ - D\^[ik]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^D\_[ki]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\
&-& 3 D\^[ik]{}\^[(1)]{}D\_[ik]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ - 2 \_k\^iD\_[mi]{}\^[(1)]{}D\^[km]{}\^[(1)]{} + D\_[im]{}\^[(1)]{}D\^[mi]{}\^[(1)]{}\
&-& \_k D\^[km]{}\^[(1)]{}\^i D\_[mi]{}\^[(1)]{} + \^i D\^[km]{}\^[(1)]{}\_i D\_[mk]{}\^[(1)]{} .
The Einstein tensor components
------------------------------
The Einstein tensor in a spatially flat Robertson-Walker background is given by G\^0\_[ 0]{} &=& - ( )\^2 ,\
G\^i\_[ j]{} &=& - ( 2 -) \^i\_[ j]{} ,\
G\^0\_[ i]{} &=& G\^i\_[ 0]{} = 0 . The first-order perturbations of the Einstein tensor components are &=& ,\
&=& ( -2\_i \^[(1)]{} - 2\_i [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ - \_k D\^k\_[ i]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ ) ,\
&=& . The second-order perturbed Einstein tensor components are given by &=& ( 3\^[(2)]{}+3\^ - \^[(2)]{} +\^[(2)]{} - \_k \_iD\^[ki]{} \^[(2)]{}\
&-& 12 ( )\^2 ( \^[(1)]{} )\^2 - 12\^[(1)]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ -3\_i \^[(1)]{}\^i \^[(1)]{} - 8\^[(1)]{} \^[(1)]{} + 12\^[(1)]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\
&-& 3( [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ )\^2 + 4\^[(1)]{}\^[(1)]{}- 2\_k \^[(1)]{}\^k \^[(1)]{} - \_k \^[(1)]{}\^k \^[(1)]{}\
&+& \_i\_k \^[(1)]{}\^i\^k \^[(1)]{} - \_k\^k \^[(1)]{}\_k\^k \^[(1)]{} -2\_k \^[(1)]{}\^k \^[(1)]{} + 4\^[(1)]{}\^[(1)]{}\
&-& 2 \_k \^[(1)]{} \^k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ - 2[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ \^[(1)]{} - \^[(1)]{}\_i\^k D\^i\_[ k]{} \^[(1)]{} - 2\^[(1)]{} \_k\^i D\^k\_[ i]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&+& \_k \_i \^[(1)]{}D\^[ki]{} \^[(1)]{} -2\_i\_k \^[(1)]{}D\^[ik]{} \^[(1)]{} -2\_k \^[(1)]{} \_i D\^[ik]{} \^[(1)]{} -\_k \^[(1)]{}\^i D\^k\_[ i]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\
&-& D\_[mk]{} \^[(1)]{} D\^[km]{}\^[(1)]{} + \_m\^k D\_[ik]{} \^[(1)]{}D\^[im]{} \^[(1)]{} + \_k D\^[km]{} \^[(1)]{} \^i D\_[mi]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&-& \^i D\^[km]{}\^[(1)]{} \_i D\_[km]{} \^[(1)]{} + D\^[ik]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ D\_[ki]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + D\^[ki]{} \^[(1)]{} D\_[ik]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ ) ,\
&=& ( \^i \^[(2)]{} +\^i [\^[(2)]{}]{}\^ + \_kD\^[ki]{} [\^[(2)]{}]{}\^ + \^ - \^[i(2)]{} -\^i \^[(2)]{}\
&-& \^[i(2)]{} +2 \^i \^[(2)]{} +2 \^[i(2)]{} - 4 \^[(1)]{}\^i \^[(1)]{} + 4\^[(1)]{}\^i \^[(1)]{}\
&-& 2 [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\^i \^[(1)]{}+ 4[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\^i \^[(1)]{} + 8\^[(1)]{}\^i [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^- \^i \^[(1)]{}\^[(1)]{} -\^k \^[(1)]{} \^i\_k \^[(1)]{}\
&+& \^[(1)]{} \^i \^[(1)]{} + \^i\_k \^[(1)]{} \^k \^[(1)]{} + 4\^[(1)]{}\^i \^[(1)]{} - 8 \^[(1)]{}\^i \^[(1)]{}\
&+& 2 \^ \^i \^[(1)]{} + \^ \^i \^[(1)]{} -\^k \^[(1)]{} \^i\_k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + 2[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\^i \^[(1)]{}\
&+&8\^[(1)]{}\^i \^[(1)]{} -4\^[(1)]{}\^i \^[(1)]{} - 2\^\^i \^[(1)]{} - \^k \^[(1)]{} D\^i\_[ k]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\
&-&2\_k \^[(1)]{}D\^[ki]{}\^[(1)]{} - \_k\^[(1)]{} D\^[ki]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^+2 \^[(1)]{}\_k D\^[ki]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^+ [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ \_k D\^[ki]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&-&\_k[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ D\^[ki]{} \^[(1)]{}+ \^k \^[(1)]{}D\^i\_[ k]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + \^k \^[(1)]{} D\^i\_[ k]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ - 4\_k \^[(1)]{} D\^[ik]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&+& 2\_k \^[(1)]{} D\^[ik]{} \^[(1)]{} -\_k D\^[km]{}\^[(1)]{} D\_[ m]{}\^i [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ - \_k D\_[ m]{}\^i [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^D\^[km]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&+& \^i D\_[mk]{} \^[(1)]{} D\^[km]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + \^i D\_[mk]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^D\^[km]{} \^[(1)]{} -D\^[ik]{}\^[(1)]{} \_m D\^m\_[ k]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ ) ,\
&=& ( - \_i \^[(2)]{} -\_i [\^[(2)]{}]{}\^ - \_kD\^k\_[ i]{} [\^[(2)]{}]{}\^ - \^ + \^[(2)]{}\_i +8 \^[(1)]{} \_i \^[(1)]{}\
&+&4\^[(1)]{}\_i [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + 2 [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\_i \^[(1)]{} - 4[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\_i \^[(1)]{} - 4\^[(1)]{}\_i [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + \_i \^[(1)]{}\^[(1)]{}\
&-& \_i\_k \^[(1)]{} \^k \^[(1)]{} +8 \^[(1)]{}\_i \^[(1)]{} - 4 \^[(1)]{}\_i \^[(1)]{} - 2\^k \^[(1)]{}\_i\_k \^[(1)]{} +\^[(1)]{}\_i \^[(1)]{}\
&+& \^k \^[(1)]{}\_i\_k \^[(1)]{} -\_k \^[(1)]{}D\^k\_[ i]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^+ \^k \^[(1)]{} D\_[ik]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ - \^[(1)]{}\_k D\^k\_[ i]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\
&+& \_k\^[(1)]{} D\^k\_[ i]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ - [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ \_k D\^k\_[ i]{} \^[(1)]{} -\_k[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ D\^k\_[ i]{} \^[(1)]{} +\_i \^[(1)]{} \_k \^mD\^k\_[ m]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&-& 2 \^k \^[(1)]{}D\_[ik]{} \^[(1)]{} +\^k \^[(1)]{}D\_[ik]{} \^[(1)]{} + \^k \^[(1)]{}\_m\_i D\^m\_[ k]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&-& \^m \^[(1)]{} \_k \^k D\_[im]{} \^[(1)]{} + \_k D\^[km]{}\^[(1)]{} D\_[im]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + \_k D\_[im]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^D\^[km]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&-& \_i D\_[mk]{} \^[(1)]{} D\^[km]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ - \_i D\_[mk]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^D\^[km]{} \^[(1)]{} ) ,\
&=& ( + \^[(2)]{} +\^ +2\^[(2)]{} -\^[(2)]{} -\^[(2)]{} +[\^[(2)]{}]{}\^\
&+& 2[\^[(2)]{}]{}\^+ \^[(2)]{} + \^ -\_k\_iD\^[ki]{}\^[(2)]{} +4( \^[(1)]{} )\^2\
&-&8( \^[(1)]{} )\^2-8\^[(1)]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ -\_k \^[(1)]{}\^k \^[(1)]{} -2 \^[(1)]{}\^[(1)]{} - 4\^[(1)]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\
&-&2[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ -8\^[(1)]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ -2\_k \^[(1)]{} \^k \^[(1)]{} - 4\^[(1)]{}\^[(1)]{} + ( [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ )\^2 + 8\^[(1)]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\
&+&4\^[(1)]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^+ 2\^[(1)]{}\^[(1)]{} -[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\^[(1)]{} -2\^[(1)]{}\^ -2\_k \^[(1)]{}\^k \^[(1)]{}\
&-&4\^[(1)]{}\^[(1)]{} + \_k \^[(1)]{}\^k \^[(1)]{} - \_k \^[(1)]{} \^k \^[(1)]{} + 2\_k \^[(1)]{} \^k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\
&-&\^[(1)]{} \^[(1)]{} +\^m\^k \^[(1)]{}\_m\_k \^[(1)]{} + 4\^[(1)]{}\^[(1)]{} + 2\^[(1)]{}\^\
&-& 2\_k \^[(1)]{}\^k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^-[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\^[(1)]{} - \_k\_m \^[(1)]{} D\^[km]{} \^[(1)]{} - \_k \^[(1)]{}\_m D\^[mk]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&-&\_k \^[(1)]{} \_m D\^[mk]{} \^[(1)]{} - \_k \^[(1)]{} \^i D\^k\_[ i]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ -\_k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\_m D\^[mk]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&-& \_k\_m [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^D\^[km]{} \^[(1)]{} - 2\^k \^[(1)]{} \_m D\^m\_[ k]{} \^[(1)]{} - 2\_m\^k \^[(1)]{} D\^m\_[ k]{} \^[(1)]{}\
&+&\_k\^l D\_[ml]{}\^[(1)]{}D\^[km]{}\^[(1)]{} -D\_[ml]{}\^[(1)]{}D\^[ml]{}\^[(1)]{} +\_m\^kD\_[lk]{}\^[(1)]{}D\^[lm]{}\^[(1)]{}\
&+&\_k D\_[km]{}\^[(1)]{} \^l D\^[ml]{}\^[(1)]{} -\^l D\_[km]{}\^[(1)]{} \_l D\^[km]{}\^[(1)]{} +D\^[mk]{}\^[(1)]{}D\_[mk]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\
&+& D\^[mk]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^D\_[mk]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + D\^[mk]{}\^[(1)]{}D\_[km]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ ) \^i\_[ j]{} .\
&=& , where $\ded{{G^{d}}^i_{~j}}$ stands for the diagonal part of $\ded{{G}_j^i}$, which is proportional to $\delta^i_{~j}$, and $\ded{{G^{nd}}^i_{~j}}$ is the non-diagonal contribution.
Perturbing the Klein-Gordon equation {#B}
====================================
In the homogeneous background the Klein-Gordon equation for the scalar field $\varphi$ is \[KG0\] [\_0]{}\^+2 \^=- a\^2 The perturbed Klein-Gordon equation at first-order is \[KG1\] \^+2\^ - - [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^[\_0]{}\^- 3[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^[\_0]{}\^- [\_0]{}\^ = - a\^2- 2\^[(1)]{}. At second order we get \[KG2\] &-& \^ - \^ + + [\^[(2)]{}]{}[\_0]{}\^ + 2[\_0]{}\^ + [\^[(2)]{}]{}\^[\_0]{}\^\
&+& [\^[(2)]{}]{}\^[\_0]{}\^ + [\_0]{}\^ - 4( \^[(1)]{} )\^2[\_0]{}\^ - 8( \^[(1)]{} )\^2 [\_0]{}\^ - 4\^[(1)]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^[\_0]{}\^\
&+& 2[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^ + [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\^ + 4\^ + \^k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\_k - 6 [\^[(1)]{}]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^[\_0]{}\^\
&+& 6[\^[(1)]{}]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^[\_0]{}\^ + 3[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\^- \^k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\_k + 2[\^[(1)]{}]{}\
&-& 2[\^[(1)]{}]{} [\_0]{}\^ - \^k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\_k [\^[(1)]{}]{} [\_0]{}\^ - \^k [\^[(1)]{}]{} \_k [\^[(1)]{}]{} [\_0]{}\^ + 2[\^[(1)]{}]{} [\_0]{}\^\
&+& \^k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\_k [\^[(1)]{}]{} [\_0]{}\^ + 2\^k [\^[(1)]{}]{} \_k [\^[(1)]{}]{}[\_0]{}\^ + \_k [\^[(1)]{}]{} \^k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^[\_0]{}\^ + 2\^k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\_k \^\
&+& 2\^k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\_k + \^ + \^k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\_k - \^k [\^[(1)]{}]{}\_i D\^i\_[ k]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}[\_0]{}\^\
&-& \_i\_k [\^[(1)]{}]{}D\^[ik]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}[\_0]{}\^ - \_i \_k D\^[ik]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{} - \_k \^i D\^k\_[ i]{} [\^[(1)]{}]{}\
&+& D\^[ik]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}D\_[ki]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^[\_0]{}\^ = a\^2 + ()\^2 a\^2 . To obtain the Klein-Gordon equation in the longitudinal gauge of Eq. (\[metric3\]) one can simply set $\chi^{(1)}=\chi^{(2)}=0$, and $\phi^{(1)}=\psi^{(1)}$. Thus at first-order we find \[KG1L\] \^+2\^ - - 4 [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^[\_0]{}\^= - a\^2- 2[\^[(1)]{}]{} , while at second order the equation is \[KG2L\] &+& \^ +\^ - - [\^[(2)]{}]{}[\_0]{}\^ - 2[\_0]{}\^ - [\^[(2)]{}]{}\^ [\_0]{}\^\
&-& [\^[(2)]{}]{}\^[\_0]{}\^ - 4[\^[(1)]{}]{}[\^[(1)]{}]{}\^[\_0]{}\^ -4 [\^[(1)]{}]{}\^\^ - 4[\^[(1)]{}]{}=\
&-2& [\^[(1)]{}]{}a\^2- a\^2 - ()\^2 a\^2 ,where we have used the background equation (\[KG0\]) and the first-order perturbed equation (\[KG1L\]) to simplify some terms.
D. H. Lyth and A. Riotto, Phys. Rept. [**314**]{}, 1 (1999); A. Riotto, hep-ph/0210162. T. Falk, R. Rangarajan and M. Srednicki, ApJ [**403**]{}, L1 (1993). A. Gangui, F. Lucchin, S. Matarrese and S. Mollerach, Astrophys. J. [**430**]{}, 447 (1994). L. Wang and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. [**D61**]{}, 063504 (2000); A. Gangui and J. Martin, Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. [**313**]{}, 323 (2000). D. S. Salopek and J. R. Bond, Phys. Rev. D [**42**]{}, 3936 (1990). M. Bruni, S. Matarrese, S. Mollerach and S. Sonego, Class. Quant. Grav. [**14**]{}, 2585 (1997). S. Matarrese, S. Mollerach and M. Bruni, Phys. Rev. [**D58**]{}, 043504 (1998). V. F. Mukhanov, H. A. Feldman and R. H. Brandenberger Phys. Rept. [**215**]{}, 203 (1992). K. A. Malik, PhD. Thesis, arXiv:astro-ph/0101563. J. M. Bardeen, Phys. Rev. D [**22**]{} (1980) 1882. H. Kodama and M. Sasaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**78**]{}, 1 (1984). K. Tomita, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**45**]{}, 1747 (1971); [**47**]{}, 416 (1972). S. Matarrese, O. Pantano and D. Sáez, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 320 (1994); Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. [**271**]{}, 513 (1994). J. M. Bardeen, P. J. Steinhardt and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. [**D28**]{}, 679 (1983). E. Komatsu and N. Spergel, Phys. Rev. [**[D63]{}**]{}, 063002 (2001). S. Gupta, A. Berera, A. F. Heavens and S. Matarrese, Phys. Rev. [**D66**]{}, 043510 (2002). L. Verde, L. Wang, A. Heavens and M. Kamionkowski, Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. [**[313]{}**]{}, L141 (2000). L. Verde, R. Jimenez, M. Kamionkowski and S. Matarrese, Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. [**325** ]{}, 412 (2001). E. Komatsu, B. D. Wandelt, D. N. Spergel, A. J. Banday and K. M. Gorski, Astrophys. J. [**566**]{}, 19 (2002). M. G. Santos [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 241302 (2002).
[^1]: Address after Nov. 2002: SISSA/ISAS, Via Beirut 4, I-34014, Trieste, Italy.
[^2]: Address after Nov. 2002: Astronomy Centre, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QJ, U.K..
[^3]: See also Ref. [@wk].
[^4]: For related results see also Ref. [@sal].
[^5]: Notice that our notation is different from that of Refs. [@mfb; @malik] for the presence of $D_{ij}$, while it is closer to the one used in Refs. [@bardeen; @KS]. As far as the first-order perturbations are concerned, the metric perturbations $\psi$ and $E$ of Refs. [@mfb; @malik] are given in our notation as $\psi=\psi^{(1)}+(1/6)\, \La \chi^{(1)}$ and $E=\chi^{(1)}/2$, respectively. However, no difference appears in the calculations when using the generalized longitudinal gauge in Eq. (\[metric3\]).
[^6]: We recall that the equation of motion for the potential $\phi^{(1)}$ in the longitudinal gauge is [@mfb]\
${{\phi}^{(1)}}^{\prime\prime}-\partial_i\partial^i \phi^{(1)}
+ 2\left({\cal H}-
\frac{\varphi_0^{\prime\prime}}{\varphi_0^\prime}\right)
{\phi^{(1)}}^\prime
+2\left({\cal H}^\prime
-\frac{\varphi_0^{\prime\prime}}{\varphi_0^\prime}{\cal H}\right)
\phi^{(1)}= 0. $\[footnotesufi1\]
[^7]: Notice that according to our definition of $\Phi$, our $f_{\rm NL}$ has the opposite sign of that in Ref. [@ks].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present[^1] an exact normalisable zero-energy chiral fermion solution for abelian BPS dipoles. For a single dipole, this solution is contained within the high temperature limit of the SU(2) caloron with non-trivial holonomy.'
author:
- Pierre van Baal
title: 'Chiral zero-mode for abelian BPS dipoles -3cm1.4cm '
---
The Dirac Monopole
==================
A convenient representation for the Dirac monopole [@Dirac] is given by A=gnw(x),w(x)= |x|+xn, where $w(\vec x)$ is positive, but vanishes along the Dirac string pointing along $-\hat n$, as seen from the monopole. The magnetic field is B=A=-g(nw( x))+gnw(x)=B\_[reg]{}+B\_[str]{}, and using that $\hat n \cdot\vec\nabla\log w(\vec x)=1/|\vec x|$ (the derivative [*along*]{} the direction of the Dirac string) is [*independent*]{} of $\hat n$, the first term gives rise to the radial magnetic field associated with a magnetic point charge, whereas the second term represents the Dirac string, which takes care of the return flux. This follows from the fact that $\log w(\vec x)$ is harmonic, except where $w(\vec x)$ vanishes. To be specific, choosing for convenience $\hat n=\hat e_3=(0,0,1)$, we find $\vec B=
g\vec x/|\vec x|^3+4\pi g\hat e_3\delta(x)\delta(y)\theta(-z)$ and $\vec\nabla
\cdot\vec B_{\rm reg}=-\vec\nabla\cdot\vec B_{\rm str}=4\pi g\delta_3(\vec x)$. It gives the appropriate magnetic point charge for $\vec B_{\rm reg}$, but when including the return flux $\vec\nabla\cdot\vec B=0$, as it should.
The function $\log w(\vec x)$ can be viewed as a potential, although from the point of view of the Maxwell equations it is more natural to consider $A_0\equiv-g\hat n\cdot\nabla\log w(\vec x)$ as such. Not only $\vec B_{
\rm reg}=\vec\nabla A_0$, but also as the time component of the Euclidean vector potential this choice of $A_0$ gives rise to a self-dual configuration, with $\vec E=\vec\nabla A_0=\vec B_{\rm reg}$. The usefulness of $w(\vec x)$ becomes clear when one considers the massless (Euclidean) Dirac equation in such a background. As usual we split this into positive and negative chirality Weyl equations, H\_+=|D=D\^=-|\^D\_,H\_-=D=\^D\_, where $D_\mu=\partial_\mu+ie A_\mu$ is the covariant derivative and $\sigma_j=i\tau_j$, whereas $\sigma_0$ is the $2\times 2$ identity matrix. For $\hat n=\hat e_3$ a solution of $\bar D\Psi=0$ is given by (x)=w(x).\[eq:azm\] If so desired a (spin-)rotation allows one to obtain the solution for arbitrary $\hat n$, but to keep things simple we stick to $\hat n=\hat e_3$, such that -iH\_+= -egw(x). Using the Dirac quantisation condition $eg={{\scriptstyle{{1\over 2}}}}$, one easily verifies -iH\_+(x)=. Since $\sqrt{w}$ vanishes along the Dirac string, we find that $\sqrt{w}
\Delta\log w=0$ (as a distribution), hence $\bar D\Psi=0$. Likewise $|\Psi|^2=
w\vec\nabla\log w\cdot\vec\nabla\log w=\Delta w-w\Delta\log w$. Thus $|\Psi|^2
=\Delta w=2/|\vec x|$ has an integrable singularity at the origin, and the Dirac string is [*invisible*]{}, as it should. Nevertheless, $\Psi$ does not decay sufficiently fast to be normalisable. Note that the zero-mode is time independent. Putting $\partial_0$ to zero, $H$ is precisely the Dirac Hamiltonian, with $A_0$ playing the role of a Higgs field. A non-zero asymptotic value of $A_0$ would lead to a mass scale and exponentially decaying wave functions[^2].
It should not come as a surprise that existence of zero-energy solutions is sensitive to the sign of the electron charge (relative to $g$). With $eg=-{{\scriptstyle{{1\over 2}}}}$ we have -iH\_+(w(x))=.\[eq:psit\] However, here the singularity of the Dirac string is no longer nullified but enhanced. Nevertheless, it can be turned into a proper zero-energy solution, identical to $\Psi^\dagger\sigma_2$, by replacing $w(\vec x)$ with $1/w(\vec x)$, but this has the same effect as changing $g$ to $-g$, explaining why the new zero-energy solution is the charge conjugate of $\Psi$ in Eq. (\[eq:azm\]). Negative chirality zero-energy solutions cannot appear because the self-duality of $A_\mu$ implies that $\bar D D=-D_\mu^2$. Therefore such a solution would satisfy $D_\mu\Psi=0$, which is ruled out.
It is well known that the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole [@THPo] allows for a normalisable chiral zero-energy solution of the Dirac equation [@JaRe]. The size of the core of these non-abelian monopoles is determined by the mass scale set by the asymptotic value of the Higgs field. When the core size shrinks to zero, so does the support for the zero-mode. Adding to the Higgs field $\Phi= {{\scriptstyle{{1\over 2}}}}\Phi^a\sigma_a$ a constant element in U(1), $\Phi_z=\Phi-
2\pi i z$, as it appears in Nahm’s work [@MonN], the zero-mode remains normalisable for a finite range of $z$ determined by the Callias index theorem [@Call]. Our solution corresponds to $z$ at the boundary of this range, where the zero-mode fails to be normalisable. This boundary value of $z$ is defined by $\det(\Phi_z)=0$, and the abelian field $A_0$ given above corresponds to the isospin component of $\Phi_z$ responsible for this vanishing eigenvalue. It does imply the support of the zero-mode is no longer confined to the non-abelian core.
There has been another context in which solutions to the Dirac equation in the background of a monopole have appeared in the past, namely that of monopole-induced proton decay (the Callan-Rubakov effect [@CaRu]). Boundary conditions [@Gold] for the fermions are imposed at the core of the monopole to describe the scattering states in the limit where the size of the monopole core can be neglected, so as to properly reflect the breaking of B-L, compatible with the chiral anomaly. There it is assumed, as for the Jackiw-Rebbi zero-energy solution, that the Higgs field approaches a non-zero constant at infinity, which through the Yukawa coupling gives a mass to the fermions[^3]. In our case the asymptotic value of the Higgs field ($A_0$) vanishes and as we will see, the limit of zero monopole core size can be taken without any approximation, but at the expense of the zero-energy state being non-normalisable.
The Abelian BPS Dipole
======================
To find a normalisable zero-energy solution, we have to do something about the asymptotic behaviour. A natural way to achieve this is to consider an abelian BPS (self-dual) dipole, or [**bipole**]{} for short. We now profit from having expressed the zero-mode in terms of the function $w$. The bipole field is generated by w(x)=(|x|+xn)-(|x+sn|+ xn+s) where the first term represents a monopole at $\vec x=\vec 0$ and the second term, with the opposite sign, an anti-monopole at $\vec x=-s\hat n$. It is convenient to express $w(\vec x)$ as w(x)=,\[eq:wdip\] where $\vec r_1=\vec x$ and $\vec r_2=\vec x+s\hat n$. This shows that the Dirac strings of the monopole and anti-monopole partly cancel. All that we need to check is if $\Psi$, with this choice of $w$ is now normalisable. A simple computation shows that $|\Psi(\vec x)|^2=\Delta w(\vec x)=\frac{4s^2
}{r_1r_2(r_1+r_2+s)^2}$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:psi2\] (left). This is indeed integrable at the location of the two point charges and at infinity, $\int d^3x|\Psi(\vec x)|^2=\int d^3x \Delta w(\vec x)=4\pi s$, using that $w(\vec x)=1-s/|\vec x|+\cO(1/|\vec x|^3)$.
Having found a normalisable zero-mode for one bipole, a generalisation to a collection of bipoles is obvious, by taking the product of $w(\vec x)$ for each such bipole. This does not affect the property that $w(\vec x)$ is positive, vanishes along the Dirac strings, and its logarithm is harmonic elsewhere. However, the form of the zero-mode requires all factors $w$ to be formulated in terms of the same $\hat n$, which means all bipoles have to point in the [*same*]{} direction, i.e. the magnetic moments of all bipoles have to be uni-directional. It is not clear if this is just a limitation of our simple ansatz. For multi-bipoles, all separated much further than each of the individual bipole sizes ($s$), $|\Psi|^2$ will near each bipole be of the same form as for a single bipole. However, when two or more bipoles coincide, or equivalently when $g$ is bigger than the minimal Dirac value of $\frac{1}{2e}$, $|\Psi|^2$ will be suppressed along the line segment connecting the two charges. To demonstrate this, we note that for $g=\frac{k}{2e}$, $w_k(\vec x)=
w^k(\vec x)$, with $w(\vec x)$ as given in Eq. (\[eq:wdip\]). Thus, using $w(\vec x)\Delta\log w(\vec x)=0$, we find |(x)|\^2=w(x)\^k=k\^2w\^[k-1]{}(x)w(x) =, which integrates to $4\pi ks$. The case for $k=2$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:psi2\] (right).
The Caloron
===========
The context in which the bipole appears in a natural way is the caloron with non-trivial holonomy [@PLB2], in the infinite temperature limit. The periodic boundary conditions in the Euclidean time direction, relevant for these finite temperature instantons, allow for a non-trivial holonomy determined by the Polyakov loop, which approaches a constant value at spatial infinity, =\_[|x|]{}P(x),P(x)=[P]{}(\_0\^A\_0(t,x)dt). With $A_0$ playing the role of a Higgs field, a non-trivial value implies that an SU($n$) charge one caloron splits into $n$ constituent BPS monopoles, whose masses are determined by the eigenvalues of the Polyakov loop (2i(\_1,\_2,,\_n)),\_[i=1]{}\^n\_i=0. arranged to satisfy $\mu_1\leq\cdots\mu_n\leq\mu_{n+1}\equiv\mu_1+1$. The constituent masses $8\pi^2\nu_m$, with $\nu_m\equiv(\mu_{m+1}-\mu_m)/\beta$, add up to $8\pi^2/\beta$ such that the action equals that of a charge one instanton. The presence of these constituents is easily established from the formula [@PLB2; @PLBN] F\_\^[2]{}(x)=\_\^2\_\^2(x), (x)=(\_n\_1)-(2t),\[eq:action\]\
\_m(r\_m&|\_[m+1]{}|\
0 & r\_[m+1]{})((2\_m r\_m) &(2\_m r\_m)\
(2\_m r\_m)&(2\_m r\_m) ),where we introduced $r_m\equiv|\vec x-\vec y_m|$ and $\vec\rho_m\equiv\vec
y_m-\vec y_{m-1}$ ($r_{n+1}\equiv r_1$ and $\vec y_{n+1}\equiv\vec y_1$), with $\vec y_m$ the location of the $m^{\rm th}$ constituent monopole with a mass $8\pi^2\nu_m$.
The basic ingredient in the construction of caloron solutions is the Greens function $\hat f_x$ defined on the circle[^4], $z\in[0,\beta^{-1}]$, satisfying [@PLB2; @PLBN] ((-t)\^2+r\^2(x;z)+ \_m(z-\_m/)|\_m|)f\_x(z,z’)=(z-z’), where $r^2(\vec x;z)\!=\!r_m^2$ for $z\in[\mu_m/\beta,\mu_{m+1}/\beta]$. The variable $z$ can be introduced through Fourier transformation with respect to time, where the Fourier coefficients are related to the ADHM data [@ADHM] of instantons, periodic up to a gauge rotation with $\pl$ (giving the solution in the so-called algebraic gauge). This is in one-to-one relation with the Nahm transformation [@Nahm]. For $\mu_m/\beta\leq z'\leq z\leq\mu_{m+1}
/\beta$ ($\hat f_x(z',z)=\hat f_x^*(z,z')$ for $z<z'$) the explicit result [@PLB2; @MTP] for the Greens function can be expressed as f\_x(z,z’)=v\_m(z’)|\_[m -1]{}\_1\_n\_m-e\^[-2it]{}|\_2v\_m(z), \[eq:green\] where the spinor $v_m(z)$ is defined by v\_m(z)=. The chiral Dirac, or Weyl equation can be solved with the boundary condition $\Psi_z(t+\beta,\vec x)=\exp(2\pi i z\beta)\pl\Psi_z(t,\vec x)$ (in addition to the two component spinor index, there is now also a colour index). With $z={{\scriptstyle{{1\over 2}}}}\beta^{-1}$ one obtains the finite temperature “anti-periodic" fermion zero-mode, and for $z=0$ the “periodic" zero-mode.
To be specific, for the SU(2) caloron we have $\mu_2=-\mu_1\equiv\beta\omega$ and $|\vec\rho_1|=|\vec\rho_2|\equiv\pi\rho^2/\beta$ ($\rho$ is the instanton scale parameter). The gauge field and zero-mode can be expressed in terms of the functions $\phi^{-1}\equiv 1-\rho^2\hat f_x(\omega,\omega)/\beta$ and $\chi
\equiv\rho^2\hat f_x(\omega,-\omega)/\beta$. In the algebraic gauge, choosing $\pl=\plo$ and the constituents along the $z$-axis (by proper combinations of gauge and space rotations this can always be achieved) [@PLB2] A\_=|\^3\_\_3\_+ ((|\^1\_-i|\^2\_) (\_1+i\_2)\_),\[eq:ag\] with $\bar\eta_{\alpha\gamma}^a\sigma_a\equiv\bar\sigma_{[\alpha}
\sigma_{\gamma]}$ the anti-selfdual ’t Hooft tensor, and [@MTCP] \_z(x)=(f\_x(,z), f\_x(-,z)). Particularly simple and valid for arbitrary SU($n$), is the expression for the density of the fermion zero-modes [@MTP; @MTCP] |\_z(x)|\^2=-(4\^2)\^[-1]{}\_\^2f\_x(z,z). \[eq:psi2\]
The limit $\beta\rightarrow0$ can be seen as a dimensional reduction and only the time independent field components are expected to survive in this high temperature limit. It is therefore more appropriate to consider the periodic gauge. For general $z$ this periodic gauge is obtained by applying the gauge transformation $g(t)\equiv e^{-tA_0^\infty}$, where $A_\alpha^\infty
\equiv2\pi i(\omega\tau_3-z)\delta_{\alpha0}$, such that $\tilde\Psi_z=g(t)
\Psi_z$ and the new gauge field $\tilde A$ are now periodic, with A\_=A\_\^+|\^3\_\_3 \_+((|\^1\_ -i|\^2\_)(\_1+i\_2)e\^[-2it\_1]{}\_), We find that [@PLB2] $\lim_{\beta\rightarrow0}\chi(x)=0$ and $\lim_{\beta
\rightarrow0}\phi^{-1}(x)=w(\vec x)$ with $w(\vec x)$ as in Eq. (\[eq:wdip\]). The resulting abelian gauge field splits into an isospin up and down component, [*decoupled*]{} in the Weyl equation. For $z=0$ this gives a mass of $\pi\nu_1$ to both isospin components, which contribute equally to the density, and the zero-mode is supported entirely at $\vec y_1$, whereas for $z={{\scriptstyle{{1\over 2}}}}\beta^{-1}$ the mass is $\pi\nu_2$, but the zero-mode is now supported entirely at $\vec y_2$. For other values of $z$ the mass will depend on the isospin component, but as long as $z\neq\pm\omega$ the zero-mode remains localised to either of the two constituent locations, jumping from one to the other when $z$ crosses $\pm\omega$, where the zero-mode becomes delocalised, having support at both constituents simultaneously. Indeed, for $z=\omega$ \_(x)=( (x), \^\*(x) ), whereas for $z=-\omega$, the same result follows after charge and isospin conjugation, $\Psi^1_{-\omega}(x)=-\Psi^2_{\omega}(x)^\dagger\sigma_2$ and $\Psi^2_{-\omega}(x)=\Psi^1_{\omega}(x)^\dagger\sigma_2$ (with the isospin index made explicit). Since $\chi$ vanishes in the high temperature limit, the only surviving isospin component of the Weyl zero-mode is the one for which the asymptotic value of $A_0$ vanishes, and for which the zero-mode is time independent. This non-trivial isospin component agrees (up to an irrelevant factor $-2\pi i\rho$) with Eq. (\[eq:azm\]), for $w(\vec x)=
\phi^{-1}(x)$.
For the high temperature limit to be smooth and unambiguous, it was essential that $\phi$ be time independent, $\phi^{-1}\Delta\log\phi=0$, and that $\chi=0$. It is interesting to note that, imposing self-duality on Eq. (\[eq:ag\]), leads to a natural generalisation at finite temperature \^[-2]{}\_\^2+|(\_1-i\_2) |\^2+|(\_0-i\_3)|\^2=0,\
\^[-1]{}(\_1+i\_2)\^2(\_1-i\_2)+ \^[-1]{}(\_0+i\_3)\^2(\_0-i\_3)=0. In principle, but not in practise, this can be used to define $\phi$ and $\chi$. Interestingly these equations also appear when formulating self-duality in the so-called R-gauge introduced by Yang [@Yang], after a suitable Bäcklund transformation [@Back].
We will end with a few words on the case of SU($n>2$). In the high temperature limit the zero-mode is again exponentially localised at one of the constituents [@MTP]. This we can read off from Eq. (\[eq:psi2\]), using the explicit expression for $\hat f_x(z,z)$ given in Eq. (\[eq:green\]). When $z$ passes through $\mu_m/\beta$ the zero-mode jumps from one constituent location to the other, and only for these values of $z$ the zero-mode will delocalise, with the proviso that it will only “see" [*two*]{} out of the $n$ constituents. In the periodic gauge, diagonalising $A_0$ at infinity by a constant gauge rotation, we have $A_0\rightarrow 2\pi i{\mbox{diag}}(\mu_1/\beta-z,
\mu_2/\beta-z,\cdots,\mu_n/\beta-z)$. The only non-vanishing colour component of the fermion zero-mode is the one for which $\mu_j/\beta-z=0$. The resulting configuration is again that of the bipole in section 2.
Discussion
==========
An interesting question is if there is some physical significance to the zero-modes, like for chiral symmetry breaking in the effective description of QCD in terms of monopoles obtained through abelian projection [@AbPr]. But first we would like to better understand how to go beyond the case where the magnetic moments of the bipoles are no longer parallel. A natural setting in which to address this particular question would be through the study of charge $k>1$ calorons. It is not clear if in the high temperature limit a global abelian embedding for the case of non-parallel magnetic moments exists. Even when the magnetic moments are parallel, one would expect $k$ independent zero-energy solutions, of which we have only provided one.
What led us to the results presented in this paper, was an attempt to solve the Weyl equation in the background of the abelian gauge field [@PLBT] that is obtained from the Nahm transformation of an SU(2) charge one instanton on $T^3\times R$. This self-dual abelian gauge field is described by two bipoles on $T^3$, but unfortunately with [*anti-parallel*]{} orientations. Furthermore, two zero-modes are required in order for the (inverse) Nahm transformation to reconstruct the SU(2) instanton, for which $z$ is to be identified with the time. When the zero-modes are localised at the monopole singularities, it can be shown that the resulting SU(2) gauge field is abelian. This describes the asymptotically flat connections ($F=0$) of the instanton on $T^3\times R$, required for the integral over the action density to be finite, and equal to $8\pi^2$. Thus, to obtain genuine non-abelian behaviour the zero-mode has to become delocalised for certain values of $z$. Here the gauge field is no longer flat ($F\neq0$) and the density will have a maximum, in accordance with a general relationship between holonomies (with respect to each of the generating circles of the manifold) of a self-dual gauge field on the one hand and the constituent locations of the Nahm dual gauge field on the other hand. This dual relationship has been verified in a careful numerical study [@Tdual]. Similar results have been seen [@Ford] for instantons on $T^2\times R^2$.
It is the applications to the Nahm transformation on a torus that has been our prime motivation for studying this problem. Taken out of this context and the context of the caloron, our exact result for the chiral zero-mode is so simple we believe it is worthwhile to share it with the reader.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I am grateful to Štefan Olejnik and Jeff Greensite for inviting me to a wonderfully well organised workshop in the beautiful setting of Slovakia’s “pearl", the Spis region with its High Tatra mountains. I also thank Maxim Chernodub for our attempts to find physical applications for these bipoles with parallel magnetic moments, Chris Ford for pointing me to Ref. [@Back], and them as well as Falk Bruckmann, Conor Hougton and Valya Zakharov for useful discussions. I am particularly grateful to Margarita García Pérez for her generous collaboration in attempting to apply the methods presented here to the Nahm transformation on $T^3\times R$ and for comments on a first draft of this paper.
[99]{} P.A.M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. A133 (1931) 60. G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. Nucl. Phys. B79 (1974) 194;\
A.M. Polyakov, JETP Lett. 20 (1974) 194. R. Jackiw and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. D13 (1976) 3398. W. Nahm, Phys. Lett. B90 (1980) 413. C. Callias, Comm. Math. Phys. 62 (1978) 213;\
R. Bott and R. Seeley, Comm. Math. Phys. 62 (1978) 235. V.A. Rubakov, JETP Lett. 33 (1981) 644; Nucl. Phys. B203 (1982) 311;\
C.G. Callan, Phys. Rev. D25 (1982) 2142; Phys. Rev. D26 (1982) 2058. Y. Kazama, C.N. Yang and A.S. Goldhaber, Phys. Rev. D15 (1977) 2287;\
A.S. Goldhaber, Phys. Rev. D16 (1977) 1815. E.B. Bogomol’ny, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 24 (1976) 449;\
M.K. Prasad and C.M. Sommerfield, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35 (1975) 760. T.C. Kraan and P. van Baal, Nucl. Phys. B533 (1998) 627 \[hep-th/9805168\]. T.C. Kraan and P. van Baal, Phys. Lett. B435 (1998) 389 \[hep-th/9806034\]. M.F. Atiyah, N.J. Hitchin, V. Drinfeld and Yu.I. Manin, Phys. Lett. 65A (1978) 185. W. Nahm, [*Self-dual monopoles and calorons*]{}, in: Lecture Notes in Physics 201 (1984) 189. M.N. Chernodub, T.C. Kraan and P. van Baal, Nucl. Phys. B(Proc.Suppl.)83-84 (2000) 556 \[hep-lat/9907001\]. M. García Pérez, A. González-Arroyo, C. Pena and P. van Baal, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 031901 \[hep-th/9905016\]. C.N. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 1377. M.K. Prasad, A. Sinha and Ling-Lie Chau Wang, Phys. Rev. D23 (1981) 2321. G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B190 \[FS3\] (1981) 455; Physica Scripta 25 (1982) 133. P. van Baal, Phys. Lett. B448 (1999) 26 \[hep-th/9811112\]. M. García Pérez, A. González-Arroyo, C. Pena and P. van Baal, Nucl. Phys. B564 (1999) 159 \[hep-th/9905138\]. C. Ford, J.M. Pawlowski, T. Tok and A. Wipf, Nucl. Phys. B596 (2001) 387 \[hep-th/0005221\]; C. Ford and J.M. Pawlowski, to appear.
[^1]: Talk given at the NATO workshop on “Confinement, Topology, and other Non-Perturbative Aspects of QCD", Stará Lesná, Slovakia, January 21-27, 2002.
[^2]: A constant $A_0$ in the Euclidean Weyl equation can also be identified with a non-zero chemical potential.
[^3]: For a non-vanishing Higgs mass, this together with the Dirac monopole field, is all that is left when neglecting the core of the monopole. In the Bogomol’ny limit considered here, identifying the Higgs field with $A_0$ (self-duality implied by the BPS equations [@BPS]), the long range component of the Higgs field modifies the Dirac equation.
[^4]: For example $\Tr F_{\alpha
\gamma}^{\,2}(x)=-\partial_\alpha^2\partial_\gamma^2\log\det\hat f_x$, leading to the result of Eq. (\[eq:action\]).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
bibliography:
- 'References.bib'
---
[YITP-SB-04-13]{}
[**A Conformally Invariant Holographic Two–Point Function\
on the Berger Sphere**]{}\
**Konstantinos Zoubos**
*C. N. Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics*
*State University of New York at Stony Brook*
*Stony Brook, New York 11794-3840*
*U. S. A.*
[email protected]
[**Abstract**]{}
We apply our previous work on Green’s functions for the four–dimensional quaternionic Taub–NUT manifold to obtain a scalar two–point function on the homogeneously squashed three–sphere (otherwise known as the Berger sphere), which lies at its conformal infinity. Using basic notions from conformal geometry and the theory of boundary value problems, in particular the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator, we establish that our two–point correlation function is conformally invariant and corresponds to a boundary operator of conformal dimension one. It is plausible that the methods we use could have more general applications in an AdS/CFT context.
Introduction
============
The AdS/CFT correspondence [@Maldacena98; @Gubseretal98; @Witten98] provides a very precise example of the holographic phenomenon, whereby a $d+1$–dimensional gravitational theory has an equivalent description as a $d$–dimensional theory without gravity. In AdS/CFT this “dual” theory is actually a gauge theory. In the limit where on one side of the duality we have weakly–coupled gravity the gauge theory on the other side is expected to be strongly–coupled and to have a large number $N$ of colours. Essentially, as first observed in [@Witten98], in this limit one is simply dealing with a classical boundary problem for fields (perhaps with nonzero mass or spin) in AdS, whose (appropriately rescaled) boundary values are interpreted as sources for the dual fields in the gauge theory. The gauge theory can thus be thought of as living on the boundary of AdS. The bulk fields obey their equations of motion, so they can be constructed using Green’s functions of the appropriate bulk laplacian. This allows the calculation of correlation functions in the boundary theory. We refer to [@Aharonyetal00; @DHokerFreedman02] for reviews and a survey of the literature.
The Einstein metric on Euclidean Anti–de–Sitter space, or hyperbolic space, is the prototypical example of a *conformally compact* Einstein metric on a compact riemannian manifold with boundary, defined as a complete metric in the interior of the manifold which blows up with a double pole at the boundary, and can thus be extended to a boundary metric via a suitable choice of defining function[^1]. A defining function is any function $\rho$ which is positive in the bulk, but has a simple zero at the boundary, so that $\rho^2 g$ extends smoothly to the boundary. Since any such function can play the role of a defining function, the induced metric at the boundary is not unique. Thus we obtain an induced boundary conformal structure rather than a boundary metric. This is of course crucial for AdS/CFT to work, since any theory defined on the boundary will automatically be conformally invariant (modulo possible conformal anomalies in even boundary dimensions). However, this fact is true for any theory conjectured to be dual to gravity on a conformally compact manifold, so given the relative scarcity of conformal field theories in more than two dimensions, it is of interest to see how AdS/CFT can be extended to this setting and possibly provide nontrivial examples of CFT’s. A first step in this direction would clearly involve solving the bulk laplacian to obtain Green’s functions, which would then lead to CFT correlation functions, in a similar way to the AdS case.
One way to approach this problem is the method of holographic renormalisation, reviewed in [@Skenderis02], which uses extensively the framework of Fefferman and Graham [@FeffermanGraham85], in which the bulk metric is expanded in a series of the radial distance from the boundary. One can do the same for any bulk field, by prescribing a source field on the boundary and then performing an iterative near–boundary analysis, in which the bulk field equations are solved algebraically and substituted back, thus providing higher terms in the radial series. Holographic renormalisation is a very general method, applicable to any asymptotically hyperbolic manifold, and is ideally suited to calculating the local counterterms needed to regularise and renormalise the divergent bulk action. However, its usefulness in calculating *correlation* functions in the boundary is limited, because the necessary coefficient in the radial expansion, being nonlocally related to the prescribed source, cannot be fully determined by the near–boundary analysis. At that stage the analysis needs to be supplemented by an *exact* solution of the bulk field equations for the field in question. So although one could go rather far in analysing the dual field theory using holographic renormalisation, it is still important to obtain exact bulk Green’s functions for asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds.
In [@Zoubos02], we discussed a particular example of such an asymptotically hyperbolic manifold, the Quaternionic Taub–NUT space (QTN). It is a four–dimensional manifold with ${\mathrm{SU}}(2)\times{{\mathrm U}}(1)$ isometry group, whose boundary conformal structure corresponds to a *Berger sphere*, which is a homogeneous squashing of the three-sphere preserving an ${\mathrm{SU}}(2)\times{{\mathrm U}}(1)$ isometry group out of the round three–sphere’s ${\mathrm{SO}}(4)$. QTN can be thought of as a deformation of hyperbolic space ${{\mathrm{I}\kern-.18em\mathrm{H}}\mathrm{H}^1}$ (Euclidean AdS$_4$), but a very special deformation in that it is *conformally self–dual*, meaning that the Weyl tensor (zero for ${{\mathrm{I}\kern-.18em\mathrm{H}}\mathrm{H}^1}$) is self–dual. Although a non–zero Weyl tensor means that, unlike the case of ${{\mathrm{I}\kern-.18em\mathrm{H}}\mathrm{H}^1}$ and its boundary the round sphere, the boundary manifold is not guaranteed to be conformally flat (and indeed it isn’t), and thus deprives us of the standard trick of supposing the boundary is really just flat space, keeping the Weyl tensor self–dual is extremely useful in that there is a *twistor* description of the manifold. This means that we can translate differential–geometric questions about the four–manifold (in this case, finding Green’s functions) into complex–analytic questions about its 6–dimensional twistor space, hoping that the more powerful techniques thus available will allow us to answer them.
The outcome of [@Zoubos02] was the explicit calculation of bulk–to–bulk and bulk–to–boundary propagators for a *conformally coupled* scalar on QTN. Assuming there is a holographically dual field theory, we can apply the holographic prescription [@Witten98] to immediately find two-point correlation functions of the dual gauge–invariant operator, which (as will be discussed) is expected to have (mass) conformal dimension ${{{\lambda}}}=1$ in the strongly–coupled boundary theory. We will write down the two–point function in section \[Twopoint\]. Checking that this two–point function, which we call $M(x,x')$, is indeed the “correct” one (i.e. verifying that it is conformally invariant, and corresponds to a ${{{\lambda}}}=1$ operator) will occupy the rest of this article.
Why is it not immediately obvious what conformal dimension our correlator corresponds to? After all, in flat space one only has to look at the power of the $1/|x-x'|$ term in a scalar two–point function and read off the conformal dimension of the corresponding operator. However, recall that all this information arises through the analysis of representations of the conformal group. As is well known, on the round sphere (or, equivalently, flat space) this group is large enough to allow a complete characterisation of two–point and three–point correlation functions (see e.g. [@OsbornPetkos94]). As an illustration, suppose $M(x,x')$ is a two–point function (in $d$ dimensions) of the scalar operator ${\mathcal{O}}$, which has conformal dimension ${{{\lambda}}}$. Then, if $\upsilon$ is a conformal Killing vector, we have the following condition on the correlation function[^2]: $$\label{conformaltransformation}
\left[{{\mathcal L}}_{\upsilon(x)}+{{\mathcal L}}_{\upsilon(x')}+{{{\lambda}}}(\sigma_\upsilon(x)+\sigma_\upsilon(x'))\right]M(x,x')=0$$ where ${{\mathcal L}}_{\upsilon}$ is the Lie derivative, and $\sigma_\upsilon(x)$ is defined through the conformal Killing equation $${{\mathcal L}}_{\upsilon(x)} g_{{\mu\nu}}-2\sigma_\upsilon(x) g_{{\mu\nu}}=0$$ to be $\sigma_\upsilon=\nabla\cdot\upsilon/d$. As we will discuss in section \[Conformal\], if we denote by $s$ the order of the differential operator ${{\mathcal D}}_x$ associated to $M(x,x')$, in the sense that $$\label{DM}
{{\mathcal D}}_x M(x,x')=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\delta^{(d)}(x,x')$$ (in other words, ${{\mathcal D}}$ is the inverse of $M(x,x')$) then the quantities $d$, ${{{\lambda}}}$ and $s$ are related by $$\label{conformaldimension}
2{{{\lambda}}}=d-s$$ As an illustration of (\[conformaltransformation\]), pick a flat–space conformal Killing vector, for instance the dilatation vector $\upsilon=x^\mu {\partial}_\mu$, and apply it to the well–known flat–space conformal correlation function $M(x,x')\sim 1/[(x-x')^2]^{{{\lambda}}}$. We get (notice here $\sigma_\upsilon(x)=\sigma_\upsilon(x')=1$) $$[{{\mathcal L}}_{\upsilon(x)}+{{\mathcal L}}_{\upsilon(x')}]M(x,x')=-2{{{\lambda}}}M(x,x')$$ corresponding to the well–known fact that $M(x,x')$ has conformal dimension ${{{\lambda}}}$. If we put $s=2$, i.e. $M(x,x')$ is the Green’s function of the laplacian, we get the dimension ${{{\lambda}}}=d/2-1$ of a free scalar field.
Now let us turn to the Berger sphere. By Obata’s theorem [@Obata71] the only *compact* manifolds where the conformal group is larger than the isometry group are the spheres, equipped with the standard bi–invariant metric. So in the case of the Berger sphere, which is only left–invariant, the conformal group is just the isometry group, in other words there are no conformal Killing vectors apart from the Killing vectors themselves[^3]. So the method just outlined would not work for the Berger sphere, and we need to look for more sophisticated ways of showing that our correlation function has the form that is required by conformal invariance on the Berger sphere.
It turns out that a suitable framework to discuss this problem is that of *conformal geometry*, a field pursued in recent years by several mathematicians, and which has deep connections to the ideas of Fefferman and Graham on conformal invariants. Thus section \[Conformal\] will be devoted to a lightning review of the main ideas. Then, motivated by (\[DM\]), we will be led to ask the question: “Since our correlator is a Green’s function, which is the operator it is the Green’s function of?”. In other words, given our two–point function $M(x,x')$, we will look for an operator ${{\mathcal D}}$ on the Berger sphere such that (\[DM\]) holds. The idea is that, although (\[conformaltransformation\]) is not useful anymore in constraining $M(x,x')$, if we can find an operator ${{\mathcal D}}$, with *known conformal transformation properties*, such that equation (\[DM\]) holds, then it can be used to constrain $M(x,x')$. Of course this hinges on the existence of an independent way of finding ${{\mathcal D}}$. Note that if $M(x,x')$ indeed corresponds to ${{{\lambda}}}=1$, then from (\[conformaldimension\]) we should expect ${{\mathcal D}}$ to be a first–order operator.
In section \[DirichlettoNeumann\] we will see that this ${{\mathcal D}}$ turns out to be the Dirichlet–to–conformal–Neumann operator (we will mostly call it Dirichlet–to–Robin for short), which for hyperbolic space takes the simple form: $$\label{DtN}
{\mathcal{B}}=\sqrt{\Delta_B+1/4}$$ where $\Delta_B$ is the (positive) laplacian on the boundary. So ${\mathcal{B}}$ is a pseudodifferential operator of order one on round ${{\mathrm S}}^3$, as anticipated[^4]. Before explaining why, on general principles, ${\mathcal{B}}$ is expected to be the inverse of $M(x,x')$, we will discuss a way to construct this operator for a given manifold with boundary, give some background on the kind of problems it appears in, and go over its properties as a *conformally covariant* operator.
The outcome of section \[DirichlettoNeumann\] is that we can verify that $M(x,x')$ is conformally invariant by simply checking (\[DM\]) with ${{\mathcal D}}={\mathcal{B}}$. We find it instructive to demonstrate this first in the simple case of hyperbolic space where everything is clear and can be easily understood. This is the purpose of section \[Roundsphere\]. To act with ${\mathcal{B}}$ on $M(x,x')$ we will find it convenient to expand $M(x,x')$ in eigenfunctions, which is trivial to do on the round sphere.
The confirmation we have been looking for will finally appear in section \[Bergersphere\], where we apply our methods to Quaternionic Taub–NUT, and its conformal boundary the Berger sphere. Here too the fact that the eigenfunctions of the laplacian are known will be crucial in avoiding the use of heavy functional–analytic machinery. The drawback is that expanding $M(x,x')$ is a rather more involved technical exercise.
Section \[Conclusions\] contains some conclusions and possibilities for future work. We have also included an appendix collecting various facts on the squashed three–sphere which we will use at various places in this paper, as well as an appendix with some facts and references on pseudodifferential operators.
The conformally invariant correlation function {#Twopoint}
==============================================
In this section, after first discussing some properties of the QTN metric, we state the results of the analysis in [@Zoubos02], namely the bulk–to–bulk and bulk–to–boundary propagators for a conformally coupled scalar. Then we can easily find a two–point function on the boundary Berger sphere, which we argue should correspond to a dual operator of conformal dimension ${{{\lambda}}}=1$. We take the AdS limit and check that it is so in that special case.
The Pedersen metric for QTN
---------------------------
Our starting point is the Pedersen metric [@Pedersen86] for quaternionic Taub–NUT [^5]: $$\label{Pedersen}
{\mathrm{d}}s^2=\frac{4}{(1-k^2r^2)^2}\left[\frac{1-\mu^2 r^2}{1-\mu^2 k^2r^4}
{\mathrm{d}}r^2+r^2 (1-\mu^2 r^2)({\sigma_1}^2+{\sigma_2}^2)+\frac{r^2(1-\mu^2 k^2 r^4)}
{1-\mu^2 r^2}{\sigma_3}^2\right]\,.$$ The parameter $\mu^2$ can take values in the range $[k^2,-\infty)$, while the parameter $k^2$ is related to the (negative) cosmological constant through ${\Lambda}=-3k^2$. Keeping $\mu^2\in[0,k^2]$ corresponds to a prolate squashing of the three-sphere at the boundary, while $\mu^2\in[0,-\infty)$ to an oblate squashing. We will restrict our attention to the prolate case in this article. In this range QTN has two limits which are special, in the sense that they are symmetric spaces: $\mu^2=0$ is just 4–dimensional hyperbolic space (in other words, Euclidean ${\mathrm{AdS}}_4$) which we denote by ${{\mathrm{I}\kern-.18em\mathrm{H}}\mathrm{H}^1}$, and $\mu^2=k^2$ is an Einstein–Kähler manifold known as the Bergman space, often denoted by ${{{\,\,{{{^{_{\pmb{\mid}}}}\kern-.47em{\mathrm C}}}}}\mathrm{H}^2}$, a notation we will adopt[^6]. As cosets, these manifolds are ${{\mathrm{I}\kern-.18em\mathrm{H}}\mathrm{H}^1}={\mathrm{SO}}(1,4)/{\mathrm{SO}}(4)$ and ${{{\,\,{{{^{_{\pmb{\mid}}}}\kern-.47em{\mathrm C}}}}}\mathrm{H}^2}={\mathrm{SU}}(2,1)/{{\mathrm U}}(2)$.
As for the radial coordinate $r$, we take it to lie in the range $[0,1/k)$. This choice ensures that the metric is complete. The boundary is at $r{\rightarrow}1/k$ where the metric blows up and smoothly induces a boundary conformal structure. Finally, the $\sigma_i$ are the left–invariant ${\mathrm{SU}}(2)$ one–forms, which are given explicitly in appendix \[BergerSphere\]. Taking $(1-k^2r^2)$ as our defining function, and calling $i,j$ the non–radial directions, the induced metric at the boundary is $$g^{(3)}_{ij}=\lim_{r{\rightarrow}1/k}(1-k^2r^2)^2g_{ij}\quad\Rightarrow\quad {\mathrm{d}}s^2=\frac{1}{k^2}\left[(1-\mu^2/k^2)({\sigma_1}^2+{\sigma_2}^2)+
{\sigma_3}^2\right]$$ This is the left–invariant metric of the Berger sphere, which is examined in some detail in appendix \[BergerSphere\].
The twistor space of QTN was constructed in [@Pedersen86]. Knowledge of the twistor space was essential in [@Zoubos02], since it allowed us to make an educated ansatz (following a similar construction of Page [@Page79] for Euclidean Taub–NUT) for the Green’s function in the case of a conformally coupled scalar field. Using this ansatz we were led to an explicit form for the Green’s function. In this article we will start with this result, so no twistor methods will be used.
We now wish to consider free scalar fields propagating on the QTN geometry[^7], having a *conformal* coupling to the curvature. We recall from [@Zoubos02] the scalar laplacian corresponding to the metric (\[Pedersen\]): $$\label{Pedlaplacian}
\begin{split}
\nabla^2&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\partial_\mu\sqrt{g}g^{{\mu\nu}}\partial_\nu\\
\\
&=\frac{(1-k^2r^2)^2}{(1-\mu^2 r^2)}
\left[\frac{1}{4}\left(1-\mu^2k^2r^4\right){\partial}_{rr}
+\frac{1}{4r(1-k^2r^2)}\left(3+k^2r^2-7\mu^2k^2r^4+3\mu^2 k^4r^6\right){\partial}_r\right.\\
\\
&\left.+\frac{1}{r^2}\left\{{\partial}_{\theta\theta}+\cot\theta{\partial}_\theta
+\csc^2\theta\left[{\partial}_{{\varphi}{\varphi}}-2\cos\theta{\partial}_{{\varphi}\psi}
+\left(\sin^2\theta\frac{(1-\mu^2r^2)^2}{1-\mu^2k^2r^4}+\cos^2\theta\right)
{\partial}_{\psi\psi}\right]\right\}\right]\;\;.\\
\end{split}$$ The conformal laplacian $Y=\nabla^2-{{\mathcal R}}/6$ corresponds, since the scalar curvature is ${{\mathcal R}}=4{\Lambda}=-12k^2$, to the operator $Y=\nabla^2+2k^2$. We should now supplement this operator with appropriate boundary conditions on the boundary of QTN.
Note that for massless scalars, with an arbitrary curvature coupling $\xi$, satisfying Dirichlet boundary conditions, the presence of the bulk ${{\mathcal R}}$ term leads us to consider the following action (see [@MincesRivelles01]): $$\label{Scalaraction}
S=-{\frac{1}{2}}\int_\mathcal{M}{\mathrm{d}}^{d+1}x\sqrt{g}\left[{\partial}^\mu\phi{\partial}_\mu\phi+\xi {{\mathcal R}}\phi^2\right]
+\xi\int_{{\partial}\mathcal{M}}{\mathrm{d}}^d x \sqrt{h} \mathcal{K} \phi^2\;\;.$$ where ${\mathcal{K}}=-\nabla_r N^r$ is the trace of the extrinsic curvature ($N^r$ is the outward unit normal vector) and $h_{ij}$ is the (unrescaled, thus divergent) restriction of the metric to the boundary. The term with the extrinsic curvature plays a similar role to the Gibbons–Hawking term [@GibbonsHawking77] in the Einstein–Hilbert action, i.e. it ensures that the variational problem is well defined, because with this addition:
1. $S$ is stationary under $ g_{{\mu\nu}}{\rightarrow}g_{{\mu\nu}}+\delta g_{{\mu\nu}}, $ with the metric and its normal derivatives fixed on the boundary, and
2. $S$ is also stationary under $ \phi{\rightarrow}\phi +\delta\phi, $ where $\phi$ satisfies Dirichlet boundary conditions $ \delta\phi|_{{\partial}\mathcal{M}}=0$.
Now recall that, as first discussed in [@KlebanovWitten99b] (see also [@MincesRivelles01; @MuckViswanathan99]), for low values of the conformal dimension we have a choice of boundary conditions in AdS/CFT, in the sense that the same solution for the bulk field can correspond to two different boundary operators, depending on the asymptotic behaviour we wish to impose. The “regular” boundary condition (which can be imposed for any bulk mass) leads to a boundary operator with the usual conformal dimension ${{{\lambda}}}_+=d/2+\sqrt{d^2/4+m^2}$, while the “irregular” boundary condition leads to ${{{\lambda}}}_-=d/2-\sqrt{d^2/4+m^2}$. Massless, conformally coupled fields (where effectively $m^2=\xi{{\mathcal R}}$, and ${{\mathcal R}}$ is negative for asymptotically hyperbolic spaces) lie in this region of two possible quantisations, however one should check whether both boundary conditions are consistent with the conformal coupling. Since unitarity in a CFT requires ${{{\lambda}}}\geq(d-1)/2$, and also the fields in the bulk should have masses above the Breitenlohner–Freedman bound of $-d^2/4$, it follows that the irregular modes can only exist in the range $0\leq d^2/4+\xi{{\mathcal R}}<1$. However, the analysis of the irregular modes in [@MincesRivelles01] leads to a further restriction on the values of $\xi$: $\xi=\frac{1}{2d}{{{\lambda}}}_- $, where ${{{\lambda}}}_-=d/2-\sqrt{d^2/4+\xi{{\mathcal R}}}$. For massless scalars, there are two solutions for $\xi$ in $d+1=4$: $\xi=0$ (which is not interesting since ${{{\lambda}}}_-$ takes the non–unitary value of zero) and $\xi=\frac{1}{6}$ (which gives ${{{\lambda}}}_-=1$). So the conformal value $\xi=1/6$ is allowed, and thus it is consistent to impose Dirichlet boundary conditions for conformal coupling.
On the other hand, as dicussed e.g. in [@Solodukhin99; @MincesRivelles01], it is a consequence of the conformal coupling that we cannot consistently impose *Neumann* boundary conditions for the action (\[Scalaraction\]). Varying the action with respect to $\phi$ (and using the bulk equations of motion) we have $$\delta_\phi S=-\int_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}}{\mathrm{d}}^d x\sqrt{h}\left(N^r{\partial}_r\phi-2\xi{\mathcal{K}}\phi\right)\delta\phi\;.$$ So, while we are obviously free to impose the Dirichlet condition, the only other boundary condition that keeps the action invariant is the Robin–type condition: $$\label{Robincondition}
\left(N^r{\partial}_r-\frac13{\mathcal{K}}\right){\rightarrow}0\; \text{as}\; r{\rightarrow}1/k\;.$$ Here we have already substituted the conformal value of $\xi$. The precise scaling as we approach the boundary will be dicussed below. In what follows we will sometimes call this condition *conformal Neumann*, but will frequently revert to calling it simply “Robin” for short.
Green’s functions on QTN {#Propagators}
------------------------
Before writing down the Green’s functions on QTN constructed in [@Zoubos02], we recall a few basic facts about boundary problems and Green’s functions in the asymptotically hyperbolic case. This is well known material in AdS/CFT, but since the setting here is slightly more general we find it useful to retrace some steps.
Given an asymptotically hyperbolic manifold ${{\mathcal M}}$ in $d+1$ dimensions, the massive laplacian $\nabla^2-m^2=\nabla^2+{{{\lambda}}}(d-{{{\lambda}}})k^2$ admits two independent solutions which, in coordinates such that the boundary is at $y=0$, scale as $y^{{{\lambda}}}$ and $y^{d-{{{\lambda}}}}$ (see e.g. [@MazzeoMelrose87]). So the general solution for a massive scalar behaves asymptotically as $$\label{indepsolutions}
\phi(y,x)= y^{d-{{{\lambda}}}}f(y,\vec{x})+ y^{{{{\lambda}}}}h(y,\vec{x})\;.$$ The first terms $f_0=f(0,\vec{x})$ and $h_0=h(0,\vec{x})$ in an expansion of $f(y,\vec{x})$ and $h(y,\vec{x})$ are the only independent quantities, with the higher orders being uniquely (and locally) specified by them [@KlebanovWitten99b; @Skenderis02]. Now for large values of the conformal dimension (meaning ${{{\lambda}}}>d$), the first term in (\[indepsolutions\]) is non–normalisable and corresponds to (modified) Dirichlet boundary conditions, while the second one is normalisable and corresponds to (modified) Neumann boundary conditions. So the Dirichlet problem consists of specifying $f_0$ on the boundary, while in the Neumann problem we specify $h_0$. In each case we can construct the solution for $\phi(y,{{\vec{x}}})$ in terms of a suitable Green’s function. As discussed in [@Solodukhin99] the asymptotic behaviour of these Dirichlet and Neumann Green’s functions is $G^{{{\lambda}}}_D{\rightarrow}y^{{{{\lambda}}}}$ and $G^{{{\lambda}}}_N{\rightarrow}y^{d-{{{\lambda}}}}$ respectively. The asymptotic behaviour of the Neumann Green’s function comes from the requirement that it satisfy $(N^y{\partial}_y+(d-{{{\lambda}}})k)G^{{{\lambda}}}_N{\rightarrow}y^{{{{\lambda}}}}$ asymptotically.
Now we turn to our case of a conformally coupled scalar in $d+1=4$, where effectively $m^2=-2k^2$, resulting in the two solutions ${{{\lambda}}}_+=2$ and ${{{\lambda}}}_-=1$. Let us then write the asymptotic behaviour of $\phi(y,{{\vec{x}}})$ as $$\label{phitwo}
\phi(y,\vec{x})=y f(\vec{x})+y^2 h(\vec{x})+\cdots$$ We have dropped the subscript of $f$ and $h$, which should cause no confusion since the higher order terms in each are contained in the “$\cdots$”. As discussed in the previous section, in this case, where both modes are normalisable, we have a choice of boundary value problems, depending on which ${{{\lambda}}}$ we pick. Suppose we want to solve for $\phi(y,{{\vec{x}}})$ by specifying $h({{\vec{x}}})$. If ${{{\lambda}}}=2$, this is clearly a Neumann problem. However, thinking of it from a ${{{\lambda}}}=1$ point of view, it is the Dirichlet problem. We recall that the (modified) Dirichlet problem in this case is the question of constructing a function $\phi(y,\vec{x})$ satisfying $$\left\{\begin{array}{l}\left(\nabla^2+2k^2\right)\phi(y,\vec{x})=0 \\
\left[y^{{{{\lambda}}}-d}\phi(y,\vec{x})\right]_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}}=f({{\vec{x}}})\end{array}\right.$$ while the (modified) Neumann problem corresponds to finding a $\phi(y,\vec{x})$ such that[^8] $$\left\{\begin{array}{l}\left(\nabla^2+2k^2\right)\phi(y,\vec{x})=0\\
\left[y^{-{{{\lambda}}}}(N+(d-{{{\lambda}}})k)\phi(y,\vec{x})\right]_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}}=-h({{\vec{x}}})\end{array}\right.$$ where $N=N^y{\partial}_y$ is the outward unit normal, as before[^9] . By $[\cdots]_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}}$ we mean the restriction of the point $y$ to the boundary, and $[\cdots]_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}'}$ below will mean the restriction of $y'$ to the boundary. Finally, if we know the Dirichlet and Neumann Green’s functions, the Dirichlet problem can be solved through a double–layer potential (here ${\mathrm{d}}\Omega(x)$ is the measure of the induced, finite boundary metric) $$\phi(y,\vec{x})=-\int \left[(y')^{-{{{\lambda}}}}(N_{y'}+(d-{{{\lambda}}})k) G^{{{\lambda}}}_D(y,\vec{x},y',\vec{x}')\right]_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}'}
\cdot f(\vec{x}'){\mathrm{d}}\Omega(x')$$ while the Neumann problem is solved using a single–layer potential $$\phi(y,\vec{x})=-\int [(y')^{{{{\lambda}}}-d}G^{{{\lambda}}}_N(y,\vec{x},y',\vec{x}')]_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}'} \cdot h(\vec{x}') {\mathrm{d}}\Omega(x')\;.$$ As we will see explicitly in sections \[HHfactorisation\] and \[QTNfactorisation\], for ${{{\lambda}}}=2$ the factor of $(d-{{{\lambda}}})k$ is precisely the restriction to the boundary of the extrinsic curvature term $-1/3{\mathcal{K}}$ appearing in the Robin problem, so we can actually switch to calling $G^2_N(y,{{\vec{x}}},y',{{\vec{x}}}')$ the Robin Green’s function, and denote it $G^2_R(y,{{\vec{x}}},y',{{\vec{x}}}')$.
After these preliminaries, let us turn to the bulk–to–bulk Green’s function for a conformally coupled scalar on QTN, which was found in [@Zoubos02] to be[^10] $$\label{Gone}
G^{(\mu,k)}(r,x,s,x')=\frac{(1-k^2r^2)(1-k^2s^2)}{\sqrt{D}}\frac{Q_+-Q_-}
{Q_++Q_--4rsC {\mathrm{v}_1}}\;\;,$$ where $$Q_\pm=(r^2+s^2\pm\sqrt{D}+2\mu kr^2s^2{\mathrm{v}_2})(1\pm\mu k\sqrt{D}-\mu^2k^2r^2s^2(2{\mathrm{v}_2}-1))
^{{\frac{1}{2}}\left(1-\frac{\mu}{k}\right)}$$ with $D=(r^2-s^2)^2-4r^2s^2({\mathrm{v}_2}-1)+4\mu^2k^2r^4s^4{\mathrm{v}_2}({\mathrm{v}_2}-1)$ and $$C=\left[(1-\mu^2k^2r^4)(1-\mu^2k^2s^4)\right]^{\frac{1}{4}\left(1-\frac{\mu}{k}\right)}
\sqrt{(1+\mu k r^2)(1+\mu k s^2)}\;\;.$$ The ${\mathrm{v}_1}$ and ${\mathrm{v}_2}$ are ${\mathrm{SU}}(2)\times{{\mathrm U}}(1)$–invariant combinations of the three Euler angles describing the three–sphere (about which see appendix \[BergerSphere\])[^11] $$\label{vone}
{\mathrm{v}_1}=\cos\frac{{\theta_r}}{2}\cos\frac{{\theta_s}}{2}\cos{\frac{1}{2}}(\psi_r+{\varphi_r}-\psi_s-{\varphi_s})
+\sin\frac{{\theta_r}}{2}\sin\frac{{\theta_s}}{2}\cos{\frac{1}{2}}(\psi_r-{\varphi_r}-\psi_s+{\varphi_s})$$ and $$\label{vtwo}
{\mathrm{v}_2}={\frac{1}{2}}\{1+\cos\theta_r\cos\theta_s+
\sin\theta_r\sin\theta_s\cos(\varphi_r-\varphi_s)\}\;\;.$$ Note that we have ignored the normalisation of (\[Gone\]) and we will similarly ignore normalisation constants in the following propagators. $G^{(\mu,k)}$ satisfies $\sqrt{g}(\nabla^2+2k^2)G^{(\mu,k)}(r,x,s,x')=\delta^{(4)}(x_r,x_s)$ in the bulk of QTN, and it scales as $(1-k^2r^2)$ at the boundary $r{\rightarrow}1/k$. So, according to the discussion above, if we have ${{{\lambda}}}=1$ it is the Dirichlet Green’s function $G^1_D$, while for ${{{\lambda}}}=2$ we should think of it as the Robin Green’s function $G^2_R$. We can also verify for ${{{\lambda}}}=2$ that its Robin derivative scales as $$\left[(N+k){G^{(\mu,k)}}(r,x,s,x')\right]_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}}\sim(1-k^2r^2)^2$$ as it should. Now we can do two things starting from ${G^{(\mu,k)}}(r,x,s,x')$: Thinking in ${{{\lambda}}}=1$ terms, we can solve the Dirichlet problem by writing $$\label{Dir}
\phi(r,x)=-\int_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}'}\left[\frac{1}{(1-k^2s^2)}(N^s{\partial}_s+2k){G^{(\mu,k)}}(r,x,s,x')\right]_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}'}\phi_0(x'){\mathrm{d}}\Omega(x')\;.$$ Note that $\phi_0(x)$ is really $h(x)$ in (\[phitwo\]). Restricting $\phi(r,x)$ to the boundary will give $\phi_0(x)$. This is of course the standard way of doing things in AdS/CFT, and as is well–known (e.g. [@Giddings99]) leads us to the bulk–to–boundary propagator, $$\left[\frac{1}{(1-k^2s^2)}\cdot (N^s{\partial}_s+2k)G^{(\mu,k)}(r,x,s,x')\right]_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}'} \sim
\left[\frac{1}{(1-k^2s^2)} G^{(\mu,k)}(r,x,s,x')\right]_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}'}=:{K^{(\mu,k)}}(r,x,x')\;.$$ However we could also take a ${{{\lambda}}}=2$ point of view, and solve the Robin problem by directly writing a single–layer potential $$\label{Rob}
\phi(r,x)=\int_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}'}\left[\frac{1}{(1-k^2s^2)}\cdot {G^{(\mu,k)}}(r,x,s,x')\right]_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}'}\phi_0(x'){\mathrm{d}}\Omega(x')$$ where here we recover $\phi_0(x)$ by taking $(N^r{\partial}_r+k)\phi(y,x)$ and restricting to the boundary. Note that in both cases the same object, the bulk–to–boundary propagator (which is simply the scaled restriction of one point of ${G^{(\mu,k)}}(r,x,s,x')$ to the boundary), appears, but $\phi_0(x)$ can be recovered from it in two different ways. Let us now write it down: $$\label{bulktoboundary}
K^{(\mu,k)}(r,x,x')=
\lim_{s{\rightarrow}1/k}\left\{\frac{G^{(\mu,k)}(r,x,s,x')}{(1-k^2s^2)}\right\}
=\frac{(1-k^2r^2)}{\sqrt{{\Delta}}}\frac{q_+-q_-}
{q_++q_--4krc{\mathrm{v}_1}}$$ where $$q_{\pm}=(1+k^2r^2\pm\sqrt{{\Delta}}+2\mu k r^2{\mathrm{v}_2})
\left(1\pm\frac{\mu}{k}\sqrt{{\Delta}}-\mu^2r^2(2{\mathrm{v}_2}-1)\right)^{{\frac{1}{2}}\left(1-\frac{\mu}{k}\right)}\;,$$ with $$\label{Delta}
{\Delta}=(1-k^2r^2)^2-4k^2r^2({\mathrm{v}_2}-1)+4\mu^2k^2r^4{\mathrm{v}_2}({\mathrm{v}_2}-1)$$ and $$c=\left[(1-\mu^2k^2r^4)\left(1-\mu^2/k^2\right)\right]^{\frac{1}{4}\left(1-\frac{\mu}{k}\right)}
\sqrt{\left(1+\mu/k\right)(1+\mu k r^2)}\;.$$ This Poisson–like kernel scales at the boundary as $(1-k^2r^2)^2\delta^{(3)}(x,x')$[^12], which is the behaviour needed to obtain $\phi_0(x)$ from (\[Dir\]). On the other hand, $(N^r{\partial}_r+k){K^{(\mu,k)}}(r,x,x')$ also scales as $(1-k^2r^2)^2\delta^{(3)}(x,x')$, showing that we could also recover $\phi_0(x)$ from (\[Rob\])[^13]. So indeed both ways of looking at this problem are equivalent. Of course, in both cases we obtain the same boundary behaviour, and thus the same conformal dimension for the dual operator. Given the scaling of $\phi_0(x)$ it should be a density on the boundary of conformal dimension ${{{\lambda}}}=2$, so (as standard in AdS/CFT) it will be a source for a dual operator ${\mathcal{O}}$ of conformal dimension ${{{\lambda}}}=1$. We will obtain the two–point function of ${\mathcal{O}}$ in the next section, and will eventually give an independent verification that it is conformally invariant and the dimension of ${\mathcal{O}}$ is indeed 1 in section \[Bergersphere\].[^14]
The boundary two–point function
-------------------------------
We can now follow standard AdS/CFT procedures [@Witten98] to obtain the two–point function on the boundary. We evaluate the action (\[Scalaraction\]) by first integrating by parts and then imposing the bulk equations of motion ($(\nabla^2-1/6{{\mathcal R}})\phi=0$), which results in a pure boundary term: $$S=-\frac{1}{2}\lim_{r{\rightarrow}1/k}\int_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}}{\mathrm{d}}^dx\sqrt{g}(N^r)\phi(r,x)\left(N^r{\partial}_r-\frac{1}{3}{\mathcal{K}}\right)\phi(r,x)\;.$$ Now we can substitute the solution for $\phi(r,x)$ in terms of the bulk–to–boundary propagator $$\phi(r,x)=\int_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}} {K^{(\mu,k)}}(r,x,x')\phi_0(x') {\mathrm{d}}\Omega(x')$$ (where ${\mathrm{d}}\Omega(x')$ is the measure with respect to the finite boundary metric) which gives $$(N^r{\partial}_r-\frac{1}{3}{\mathcal{K}})\phi(r,x)=(1-k^2r^2)^2\phi_0(x)\;,$$ and given the scaling of the induced measure ($\sqrt{h}=\sqrt{g}(N^r)\sim (1-k^2r^2)^{-3}$), we have $$\label{Sfinal}
S\sim\int_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}}\int_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}'}\phi_0(x) \left(\lim_{r{\rightarrow}1/k} \frac{{K^{(\mu,k)}}(r,x,x')}{(1-k^2r^2)}\right)\phi_0(x'){\mathrm{d}}\Omega(x){\mathrm{d}}\Omega(x')\;.$$ Taking the limit $r{\rightarrow}1/k$, we find that the answer is finite, which would not have been the case had we forgotten the extrinsic curvature term[^15]. Note that the way we obtained (\[Sfinal\]) is exactly the opposite of the way it is usually done in AdS/CFT, i.e. it is the normal derivative term that gives us $\phi_0$, while the restriction of $\phi$ to the boundary brings in the boundary value of ${K^{(\mu,k)}}(r,x,x')$. As discussed, we would have obtained the same result working in the standard way, but at various places we will find it best to think of $\phi(x)$ being given by a Robin problem rather than a Dirichlet problem.
Interpreting the boundary values $\phi_0$ as sources in the dual field theory, coupled in a conformally invariant way to an operator ${\mathcal{O}}$ and, using the notation $M(x,x'):=\langle{\mathcal{O}}(\theta_r,\varphi_r,\psi_r) {\mathcal{O}}(\theta_s,\varphi_s,\psi_s)\rangle$ we arrive at the following proposal for the two–point correlation function of the boundary operator ${\mathcal{O}}$ dual to the bulk conformally coupled scalar $\phi$: $$\label{correlator}
M(x,x') =
\frac{2}{\sqrt{\delta}}\frac{a_+-a_-}{a_++a_--2c_0 {\mathrm{v}_1}}$$ where $\delta=(1-{\mathrm{v}_2})(1-\mu^2/k^2{\mathrm{v}_2})$, and $$\begin{split}
a_\pm&=(1\pm \sqrt{\delta}+\frac{\mu}{k}{\mathrm{v}_2})
(1\pm2\frac{\mu}{k}\sqrt{\delta}+\frac{\mu^2}{k^2}(1-2{\mathrm{v}_2}))
^{{\frac{1}{2}}\left(1-\frac{\mu}{k}\right)}\\
c_0&=(1-\frac{\mu^2}{k^2})^{{\frac{1}{2}}(1-\mu/k)}(1+\frac{\mu}{k})\;.
\end{split}$$ This slightly complicated object is what AdS/CFT tells us should arise on the boundary ${\tilde{\mathrm{S}}^3}$ as a conformal two–point correlation function of the scalar operator ${\mathcal{O}}(x)$ dual to the bulk conformally coupled scalar $\phi(y,x)$. In particular, as discussed extensively in the preceding section, we expect ${\mathcal{O}}(x)$ to have conformal dimension ${{{\lambda}}}=1$, and this is the statement that we would like to check in the following. Of course, in the absence so far of a concrete string/M theory embedding (in the sense of a decoupling limit of some brane configuration) of this model, it is not yet clear what the dual boundary theory actually is, and thus which fields constitute the gauge–invariant operator ${\mathcal{O}}(x)$. It is expected [@Zoubos02] that one can think of it as some (non–supersymmetric) deformation of (the infrared limit of) ${{\mathcal N}}=8$ SYM on round ${{\mathrm S}}^3$ [@Maldacena98] (here we are thinking of QTN$\times X^7$ (with $X$ some Einstein manifold) as a deformation of ${\mathrm{AdS}}_4\times {{\mathrm S}}^7$), and in particular it is expected to at least contain scalar operators with ${{{\lambda}}}=1$ (since ${{\mathcal N}}=8$ SYM does). On the other hand, *any* CFT on ${\tilde{\mathrm{S}}^3}$ (regardless of the fundamental degrees of freedom) which contains ${{{\lambda}}}=1$ scalar operators *could*, according to AdS/CFT, lead to correlators with the functional form of (\[correlator\]) (in the same sense that any CFT in flat space will lead to powers of $1/(|x-x'|)$)[^16], so it is clearly important to make sure that this is what is actually required by conformal invariance on ${\tilde{\mathrm{S}}^3}$. We will start developing the necessary ideas in the next section.
The round–sphere limit {#Roundlimit}
----------------------
Before we proceed, it is instructive to consider the limit $\mu=0$, which should bring us to completely familiar AdS/CFT territory. In this limit our correlator simplifies drastically, reducing to $$\label{Mzero}
M^0(x,x')=\lim_{\mu{\rightarrow}0}M(x,x')\sim\frac{1}{1-{\mathrm{v}_1}}\;.$$ This is a two–point function on the round sphere, and it can be easily seen to correspond to a boundary operator of conformal dimension $1$, by switching to the upper–half space (or Poincaré) notation. The conversion can be found in appendix B of [@Zoubos02], where the hyperbolic space chordal distance $u$ is written in two ways:[^17] $$u=\left\{\begin{array}{l} \frac{(y-y')^2+(\vec{x}-\vec{x}')^2}{2yy'} \quad\text{(upper--half space)}
\\ \\ \frac{2k^2(r^2+s^2-2rs{\mathrm{v}_1})}{(1-k^2r^2)(1-k^2s^2)} \quad\text{(polar--type)}\;.\\
\end{array}\right.$$ The bulk–to–bulk propagator in this case is simply $1/u$, which, properly rescaled and restricted to the boundary (which is $y,y'{\rightarrow}0$ for the upper–half space) gives the two–point correlation function for the dual boundary operator $$M^0(x,x')=\frac{1}{(x-x')^2}$$ while in our polar case the corresponding limit ($r,s{\rightarrow}1/k$) simply gives us (\[Mzero\]). From the upper–half–space picture it is obvious that the conformal dimension of the corresponding operator is ${{{\lambda}}}=1$.
As discussed in the introduction, we have another way to check this result without ever leaving the sphere, namely we can hit $M^0(x,x')$ with any of the four conformal Killing vectors available. Choosing e.g. the conformal Killing vector (denoted $k_1$ in appendix \[BergerSphere\]) $$\upsilon=2\sin\frac{\theta}{2}\cos\left(\frac{\varphi+\psi}{2}\right){\partial}_\theta
+\frac{\sin\left(\frac{\varphi+\psi}{2}\right)}{\cos\frac{\theta}{2}}\left({\partial}_\varphi+{\partial}_\psi\right)\\$$ we can readily check that $$\left({{\mathcal L}}_{\upsilon(x_r)}+{{\mathcal L}}_{\upsilon(x_s)}\right)\frac{1}{1-{\mathrm{v}_1}}=
-(\sigma_\upsilon(x_r)+\sigma_\upsilon(x_s))\frac{1}{1-{\mathrm{v}_1}}.$$ (where $\sigma_\upsilon(x_r)=\cos(\frac{\theta_r}{2})\cos(\frac{{\varphi}_r+\psi_r}{2})$ and similarly for $\sigma_\upsilon(x_s)$). Recalling (\[conformaltransformation\]), we conclude, this time directly on the sphere, that $M^0(x,x')$ corresponds to a ${{{\lambda}}}=1$ operator. Of course, due to the lack of conformal Killing vectors, this simple argument fails as soon as we leave the round sphere (by allowing $\mu\neq0$).
Conformal Geometry {#Conformal}
==================
In this section we give a brief overview of conformal geometry, which can roughly be thought of as an analogue of riemannian geometry, but where only angles are important, not lengths. Reviews of conformal geometry, containing references to the literature, can be found in [@Eastwood96; @Branson97; @Branson98].
Preliminaries {#Preliminaries}
-------------
A conformal manifold ${{\mathcal M}}$ is a pair $({{\mathcal M}},[g])$, where ${{\mathcal M}}$ is a smooth $d$–dimensional manifold, and $[g]$ is a riemannian metric defined only up to scale, i.e. a conformal class of metrics. That is, rather than dealing with smooth, positive sections of $\odot T^*{{\mathcal M}}$, as in riemannian geometry, here we are considering positive sections of the ray bundle $R(\odot T^*{{\mathcal M}})$ (i.e. if $g$ is a representative metric, the fibres are $t^2 g, t\in{\mathrm{I}\kern-.18em\mathrm{R}}_+$) Two metrics in the conformal class, say $g_{{\mu\nu}}$ and $\hat{g}_{{\mu\nu}}$ that are related as $\hat{g}_{{\mu\nu}}=\Omega^2 g_{{\mu\nu}}$, with $\Omega$ a smooth function on the manifold, are equivalent in conformal geometry.
In practice, rather than implementing this equivalence directly, it is more convenient to choose a representative $g\in [g]$, and examine how other quantities on the manifold, defined relative to $g$, transform under conformal (Weyl) change of the metric: $g_{{\mu\nu}}{\rightarrow}\Omega^2 g_{{\mu\nu}}$. To keep track of these transformations, we introduce the bundle ${\mathcal{E}}(w)$ of conformally weighted functions (conformal densities) of weight $w$: Under conformal change of the metric, a section $\phi\in\Gamma({\mathcal{E}}(w))$ transforms as[^18] $$g_{{\mu\nu}}{\rightarrow}\Omega^2 g_{{\mu\nu}}\quad \Longrightarrow \quad\phi{\rightarrow}\Omega^w \phi$$ One can also define tensors by tensoring ${\mathcal{E}}(w)$ with the appropriate bundles. For instance the conformal metric itself can be thought of as a section of ${\mathcal{E}}_{{\mu\nu}}(2)$, signifying that it is a two–tensor transforming with weight 2. We will only need to discuss scalars, so we refer the reader to the reviews cited above for more details.
The prototype example of conformal geometry is the sphere ${{\mathrm S}}^d={\mathrm{SO}}(d+1)/{\mathrm{SO}}(d)$, which is acted on naturally by the group of conformal diffeomorphisms ${\mathrm{SO}}(d+1,1)$. It plays a role similar to that of ${\mathrm{I}\kern-.18em\mathrm{R}}^d$ in riemannian geometry. The high degree of symmetry leads to a beautiful interplay between differential–geometric and group–theoretic ideas, and helps in gaining insight which is often helpful in the curved case.
One of the main objectives in conformal geometry is to find conformal covariants, i.e. objects that transform in a simple way under conformal change. These could be tensors on the manifold, like the Weyl tensor $W^{\mu}_{\;\nu\rho\sigma}$ which (with this choice of indices) is conformally invariant. There also exist objects which, unlike the Weyl tensor, are only covariant in particular dimensions, as for example the Cotton tensor[^19], $$\label{Cotton}
C_{{{\mu\nu}}\rho}=\nabla_\rho \mathrm{P}_{{{\mu\nu}}}-\nabla_\nu \mathrm{P}_{\mu \rho}\;,\quad\text{where}\;\;
\mathrm{P}_{{\mu\nu}}=\frac{1}{d-2}\left({{\mathcal R}}_{{\mu\nu}}-\frac{{{\mathcal R}}}{2(d-1)}g_{{\mu\nu}}\right)$$ which is conformally covariant only in $d=3$, where it is an indicator of conformal flatness (i.e. it vanishes if the space is conformally flat). One of the most influential works in this field is of course the article by Fefferman and Graham [@FeffermanGraham85], in which they construct scalar conformal invariants involving (derivatives of) a $d$–dimensional riemannian metric by looking at differential invariants of an associated $d+2$ dimensional *lorentzian* ambient metric, where the conformal group is linearly realised. These ideas have proved very useful in an AdS/CFT context, where, in the context of holographic renormalisation, these conformally invariant objects are used as counterterms in the $d+1$ dimensional gravitational action, leading to a regulated action for the dual $d$–dimensional field theory. See [@Skenderis02] for a review and references.
As in riemannian geometry, an important question that arises when given a conformally covariant object on the sphere (which, as indicated above, is the “flat model” of conformal geometry) is whether it can be extended to a conformally covariant object in the curved case, that is on an arbitrary non–conformally flat manifold equipped with a conformal metric. This will be important for us, since the Berger sphere is not conformally flat (which can be easily seen from the fact that the Cotton tensor does not vanish).
Conformally invariant differential operators {#confdiff}
--------------------------------------------
In conformal geometry it is also of great importance to construct conformally covariant *differential* operators, i.e. differential operators that transform nicely under conformal change of the metric. More precisely (e.g. [@Branson98]): A differential operator ${{\mathcal D}}$, defined locally in terms of $g_{{\mu\nu}}$, its inverse, and their partial derivatives, is called *conformally covariant* if it transforms in the following way under conformal change: $$g_{{\mu\nu}}{\rightarrow}\Omega^2 g_{{\mu\nu}}\quad\Longrightarrow \quad{{\mathcal D}}{\rightarrow}\Omega^{-b}{{\mathcal D}}\Omega^{a}\;.$$ Note that ${{\mathcal D}}$ will act on everything to its right, including the factor of $\Omega^a$. The quantity $(a,b)$ is often called the conformal biweight, or bidegree, of the operator ${{\mathcal D}}$. To obtain a conformally *invariant* operator, we have to also specify which density bundles the conformally covariant operator acts between. If it acts between a section $u\in\Gamma({\mathcal{E}}(-a))$ and a section $v\in\Gamma({\mathcal{E}}(-b))$, i.e. we have $${{\mathcal D}}u=v$$ this equation is invariant under conformal change of the metric. The most fundamental conformally covariant operator is the conformal (or Yamabe) laplacian $$\label{Yamabe}
Y=\Delta+\frac{d-2}{4(d-1)}{{\mathcal R}},$$ where ${{\mathcal R}}$ is the scalar curvature. Under the change $g_{{\mu\nu}}{\rightarrow}\Omega^2 g_{{\mu\nu}}$, we have $$Y{\rightarrow}\Omega^{-\frac{d+2}{2}}Y\Omega^{\frac{d-2}{2}}.$$ Thus, when acting between the density bundles ${\mathcal{E}}(\frac{2-d}{2})$ and ${\mathcal{E}}(-\frac{2+d}{2})$, the conformal laplacian is a conformally *invariant* operator. Note that, being a second order operator, it reduces conformal weight by two. This intuitive fact is a consequence of working with length dimensions rather than mass dimensions (which was discussed in a previous footnote). There are other, perhaps less well known but also important, conformally covariant differential operators, as for instance the fourth–order Paneitz operator in $d=4$ (see e.g. [@Chang99] for a review with references) which acts on scalars and has biweight $(0,4)$. It is given by $$\label{Paneitz}
P_4=\sqrt{g}\left(\Delta^2+2\nabla_\mu\left({{\mathcal R}}^{{{\mu\nu}}}-\frac13g^{{{\mu\nu}}}{{\mathcal R}}\right)\nabla_\nu\right)\;.$$ This operator has principal part $\Delta^2$, where $\Delta$ is the positive laplacian. On ${{\mathrm S}}^d$ one can generalise this construction to operators whose principal parts are higher powers of the laplacian (e.g. [@EastwoodRice87; @Grahametal92]), called “conformally invariant powers of the laplacian” but the question of whether they extend to the curved case does not always have a positive answer. For instance, the sixth–order operator with principal part $\Delta^3$ in $d=4$ does not have a curved space analogue [@Graham92]. In general these scalar operators $P_s$ have biweight $(\frac{d-s}{2},\frac{d+s}{2})$ and so will take ${\mathcal{E}}(\frac{s-d}{2}){\rightarrow}{\mathcal{E}}(-\frac{s+d}{2})$. If $\phi$ has weight $w$, then the corresponding Green’s function $M(x,x')=\langle\phi(x)\phi(x')\rangle$ will transform as $M(x,x'){\rightarrow}\Omega^{w}(x)\Omega^{w}(x')M(x,x')$, and the equation $$\sqrt{g}P_sM(x,x')=\delta^{(d)}(x,x')$$ will be conformally invariant if $w=\frac{s-d}{2}$. Starting from the invariance of this equation under both diffeomorphisms and conformal change, and assuming a nontrivial conformal Killing equation, one can now easily prove (\[conformaltransformation\]) by adapting a discussion in [@Erdmenger97] (and also writing $\Omega(x)=e^{\sigma(x)}$, and linearising). Note of course that the mass conformal dimension of $\phi$ will be ${{{\lambda}}}=-w=\frac{d-s}{2}$.
The operators $P_k$ act on scalar densities, but there are also generalisations that naturally act on tensor densities with various symmetry properties, as well as on forms. See e.g. [@Erdmenger97; @ErdmengerOsborn98; @BransonGover02] for relatively recent discussions and references, as well as the reviews [@Branson97; @Branson98].
One important application of conformally invariant operators in physics has been the construction of non–local actions that generalise (to higher dimensions) Polyakov’s two–dimensional action [@Polyakov81] in the sense that, upon variation, they generate the gravitational conformal anomaly (see e.g. [@Erdmenger97; @Deser00]). In fact the action constructed by Riegert [@Riegert84] for this purpose contains a fourth–order conformally invariant operator which is the same as (\[Paneitz\]), found by Paneitz at around the same time.
In an AdS/CFT setting, conformally invariant operators of a slightly different kind played a crucial role in [@Dolanetal01]. There the goal was to construct the conformally invariant equations obeyed by partially conserved tensors in the boundary theory, which are dual to partially massless fields in the bulk.
So far we have been discussing *differential*, i.e. local, operators. More relevant to our goal in this article is that one can also construct *non–local* conformally invariant operators [@BransonGover01; @Peterson00]. They will be discussed in due course, in section \[Nonlocal\], after we first introduce the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator (which will turn out to be one of them) from a different perspective, that of inverse boundary problems.
The Dirichlet–to–Robin operator {#DirichlettoNeumann}
===============================
In this section we first define the Dirichlet–to–Neumann operator, which plays a central role in dealing with inverse boundary value problems (i.e. the general issue of obtaining information about the interior of a domain through boundary measurements). We sketch a way (detailed in [@LeeUhlmann89; @Uhlmann92]) to explicitly construct the Dirichlet–to–Neumann operator for a given manifold with boundary. However, the object we need is actually the slightly more general Dirichlet–to–Robin operator, and the boundary in question actually lies at conformal infinity, so we will discuss some plausible guesses of how the construction might generalise to this case. Then, although the application we have in mind is very different from the usage of the Dirichlet–to–Neumann/Robin operator in the inverse boundary problems we mentioned, we give a short overview of the main ideas. After that we dicuss the crucial fact that the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator is *conformally covariant*, and finally explain what all that has to do with the proposed QTN/Berger sphere correspondence and the question of the conformal invariance of our correlation function $M(x,x')$.
Definition {#Definition}
----------
Here, following [@LeeUhlmann89; @Uhlmann92], we will give a definition of the Dirichlet–to–Neumann operator which is natural from the viewpoint of riemannian geometry. These references also discuss slightly different definitions which can be mapped to this one. So let us assume given a smooth riemannian metric $g_{{\mu\nu}}$ on a manifold–with–boundary $\overline{{{\mathcal M}}}$, and also some function $f$ defined on the boundary ${\partial}{{\mathcal M}}$. The Dirichlet problem for the laplacian $\Delta$ requires finding a function $u$ such that: $$\label{Dirprob}
\hspace{1cm}\left\{\begin{array}{l} \Delta u=0 \quad \text{in}\;\; {{\mathcal M}}\;\quad\text{(${{\mathcal M}}$ is the interior of $\overline{{{\mathcal M}}}$)}\\
u|_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}}=f\;.
\end{array}\right.$$ In words, we need to find a harmonic function in the bulk, that restricts to the given data on the boundary. Similarly, the Neumann problem asks for a function $u$ which satisfies $$\label{Neuprob}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\Delta u=0 \quad \text{in} \;\; {{\mathcal M}}\hspace{2.3cm}\mbox{}\\
(N\cdot u)|_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}}=h\;,
\end{array}\right.$$ where $h$ is a function on the boundary, and $N$ is the outward unit normal. Now, if we solve the Dirichlet problem as posed in (\[Dirprob\]) to obtain $u$, it is a valid question to ask what is the Neumann data $h$ *defined* by $u$ through (\[Neuprob\]). So we define the Dirichlet–to–Neumann operator $\Lambda$ as: $$\label{DtNdef}
\Lambda f=[N\cdot u] |_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}}\;.$$ That is, the operator $\Lambda$ takes Dirichlet data to Neumann data.
One can thus think of the Dirichlet–to–Neumann operator as a composition of two operations: First one extends the prescribed boundary data $f$ to the bulk in a way that satisfies (\[Dirprob\]), and then restricts the normal derivative of the bulk solution to the boundary. The main point now is that $\Lambda$ can usefully be considered as an operator *directly on the boundary*, which acts on the boundary function $f$ and gives another boundary function $h$ as the result. Note, however, that since the bulk equation admits two *independent* solutions, one of which gives the Dirichlet and the other one the Neumann data on the boundary, from a boundary perspective this data cannot be locally related. Thus we should expect that the Dirichlet–to–Neumann operator, if viewed as a boundary operator, will be non–local. Indeed there are theorems (see e.g. [@SylvesterUhlmann88]) which assure us that this is a pseudodifferential operator on the boundary, of order one, and that in fact its *principal* symbol is the square root of the boundary laplacian[^20]. One (iterative) approach to obtaining its *full* symbol for a smooth riemannian manifold has been outlined by Lee and Uhlmann in [@LeeUhlmann89; @Uhlmann92]: Start by writing the $d+1$–dimensional metric in boundary normal coordinates $\{x^1,..,x^{d},y\}$, where $y\geq0$ and the boundary is defined by $y=0$. The remaining coordinates $\{x^1,...,x^d\}$ are local coordinates for ${\partial}{{\mathcal M}}$, and smoothly extend to coordinates on a neighbourhood in ${{\mathcal M}}$ of a point $p\in{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}$[^21]. In these coordinates the metric is written as $$g_{{\mu\nu}}={\mathrm{d}}y^2+h_{ij}(y,x){\mathrm{d}}x^i{\mathrm{d}}x^j$$ and the laplacian takes the form $$\nabla^2={\partial}_{yy}+{\frac{1}{2}}h^{ij}{\partial}_y h_{ij}{\partial}_y+{h}^{-{\frac{1}{2}}}{\partial}_i{h}^{\frac{1}{2}}h^{ij}{\partial}_j\;.$$ The last term clearly reduces to the boundary laplacian (which we call $\Delta_B$) when $y=0$. Now the crucial step is the following [@LeeUhlmann89]: Suppose we can find a pseudodifferential, order one operator ${\mathcal{A}}$, depending smoothly on $y$, such that the Laplacian factorises in the following way: $$\label{factorization}
\nabla^2=({\partial}_y+E(y,x)+{\mathcal{A}}(y,x,{\partial}_x))({\partial}_y-{\mathcal{A}}(y,x,{\partial}_x))$$ where $E(y,x)={\frac{1}{2}}h^{ij}{\partial}_y h_{ij}$. Then ${\mathcal{A}}$, restricted to the boundary, is essentially the Dirichlet–to–Neumann operator[^22]. The proof (which we do not give here) is based on showing that $({\partial}_y-{\mathcal{A}}(y,x,{\partial}_x))u$ is a smoothing operator (an operator “of order $-\infty$”) on the boundary, so, modulo smoothing operators, the relation ${\partial}_y u|_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}}={\mathcal{A}}(0,x,{\partial}_x)\cdot f(x)$ holds on the boundary. See also [@Treves], Ch. III for a related discussion.
As mentioned, this method allows us to construct the Dirichlet–to–Neumann operator in an *iterative* manner. We can start by expanding the full symbol $a$ of the operator ${\mathcal{A}}$ as $$\label{asymbol}
a(x,\xi')=\sum_{i=0}^\infty a_{1-i} (x,\xi')$$ where each term $a_{1-i}$ in this expansion is the symbol of an order–$(1-i)$ operator. Taking the symbol on both sides of (\[factorization\]), expanding, and equating the highest degree terms, it follows easily that $a_1$, the principal symbol of ${\mathcal{A}}$, is given by $$a_1=-\sqrt{\sigma_2(\Delta_B)},$$ where $\sigma_2(\Delta_B)$ denotes the principal symbol of the boundary laplacian, and the choice of sign corresponds to the outward unit normal vector giving the positive square root, $$\label{positive}
N\cdot u|_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}}={\Lambda}_xf(x)\Rightarrow (-{\partial}_y)u(y,x)|_{y=0}=(\sqrt{\Delta_B}+\cdots)f(x)\;.$$ Here the “$\cdots$” corresponds to the lower order terms in ${\Lambda}$. Substituting this result back into (\[factorization\]) we can get a recursion formula for the $a_{1-i}$s, and so in principle we can determine all the terms in the series (\[asymbol\]) for ${\mathcal{A}}$. There will obviously always be an ambiguity since we can arbitrarily add operators whose symbols are in $\mathbb S^{-\infty}$, the smoothing operators alluded to above.
For reasons to be fully explained in section \[Implications\], we will actually be interested in the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator. This can be defined by analogy with (\[DtNdef\]), as the operator taking Dirichlet data to Robin data: $$\label{DtR}
{\mathcal{B}}f\mapsto \left[(N+\sigma)u\right]|_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}}$$ where $\sigma$ is some function defined on the boundary, and we have named the operator ${\mathcal{B}}$ to distinguish it from the Dirichlet–to–Neumann operator.
Motivated by the method we just outlined for the Dirichlet–to–Neumann operator, we can try to obtain the Dirichlet–to-Robin operator for hyperbolic space and QTN by factorising the bulk laplacian. There are several extrapolations we make that seem reasonable (and certainly work) but which do not follow from the discussion above and perhaps lack rigorous justification. First, of course, in the asymptotically hyperbolic case we are dealing with, the laplacian vanishes at the boundary. Therefore we will take the (perhaps) pragmatic approach of first finding ${\mathcal{A}}$ at some finite radius (i.e. the “boundary” will be a hypersurface corresponding to a fixed value of $r$–the radial coordinate on the ball) and then taking it to the boundary at infinity via some limiting process[^23].
Second, we will treat (\[factorization\]) as an *exact* factorisation. That is, we will look for an ${\mathcal{A}}$ that satisfies (\[factorization\]) precisely, without the need for smoothing operators. In practice, that means that we will *not* proceed iteratively, as in [@LeeUhlmann89], but will treat (\[factorization\]) as an actual differential equation (in the radial variable). (See in this respect the discussion in [@Treves], chapter III.)
Third, we would like to avoid boundary normal coordinates. The reason is that writing QTN in these coordinates will turn the metric into a series expansion in the radial coordinate (which we have been denoting by $y$ here), while we find it easier to deal with the exact metric (\[Pedersen\]) and exact laplacian. Ultimately this is probably a matter of taste, but a more serious issue is the fact (see appendix \[Pseudodifferential\]) that the complete symbol of a pseudodifferential operator is not coordinate–invariant. Since we would eventually like to use the operator we find in polar–type coordinates, we had better calculate it in polar–type coordinates.
A final subtlety which arises is that, as we will see in section \[Implications\], the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator will turn out to be a Robin derivative of a double layer potential. As is well known in potential theory, (see e.g. [@Folland; @Mikhlin; @McLean]), although the single layer potential is continuous at the boundary, the double layer potential typically exhibits a discontinuity. This means that the boundary data of the double layer potential is given by the (appropriately normalised) difference of the limits of the solutions to the interior and the exterior problems. The *Neumann* derivative of a double layer has no jump, but since we are taking the Robin derivative, i.e. we are adding a constant term, it is not unreasonable to expect that the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator we are looking for will also have to exhibit this discontinuity. To cover this possibility, the final part of the practical recipe we give is to find ${\mathcal{A}}$ by factorising the laplacian on the inside and on the “outside” of QTN, i.e. the regions $r<1/k$ and $r>1/k$, and then taking the difference of the limits $r{\rightarrow}1/k$ on both sides.
Needless to say, the fact that we might need to examine the exterior boundary problem in order to properly define the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator, although very natural if we think in terms of boundary value problems on the ball in ${\mathrm{I}\kern-.18em\mathrm{R}}^{d}$, is rather unusual from an AdS/CFT point of view, and potentially raises some conceptual issues. Hyperbolic and asymptotically hyperbolic metrics on the ball blow up on the boundary, which we thus interpret as the “conformal infinity” of the manifold. It is thus very natural to discuss holography in terms of only what is happening in the interior. We will see later that this distinction is actually irrelevant for hyperbolic space, which possibly explains why no need for it has been seen so far in discussions of AdS/CFT. It could be that some new principle is at play in the asymptotically hyperbolic case, or (more likely perhaps) that our rough analysis above can be refined to avoid having to look at the exterior. For now we will just blindly accept this recipe and see that it gives the expected answer.
Another unpleasant feature is that QTN is generically incomplete for $r>1/k$, containing a conical singularity. A brief analysis can be found in [@Hitchin95], where it is shown that the metric can be extended to a smooth one only for certain *discrete* values of $\mu$. (See also [@CalderbankSinger02] and [@BehrndtDallAgata02] for related matters.). This is probably an important issue, but for the time being we will simply ignore it, by assuming that since the singularity is at $r{\rightarrow}\infty$, and we are only interested in some region close to the boundary $r=1/k$ on both sides, it will not affect the limiting procedure.
It should be clear that the prescription we gave above, although perhaps reasonable, is rather *ad hoc*. In this respect we should mention that there *exists* a formalism which has been explicitly constructed to deal with boundary value problems on asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds, namely the $0$–pseudodifferential calculus of Mazzeo and Melrose [@MazzeoMelrose87; @Mazzeo88; @Mazzeo91; @Melrose95]. Some recent applications (in the context of scattering theory) to asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds are [@Borthwick97; @JoshiSaBarreto00; @GrahamZworski01; @SaBarreto03]. Part of the idea is to treat operators that vanish on the boundary, e.g. the laplacian, by introducing a so–called “stretched product” which is a blow up of the diagonal in ${{\mathcal M}}\times{{\mathcal M}}$ (the space that Green’s functions naturally inhabit) at the boundary ${\partial}{{\mathcal M}}\times{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}$. We expect that working within this formalism will resolve, or at least clarify, the various problematic issues we cited. Regrettably, we have nothing more to say on these matters here.
Inverse boundary value problems {#InverseProblems}
-------------------------------
Dirichlet–to–Neumann and Dirichlet–to–Robin maps are extensively used in the discussion of inverse boundary value problems, a field that has its roots in a very influential paper of Calderón [@Calderon80] and, as mentioned, concerns obtaining information about the interior of some domain from suitable measurements made at its boundary. In particular, one could ask the question: Assuming knowledge of voltages and current fluxes at the boundary of an object, can we infer the (generically anisotropic) conductivity of the bulk? Although the main motivation for these problems (which come under the name of “Electrical impedance tomography”) arose in geophysics (understanding properties of the earth’s interior by measuring at the surface), and also in medical physics (non–invasively determining the density function of e.g. a human head by measuring the response to an applied current on the skin), they can be precisely mapped to questions on riemannian manifolds that are interesting in their own right. For more information and references, we suggest the reviews [@Uhlmann92; @Uhlmann99] and the book [@Katchalovetal01]. One of the main results in this field [@LeeUhlmann89] is that in $d\geq 3$, and for $({{\mathcal M}}, g)$ a compact, strongly convex, real–analytic riemannian manifold with boundary, the Dirichlet–to–Neumann operator uniquely determines the metric in the bulk, in the sense that if there is another metric $g'$ such that $\Lambda_g=\Lambda_{g'}$, these two metrics are diffeomorphic, with the diffeomorphism equal to the identity on the boundary[^24].
It goes without saying that inverse problems of this kind become especially relevant when embedded in a holographic context, since they are related to the question (e.g. [@HenningsonSkenderis98; @Balasubramanianetal98]) of how information about the bulk is encoded in the boundary theory, and how to extract it (“decode the hologram”) from boundary data (like correlation functions). The recent article [@PorratiRabadan04] surveys many of the known results and to what extent they apply to manifolds that might be interesting from an AdS/CFT point of view. We direct the reader to that article for discussion and references.
A related field that seems to be a natural setting for discussing holography is that of geometric scattering theory (see e.g. [@Melrose95] for a survey). In geometric scattering (and the subfield of inverse scattering) the main object of study is the scattering matrix ${{\mathcal S}}({{{\lambda}}})$. In the context of scattering on hyperbolic (e.g. [@Perry89]) and asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds (see e.g. [@Borthwick97; @JoshiSaBarreto00; @GrahamZworski01; @SaBarreto03]), on which we recall that the solution of $\Delta-{\lambda}(d-{\lambda})$ is given by $$u\sim f(y,\vec{x}) y^{d-{{{\lambda}}}}+h(y,\vec{x})y^{{{\lambda}}}$$ the scattering matrix is defined as the operator taking $f$ to $h$. It thus clearly generalises the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator, being a pseudodifferential operator of order $\mathrm{Re}({{{\lambda}}})-d/2$. Note that usually one discusses scattering in the “physical scattering” region, where $\mathrm{Re}({{{\lambda}}})=d/2$ but ${{{\lambda}}}$ has an imaginary part (in other words, in the region $m^2<-d^2/4$, where the continuous spectrum of the laplacian lies), but it can be analytically continued to a large part of the complex ${{{\lambda}}}$–plane, and thus describe “boundary value” type problems. As noted at the end of the previous section, in the context of geometric scattering there is a well–developed formalism for dealing with differential operators and Green’s functions on asymptotically hyperbolic metrics.
Returning to holography, the interpretation of the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator (and, more generally, the scattering matrix) in this context (but from a direct, rather than inverse, viewpoint) is easy to understand: In the dual gauge theory, taking Dirichlet data to Neumann/Robin data has the effect of going from sources to vacuum expectation values. So the action of the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator corresponds to “taking the path integral” in the gauge theory. Although perhaps there is no real content in the above statement, it is fair to say that there exist several unexplored connections between the mathematical field of scattering theory and the AdS/CFT correspondence (and its generalisations to more general manifolds). However in this article we have in mind a very different application of the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator, which we finally start discussing in the next subsection.
The Dirichlet–to–Robin operator as a conformally invariant operator {#Nonlocal}
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The discussion of the Dirichlet–to–Neumann operator in section \[Definition\] can be embedded in the framework of conformal geometry (which was the topic of section \[Conformal\]), based on the following observation (e.g. [@Branson97]): Let $({{\mathcal M}},g)$ be a riemannian manifold, and consider boundary value problems for the conformal laplacian $Y$ (defined in (\[Yamabe\]) above). Let us take the dimension of the manifold to be $n$ in this section. It is often convenient to define a boundary value problem as a pair $({{\mathcal D}},{\mathcal{B}})$, where ${{\mathcal D}}$ is the bulk operator under study, and ${\mathcal{B}}$ is the operator imposing the boundary condition. The boundary value problem is conformally covariant if both ${{\mathcal D}}$ and ${\mathcal{B}}$ transform covariantly under conformal change, and also if the initial weights of both operators match. For the conformal laplacian, there are two well–known possibilities for ${\mathcal{B}}$ that respect conformal covariance [@Branson97]: The Dirichlet operator $${\mathcal{B}}_D:\quad u\mapsto u|_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}}$$ and the conformal Neumann, or Robin, operator[^25] $${\mathcal{B}}_R:\quad u\mapsto \left(N-\frac{n-2}{2(n-1)}{\mathcal{K}}\right)u\;|_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}}\;.$$ The conformal biweights of these two operators are $(a,a)$, where $a$ is arbitrary (restriction to the boundary does not affect the conformal weight of a density), and $(\frac{n-2}{2},\frac{n}{2})$ respectively. Since the conformal laplacian has biweight $(\frac{n-2}{2},\frac{n+2}{2})$, both $(Y,{\mathcal{B}}_D)$ (choosing $a=\frac{n-2}{2}$) and $(Y,{\mathcal{B}}_R)$ are conformally covariant.
If the Dirichlet and Robin problems for $Y$ are conformally covariant, it follows that the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator that takes Dirichlet data to Robin data should also be covariant. Following Branson [@Branson97], we can show this explicitly by starting with Dirichlet data, given by a smooth function $f$ in ${\partial}{{\mathcal M}}$, such that its extension to the bulk ${\mathcal{B}}_D^{-1}f$ is smooth and satisfies $Y{\mathcal{B}}_D^{-1}f=0$. (${\mathcal{B}}_D^{-1}$ can be thought of as the operator taking $f$ to its double layer potential, and is clearly unique.) Since the expression $Y{\mathcal{B}}_D^{-1}f=0$ is conformally invariant, the covariance of $Y$ implies that ${\mathcal{B}}_D^{-1}f{\rightarrow}\Omega^{-(n-2)/2}{\mathcal{B}}_D^{-1}f$ under conformal change, and thus $$\hat{{\mathcal{B}}}_D^{-1}(\Omega^{-\frac{n-2}{2}}f)=\Omega^{-\frac{n-2}{2}}({\mathcal{B}}_D^{-1}f)$$ which means ${\mathcal{B}}_D^{-1}$ has biweight $(\frac{n-2}{2},\frac{n-2}{2})$, which is exactly what is needed for the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator ${\mathcal{B}}={\mathcal{B}}_R\cdot {\mathcal{B}}_D^{-1}$ to be conformally invariant. It also follows that ${\mathcal{B}}$ is an operator of conformal biweight $(\frac{n-2}{2},\frac{n}{2})$. So it acts invariantly between the bundles ${\mathcal{E}}_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}}(1-n/2)$ and ${\mathcal{E}}_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}}(-n/2)$, reducing the conformal weight by one, as should be the case for a first order operator.
Implications for holography {#Implications}
---------------------------
Let us now return to the problem of checking our proposal (\[correlator\]) for the boundary two–point function on the Berger sphere. We saw that the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator defined as above on a boundary manifold of dimension $d=n-1$ acts naturally and in a conformally invariant way on boundary densities of conformal weight $1-n/2$. Restricting to $n=4$, we see that it acts on densities of conformal weight $-1$ on the three–dimensional boundary.
The next crucial bit of information we will need is the fact that, on the boundary, the Green’s function of ${\mathcal{B}}$ is nothing but the (restriction to the boundary of the) Robin Green’s function. We will show this by following, step–by–step, a very simple argument in [@BarvinskyNesterov03], adapting the notation in that article to suit our needs. Let us start by thinking of the solutions of the Dirichlet and Robin problems (for an arbitrary smooth manifold ${{\mathcal M}}$ with boundary ${\partial}{{\mathcal M}}$) in terms of single and double layer potentials. In this approach we assume known the corresponding Green’s functions $G_D(y,\vec{x},y',\vec{x}')$ and $G_R(y,\vec{x},y',\vec{x}')$ in the bulk[^26], which behave as (see the discussion in section 2, and [@Solodukhin99]) $$\label{Greensasympt}
G_D(y,\vec{x},y',\vec{x}'){\rightarrow}y^{{{\lambda}}}\;, G_R(y,\vec{x},y',\vec{x}'){\rightarrow}y^{d-{{{\lambda}}}}\;,[N+(d-{{{\lambda}}})]G_R(y,{{\vec{x}}},y',{{\vec{x}}}'){\rightarrow}O(y^{{{\lambda}}})\;,$$ where $N$ is the outward unit normal vector. As in section \[Propagators\], we write for a function $u(y,\vec{x})$, satisfying the laplacian in the bulk, the expression $$\label{usol}
u(y,\vec{x}){\rightarrow}f(\vec{x}) y^{d-{{{\lambda}}}} +h(\vec{x}) y^{{{\lambda}}}+\cdots$$ In writing these formulas we are mainly thinking of the cases ${{{\lambda}}}=1$ and ${{{\lambda}}}=2$, where the two independent solutions are found at contiguous powers of $y$. It is convenient to introduce the boundary operators $${\mathcal{B}}_D^{{{\lambda}}}: u(y,\vec{x})\mapsto \left[y^{{{{\lambda}}}-d} u(y,\vec{x})\right]_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}} \quad \text{and} \quad
{\mathcal{B}}_R^{{{\lambda}}}: u(y,\vec{x})\mapsto \left[y^{-{{{\lambda}}}} \left(N+(d-{{{\lambda}}})\right)u(y,\vec{x})\right]_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}}\;.$$ They are designed to either restrict to the boundary, or to restrict to the boundary after applying the Robin derivative, respectively. Note that we have included the correct scaling factors which will give a finite result acting on $u$ as in (\[usol\]), so ${\mathcal{B}}_D^{{{\lambda}}}\cdot u(y,\vec{x})=f(\vec{x})$ and likewise ${\mathcal{B}}_R^{{{\lambda}}}\cdot u(y,\vec{x})=(d-2{\lambda})h(\vec{x})$. Now let us restrict to $d=3,{{{\lambda}}}=2$, and thus write simply ${\mathcal{B}}_D$ and ${\mathcal{B}}_R$ from now on. In that case, as discussed in section \[Propagators\], the bulk Green’s function (\[Gone\]) corresponds to $G_R(y,{{\vec{x}}},y',{{\vec{x}}}')$.
As usual, the Robin problem (specifying $h(\vec{x})$ on the boundary) can be solved via a single–layer potential $$\label{singlelayer}
u(y,\vec{x})=-\int_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}'} ({\mathcal{B}}_D)_{y'}G_R(y,\vec{x},y',\vec{x}') h(\vec{x}') {\mathrm{d}}\Omega(x')$$ which clearly, given (\[Greensasympt\]), gives $({\mathcal{B}}_R)_y\cdot u(y,\vec{x})=-h(\vec{x})$. However, we can do something different: We can restrict $u(y,\vec{x})$, given by (\[singlelayer\]), to the boundary, and thus obtain the Dirichlet data $f(\vec{x})$ as $$\label{ffromg}
f(\vec{x})=-\int_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}'} ({\mathcal{B}}_D)_y({\mathcal{B}}_D)_{y'} G_R(y,\vec{x},y',\vec{x}') h(\vec{x}') {\mathrm{d}}\Omega(x')\;.$$ This is a boundary operator, relating $f(\vec{x})$ and $h(\vec{x})$. Note that the kernel in (\[ffromg\]) is simply the appropriately scaled restriction of (both points of) the Robin Green’s function to the boundary, which is precisely what we have been calling $M(x,x')$. On the other hand, we can definitely find $f(\vec{x})$ in the usual way from the Dirichlet function $G_D(y,\vec{x},y',\vec{x}')$, using a double layer potential: $$u(y,\vec{x})=-\int_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}'}({\mathcal{B}}_R)_{y'}\cdot G_D(y,\vec{x},y',\vec{x}')f(\vec{x}'){\mathrm{d}}\Omega(x')\;.$$ But taking the Robin derivative of *this* expression for $u(y,\vec{x})$ and restricting it to the boundary, we are assured (by the uniqueness of the Cauchy problem) to get back $h(\vec{x})$: $$\label{gfromf}
h(\vec{x})=-({\mathcal{B}}_R)_y\cdot u(y,\vec{x})=
\int_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}'}({\mathcal{B}}_R)_y({\mathcal{B}}_R)_{y'}\cdot G_D(y,\vec{x},y',\vec{x}') f(\vec{x}'){\mathrm{d}}\Omega(x')\;.$$ So we have found a function on the boundary giving $-h(\vec{x})$ from $f(\vec{x})$. Of course, by definition, this is nothing but the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator ${\mathcal{B}}$, so we can write $$-\int_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}'}({\mathcal{B}}_R)_y({\mathcal{B}}_R)_{y'} G_D(y,\vec{x},y',\vec{x}')
(\cdots){\mathrm{d}}\Omega(x')={\mathcal{B}}_x (\cdots)$$ as an operator[^27]. But now substituting (\[ffromg\]) in (\[gfromf\]) gives $$\begin{split}
h(\vec{x})&=-\int_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}''} \int_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}'} ({\mathcal{B}}_R)_y({\mathcal{B}}_R)_{y'}G_D(y,\vec{x},y',\vec{x}')\cdot
({\mathcal{B}}_D)_{y'}({\mathcal{B}}_D)_{y''}G_R(y',\vec{x}',y'',\vec{x}'') h(\vec{x}''){\mathrm{d}}\Omega(x'){\mathrm{d}}\Omega(x'')\\
&=-\int_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}''} \left\{\int_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}'}\left[({\mathcal{B}}_R)_y({\mathcal{B}}_R)_{y'}G_D(y,\vec{x},y',\vec{x}')\right]
M(\vec{x}',\vec{x}''){\mathrm{d}}\Omega(x')\right\}h(\vec{x}''){\mathrm{d}}\Omega(x'')\\
&=\int_{{\partial}{{\mathcal M}}''} {\mathcal{B}}_{x}M(\vec{x},\vec{x}'')h(\vec{x}''){\mathrm{d}}\Omega(x'')
\end{split}$$ in other words, $$\label{BMproof}
{\mathcal{B}}_{x}M({{\vec{x}}},{{\vec{x}}}') =\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\delta^{(d)}({{\vec{x}}},{{\vec{x}}}')\;.$$ This rather general argument shows that the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator is the inverse to the *restriction* of the Robin Green’s function to the boundary. This is the main result that, combined with the conformal covariance of the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator, will be used to check whether $M(x,x')$ has the form that is required by conformal invariance on the Berger sphere.
Let us also point out that in the hyperbolic case ${\mathcal{B}}$ can be thought of in a group–theoretical way, as an intertwining operator acting between representations of the conformal group ${\mathrm{SO}}(d+1,1)$ [@Branson87; @Branson97]. In fact this aspect is treated in the AdS/CFT context by Dobrev [@Dobrev99], where it is shown that the operator interpolating between $f$ and $h$ (called $\phi_0$ and ${\mathcal{O}}$ there) is the boundary correlator $G^b_{{{{\lambda}}}}(x-x')\sim 1/(x-x')^{2{{{\lambda}}}}$: $$\label{hfromf}
h(x)\sim\int G^b_{{{\lambda}}}(x,x')f(x') {\mathrm{d}}^d x'\;.$$ Let us actually check this using the definition of the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator, in upper–half–space coordinates, where the boundary is ${\mathrm{I}\kern-.18em\mathrm{R}}^d$: In this case, as we will show towards the end of section \[HHfactorisation\], the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator for hyperbolic space is simply $${\mathcal{B}}=\sqrt{\Delta_0}$$ where $\Delta_0$ denotes the positive boundary laplacian. We can now apply the definition of the square root of the laplacian, which, according to appendix \[Pseudodifferential\], can be given (in ${\mathrm{I}\kern-.18em\mathrm{R}}^d$) through the Fourier transform: $$(\sqrt{{\Delta_0}})_xf(x)=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^d}\int_{{\mathrm{I}\kern-.18em\mathrm{R}}^d} |\xi|\hat{f}(x)e^{ix\xi}{\mathrm{d}}^d\xi
=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^d}\int_{{\mathrm{I}\kern-.18em\mathrm{R}}^3}\left[\int_{{\mathrm{I}\kern-.18em\mathrm{R}}^d}|\xi|e^{i\xi(x-x')}{\mathrm{d}}^d\xi\right]f(x'){\mathrm{d}}^d x'\;.$$ Now we can use the formula [@Dobrev99] (see also [@Dobrevetal77], p. 67) $$\int\frac{e^{-i\xi x}}{x^{2{{{\lambda}}}}}{\mathrm{d}}^d x=\frac{(2\pi)^{\frac{d}{2}}\Gamma(\frac{d}{2}-{{{\lambda}}})}{2^{2{{{\lambda}}}-\frac{d}{2}}
\Gamma({{{\lambda}}})}|\xi|^{2{{{\lambda}}}-d}\;.$$ Inverting (by multiplying with $e^{-iy\xi}$ and integrating over ${\mathrm{d}}^d y$), and specialising to $d=3,{{{\lambda}}}=2$ we find $$\int|\xi|e^{i\xi (x-x')}{\mathrm{d}}^3\xi\sim \frac{1}{[(x-x')^2]^2}\;.$$ This is the same as the kernel $G_{{{\lambda}}}$ in (\[hfromf\]), so we have verified that the intertwining operator relating the two independent boundary values in the group–theoretical approach of [@Dobrev99] is simply the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator. Note that a very similar calculation can be found in [@ArefevaVolovich98].
After these remarks, let us now specialise to QTN and conformal coupling. We now know that the (pseudo)differential operator, whose Green’s function is our correlation function $M(x,x')$ (\[correlator\]), is the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator ${\mathcal{B}}$. Given the discussion above on the conformal invariance of ${\mathcal{B}}$, we see that if we can verify (\[BMproof\]) for $M(x,x')$, we can immediately conclude that it is a two–point function of a boundary operator of conformal dimension $1$. In this case, this is simply a nice (and, we believe, necessary) check of our results, since $M(x,x')$ *should* satisfy (\[BMproof\]) by construction. However perhaps cases will arise where one is given a boundary correlation function without knowing its origins as a restriction of a bulk Green’s function, and then (\[BMproof\]) could provide a way of checking whether it corresponds to a ${{{\lambda}}}=1$ operator.
Having discussed the background ideas we need, we will now move on to the calculations.
The Round Sphere {#Roundsphere}
================
Before applying the methods we discussed previously to the Berger sphere, we believe it is instructive to do so for the simplest possible case, namely the round three–sphere, which has ${{\mathrm{I}\kern-.18em\mathrm{H}}\mathrm{H}^1}$ as infilling manifold. This case, which of course corresponds to the standard AdS/CFT situation on ${\mathrm{AdS}}_4$, has many simplifying features which allow us to demonstrate the main idea of the calculation without going into details.
Factorisation of the hyperbolic laplacian {#HHfactorisation}
-----------------------------------------
So let us start by applying the ideas of section \[DirichlettoNeumann\], which boil down to trying to find a suitable factorisation of the hyperbolic space laplacian. We begin by recalling the polar–type metric on global ${{\mathrm{I}\kern-.18em\mathrm{H}}\mathrm{H}^1}$: $${\mathrm{d}}s^2=\frac{4}{(1-k^2r^2)^2}\left({\mathrm{d}}r^2+r^2({\sigma_1}^2+{\sigma_2}^2+{\sigma_3}^2)\right)\;.$$ The conformal Laplace–Beltrami operator is $$\label{HHlap}
\nabla^2+2k^2=\frac{(1-k^2r^2)^2}{4}\left[{\partial}_{rr}+\frac{3+k^2r^2}{r}{\partial}_{r}
+\frac{4}{r^2}(-\Delta_0)\right]+2k^2\;.$$ Here $\Delta_0$ denotes the positive laplacian on the boundary three–sphere (see also appendix \[BergerSphere\]) , $$-\Delta_0=\nabla^2_{S^3}={\partial}_{\theta\theta}+\cot\theta{\partial}_{\theta}+\csc^2\theta({\partial}_{\varphi\varphi}
-2\cos\theta{\partial}_{\varphi\psi}+{\partial}_{\psi\psi})\;.$$ The right–hand–side of (\[HHlap\]) can be easily factorised to give $$\label{hyperbolicfactorisation}
\nabla^2+2k^2=\left(N^r{\partial}_r-\frac{2}{3}{\mathcal{K}}+{\mathcal{A}}\right)\left(N^r{\partial}_r-\frac{1}{3}{\mathcal{K}}-{\mathcal{A}}\right)$$ where $N^r=(1-k^2r^2)/2$ is the $r$–component of the contravariant unit normal vector $n^\mu=(N^r,0,0,0)$ to a surface defined by $r=r_0$ (where $r_0$ is some constant), ${\mathcal{K}}$ is the trace of the extrinsic curvature, $${\mathcal{K}}=-\nabla_r N^r=-\frac{3(1+k^2r^2)}{2r}\;,$$ and the pseudodifferential first order operator ${\mathcal{A}}$ is given by[^28] $$\label{AcalAdS}
{\mathcal{A}}=\frac{1-k^2r^2}{r}\sqrt{\Delta_0+1/4}\;.$$ This can be easily checked by expanding out the right-hand side of (\[hyperbolicfactorisation\]) and equating with the left–hand side. Notice that the linear in ${\mathcal{A}}$ terms on the right–hand side $$-N^r{\partial}_r{\mathcal{A}}+\frac{1}{3}{\mathcal{K}}{\mathcal{A}}=\left(-\frac{1-k^2r^2}{2}{\partial}_r\left(\frac{1-k^2r^2}{r}\right)-\frac{1-k^4r^4}{2r^2}\right)
\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}$$ cancel on their own. This means we could have taken ${\mathcal{A}}$ to have the opposite sign and it would still be a solution. So we have made a choice of sign here, which is dictated by requiring that ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a positive operator. This can be traced back to the choice of the positive square root for the outer normal vector in (\[positive\])[^29]. Now following the arguments in section \[DirichlettoNeumann\], we conclude that the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator at the inner boundary ($r=r_0<1/k$) is $$\left[N^r{\partial}_r-\frac{1}{3}{\mathcal{K}}\right]|_{r=r_0}={\mathcal{A}}|_{r=r_0}\;.$$ The last step is to rescale ${\mathcal{A}}$ to obtain an operator on the boundary at infinity. The most obvious way is to simply scale to the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator ${\mathcal{B}}$ on this conformal boundary as: $$\label{BAdS}
{\mathcal{B}}=\lim_{r{\rightarrow}1/k} \frac{1}{1-k^2r^2}{\mathcal{A}}=k\sqrt{\Delta_0+1/4}\;.$$ So here we use the same defining function we used to define the boundary laplacian (see appendix \[BergerSphere\]). This operator is the same as the one appearing (as an example of a conformally invariant operator) in Branson’s work [@Branson87; @BransonGover01] (where the bulk manifold of study is not hyperbolic space but ${\mathrm{I}\kern-.18em\mathrm{R}}\times {{\mathrm S}}^{d}$).[^30]
Although it is not needed in the following, it is instructive to also derive the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator for ${\mathrm{AdS}}_4$ in the Poincaré or upper–half–space parametrisation. Here the laplacian is simply (see e.g. [@DHokerFreedman02]) $$\nabla^2_P=y^2{\partial}_{yy}-2y{\partial}_y-y^2\Delta_{B}$$ where here $\Delta_{B}=-\sum_{i=1}^{3}{\partial}_{ii}$ is simply the positive laplacian on ${\mathrm{I}\kern-.18em\mathrm{R}}^3$, the boundary of ${\mathrm{AdS}}_4$ in upper–half space coordinates. Now the conformally coupled laplacian can be easily factorised as (we set $k=1$ here) $$\nabla^2_P+2=\left(-y{\partial}_y+2+y\sqrt{\Delta_{B}}\right)\left(-y{\partial}_y+1-y\sqrt{\Delta_{B}}\right)\;.$$ Note that the outward unit normal vector is $-y{\partial}_y$, and ${\mathcal{K}}=-3$. Taking the limit $y{\rightarrow}0$ we find $$\label{BPoincare}
{\mathcal{B}}_P=\sqrt{\Delta_B}\;.$$ Note the absence of the $1/4$ factor, which is a good illustration of the fact that only the *principal* symbol of a pseudodifferential operator needs to be coordinate–invariant. Lower order terms *do* depend on the coordinate system used. The form (\[BPoincare\]) of the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator was used in section \[Implications\] in comparing with the results of [@Dobrev99].
Eigenfunction expansion of the correlation function {#Roundexpansion}
---------------------------------------------------
Now we need to act with ${\mathcal{B}}$ on the two-point function $$\label{MHH}
M^0(x,x')=C\cdot\frac{1}{1-{\mathrm{v}_1}}$$ where $C$ is some normalisation constant. Hopefully we will obtain a delta function, demonstrating that, as claimed in the introduction, $M^0(x,x')$ is the Green’s function of ${\mathcal{B}}$. The problem of course is that ${\mathcal{B}}$ is a pseudodifferential operator and it is not immediately clear (to this author!) how to act with it on a function on ${{\mathrm S}}^3$. We find it most convenient to expand $M^0(x,x')$ in eigenfunctions[^31], on which (as discussed at the end of appendix \[Pseudodifferential\]) it is trivial to act with ${\mathcal{B}}$ since we can easily find its eigenvalues.
So first we need to expand (\[MHH\]) in eigenfunctions on the round sphere. Since the round sphere is the symmetric space ${\mathrm{SO}}(4)/{\mathrm{SO}}(3)$, there are various ways to do this. For instance we could use directly the results of Drummond [@Drummond75], who gives a formula for the expansion of arbitrary powers of $|x-x'|$ in terms of spherical harmonics[^32]. However, this expansion depends on the bi–invariance of the metric, so keeping in mind the equivalent calculation for the Berger sphere (where we have only left–invariance) that awaits us, we will choose a different route.
To begin, we need to retrace our steps a little bit. In section \[Roundlimit\], we found $M^0(x,x')$ as the limit of $M(x,x')$ as $\mu=0$. We could instead have taken the limits differently, that is *first* take $\mu=0$ in $K^{(\mu,k)}(r,x,x')$, and *then* obtain $M^0(x,x')$ as the restriction to the boundary. In that case, we write $$M^0(x,x')=\lim_{r{\rightarrow}1/k} C'\cdot\frac{1}{(1-k^2r^2)} K^{(0,k)}(r,x,x')
=C'\cdot\lim_{r{\rightarrow}1/k} \frac{1}{1+k^2r^2-2kr {\mathrm{v}_1}}$$ where $C'=2C$. Now, for reasons soon to become clear, let us decide *not* to take the limit $r{\rightarrow}1/k$ until later in the calculation. Then, the expansion we are looking for is: $$M^0(x,x')=C'\cdot\sum_{lmn}\alpha_{lmn}{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)\overline{\mathrm{Y}}^{l}_{\;mn}(x')\;,$$ where $l$ takes all integer and half–integer values from $0$ to $\infty$, while $m,n$ range from $-l,-l+1,\ldots l$. As discussed in appendix \[BergerSphere\], ${\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)$ (appropriately normalised) equals $\sqrt{2l+1}e^{-im\varphi}e^{-in\psi}{P^l_{mn}}(\cos\theta)$. To simplify matters, we can choose particular values for the coordinates of the point $x'$, and reinstate them at the end. We will use $\theta'=\varphi'=\psi'=0$, which gives $\overline{\mathrm{Y}}^{l}_{mn}(0)=\sqrt{2l+1}$. Also, ${\mathrm{v}_1}$ in (\[vone\]) simplifies to ${\mathrm{v}_1}=\cos(\theta/2)\cos((\varphi+\psi)/2)$. Now we are looking at the expansion $$M^0(x,0)=C'\cdot\sum_{lmn}\sqrt{2l+1}\alpha_{lmn}{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)=
C'\cdot\sum_{lmn}(2l+1)\alpha_{lmn}e^{-im\varphi}e^{-in\psi}{P^l_{mn}}(\cos\theta)$$ where the coefficients $\alpha_{lmn}$ are given by (see e.g. [@Vilenkin; @Varshalovichetal]) $$\alpha_{lmn}=\lim_{r{\rightarrow}1/k}\int_0^{\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\int_0^{4\pi} \frac{b}{1+k^2r^2-2kr\cos{\frac{1}{2}}\theta\cos{\frac{1}{2}}(\varphi+\psi)}
e^{im\varphi}e^{in\psi}{P^l_{mn}}(\cos\theta)
{\mathrm{d}}\psi{\mathrm{d}}\varphi\sin\theta{\mathrm{d}}\theta\;.$$ Here $b=(-1)^{m-n}/(16\pi^2)$. First we do the $\psi$ integration, by converting to a contour integral, and end up with: $$\alpha_{lmn}=4\pi b\lim_{r{\rightarrow}1/k} \int_{0}^{\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\Delta}}
\left(\frac{1+k^2r^2-\sqrt{\Delta}}{2kr\cos{\frac{1}{2}}\theta}\right)^{2n}e^{i(m-n)\varphi}{P^l_{mn}}(\cos\theta){\mathrm{d}}\varphi
\sin\theta{\mathrm{d}}\theta$$ with $\Delta$ given by (\[Delta\]) with $\mu=0,\theta'=0,\varphi'=0$, i.e. $\Delta=1+k^4r^4-2k^2r^2\cos\theta$. Performing the (trivial) $\varphi$ integration, we get: $$\label{integralround}
\alpha_{lmn}=8\pi^2b\lim_{r{\rightarrow}1/k} \int_0^\pi \frac{1}{\sqrt{\Delta}}
\left(\frac{1+k^2r^2-\sqrt{\Delta}}{2kr\cos{\frac{1}{2}}\theta}\right)^{2n}
P^{l}_{\;nn}(\cos\theta)\delta_{mn}\sin\theta{\mathrm{d}}\theta$$ This is a relatively nontrivial integral, and we can now see the value of not taking the limit $r{\rightarrow}1/k$ previously. Defining $h=k^2r^2$, we see that the integrand is $$\label{integrandround}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+h^2-2h\cos\theta}}
\left(\frac{1+h-\sqrt{1+h^2-2h\cos\theta}}{2\sqrt{h}\cos{\frac{1}{2}}\theta}\right)^{2n}\;.$$ A look at, for example, [@Vilenkin] or [@Varshalovichetal] reveals the close similarity of (\[integrandround\]) to the generating function of the ${P^l_{mn}}(\cos\theta)$, which we reproduce here for $h<1$: $$\label{Plmngenerating}
\frac{t^{m-n}\left(it\sin(\theta/2)+\cos(\theta/2)\right)^{2n}}{\sqrt{1-2 h\cos\theta+h^2}}=
\sum_{l=n}^{\infty}\sqrt{\frac{(l-n)!(l+n)!}{(l-m)!(l+m)!}}{P^l_{mn}}(\cos\theta)h^{l-n}$$ with $$t=\frac{1-h\cos\theta+\sqrt{1-2h\cos\theta+h^2}}{ih\sin\theta}\;.$$ Note that this holds for $m,n$ (and thus $l$) half–integer as well as integer. Setting $m=n$ in (\[Plmngenerating\]) we can easily conclude that our integrand (\[integrandround\]) can be expanded in $h$ as $$\label{expansionround}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\Delta}}\left(\frac{1+h-\sqrt{\Delta}}{2\sqrt{h}\cos{\frac{1}{2}}\theta}\right)^{2n}
=h^n\frac{1}{\sqrt{\Delta}}\left(\frac{1+h-\sqrt{\Delta}}{2h\cos{\frac{1}{2}}\theta}\right)^{2n}
=\sum_{s=n}^{\infty} P^{s}_{\;nn}(\cos\theta)h^s\;.$$ Substituting in the integral (\[integralround\]), we have $$\alpha_{lmn}=8\pi^2b\lim_{h{\rightarrow}1}\sum_{s=n}^{\infty}\delta_{mn}h^s\int_0^\pi
P^{s}_{\;nn}(\cos\theta)P^{l}_{\;nn}(\cos\theta)\;.
\sin\theta{\mathrm{d}}\theta$$ Using the well–known orthonormality property of the ${P^l_{mn}}(\cos\theta)$ (for any $m,n$, and thus also for $m=n$): $$\int_0^\pi P^{s}_{\;mn}(\cos\theta)P^{l}_{\;mn}(\cos\theta)\sin\theta{\mathrm{d}}\theta
=\int_{-1}^{1}P^{s}_{\;mn}(z)P^{l}_{\;mn}(z){\mathrm{d}}z=\frac{2}{2l+1}\delta_{sl}$$ (where $z=\cos\theta$) and summing over $s$, we conclude $$\alpha_{lmn}=16\pi^2b\lim_{h{\rightarrow}1}\delta_{mn}\frac{h^l}{2l+1}\;.$$ We are now free to take the limit $h{\rightarrow}1$ [^33] and obtain the final formula for the $\alpha_{lmn}$: $$\alpha_{lmn}=16\pi^2\frac{(-1)^{m-n}}{16\pi^2}\frac{\delta_{mn}}{2l+1}=\frac{\delta_{mn}}{2l+1}$$ (where we substituted $b$). From this we obtain $$M^0(x,0)=C\cdot\frac{1}{1-{\mathrm{v}_1}}=C'\cdot\sum_{lmn} \delta_{mn} e^{-i(m\varphi+n\psi)}{P^l_{mn}}(\cos\theta)\;.$$ Reinstating $\theta',\varphi',\psi'$ using (an adaptation of) the composition theorem for the ${P^l_{mn}}(\cos\theta)$ (see e.g. [@Vilenkin], III.4)[^34] $$e^{in(\varphi+\psi)}P^l_{nn}(\cos\theta){\rightarrow}\sum_{k=-l}^{l}e^{-in(\psi-\psi')}e^{-ik(\varphi-\varphi')}P^{l}_{nk}(\cos\theta)P^{l}_{nk}(\cos\theta')$$ and reverting to the normalised eigenfunctions ${\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)$, we finally conclude that $$M^0(x,x')=C\cdot \sum_{lmn} \frac{2}{2l+1} {\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)\overline{\mathrm{Y}}^l_{\;mn}(x')\;.$$ It is worth stressing once more that the calculation we just went through is *not* the recommended way of expanding a function into harmonics on the round sphere! We could have arrived at this simple result with less effort. However the Berger sphere calculation to follow (in section \[Bergerexpansion\]) will be modelled, step–by–step, on the previous calculation, which will thus serve as a guide.
Checking the correlation function
---------------------------------
Now recall that, on the round sphere, the eigenfunctions ${\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)$ satisfy (see appendix \[BergerSphere\]) $$\Delta_0 {\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)=l(l+1) {\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)\;.$$ We then find that the ${\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)$ are eigenfunctions of the operator $\Delta_0+1/4$ with eigenvalues $(2l+1)^2/4$ $$(\Delta_0+1/4){\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)={\mathcal{B}}^2{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)=\frac{1}{4}(2l+1)^2 {\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)$$ and thus they are also eigenfunctions of ${\mathcal{B}}=\sqrt{\Delta_0+1/4}$ [^35] with eigenvalues $(2l+1)/2$. $${\mathcal{B}}_x{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)=\frac{(2l+1)}{2}{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)\;.$$ We are finally ready to act with ${\mathcal{B}}$ on $M^0(x,x')$ (ignoring the unknown normalisation constant): $$\begin{split}
{\mathcal{B}}_x M^0(x,x')=& {\mathcal{B}}_x \left(\sum_{lmn} \frac{2}{2l+1}{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)\overline{\mathrm{Y}}^l_{mn}(x')\right)
=\sum_{lmn} \frac{2}{2l+1}({\mathcal{B}}_x {\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x))\overline{\mathrm{Y}}^{l}_{mn}(x')\\
=&\sum_{lmn}{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)\overline{\mathrm{Y}}^l_{mn}(x')=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\delta^{(3)}(x,x') \;.
\end{split}$$ We just rederived the well–known result that the Green’s function $M^0(x,x')$ on the boundary of hyperbolic space corresponds to a boundary operator ${\mathcal{O}}$ of conformal dimension ${{{\lambda}}}_{\mathcal{O}}=1$. Of course there are easier ways to see this (two of them have been demonstrated in section \[Roundlimit\]) but we believe it was worthwhile to go through all the steps before tackling the case of QTN in the next section.
The Berger Sphere {#Bergersphere}
=================
In the previous section we demonstrated that the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator is indeed the pseudodifferential operator whose Green’s function is our two–point function $M^0(x,x')$ in the case of round ${{\mathrm S}}^3$. Now we turn to the Berger sphere, and try to follow the calculations in section \[Roundsphere\] as closely as possible. Of course things get rather complicated, but remarkably we can obtain exact answers that generalise those for hyperbolic space and the round sphere.
Factorisation of the QTN laplacian {#QTNfactorisation}
----------------------------------
In this section we find the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator for the boundary of QTN. We will follow the same procedure as in the previous section, i.e. we will look for a factorisation of the bulk conformally coupled laplacian of the form: $$\label{QTNansatz}
\nabla^2+2k^2=\left(N^r{\partial}_r-\frac{2}{3}{\mathcal{K}}+{\mathcal{A}}\right)\left(N^r{\partial}_r-\frac{1}{3}{\mathcal{K}}-{\mathcal{A}}\right)\;.$$ Here the outward unit normal vector $N=N^r{\partial}_r$ and the extrinsic curvature trace ${\mathcal{K}}=-\nabla_rN^r$ at some radial distance $r$ are given by $$N^r=\frac{(1-k^2r^2)}{2}\sqrt{\frac{1-\mu^2k^2r^4}{1-\mu^2r^2}}$$ and $${\mathcal{K}}=-\sqrt{\frac{1-\mu^2r^2}{1-\mu^2k^2r^4}}\frac{(3-4\mu^2r^2+3k^2r^2-7\mu^2k^2r^4-\mu^2k^4r^6+6\mu^4k^2r^6)}{2r(1-\mu^2r^2)^2}\;.$$ As in section \[HHfactorisation\], the goal is to determine the nonlocal operator ${\mathcal{A}}$. We proceed by expanding out the various terms: $$\label{QTNexpansion}
\nabla^2+2k^2=(N^r)^2{\partial}_{rr}+(N^r{\partial}_rN^r-{\mathcal{K}}N^r){\partial}_r+(2/9{\mathcal{K}}^2-1/3 N^r{\partial}_r {\mathcal{K}})
-(N^r{\partial}_r{\mathcal{A}}-1/3{\mathcal{K}}{\mathcal{A}})-{\mathcal{A}}^2\;.$$ Comparing with (\[Pedlaplacian\]) one sees immediately that the first two terms on the right–hand side match the corresponding ones in $\nabla^2+2k^2$, i.e. $$(N^r)^2{\partial}_{rr}=\frac{(1-k^2r^2)^2(1-\mu^2k^2r^4)}{4(1-\mu^2r^2)}{\partial}_{rr}\;,$$ and $$(N^r{\partial}_rN^r-{\mathcal{K}}N^r){\partial}_r=\frac{(1-k^2r^2)(3+k^2r^2-7\mu^2k^2r^4+3\mu^2k^4r^6)}{4r(1-\mu^2r^2)}{\partial}_r\;.$$ The remaining terms on the left hand side of (\[QTNexpansion\]) are $$-\frac{(1-k^2r^2)^2}{(1-\mu^2r^2)r^2}\left[{\Delta_0}-\frac{\mu^2r^2(2-\mu^2r^2-k^2r^2)}{(1-\mu^2k^2r^4)}{\Delta_1}\right]+2k^2$$ where the *positive* operators ${\Delta_0}$ and ${\Delta_1}$ are defined in appendix \[BergerSphere\]. Requiring that the left–hand side of (\[QTNexpansion\]) equals the right–hand side leads us to the following Ricatti–type equation for ${\mathcal{A}}$: $$\label{Ricattione}
N^r{\partial}_r{\mathcal{A}}=-{\mathcal{A}}^2+\frac{1}{3}{\mathcal{K}}{\mathcal{A}}+\frac{(1-k^2r^2)^2}{(1-\mu^2r^2)r^2}\left({\Delta_0}-\frac{\mu^2r^2(2-\mu^2r^2-k^2r^2)}{(1-\mu^2k^2r^4)}{\Delta_1}\right)+X(r)$$ where the zeroth–order part $X(r)$ is given by $$X(r)=2/9{\mathcal{K}}^2-1/3 N^r{\partial}_r {\mathcal{K}}-2k^2=-\frac{\mu^4r^2(1-k^2r^2)^4}{9(1-\mu^2r^2)^3(1-\mu^2k^2r^4)}
-\frac16{{\mathcal R}}_{r}\;,$$ ${{\mathcal R}}_r$ being the scalar curvature of the induced metric at the (inner) boundary, which is (see appendix \[BergerSphere\]) $${{\mathcal R}}_r=\frac{(1-k^2r^2)^2}{2r^2(1-\mu^2r^2)^3}(3-8\mu^2r^2+\mu^2k^2r^4+4\mu^4r^4)\;.$$ The nonlinear, first–order equation (\[Ricattione\]) can be solved for ${\mathcal{A}}$ in the usual manner, by transforming it into a *linear*, second–order equation. We will outline the main steps: First, we bring it to the standard Ricatti form: $${\partial}_r{\mathcal{A}}=a {\mathcal{A}}^2+b{\mathcal{A}}+c$$ with $$a=-\frac{2}{(1-k^2r^2)}\sqrt{\frac{1-\mu^2r^2}{1-\mu^2k^2r^4}}\;,$$ $$b=\frac{3+3k^2r^2-4\mu^2r^2-7\mu^2k^2r^4-\mu^2k^4r^6+6\mu^4k^2r^6}{3r(1-k^2r^2)(1-\mu^2r^2)(1-\mu^2k^2r^4)}$$ and $$\begin{split}
c=&-\frac{1}{a}\left[\frac{4{\Delta_0}}{r^2(1-\mu^2k^2r^4)}-\frac{4\mu^2(2-k^2r^2-\mu^2r^2){\Delta_1}}{(1-\mu^2k^2r^4)^2}
\right.\\
&\left.+\frac{9-24\mu^2r^2-6\mu^2k^2r^4+8\mu^4r^4+32\mu^4k^2r^6-7\mu^4k^4r^8-12\mu^6k^2r^8}
{9r^2(1-\mu^2r^2)^2(1-\mu^2k^2r^4)^2}\right]\;.
\end{split}$$ The next step is to choose ${\mathcal{A}}=-\frac{1}{a}\frac{{\partial}_rw(r)}{w(r)}$, which gives us the equation $$\label{secondorderw}
{\partial}_{rr}w(r)-\left(\frac{{\partial}_r a}{a}+b\right){\partial}_r w(r)+ac w(r)=0\;.$$ In order to solve this, we must make a convenient rescaling of $w(r)$, to reduce (\[secondorderw\]) to a known second–order equation. It turns out that a particularily nice equation results if we rescale $w(r)=f(r)v(r)$, where[^36] $$f(r)=(1-\mu^2r^2)^{\frac16}(1-\mu^2k^2r^4)^{\frac16-\frac{\mu}{2k}\sqrt{{\Delta_1}}}
\left(\frac{1-\mu k r^2}{1+\mu k r^2}\right)^{{\frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\Delta_1}}} r^{-1+\frac{2\mu}{k}\sqrt{{\Delta_1}}}\;.$$ The resulting equation for $v(r)$ is much simpler: $${\partial}_{rr}v(r)-\left[\frac{k+3\mu^2k^3r^4-4\mu(1-k^2r^2)\sqrt{{\Delta_1}}}{kr(1-\mu^2k^2r^4)}\right]{\partial}_r v(r)
-\frac{4(k^2{\Delta_0}+\mu k\sqrt{{\Delta_1}}-\mu^2{\Delta_1})}{k^2r^2(1-\mu^2k^2r^4)} v(r)=0\;.$$ The final step is to perform a change of variables: $r{\rightarrow}u=\frac{1+\mu k r^2}{2\mu k r^2}$ (where we temporarily assume $\mu$ is nonzero), after which we have (note that $u(1-u)=-(1-\mu^2k^2r^4)/(4\mu^2k^2r^4)$) $$\label{Fequation}
u(1-u){\partial}_{uu}v(u)+\left[1-(1+\frac{\mu}{k})\sqrt{{\Delta_1}}-2\left(1-\frac{\mu}{k}\sqrt{{\Delta_1}}\right)u\right]{\partial}_u v(u)
+\frac{k^2{\Delta_0}+k\mu\sqrt{{\Delta_1}}-\mu^2{\Delta_1}}{k^2} v(u)=0.$$ Here we have omitted an overall factor of $4/[(1-\mu^2k^2r^4)r^2]$. We can recognise (\[Fequation\]) as the hypergeometric equation $$\label{hypergeom}
\left(u(1-u){\partial}_{uu}+[\gamma-(1+\alpha+\beta)u]{\partial}_u-\alpha\beta\right)v(u)=0,$$ with $$\label{params}
\begin{split}
\alpha=&{\frac{1}{2}}-\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}-\frac{\mu}{k}\sqrt{{\Delta_1}} \\
\beta=&{\frac{1}{2}}+\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}-\frac{\mu}{k}\sqrt{{\Delta_1}} \\
\gamma=&1-\left(1+\frac{\mu}{k}\right)\sqrt{{\Delta_1}},
\end{split}$$ whose solution is generically given by (e.g. [@Lebedev]) $$\label{hypergeomsolution}
v(u)=c_1 F(\alpha,\beta;\gamma;u)+c_2 u^{1-\gamma}F(1-\gamma+\alpha,1-\gamma+\beta;2-\gamma;u)\;.$$ However, before we proceed to solve (\[Fequation\]), we have to backtrack a little and consider the range of validity of (\[hypergeomsolution\]): It is really valid when $|u|<1$, and that is clearly not always the case, as can be seen from the definition of $u$ above. So we will need to perform a fractional linear transformation to bring it into the required domain. We will distinguish two cases, the interior ($r<1/k$) and the exterior ($r>1/k$) of QTN, which will be dealt with separately.
#### The interior of QTN
Here $r<1/k$, and since also $\mu<k$ it is clear that $u=(1+\mu k r^2)/(2\mu k r^2)\geq1$, with equality for $r=1/k$ and only if $\mu=k$ also. So the relevant coordinate transformation [@Lebedev] is $u=1/x$. In terms of this $x=2\mu k r^2/(1+\mu k r^2)$, and after rescaling $v(x)=x^\alpha \tilde{v}(x)$, equation (\[Fequation\]) becomes $$\label{hyperinterior}
x(1-x){\partial}_{xx}\tilde{v}(x)+\left(1-\beta+\alpha+(\gamma-2-2\alpha)x\right){\partial}_x\tilde{v}(x)-\alpha(1+\alpha-\gamma)\tilde{v}(x)\;.$$ This new equation has $\alpha'=\alpha$, $\beta'=1+\alpha-\gamma$ and $\gamma'=1-\beta+\alpha$. There is a slight subtlety here: Recall that we should really be thinking of our operator as acting on eigenfunctions, in which case ${\Delta_0}$ is replaced by $l(l+1)$, and ${\Delta_1}$ by $n^2$. But then $\gamma'=1-(2l+1)=-2l$, i.e. it is a (negative) integer and the usual solution (\[hypergeomsolution\]) does not hold (i.e. does not lead to two independent solutions). Looking at, for instance, [@ErdelyiI] we can find the correct solution for this degenerate case: $$\tilde{v}(x)=c_1x^{1-\gamma'}F(\alpha'-\gamma'+1,\beta'-\gamma'+1;2-\gamma';x)+c_2F(\alpha',\beta';1+\alpha'+\beta'-\gamma';1-x)\;$$ Replacing $x$ with the original variable $r$, we thus have $$\tilde{v}(x)=c_1\left(\frac{2\mu k r^2}{1+\mu k r^2}\right)^{\beta-\alpha} \cdot F_1(r)+c_2 F_2(r)$$ (notice that here we use the original $\alpha$ and $\beta$ from (\[params\])), where $$F_1(r)=F\left({\frac{1}{2}}+\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}+\sqrt{{\Delta_1}},{\frac{1}{2}}+\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}-\frac{\mu}{k}\sqrt{{\Delta_1}};1+2\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4};
\frac{2\mu kr^2}{1+\mu k r^2}\right)$$ and $$F_2(r)=F\left({\frac{1}{2}}-\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}+\sqrt{\Delta1},{\frac{1}{2}}-\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}-\frac{\mu}{k}\sqrt{{\Delta_1}};1+(1-\frac{\mu}{k})
\sqrt{{\Delta_1}};
\frac{1-\mu k r^2}{1+\mu k r^2}\right)\;.$$ Putting everything together (not forgetting the extra factor of $x^{\alpha}$ from $v(x)=x^\alpha\tilde{v}(x)$), the solution for ${\mathcal{A}}^i$ is $$\label{Aintfirstsolution}
{\mathcal{A}}^i=\frac{(1-k^2r^2)}{2}\sqrt{\frac{1-\mu^2 k^2 r^4}{1-\mu^2 r^2}}\frac{{\partial}_r\left[f(r)\left(
\left(\frac{2\mu k r^2}{1+\mu k r^2}\right)^\beta F_1(r)+c\cdot\left(\frac{2\mu k r^2}{1+\mu k r^2}\right)^\alpha F_2(r)\right)\right]}{f(r)\left(
\left(\frac{2\mu k r^2}{1+\mu k r^2}\right)^\beta F_1(r)+c\cdot\left(\frac{2\mu k r^2}{1+\mu k r^2}\right)^\alpha F_2(r)\right)}$$ where the constant $c=c_1/c_2$. To fix this constant, we can check the behaviour for $r\ll 1/k, 1/\mu$, where the QTN metric resembles flat space: $${\mathrm{d}}s^2={\mathrm{d}}r^2+r^2({\sigma_1}^2+{\sigma_2}^2+{\sigma_3}^2)+O(r^2{\mathrm{d}}r^2,r^4)\;.$$ By factorising the corresponding laplacian we conclude that ${\mathcal{A}}{\rightarrow}1/r\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}$, for small $r$, where the important piece of information is the positive sign of ${\mathcal{A}}$. Looking at the two extreme values of $c$ in (\[Aintfirstsolution\]), we can check that $${\mathcal{A}}^i(c=0){\rightarrow}\frac{\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}}{r}, \quad {\mathcal{A}}^i(c=\infty){\rightarrow}-\frac{\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}}{r}\;.$$ Thus it is clear that taking $c=0$ gives the full answer. So we will take this as our solution for the interior of QTN. Explicitly, $$\label{Aint}
{\mathcal{A}}^i=\frac{(1-k^2r^2)}{2}\sqrt{\frac{1-\mu^2 k^2 r^4}{1-\mu^2 r^2}}{\partial}_r\ln\left[f(r)
\left(\frac{2\mu k r^2}{1+\mu k r^2}\right)^{{\frac{1}{2}}+\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}-\frac{\mu}{k}\sqrt{{\Delta_1}}}F_1(r)\right]\;.$$
#### The exterior of QTN
We turn to the case $r>1/k$. First note that in this case the factorisation equation (\[QTNansatz\]) should be modified slightly, since by convention we are defining ${\mathcal{A}}$ with respect to the outward pointing normal vector. If we are solving the exterior problem, the sign of the normal vector will change, and so will the sign of the extrinsic curvature of the boundary (seen as the sphere embedded in the 4–dimensional manifold that is the “whole” of QTN). So essentially we need to solve (\[QTNansatz\]) with the opposite sign in front of ${\mathcal{A}}$. This clearly changes nothing in the calculations, we can effectively simply flip the sign of ${\mathcal{A}}^e$ relative to ${\mathcal{A}}^i$.
On the other hand, we should check whether the solution of (\[Fequation\]) changes if $r>1/k$. This condition translates to $u>1/2$ and we should transform as $u=1/(1-y)$, so that $y=(u-1)/u \leq 1$. The limiting case $y=1$ occurs when $\mu=0$ (opposite to the interior problem). Substituting in (\[Fequation\]), and this time rescaling $v(y)=(1-y)^{\alpha} \tilde{v}(y)$, we end up with $$\label{hyperexterior}
y(1-y){\partial}_{yy}\tilde{v}(y)+\left(1+\beta+\alpha-\gamma-(2-\gamma+2\alpha)y\right){\partial}_y\tilde{v}(y)
-\alpha(1+\alpha-\gamma)\tilde{v}(y)=0\;.$$ This equation is also degenerate, in a similar way to (\[hyperinterior\]). In this case $\alpha''=\alpha$, $\beta''=1+\alpha-\gamma$, and $\gamma''=1+\beta+\alpha-\gamma$, so $\gamma''$ is not an integer, but $\beta''$ is a negative integer, being equal to ${\frac{1}{2}}-\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}+\sqrt{{\Delta_1}}=-l+n$ acting on eigenfunctions. (We take $n$ always less than $l$, see appendix \[BergerSphere\]). Noticing that also $\gamma''-\alpha''-\beta''$ is integer, we can find the two independent solutions by looking at [@ErdelyiI]. So we solve (\[hyperexterior\]) as $$\tilde{v}(y)= F_3(r)+
\left(\frac{1+\mu k r^2}{1-\mu k r^2}\right)^{(1-\frac{\mu}{k})\sqrt{{\Delta_1}}}
\left(\frac{2\mu k r^2}{1+\mu k r^2}\right)^{2\sqrt{\Delta_0+1/4}} \cdot F_4(r)\;.$$ Here $\alpha$ is as in (\[params\]), and the two hypergeometric functions are given by $$F_3(r)= F\left({\frac{1}{2}}-\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}+\sqrt{{\Delta_1}},{\frac{1}{2}}-\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}-\frac{\mu}{k}\sqrt{{\Delta_1}};1+(1-\frac{\mu}{k})
\sqrt{{\Delta_1}};
\frac{1-\mu k r^2}{1+\mu k r^2}\right)$$ and $$F_4(r)= F\left({\frac{1}{2}}+\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}-\sqrt{{\Delta_1}},{\frac{1}{2}}+\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}+\frac{\mu}{k}\sqrt{{\Delta_1}};1-(1-\frac{\mu}{k})
\sqrt{{\Delta_1}};
\frac{1-\mu k r^2}{1+\mu k r^2}\right)\;.$$ The important thing to note is that $F_3(r)$ is actually the same as the *second* solution $F_2(r)$ of the interior problem, which was discarded there. We can identify $F_3(r)$ as the correct one to take for the exterior problem by the following reasoning: The transition between $u>1$ and $u<1$ is at the line $r=1/(\mu k)$ which always lies outside the boundary (apart from the point $\mu=k$). So for $1/k<r<1/(\mu k)$ we could still use one of the solutions to the interior problem. Assuming that the only discontinuity where the solution could change is at the boundary $r=1/k$, clearly the solution for $1/k<r<1/(\mu k)$ should be the same as that for $r>1/(\mu k)$, and (since $F_1(r)$ presumably should not be used for $r>1/(\mu k)$) that leaves us with the solution which is common in both regions, that is $F_3(r)=F_2(r)$. Notice that this is actually a polynomial, which is in fact the reason it shows up in both cases. So we write for the solution in the exterior: $$\label{Aext}
{\mathcal{A}}^e=-\frac{(1-k^2r^2)}{2}\sqrt{\frac{1-\mu^2 k^2 r^4}{1-\mu^2 r^2}}{\partial}_r\ln\left[f(r)
\left(\frac{2\mu k r^2}{1+\mu k r^2}\right)^{{\frac{1}{2}}-\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}-\frac{\mu}{k}\sqrt{{\Delta_1}}}F_3(r)\right]\;.$$ Note the extra minus sign, which comes from the definition of the exterior problem.
As discussed in section \[Definition\], we can now find the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator on the boundary of QTN by taking the sum of the boundary limits of ${\mathcal{A}}^i$ and ${\mathcal{A}}^e$. $${\mathcal{B}}=\lim_{r{\rightarrow}1/k}{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{(1-k^2r^2)}\left[{\mathcal{A}}^i+{\mathcal{A}}^e\right]$$ where the limit is understood as coming from lower values for ${\mathcal{A}}^i$ and higher values for ${\mathcal{A}}^e$. This expression corresponds to the *difference* of the inner and outer normal derivatives at the boundary, and the reason we get a plus sign is of course that we decided to flip the sign of ${\mathcal{A}}^e$, so that it matches the outward normal vector of the exterior. We will give the final expression for ${\mathcal{B}}$ in section \[QTNcheck\], after we have discussed the eigenfunction expansion of $M(x,x')$. Now we turn to some interesting special cases.
#### Special Cases
One special case to consider is the situation where the operators ${\mathcal{A}}^i$ and ${\mathcal{A}}^e$ act on functions that have no $\psi$ dependence. Then we can effectively set $\sqrt{{\Delta_1}}=\sqrt{-{\partial}_{\psi\psi}}=0$ everywhere, and we obtain[^37] $${\mathcal{A}}^i_0=\frac{(1-k^2r^2)}{2}\sqrt{\frac{1-\mu^2 k^2 r^4}{1-\mu^2 r^2}}{\partial}_r \ln\left[f_0(r)
Q_{\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}-{\frac{1}{2}}}\left(\frac{1}{\mu k r^2}\right)\right]\;,$$ $${\mathcal{A}}^e_0=-\frac{(1-k^2r^2)}{2}\sqrt{\frac{1-\mu^2 k^2 r^4}{1-\mu^2 r^2}}{\partial}_r \ln\left[f_0(r)
P_{\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}-{\frac{1}{2}}}\left(\frac{1}{\mu k r^2}\right)\right]$$ where $f_0=(1-\mu^2 r^2)^{\frac{1}{6}}(1-\mu^2 k^2 r^4)^{\frac16}/r$. Of course we could also retrieve this result by working directly with the hypergeometric equation (\[Fequation\]) and demonstrating that it reduces to the Legendre equation when ${\Delta_1}$ is ignored.
Another special case arises when we consider the $\mu=0$ limit, which should make contact with the results in section \[HHfactorisation\]. Taking the limit $\mu{\rightarrow}0$ of (\[Aint\]) and (\[Aext\]) we find $${\mathcal{A}}_0^i={\mathcal{A}}_0^e=\frac{(1-k^2r^2)}{2r}\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}\;.$$ Thus we have a formula for ${\mathcal{A}}$ that holds everywhere, and precisely matches what we found for hyperbolic space (equation (\[AcalAdS\])). This shows why in that case we could get away with being naive and not paying attention to the difference between the interior and exterior problem. Note that the opposite sign of ${\mathcal{A}}^e$ was crucial in obtaining this result.
Eigenfunction expansion of the correlation function {#Bergerexpansion}
---------------------------------------------------
In the previous section we obtained an expression for the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator, with which we have to act on our Green’s function. Now we face the task of expanding the two–point function $M(x,x')$ in (\[correlator\]) into eigenfunctions on the squashed sphere. As discussed in appendix \[BergerSphere\], separation of variables works in exactly the same way as on the round sphere, which was the topic of section \[Roundexpansion\]. Let us then write formally: $$\label{Mexpansionformal}
M(x,x')=\sum_{lmn} \alpha_{lmn} {\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)\overline{\mathrm{Y}}^l_{mn}(x')$$ where ${\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)=\sqrt{2l+1}e^{-im\varphi}e^{-in\psi}{P^l_{mn}}(\cos\theta)$ for $x=\{\theta,\varphi,\psi\}$, and similarly for $\overline{\mathrm{Y}}^l_{mn}(x')$. Recall that the factor of $\sqrt{2l+1}$ is needed for the ${\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)$ to be orthonormal, and also that $l=0,{\frac{1}{2}},1,\ldots$, while $m$ and $n$ range from $-l,-l+1,\ldots l$. We can now proceed in exactly the same way as in section \[Roundexpansion\], by picking special values for the coordinates of the point $x'$, $\theta'=0,\varphi'=0,\psi'=0$, which can be restored at the end. Then $\overline{\mathrm{Y}}^l_{mn}(0)=\sqrt{2l+1}$. We can now expand $M(\theta,\varphi,\psi)$ in the ${\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(\theta,\varphi,\psi)$ as follows: $$\label{MexpansionBerger}
M(\theta,\varphi,\psi)=\sum_{lmn}\sqrt{2l+1}\alpha_{lmn}{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(\theta,\varphi,\psi)=
\sum_{lmn}(2l+1)\alpha_{lmn}e^{-im\varphi}e^{-in\psi}{P^l_{mn}}(\cos\theta)$$ where the coefficients $\alpha_{lmn}$ are given by[^38] $$\label{alphafirst}
\alpha_{lmn}=b\int_0^{\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\int_0^{4\pi} M(\theta,\varphi,\psi) e^{im\varphi}e^{in\psi}
{P^l_{mn}}(\cos\theta){\mathrm{d}}\psi{\mathrm{d}}\varphi\sin\theta{\mathrm{d}}\theta\;.$$ We thus need to calculate a triple integral to find the $\alpha_{lmn}$. As in section \[Roundexpansion\], it will prove convenient not to take the limit $r{\rightarrow}1/k$ until the very end of the calculation. That means that we will actually replace $M(x,x')$ in (\[Mexpansionformal\]) by $K(r,x,x')=K^{(\mu,k)}(r,x,x')$ from (\[bulktoboundary\]) and then evaluate it on the boundary at the end of the calculation. Let us first do the integration over $\psi$. Converting to a contour integral by defining $w=e^{i\psi/2}$, we find $$\lim_{r{\rightarrow}1/k}\int_0^{4\pi} K(r,\theta,\varphi,\psi) e^{in\psi} {\mathrm{d}}\psi=\lim_{r{\rightarrow}1/k}\frac{4\pi}{\sqrt{\Delta}}
\left(\frac{q_-}{2krc\cos(\theta/2)
e^{i\varphi/2}}\right)^{2n}$$ where we recall from section \[Propagators\] that $\Delta=(1-k^2r^2)^2-4k^2r^2({\mathrm{v}_2}-1)+4\mu^2k^2r^4{\mathrm{v}_2}({\mathrm{v}_2}-1)$, $q_-$ is given by $$q_{-}=(1+k^2r^2-\sqrt{{\Delta}}+2\mu k r^2{\mathrm{v}_2})
\left(1-\frac{\mu}{k}\sqrt{{\Delta}}-\mu^2r^2(2{\mathrm{v}_2}-1)\right)^{{\frac{1}{2}}\left(1-\frac{\mu}{k}\right)}\;,$$ and $$c=\left[(1-\mu^2k^2r^4)\left(1-\mu^2/k^2\right)\right]^{\frac{1}{4}\left(1-\frac{\mu}{k}\right)}
\sqrt{\left(1+\mu/k\right)(1+\mu k r^2)}\;.$$ Notice that with our choice of $\theta',\varphi',\psi'=0$, we have ${\mathrm{v}_2}={\frac{1}{2}}(1+\cos\theta)$, so (defining $z=\cos\theta$) we get $$\Delta=1+k^4r^4-2(k^2r^2)z-\frac{\mu^2}{k^2}(k^4r^4)(1-z^2)$$ and $$q_-=\left(1+k^2r^2-\sqrt{\Delta}
+\frac{\mu}{k} k^2r^2(1-z)\right)\left(1-\frac{\mu}{k}\sqrt{\Delta}-\frac{\mu^2}{k^2}k^2r^2z\right)^{{\frac{1}{2}}(1-\frac{\mu}{k})}\;.$$ Since $\mu,k$, and $r$ (which is now viewed just as a regularising parameter) appear only in the combinations $\mu/k$ and $k^2r^2$, it is convenient to rename them as $\mu/k{\rightarrow}\mu$, and $k^2r^2{\rightarrow}h$ (as in \[Roundexpansion\]). After these cosmetic changes, we can write $$\alpha_{lmn}=4\pi b\lim_{h{\rightarrow}1}\int_0^\pi\int_0^{2\pi}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\Delta}}
\left(\frac{q_-}{2c\sqrt{h}\sqrt{(1+z)/2}}\right)^{2n} e^{i(m-n)\varphi}{P^l_{mn}}(z){\mathrm{d}}\varphi{\mathrm{d}}z\\$$ where now $$\label{DeltaPlmn}
\Delta=1+h^2-2hz-\mu^2 h^2(1-z^2)\;,$$ $$q_-=\left(1+h-\sqrt{\Delta}+\mu h(1-z)\right)\left(1-\mu\sqrt{\Delta}-\mu^2 hz\right)^{{\frac{1}{2}}(1-\mu)}$$ and $$c=\left((1-\mu^2h^2)(1-\mu^2)\right)^{\frac{1}{4}(1-\mu)}\sqrt{(1+\mu)(1+\mu h)}\;.$$ Note that the range of $\mu$ now is from 0 to 1. Noticing that $\varphi$ appears only in the exponential, it is trivial to do the integration over $\varphi$: $$\label{almnintegral}
\alpha_{lmn}=8\pi^2b\delta_{mn}\lim_{h{\rightarrow}1}\int_{-1}^1\frac{1}{\sqrt{\Delta}}
\left(\frac{q_-}{2c\sqrt{h}\sqrt{(1+z)/2}}\right)^{2n}{P^l_{nn}}(z){\mathrm{d}}z\;.$$ We are now left with the nontrivial integral over $z$. Although there may be much more elegant ways of calculating it, motivated by the resemblance of the integrand to the generating function for the ${P^l_{nn}}(z)$ (\[expansionround\]) we chose to expand in the parameter $h$ and write each factor in the expansion in terms of the ${P^l_{nn}}(z)$, so that we can use their orthonormality properties to perform the integration. This is the tactic we employed in section \[Roundexpansion\], but recall that there the integrand was *exactly* the same as the generating function. Here things will turn out to be somewhat more complicated.
#### A simple case: n=0
Let us first look at the case where $n=0$, in other words we want to calculate the coefficient $\alpha_{l00}$ for any $l$, where of course now $l$ has to be integer (since $n$ is). If we set $n=0$, the integrand (apart from the $P^l_{nn}(z)$ factor and the $8\pi^2b$) is just (from (\[DeltaPlmn\])) $$I:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+h^2-2hz-\mu^2h^2(1-z^2)}}$$ and we expand in $h$ as follows: $$I=\sum_{s=0}^{\infty}h^s G_{s}(z)\;.$$ To be concrete, let us write down the first few $G_s(z)$s: $$\begin{split}
G_0=1\; ;\; G_1=z\; ; \; G_2=-{\frac{1}{2}}(1-\mu^2+\mu^2z^2-3z^2)\; ;\; G_3=-\frac{z}{2}(3-5z^2-3\mu^2+3\mu^2z^2)\;.
\end{split}$$ We would like to express the $G_s(z)$s in terms of eigenfunctions of the boundary laplacian, i.e. functions $H_s(z)$ that satisfy (see appendix \[BergerSphere\]) $$\Delta_B H_s(z)=s(s+1)H_s(z)$$ (since $n=0$ for the moment, the term proportional to $n^2$ coming from the extra ${\partial}_{\psi\psi}$ part in $\Delta_B$ will not play a role. That is, for now $\Delta_B$=$\Delta_0$.) Clearly the $H_s(z)$ will have to be proportional to the Legendre functions $P_s(z)$, and we write $H_s(z)=N_s P_s(z)$, with $N_s$ a normalisation factor to be determined. First we find linear combinations of the $G$s that *are* eigenfunctions, and call these combinations $H_s(z)$: $$\begin{split}
H_0(z)&=G_0(z)\;;\;H_1(z)=G_1(z)\;;\;H_2(z)=G_2(z)-\frac13\mu^2G_0(z)\;;\;H_3(z)=G_3(z)-\frac35\mu^2G_1(z)\\
H_4(z)&=G_4(z)-\frac67\mu^2G_2(z)+\frac{3}{35}G_0(z)\;;\;H_5(z)=G_5(z)-\frac{10}{9}\mu^2G_3(z)+\frac{5}{21}\mu^4G_1(z)
\;;\;\ldots
\end{split}$$ and so on. It is now easy to find expressions for the $G$s in terms of the $H$s at each (fixed, low) order in $h$ by inverting these relations. Here are the first few: $$\begin{split}
G_0&=H_0\; ;\; G_1=H_1\; ;\; G_2=H_2+\frac13\mu^2 H_0\;;\; G_3=H_3+\frac35\mu^2H_1\\
G_4&=H_4+\frac67\mu^2H_2+\frac15 H_0\;;\;G_5=H_5+\frac{10}{9}\mu^2H_3+\frac37\mu^4H_1\;;\;\ldots \\
\end{split}$$ As discussed, the $H_s(z)$ are completely specified apart from their normalisations $N_s$. Let us write the first few of those: $$\label{Nnzero}
\begin{split}
N_0=N_1=1\;;\;N_2=1-\frac13\mu^2\;;\;N_3=1-\frac35\mu^2\;;\;N_4=1-\frac67\mu^2+\frac{3}{35}\mu^4\;;\;
N_5=1-\frac{10}{9}\mu^2+\frac{5}{21}\mu^4\;;\; \ldots
\end{split}$$ We now have to start summing up these series to end up with a closed form. By examining the terms that occur for higher $s$, we eventually find that the series for $N_s$ has a simple generating function: $$N_s=\frac{s!\mu^sP_s(\frac{1}{\mu})}{(2s+1)!!}\;.$$ As for the $G_s(z)$, it turns out that it is most convenient to treat the $s$ even and odd cases slightly differently in the beginning. We eventually find (this is probably the most nontrivial part of the paper from a calculational point of view, but as there is little insight to be gained from the intermediate steps, we spare the reader the details.) $$G_{2r}(z)=\sum_{i=0}^{r}T_{ri}^{(e)}\mu^{2i} H_{2r-2i}(z)$$ and $$G_{2r-1}(z)=\sum_{i=0}^{r-1}T_{ri}^{(o)}\mu^{2i} H_{2r-2i-1}(z)$$ where the coefficients $T_r^e$ and $T_r^o$ of the even and odd terms respectively are given by $$T_{r}^{(e)}=\frac{1}{i!}\frac{(4r+1-4i)!!}{(4r+1-2i)!!}\frac{(2r-1)!!}{(2r-1-2i)!!}\frac{r!}{(r-i)!}$$ and $$T_{r}^{(o)}=\frac{1}{i!}\frac{(4r-1-4i)!!}{(4r-1-2i)!!}\frac{(2r-1)!!}{(2r-1-2i)!!}\frac{r!}{(r-i-1)!}\;.$$ So we have succeded in writing the integrand as an expansion in the Legendre functions: $$I=\sum_{s=0}^\infty h^s\left(\sum_{i=0}^{r}T_{ri}^{(e)}\mu^{2i} N_{2r-2i} P_{2r-2i}(z)
+\sum_{i=0}^{r-1}T_{ri}^{(o)}\mu^{2i}N_{2r-2i-1} P_{2r-2i-1}(z)\right)\;.$$ Now we can proceed by first doing the integral over $z$ in (\[almnintegral\]). We get $$\label{bigexpression}
\begin{split}
\int_{-1}^1 I \cdot P_l(z){\mathrm{d}}z&=\sum_rh^{2r}\sum_{i=0}^{r} T_{ri}^{(e)}\mu^{2i}N_{2r-2i}\int_{-1}^{1}
P_{2r-2i}(z)P_l(z){\mathrm{d}}z+\\
&\quad\quad+\sum_r h^{2r-1}\sum_{i=0}^{r-1} T_{ri}^{(o)}\mu^{2i} N_{2r-2i-1} \int_{-1}^{1}
P_{2r-2i-1}(z)P_l(z){\mathrm{d}}z=\\
&=\sum_r h^{2r}\mu^{2r}\left(\frac{(2r-1)!!r!}{(2r+l+1)!!(r-l/2)!}\right)
\left(\frac{2\cdot l!P_l(1/\mu)}{(l/2)!(l-1)!!}\right)+\\
&\quad\quad+\sum_r h^{2r-1}\mu^{2r-1}\left(\frac{(2r-1)!!(r-1)!}{(2r+l)!!(r-(l+1)/2)!}\right)
\left(\frac{2\cdot l!P_l(1/\mu)}{((l-1)/2)!l!!}\right)\;.
\end{split}$$ Here we first used the orthonormality property of the Legendre functions, $$\int_{-1}^1P_s(z)P_l(z){\mathrm{d}}z=\frac{2\delta_{sl}}{2l+1}$$ which gave $2r-2i=l$ and $2r-2i-1=l$ in the first and second sums, respectively. Summing over the delta functions then gives the final result. Clearly the first sum in (\[bigexpression\]) will be there only for $l$ even, and the second one only for $l$ odd, otherwise they should be thought of as being zero. Now we have to put these two sums (\[bigexpression\]) together again.
Manipulating the series expansion, using relations such as $(2n)!!=2^n n!$ (for which we first need to convert the double factorials of odd numbers to ones of even numbers, through $(2n+1)!!=(2n+1)!/(2n)!!$) and $\Gamma(2n)=2^{2n-1}/\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma(n)\Gamma(n+1/2)$ (e.g.[@Lebedev]), and substituting $r=k+l/2$ for $l$ even, we find for the even $l$ series in (\[bigexpression\]) the result $$\label{summed}
P_l\left(\frac{1}{\mu}\right)\frac{2}{\mu}
\left(\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma(l+1)\mu^{l+1}}{\Gamma(l+3/2)2^{l+1}}\right)
\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{\Gamma(k+l/2+1)\Gamma(k+l/2+1/2)\Gamma(l+3/2)}
{\Gamma(l/2+1)\Gamma(l/2+1/2)\Gamma(k+l+3/2)} \mu^{2k} h^{2k+l}\;.$$ Notice that now the range of the summation variable $k$ is from zero to infinity. Similar manipulations of the odd $l$ part of (\[bigexpression\]), substituting this time $r=k+(l+1)/2$, give the *same* result. This means that (\[summed\]) is actually the full solution to our integral. What’s more, the series over $k$ turns out to actually be a rather simple function: Noticing the similarity to the hypergeometric generating function (which we have tried to exhibit by writing the series in this way) and recalling that the Legendre function of the *second* kind can be expressed as (e.g [@Lebedev]) $$Q_l(z)=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma(l+1)}{\Gamma(l+3/2)(2z)^{l+1}}\cdot
F\left(\frac{l}{2}+1,\frac{l}{2}+{\frac{1}{2}};l+\frac32;\frac{1}{z^2}\right)$$ for $|z|>1$ (i.e. $\mu<1$ in which certainly is the case here), we have shown that $$\label{Iresult}
\lim_{h{\rightarrow}1}\int_{-1}^{1} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+h^2-2h z-\mu^2h^2(1-z^2)}} P_l(z){\mathrm{d}}z=
\sum_l \frac{2}{\mu}P_l\left(\frac1\mu\right)Q_l\left(\frac1\mu\right).$$ This final formula is refreshingly simple, so much so in fact that it cries out for a smarter (and less onerous) way to obtain it[^39]. However recall that the purpose of doing things the way we did was to prepare us for the more demanding calculation for $n\neq 0$. As we will see, much of the work for that case has already been done.
To summarise, so far we have found one coefficient in the expansion (\[Mexpansionformal\]) of $M(x,x')$ in spherical harmonics (\[MexpansionBerger\]) for each (integer) $l$: $$\label{alzerozero}
\alpha_{l00}=8\pi^2b\frac2\mu P_l\left(\frac1\mu\right) Q_l\left(\frac1\mu\right)\;.$$
#### The general case
Now let $n$ be arbitrary. Let us again expand the integrand of (\[almnintegral\]) as a series in $h$: $$I=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\Delta}}\left(\frac{q_-}{2c\sqrt{h}\sqrt{(1+z)/2}}\;\right)^{2n}=\sum_{s=0}^{\infty} h^s G^{s+n}_{nn}(z)\;.$$ The reason for the notation $G^{s+n}_{nn}(z)$ is that, as we will soon see, these functions are related in a simple way to the Wigner functions $P^{s+n}_{nn}(z)$. The first few terms in the series are[^40] $$\begin{split}
&s=0:\; G^{n}_{nn}(z)=[(1+\mu)^{1+\mu}(1-\mu)^{1-\mu}]^{\frac{n}{2}}
\cdot\left(\frac{1+z}{2}\right)^{n}\\
&s=1:\; G^{n+1}_{nn}(z)=-(n\mu^2z-nz-z+n)\cdot G^{n}_{nn}(z)\\
&s=2:\; G^{n+2}_{nn}(z)=\frac14(2\mu^4z^2n^2-2\mu^2z^2-7n\mu^2z^2-4n^2\mu^2z^2+6z^2+7nz^2
+2n^2z^2+ \\
\quad\quad &\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad+4n^2\mu^2z+2n\mu^2z-6zn-4zn^2+3n\mu^2+2\mu^2
-2+2n^2-n)\cdot G^{n}_{nn}(z)\;.\\
\end{split}$$ The expressions rapidly become awkward, so we have only written out the first three terms. We can easily verify that $G^{n}_{nn}(z)$ satisfies the ${\mathrm{SU}}(2)$ differential equation, with $m=n$, and eigenvalue $-n(n+1)$[^41]: $$\label{SUtwoplus}
\left[(1-z^2){\partial}_{zz}-2z{\partial}_z-\frac{2n^2}{1+z}-\frac{1}{4}\right] G^{n}_{nn}(z)=
-\frac{(2n+1)^2}{4} G^{n}_{nn}(z)\;.$$ So $G^{n}_{nn}(z)$ has to be proportional to $P^{n}_{nn}(z)$. On the other hand, we find that $G^{n+1}_{nn}(z)$ is *not* an eigenfunction of (\[SUtwo\]) with $m=n$. As in the previous calculation for $n=0$, we should consider linear combinations of the $G$’s that *are* eigenfunctions. In this case we define $$H^{n+1}_{nn}(z)=G^{n+1}_{nn}(z)+\frac{\mu^2n^2}{n+1} G^{n}_{nn}(z)$$ which turns out to be an eigenfunction, with eigenvalue $-(n+1)(n+2)$: $$\left[(1-z^2){\partial}_{zz}-2z{\partial}_z-\frac{2n^2}{1+z}-\frac{1}{4}\right] H^{n+1}_{nn}(z)=
-\frac{(2(n+1)+1)^2}{4} H^{n+1}_{nn}(z)\;.$$ Proceeding in this way, we can find linear combinations of the $G^{n+l}_{nn}(z)$ that are (unnormalised) eigenfunctions of the ${\mathrm{SU}}(2)$ differential equation, with eigenvalues $(n+l)(n+l+1)$, and thus have to be proportional to the $P^{n+l}_{nn}(z)$. Let us write down the first few: $$\begin{split}
&H^{n}_{nn}(z)=G^{n}_{nn}(z)\\
&H^{n+1}_{nn}(z)=G^{n+1}_{nn}(z)+\frac{\mu^2n^2}{n+1} G^{n}_{nn}(z)\\
&H^{n+2}_{nn}(z)=G^{n+2}_{nn}(z)+\frac{\mu^2n^2}{n+2} G^{n+1}_{nn}(z)
-\frac{4-2n^4\mu^2+2n^3+7n^2+n^3\mu^2+2n^2\mu^2+8n}{2(n+2)(n+3)} G^{n}_{nn}(z)\;.\\
\end{split}$$ The relations rapidly become unwieldy as $l$ increases, so we will not write any more of them out explicitly. In any case, what we are more interested in is the *inverse* relation: How to write the $G$’s in terms of the $H$’s. Let us again write down only a few terms: $$\label{GH}
\begin{split}
&G^{n}_{nn}(z)=H^n_{nn}(z)\\
&G^{n+1}_{nn}(z)=H^{n+1}_{nn}(z)-\frac{\mu^2n^2}{n+1} H^n_{nn}(z)\\
&G^{n+2}_{nn}(z)=H^{n+2}_{nn}(z)-\frac{\mu^2n^2}{n+2} H^{n+1}_{nn}(z)
+\mu^2\frac{2n^4\mu^2+2n^3+n^3\mu^2+n^2\mu^2+5n^2+5n+2}{2(2n+3)(n+1)} H^n_{nn}(z)\\
&G^{n+3}_{nn}(z)=H^{n+3}_{nn}(z)-\frac{\mu^2n^2}{n+3}H^{n+2}_{nn}(z)
+\mu^2\frac{12+16n+9n^2+2n^3+\mu^2(2n^2+n^3+2n^4)}{2(n+2)(2n+5)}H^{n+1}_{nn}(z)\\
&\qquad\qquad\quad-\frac{\mu^4n^2(26+42n+25n^2+4\mu^2n^2+6n^3+3\mu^2n^3+2\mu^2n^4)}{6(n+1)(n+2)(2n+3)}H^{n}_{nn}(z)\;.
\end{split}$$ We have thus managed to write the first few terms in the expansion in terms of the $H^{n+s}_{nn}(z)$, which are just unnormalised versions of the $P^{n+s}_{nn}(z)$. The normalisation factors can be obtained by dividing them, $N_{snn}$=$H^{n+s}_{nn}(z)/P^{n+s}_{nn}(z)$ (where we can find the $P^{n+s}_{nn}(z)$ either by looking at tables, or by expanding the generating function (\[Plmngenerating\]) for $m=n$). We have $$\begin{split}
N_{0nn}&=\left((1+\mu)^{{\frac{1}{2}}(1+\mu)}(1-\mu)^{{\frac{1}{2}}(1-\mu)}\right)^n\\
N_{1nn}&=\frac{1+n-\mu^2n}{n+1}\cdot N_{0nn}\\
N_{2nn}&=\frac{6+7n+2n^2-2\mu^2-7\mu^2n-4\mu^2n^2+2\mu^4n^2}{(n+2)(2n+3)}\cdot N_{0nn}\\
N_{3nn}&=\frac{30+37n+15n^2+2n^3-\mu^2(18+45n+30n^2+6n^3)+\mu^4(8n+15n^2+6n^3)-2\mu^6n^3}{(n+2)(n+3)(2n+5)}
\cdot N_{0nn}.
\end{split}$$
Let us now write the integral (\[almnintegral\]) as $$\label{inttry}
\int_{-1}^{1}I\cdot {P^l_{mn}}(z){\mathrm{d}}z=\sum_{s} h^s\int_{-1}^1 G^{n+s}_{nn}(z){P^l_{mn}}(z){\mathrm{d}}z
=\sum_{s} h^s N_{lnn}\sum_{i=0}^{s} \alpha^{sl}(\mu) \int H^{n+s-i}_{nn}(z) {P^l_{mn}}(z){\mathrm{d}}z\;,$$ where $\alpha^{sl}(\mu)$ symbolises the various coefficients in (\[GH\]). This integral receives contributions from all $s>l-n$, since then for $i=n+s-l$ we have a nonzero contribution. Now notice in (\[GH\]) that the terms to the right (higher $i$ in (\[inttry\])) have higher powers of $\mu^2$, and that the power increases by $\mu^2$ every two terms or so (this is really only evident in $G^{n+3}_{nn}(z)$, but can be checked to hold for the higher terms). So, truncating the sum in $s$ should give us the answer to some order in $\mu$. For example, we can check the case $l=n+1$, to order $\mu^4$:[^42] $$\label{intexample}
\begin{split}
\int_{-1}^{1} I \cdot &P^{n+1}_{\;nn}(z){\mathrm{d}}z=\int_{-1}^{1}\left(G^{n+1}_{nn}(z)+G^{n+2}_{nn}(z)+G^{n+3}_{nn}(z)+
\cdots\right)P^{n+1}_{nn}(z){\mathrm{d}}z\\
&=N_{1nn}\frac{2}{2(n+1)+1}\left(1-\frac{\mu^2 n^2}{n+2}+\mu^2\frac{12+16n+9n^2+2n^3+\mu^2(2n^2+n^3+2n^4)}{2(n+2)(2n+5)}+\cdots\right) \\
&=\frac{2}{2n+3}+\frac{2(2n^3+8n^2+9n+6)}{(2n+5)(2n+3)(n+2)(n+1)}\mu^2+O(\mu^4)\;.
\end{split}$$ So this is a contribution to $\alpha_{lnn}$ when $l=n+1$. It can be easily checked that it reduces to the $\alpha_{100}$ above when $n=0$, as is the case for all the previous formulas. Now the question is whether we can extend these relations to arbitrary $l$, i.e. write the $\alpha_{lnn}$ in closed form. This is where the special case we considered earlier comes in especially handy. Recall that we found that $\alpha_{l00}=2/\mu P_l(1/\mu)Q_l(1/\mu)$. Clearly the formula for $n\neq 0$ must be a generalisation of this. We can cheat a bit by looking at the expressions in section \[QTNfactorisation\], where, as we saw, there appeared some hypergeometric functions that reduced to Legendre functions in a special case. Motivated by this, we can make a guess as to how to generalise $P_l(1/\mu)$, $Q_l(1/\mu)$. The guess is (see a previous footnote): $$\begin{split}
P_l\left(\frac{1}{\mu}\right)&{\rightarrow}\left(\frac{1+\mu}{2\mu}\right)^{l+\mu n}
F\left(-l+n, -l-\mu n;1+\left(1-\mu\right);
\frac{1-\mu}{1+\mu}\right)\\
Q_l\left(\frac{1}{\mu}\right)&{\rightarrow}\left(\frac{2\mu}{1+\mu}\right)^{1+l-\mu n}F\left(1+l+n,1+l-\mu n;2l+2;\frac{2\mu}{1+\mu}\right)\;.
\end{split}$$ Trying this out, and fixing coefficients to match with the lower order terms for the $\alpha_{lmn}$ (that we can calculate as in (\[intexample\])) we end up with: $$\label{alnnfinal}
\begin{split}
\alpha_{lmn}=&{\frac{1}{2}}\delta_{mn}\frac{2}{n(1-\mu^2)}\left(\frac{1-\mu}{1+\mu}\right)^{(1-\mu)n}
\frac{\Gamma(1+l+n)\Gamma(1+l-\mu n)}{\Gamma(2l+2)\Gamma((1-\mu) n)}\times\\
&\quad\times F\left(-l+n, -l-\mu n; 1+n-\mu n;\frac{1-\mu}{1+\mu}\right)
\times F\left(1+l+n,1+l-\mu n;2l+2; \frac{2\mu}{1+\mu}\right)
\end{split}$$ where we have also substituted the factor $b$ from (\[almnintegral\]). This proposal can be checked to give the correct answer for the coefficients $\alpha_{lmn}$ that we can calculate as in (\[intexample\]) by expanding in $\mu$. Note that despite the explicit appearance of $n$ to the first power, its expansion in $\mu$ contains only powers of $n^2$, as it should by looking at e.g. (\[GH\]). Although one could probably perform further checks of this result, we take the matching with the low–order terms as sufficient evidence to take it as our final answer[^43].
We can now proceed (as in (\[Roundexpansion\])) to restore the angles $\theta',\varphi',\psi'$ that we had set to zero, and conclude that the expansion of $M(x,x')$ is given by (\[Mexpansionformal\]), with the $\alpha_{lmn}$ given by (\[alnnfinal\]) without the $\delta_{mn}$.
Checking the correlation function {#QTNcheck}
---------------------------------
In section \[QTNfactorisation\] we found two different solutions for the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator, one that should hold “inside” the manifold (i.e. for $r<1/k$) and another that should be used “outside”. We also argued that the correct operator to consider *on* the boundary $r=1/k$ is the sum of these two: $$\label{Acaltotal}
{\mathcal{A}}={\frac{1}{2}}({\mathcal{A}}^i+{\mathcal{A}}^e)\;.$$ Here we finally check the results of \[QTNfactorisation\] against the eigenfunction expansion for $M(x,x')$ that we obtained in the previous section. First we focus on the special case where ${\mathcal{A}}$ is acting on a function that does not depend on the angle $\psi$. That means we can effectively set $\sqrt{{\Delta_1}}=0$ everywhere, and we obtain (see the end of section \[QTNfactorisation\]) $${\mathcal{A}}^i_0=\frac{(1-k^2r^2)}{2}\sqrt{\frac{1-\mu^2 k^2 r^4}{1-\mu^2 r^2}}{\partial}_r \ln\left[f_0(r)
Q_{\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}-{\frac{1}{2}}}\left(\frac{1}{\mu k r^2}\right)\right]$$ and $${\mathcal{A}}^e_0=-\frac{(1-k^2r^2)}{2}\sqrt{\frac{1-\mu^2 k^2 r^4}{1-\mu^2 r^2}}{\partial}_r \ln\left[f_0(r)
P_{\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}-{\frac{1}{2}}}\left(\frac{1}{\mu k r^2}\right)\right]$$ where $f_0=(1-\mu^2 r^2)^{\frac{1}{6}}(1-\mu^2 k^2 r^4)^{\frac16}/r$. Notice that although these are supposed to be operators on the boundary, where $r=1/k$, we have kept $r$ free since it will prove useful in the calculations below[^44]. From (\[Acaltotal\]) we obtain $${\mathcal{A}}=\frac{(1-k^2r^2)}{4}\sqrt{\frac{1-\mu^2 k^2 r^4}{1-\mu^2 r^2}}
{\partial}_r\ln\left(\frac{Q_{\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}-{\frac{1}{2}}}\left(\frac{1}{\mu k r^2}\right)}{P_{\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}-{\frac{1}{2}}}\left(\frac{1}{\mu k r^2}\right)}\right)\;.$$ From this expression, using the property ${\partial}_z\ln(x/y)=(y{\partial}_z x -x{\partial}_z y)/(xy)$, and the identity[^45] $$\label{LegendreID}
P_{l}\left(z\right){\partial}_zQ_{l}\left(z\right)
-Q_{l}\left(z\right)
{\partial}_zP_l\left(z\right)=\frac{1}{1-z^2}\;,$$ we finally obtain $${\mathcal{A}}=\frac{(1-k^2r^2)}{(1-\mu^2 r^2)}\frac{\mu k r^2}{2}\frac{1}
{P_{\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}-{\frac{1}{2}}}\left(\frac{1}{\mu k r^2}\right)Q_{\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}-{\frac{1}{2}}}\left(\frac{1}{\mu k r^2}\right)}\;.$$ Now we can take $r{\rightarrow}1/k$, with the usual defining function $$\label{Bcalzero}
{\mathcal{B}}^{(n=0)}=\lim_{r{\rightarrow}1/k}\frac{1}{(1-k^2r^2)}{\mathcal{A}}=\frac{\mu}{2k(1-\mu^2/k^2)}\frac{1}
{P_{\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}-{\frac{1}{2}}}\left(\frac{k}{\mu}\right)Q_{\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}-{\frac{1}{2}}}\left(\frac{k}{\mu}\right)}\;.$$ Recall that ${\mathcal{B}}^{(n=0)}$ only makes sense when acting on functions on ${{\mathrm S}}^3$ that do not depend on $\psi$. Looking at the expansion (\[MexpansionBerger\]) of $M(x,x')$, we see that this is the case when $n=0$. So ${\mathcal{B}}^{(n=0)}$ can only be allowed to act on the terms that have coefficients $\alpha_{l00}$. We get[^46] $${\mathcal{B}}_x^{(n=0)}M^{(\psi=0)}(x,x')={\mathcal{B}}_x^{(n=0)}\sum_{lm}\alpha_{l00} \mathrm{Y}^l_{m0}(x)\overline{\mathrm{Y}}^l_{m0}(x')
=\sum_{lm}\alpha_{l00} ({\mathcal{B}}_x^{(n=0)}\mathrm{Y}^l_{m0}(x))\overline{\mathrm{Y}}^l_{m0}(x')\;.$$ From (\[alzerozero\]), restoring $\mu{\rightarrow}\mu/k$, we see that ${\mathcal{B}}_x{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)=(1-\mu^2/k^2)/\alpha_{l00}{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)$, and it immediately follows that ${\mathcal{B}}$ is indeed the inverse of $M(x,x')$ on this restricted space[^47]. Before we proceed to the general case, let us perform a consistency check: If ${\mathcal{B}}^{(n=0)}$ really is (part of) the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator, it has to be first order, and in particular it should have the square root of the laplacian as its principal symbol. One (perhaps not very rigorous) way to check this is to examine the limit of (\[Bcalzero\]) as $\Delta_0$ becomes large. This is easy to do, using the formulas [@Lebedev] for the asymptotic expansion of the Legendre functions for $l$ large: $$P_l(\cosh\alpha)=\frac{e^{(l+1/2)\alpha}}{(2l\pi\sinh\alpha)^{{\frac{1}{2}}}}\left[1+O\left(\frac{1}{l}\right)\right], \quad
Q_l(\cosh\alpha)=\frac{\pi^{{\frac{1}{2}}}e^{-(l+1/2)\alpha}}{(2l\sinh\alpha)^{{\frac{1}{2}}}}\left[1+O\left(\frac{1}{l}\right)\right]\;.$$ So clearly, for $l$ large $$\frac{2k}{\mu}\frac{1}{P_l(k/\mu)Q_l(k/\mu)}= k l\left[1+O\left(\frac{1}{l}\right)\right]$$ where we used $\cosh\alpha=k/\mu$, and so $\sinh\alpha=1/\mu\sqrt{1-\mu^2/k^2}$. Thus (noting that $\Delta_0\sim l^2$ for $l$ large) we can conclude that ${\mathcal{B}}^{(n=0)}$ does indeed scale as $$\label{Basymptotic}
{\mathcal{B}}^{(n=0)}=k\sqrt{{\Delta_0}}\left[1+O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\Delta_0}}}\right)\right]$$ and thus has the right principal symbol to be the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator.
After this warm–up, we now turn to the $n\neq0$ case. Again we have the sum (\[Acaltotal\]) of the interior and exterior Dirichlet–to–Robin operators, which are given in (\[Aint\]) and (\[Aext\]). Adding them gives: $$\begin{split}
{\mathcal{A}}&={\frac{1}{2}}({\mathcal{A}}^{i}+{\mathcal{A}}^{e})=\frac{(1-k^2r^2)}{4}\sqrt{\frac{1-\mu^2k^2r^4}{1-\mu^2r^2}}{\partial}_r\ln
\frac{\left(\frac{2\mu k r^2}{1+\mu k r^2}\right)^{\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}}F_1(r)}
{\left(\frac{2\mu k r^2}{1+\mu k r^2}\right)^{-\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}}F_3(r)}\\
&=\frac{(1-k^2r^2)}{4}\sqrt{\frac{1-\mu^2k^2r^4}{1-\mu^2r^2}}\frac{1}{F_1(r)F_3(r)}\times\\
&\left[u^{\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}} \left\{F_3(r){\partial}_r\left(u^{-\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}}F_1(r)\right)-u^{-\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}}F_1(r)
{\partial}_r\left(u^{\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}}F_3(r)\right)\right\}\right]\;.
\end{split}$$ Recall here that we have defined $u=(1+\mu k r^2)/(2\mu k r^2)$. To proceed, we use the identity[^48] $$\label{hypergeomID}
\begin{split}
&u^{\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}}F_3(r){\partial}_r\left(u^{-\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}}F_1(r)\right)-u^{-\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}}F_1(r)
{\partial}_r\left(u^{\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}}F_3(r)\right)=\\
&\quad \quad \frac{2n(1-\mu/k)}{r(1-\mu k r^2)}
\left(\frac{1+\mu k r^2}{1-\mu k r^2}\right)^{\left(1-\frac{\mu}{k}\right)n}
\frac{\Gamma(2l+2)\Gamma((1-\mu/k)n)}{\Gamma(1+l+n)\Gamma(1+l-\mu/k\cdot n)}
\end{split}$$ which generalises (\[LegendreID\]). Calling $T$ the right–hand side of (\[hypergeomID\]), we write $${\mathcal{A}}=\frac{(1-k^2r^2)}{4}\sqrt{\frac{1-\mu^2k^2r^4}{1-\mu^2r^2}}\frac{T}{F_1(r)F_3(r)}\;.$$ Now we finally take the limit $r{\rightarrow}1/k$, scaling ${\mathcal{A}}$ as in (\[Bcalzero\]) to obtain the complete Dirichlet–to–Robin operator for QTN: $$\label{Bcalfinal}
\begin{split}
{\mathcal{B}}&=\frac{\sqrt{{\Delta_1}}}{2}\left(\frac{1+\mu/k}{1-\mu/ k}\right)^{\left(1-\frac{\mu}{k}\right)\sqrt{{\Delta_1}}}
\frac{\Gamma(1+2\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4})\Gamma((1-\mu/k)\sqrt{{\Delta_1}})}
{\Gamma({\frac{1}{2}}+\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}+\sqrt{{\Delta_1}})\Gamma(-{\frac{1}{2}}+\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}-\mu/k\cdot \sqrt{{\Delta_1}})}\times \\
&\left[F\left({\frac{1}{2}}-\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}+\sqrt{{\Delta_1}},{\frac{1}{2}}-\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}-\frac{\mu}{k}\sqrt{{\Delta_1}};1+(1-\frac{\mu}{k})
\sqrt{{\Delta_1}};\frac{1-\mu/k}{1+\mu/k}\right) \right.\times\\
&\left.\quad F\left({\frac{1}{2}}+\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}+\sqrt{{\Delta_1}},{\frac{1}{2}}+\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}-\frac{\mu}{k}\sqrt{{\Delta_1}};1+2\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4};
\frac{2\mu/k}{1+\mu/k}\right)\right]^{-1}\;.
\end{split}$$ At this point we really should repeat the check (that we previously performed for ${\mathcal{B}}^{(n=0)}$) of whether the principal symbol of ${\mathcal{B}}$ given by (\[Bcalfinal\]) really is the square root of the boundary laplacian $\Delta_B$ (\[DeltaB\]). Clearly in the case ${\Delta_0}\gg{\Delta_1}$ (\[Bcalfinal\]) reduces to (\[Bcalzero\]) so we can apply the previous result, but taking other scaling limits, like for instance both $\Delta_0$ and $\Delta_1$ large, seems a rather daunting task. Perhaps it is possible to use more formal methods to prove that ${\mathcal{B}}$ is first–order, but for the moment we content ourselves with the simple consistency check we just discussed, and proceed to the final step.
The expression for ${\mathcal{B}}$ in (\[Bcalfinal\]) should look familiar. If we act with ${\mathcal{B}}$ on an eigenfunction ${\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)$ on the Berger sphere, which really means substituting ${\Delta_0}=l(l+1)$ and ${\Delta_1}=n^2$ everywhere, we get precisely[^49] $${\mathcal{B}}_x {\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)=\frac{1}{\alpha_{lnn}}{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)$$ with $\alpha_{lnn}$ as defined in (\[alnnfinal\]). So we finally have all the necessary ingredients to show that $${\mathcal{B}}_x M(x,x')=\sum_{lmn}{\mathcal{B}}_x \alpha_{lnn}{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)\overline{\mathrm{Y}}^l_{mn}(x')
=\sum_{lmn}{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)\overline{\mathrm{Y}}^l_{mn}(x')=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\delta^{(3)}(x,x')$$ which was the main calculational objective of this article.
Given the discussion in section \[DirichlettoNeumann\], we conclude that $M(x,x')$ (as defined in (\[correlator\])) is indeed a conformally invariant correlation function on the Berger sphere, corresponding to an operator of conformal dimension one.
Conclusions {#Conclusions}
===========
In this article we demonstrated that our correlation function $M(x,x')$ (see (\[correlator\])) on the Berger sphere is conformally invariant, and is a two–point function of an operator of conformal dimension ${{{\lambda}}}=1$. We did this by explicitly constructing a conformally covariant pseudodifferential operator, the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator ${\mathcal{B}}$, which we expected to be the inverse of $M(x,x')$ on general grounds, and then verifying that this was indeed the case. Note that the methods that led to these two objects were (at least superficially) very different from each other: $M(x,x')$ was found using twistor methods [@Zoubos02], namely Penrose’s nonlinear graviton construction, while ${\mathcal{B}}$ was found by factorising the QTN laplacian, which in the end came down to solving a Ricatti–type equation. Thus we believe we have performed an independent verification of the conformal invariance of our correlation function. On the other hand, as discussed in section \[Definition\], to obtain this result we have made a number of assumptions and generalisations which should eventually be better justified. We believe that this will probably require some input from geometric scattering theory.
We should emphasise here that we are not claiming *uniqueness* of the correlation function. There could very well be other two–point functions on the Berger sphere that correspond to ${{{\lambda}}}=1$ scalar operators. In fact, the very method we used to prove conformal invariance of $M(x,x')$ also seems to hint that it is not unique! Recall [@Chamblinetal99; @Hawkingetal99] that there are parameter ranges where, apart from QTN, the Berger sphere is the conformal infinity of another asymptotically hyperbolic 4–manifold, known as AdS–Taub–Bolt. Now, as discussed in (\[InverseProblems\]) the main feature of the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator is that it is different for non–diffeomorphic manifolds. So, although the calculation of the corresponding $M(x,x')$ for AdS–Taub–Bolt seems out of reach at the moment, it is likely that it will have a different functional form from the one for QTN we have been investigating (although both will have the same conformally flat limit, since $M(x,x')$ is unique there). It is intriguing to wonder whether that is all, or whether there are several other conformally invariant correlation functions on the Berger sphere.
Although we focused narrowly on the very particular problem of ${{{\lambda}}}=1$ and the Berger sphere, we believe that the techniques we employed should be applicable to a wider range of questions that might arise in applications of holographic ideas to asymptotically hyperbolic bulk manifolds. A drawback is that calculability in our case hinged on the existence and relative simplicity of an eigenfunction expansion, which is beyond reach for many manifolds. But perhaps the formal aspects of the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator (and related nonlocal boundary operators) viewed as *conformally invariant* operators will eventually turn out to be useful in better understanding conformal field theory, especially on curved manifolds. Of course, as the dicussion in section \[InverseProblems\] tries to make clear, the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator should also play an important role in exploring the connections between holography in an AdS/CFT context and the mathematical fields of geometric scattering and inverse boundary problems.
One could conceive looking for the nonlocal boundary conformally invariant operators corresponding to correlation functions of higher conformal dimension. Branson and Gover [@BransonGover01] construct higher order, and also *negative* order, generalisations of the Dirichlet–to–Robin operator, which thus have principal parts $(\Delta_B)^{\frac{s}{2}}$ (in [@Peterson00] this is extended further to arbitrary real order). (We put emphasis on the negative order cases, because by the relation $2{{{\lambda}}}=d-s$ (\[conformaldimension\]), the order of the pseudodifferential operators corresponding to CFT operators with the usual conformal dimensions one encounters (i.e. ${{{\lambda}}}\geq d/2$) will be negative.) They do this by considering conformally invariant boundary value problems for the (bulk) higher order conformally invariant powers of the laplacian we briefly discussed in section \[confdiff\] (of which the Paneitz operator (\[Paneitz\]) is an example). There are restrictions to doing this on an arbitrary curved conformal manifold (related to the restrictions in defining the powers of the laplacian), but supposing that one *can* construct conformally invariant boundary problems in the bulk, which result in boundary pseudodifferential operators associated to a given correlation function, one could ask how this (conformal, nonlocal if the bulk operators are negative order) description of the bulk degrees of freedom differs from the usual (non–conformal, local) one based on the massive bulk laplacian.
After these comments, let us return to the Berger sphere. In the end, are we any closer to understanding the nature of the field theory that might be dual to gravity on QTN? In an important sense we are, since we have demonstrated, in an explicit (but very special) example, that the usual AdS/CFT dictionary between bulk fields and boundary operators holds unmodified in our more general case. However, a lot more needs to be done to fully understand how holography works for QTN. The best one could wish for, of course, is a string/M theory realisation, which should give a better picture of the gauge theory side (of course, given the apparent lack of supersymmetry, such a configuration would be interesting on its own, were it to be stable). One could also try to focus on the region close to $\mu=k$ (where the manifold is almost ${{{\,\,{{{^{_{\pmb{\mid}}}}\kern-.47em{\mathrm C}}}}}\mathrm{H}^2}$) which we have been largely ignoring in this article: Despite the discussions in [@Britto--Pacumioetal99; @Taylor--Robinson00], holography in the CR case is still a bit mysterious and deserves to be better studied.
It will also be important to obtain correlation functions of higher ${{{\lambda}}}$, since they might be able to give us insight into how the conformal field theory makes the transition from the “stable” region ($\mu^2<3/4k^2$) where the boundary scalar curvature is positive, to the (presumably) unstable region ($\mu^2>3/4k^2$) where it becomes negative. Recall [@Zoubos02] that one of the main motivations for studying this model is understanding this instability (implied by the results of [@SeibergWitten99; @WittenYau99]), and how/whether it is reflected in the geometry of the bulk. As an indication of the issues that need to be addressed, we mention a comment in [@Lee95] that, as the boundary scalar curvature shifts to negative values, numerically it seems that the bulk laplacian for Quaternionic Taub–NUT begins, as expected perhaps, to develop normalisable modes above the Breitenlohner–Freedman bound of $-9/4$. It is plausible that these modes could render the usual AdS/CFT correspondence ambiguous. What is *more* interesting however, is that there seems to be a range in which the boundary scalar curvature is negative, but *no* such modes have yet appeared in the bulk spectrum. Resolving these and other issues connected to holography on QTN promises to be a worthwhile endeavor.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I wish to thank M. Anderson and M. Roček for useful discussions. I am especially thankful to M. Kulaxizi for very fruitful discussions and help with some of the calculations. I am also grateful to the Physics Department at Stony Brook University for financial support.
More on the Berger sphere {#BergerSphere}
=========================
In this appendix we include a few details on the homogeneously squashed three–sphere, or Berger sphere, which we sometimes denote by ${\tilde{\mathrm{S}}^3}$. Its metric is simply
$$\label{SquashedMetric}
g_{ij}\;:\quad {\mathrm{d}}s^2=4\left[a^2(r)(\sigma_1^2+\sigma_2^2)+b(r)^2\sigma_3^2\right]$$
where the sigmas are the usual left–invariant ${\mathrm{SU}}(2)$ one–forms: $$\begin{split}
{\sigma_1}&={\frac{1}{2}}(\cos\psi{\mathrm{d}}\theta+\sin\psi\sin\theta{\mathrm{d}}\varphi)\;,\\
{\sigma_2}&={\frac{1}{2}}(-\sin\psi{\mathrm{d}}\theta+\cos\psi\sin\theta{\mathrm{d}}\varphi)\;,\\
{\sigma_3}&={\frac{1}{2}}({\mathrm{d}}\psi+\cos\theta{\mathrm{d}}\varphi)\;.
\end{split}$$ normalised to satisfy ${\mathrm{d}}{\sigma_1}=-2{\sigma_2}\wedge {\sigma_3}$, and cyclic permutations thereof. The ranges of $\theta,\varphi$ and $\psi$ are $[0,\pi), [0,2\pi)$ and $[0,4\pi)$ respectively.
The squashing is given by the ratio ${\lambda}(r)=b(r)^2/a(r)^2$. ${\lambda}(r)=1$ corresponds to the round three–sphere, $0<{\lambda}<1$ is known as oblate squashing, while ${\lambda}>1$ is called prolate squashing. For definiteness we only discuss the prolate case in this article, but our results should hold for the oblate case too, by taking $\mu{\rightarrow}-i\mu$ everywhere [@Zoubos02].
Any constant–$r$ hypersurface in QTN defines a squashed three–sphere, but the squashing depends on the radial distance. Also, the overall scale of the metric is important in taking various limits. So we will mostly keep $a(r)$ and $b(r)$ arbitrary, and write down special cases at the end.
The squashed sphere was famously considered by Hitchin [@Hitchin73] in his discussion of the space of harmonic spinors (the null space of the Dirac operator) on a manifold: ${\tilde{\mathrm{S}}^3}$ is a good illustration of the fact that the number of harmonic spinors is not a topological invariant of the manifold, but depends on the particular metric too. On the physics side, scalar quantum field theory on the homogeneously squashed sphere has been considered by several authors [@Hu73; @Huetal73; @CritchleyDowker81], mainly due to its appearance as (a particular case of) the spatial section of the mixmaster cosmological model [@Misner69]. Rather remarkably, the ${\mathrm{SU}}(2)\times{{\mathrm U}}(1)$ symmetry means that the problem can be mapped to that of the symmetric quantum–mechanical rotor (see e.g. [@Wigner], chapter 19, or [@LandauLifshitz], sections 82 and 103) which (like that of the spherical rotor) is integrable. (As we will see, this means that it is relatively trivial to find the eigenfunctions of the laplacian on ${\tilde{\mathrm{S}}^3}$.) There has also been some work on ${\tilde{\mathrm{S}}^3}$ in the context of Kaluza–Klein compactification [@Okada86; @ShenSobczyk87] (see also a discussion in [@Duffetal86]), and the asymptotic expansion of the heat kernel for the laplacian has been computed in [@ShtykovVassilevich95]. More recently, Dowker and collaborators [@Dowker99; @DeFranciaetal01] have considered the calculation of effective actions for both scalars and fermions on ${\tilde{\mathrm{S}}^3}$, aiming at a comparison with the AdS/CFT results of [@Chamblinetal99; @Hawkingetal99; @Emparanetal99]. The relation is far from obvious, since the regimes where the results are expected to apply are vastly different (see [@Taylor--Robinson00] for a discussion).
Geometry
--------
Written in terms of the coordinates $\theta,\varphi,\psi$, the metric (\[SquashedMetric\]) is $$g_{ij}=a(r)^2 {\left(\begin{array}{ccc} 1&0&0\\#4&\sin^2\theta+{\lambda}\cos^2\theta&{\lambda}\cos\theta\\#7&{\lambda}\cos\theta&{\lambda}\\
\end{array}\right)}\;.$$ The nonzero Christoffell symbols are $$\begin{split}
\Gamma^{\theta}_{\;\varphi\varphi}=({\lambda}-1)\sin\theta\cos\theta\;,\quad
\Gamma^{\theta}_{\;\varphi\psi}=\frac{{\lambda}}{2}\sin\theta\;, \\
\Gamma^{\varphi}_{\;\theta\varphi}=\left(1-\frac{{\lambda}}{2}\right)\frac{\cos\theta}{\sin\theta}\;,
\quad
\Gamma^{\varphi}_{\;\theta\psi}=-\frac{{\lambda}}{2}\frac{1}{\sin\theta}\;, \\
\Gamma^{\psi}_{\;\theta\varphi}=-\frac{\sin^2\theta+(2-{\lambda})\cos^2\theta}{2\sin\theta}\;,\quad
\Gamma^{\psi}_{\;\theta\psi}=\frac {{\lambda}}{2}\frac{\cos\theta}{\sin\theta}\;.
\end{split}$$ The Berger sphere is not an Einstein manifold, but it comes quite close: It satisfies the *Einstein–Weyl* equation ${{\mathcal R}}_{[ij]}\sim g_{ij}$, where ${{\mathcal R}}_{ij}$ is computed using the Weyl (non–Levi–Civita) connection. For a recent survey of Einstein–Weyl geometry, see [@CalderbankPedersen99]. On the physics side, it was shown in [@CritchleyDowker81] that (at least for $\mu$ close to zero), the spacetime can be self–consistently supported by the stress–tensor of a conformally coupled scalar.
The scalar curvature is given by $${{\mathcal R}}_h=\frac{1}{a(r)^2}\frac{4-{\lambda}(r)}{2}$$ which for the round sphere (${\lambda}=1$) of radius $1/k$ results in ${{\mathcal R}}_h=3/2 k^2$. Notice that the unit sphere (which has ${{\mathcal R}}_h=6$) corresponds to choosing $k=2$. There are two main cases to consider: If we are interested in the squashed sphere at a particular radial distance in QTN, we have $$\label{abinner}
a(r)^2=\frac{r^2(1-\mu^2r^2)}{(1-k^2r^2)^2}\; ,
\quad b(r)^2=\frac{r^2(1-\mu^2k^2r^4)}{(1-k^2r^2)^2(1-\mu^2r^2)}\;.$$ Then the scalar curvature at a radial distance $r$ is given by $${{\mathcal R}}_r=\frac{(1-k^2r^2)^2}{2r^2(1-\mu^2r^2)^3}(3-8\mu^2r^2+4\mu^4r^4+\mu^2k^2r^4)$$ This is the expression that is used when factorising the laplacian on QTN in section \[QTNfactorisation\]. If, on the other hand, we want to look at the squashed sphere at the boundary at infinity, we have to choose a defining function. Choosing $(1-k^2r^2)$ for this purpose, we end up with the metric (\[SquashedMetric\]) with $$\label{abboundary}
a^2=\frac{1}{k^2}(1-\mu^2/k^2)\; , \quad b^2=\frac{1}{k^2}$$ then the scalar curvature is $${{\mathcal R}}_B=\frac{k^2}{2}\left(\frac{3-4\mu^2/k^2}{(1-\mu^2/k^2)^2}\right)$$ As mentioned in the main text (and also in [@Zoubos02]), the fact that ${{\mathcal R}}_B$ becomes negative for $\mu^2>3/4 k^2$ should have very interesting implications for the gauge theory side.
Before moving on to discuss the symmetries, we can quickly calculate the Cotton tensor (\[Cotton\]), which, as discussed in section \[Conformal\], will tell us whether the space is conformally flat. Of course, it turns out to be nonzero apart from the case of the round sphere.
Isometries and conformal isometries
-----------------------------------
The squashed three–sphere has 4 Killing vectors, corresponding to its ${\mathrm{SU}}(2)\times{{\mathrm U}}(1)$ isometry group. We use the basis [@Britto--Pacumioetal99] $$\begin{split}
l_1&=i{\partial}_\varphi\;,\\
l_2&=i\{\sin\varphi{\partial}_\theta+\frac{\cos\varphi}{\sin\theta}(\cos\theta{\partial}_\varphi-{\partial}_\psi)\}\;,\\
l_3&=i\{\cos\varphi{\partial}_\theta-\frac{\sin\varphi}{\sin\theta}(\cos\theta{\partial}_\varphi-{\partial}_\psi)\}\;,\\
r_1&=i{\partial}_\psi\;.
\end{split}$$ The $l_i$ satisfy the commutation relations of ${\mathrm{SU}}(2)$, $[l_1,l_2]=i l_3$ etc., while $r_1$ commutes with all of them. The notation comes from the fact that the $l_i$ correspond to the unbroken (left) part of the bi–invariant ${\mathrm{SU}}(2)_L\times{\mathrm{SU}}(2)_R$ isometry group, and $r_1$ is the remaining ${{\mathrm U}}(1)$ subgroup of ${\mathrm{SU}}(2)_R$.
For completeness, we include here the Killing vectors for the case of the round sphere, i.e. for the case that ${\lambda}=1$ above. Then the four vectors above can be supplemented with two more, $$\begin{split}
r_2&=i\{\sin\psi{\partial}_\theta+\frac{\cos\psi}{\sin\theta}(\cos\theta{\partial}_\psi-{\partial}_\varphi)\}\;,\\
r_3&=i\{\cos\psi{\partial}_\theta-\frac{\sin\psi}{\sin\theta}(\cos\theta{\partial}_\psi-{\partial}_\varphi)\}\;,\\
\end{split}$$ restoring the full ${\mathrm{SU}}(2)_L\times{\mathrm{SU}}(2)_R$. Of course, in this case we also have a nontrivial conformal group. The conformal Killing vectors can be easily found by restricting the Killing vectors of the ${\mathrm{AdS}}_4$ bulk, and can be taken to be $$\label{roundCKVs}
\begin{split}
k_1&=2i\sin\frac{\theta}{2}\cos\left(\frac{\varphi+\psi}{2}\right){\partial}_\theta
+i\frac{\sin\left(\frac{\varphi+\psi}{2}\right)}{\cos\frac{\theta}{2}}\left({\partial}_\varphi+{\partial}_\psi\right)\\
k_2&=2i\sin\frac{\theta}{2}\sin\left(\frac{\varphi+\psi}{2}\right){\partial}_\theta
-i\frac{\cos\left(\frac{\varphi+\psi}{2}\right)}{\cos\frac{\theta}{2}}\left({\partial}_\varphi+{\partial}_\psi\right)\\
k_3&=2i\cos\frac{\theta}{2}\cos\left(\frac{\psi-\varphi}{2}\right){\partial}_\theta
+i\frac{\sin\left(\frac{\psi-\varphi}{2}\right)}{\sin\frac{\theta}{2}}\left({\partial}_\varphi-{\partial}_\psi\right)\\
k_4&=2i\cos\frac{\theta}{2}\sin\left(\frac{\psi-\varphi}{2}\right){\partial}_\theta
-i\frac{\cos\left(\frac{\psi-\varphi}{2}\right)}{\sin\frac{\theta}{2}}\left({\partial}_\varphi-{\partial}_\psi\right)\\
\end{split}$$ All told, we have ten Killing and conformal Killing vectors, corresponding to the conformal group ${\mathrm{SO}}(1,4)$, which is of course the same as the isometry group of ${\mathrm{AdS}}_4$. We can easily check the conformal Killing equation for the $k_n$s: $$\label{Killingeqk}
{{\mathcal L}}_{k_n(x)}g_{ij}=\nabla_i k_{n,j}+\nabla_j k_{n,i}=2 \sigma_{k_n}(x) g_{ij}$$ where $\sigma_{k_n}(x)=\nabla \cdot k_n(x)/3$. The coefficient of $\sigma_k$ is of course uniquely determined to be 2, as we can see by acting with the inverse metric on (\[Killingeqk\]).
There is another special value of the squashing parameter ${\lambda}$: When ${\lambda}{\rightarrow}\infty$ ($\mu{\rightarrow}k$), which corresponds to extreme prolate squashing, the three–sphere degenerates to a CR structure, the boundary of the unit sphere in ${{\,\,{{{^{_{\pmb{\mid}}}}\kern-.47em{\mathrm C}}}}}^2$. This is the boundary at infinity of the Bergman space ${{{\,\,{{{^{_{\pmb{\mid}}}}\kern-.47em{\mathrm C}}}}}\mathrm{H}^2}$, which is the coset space ${\mathrm{SU}}(2,1)/{{\mathrm U}}(2)$. One would expect that, despite the degeneracy of the metric, the Bergman isometry group ${\mathrm{SU}}(2,1)$ will manifest itself as the conformal isometry group of the boundary, as in the AdS case. In fact this was shown to be true by the authors of [@Britto--Pacumioetal99], who explicitly constructed the requisite conformal Killing vectors: $$\begin{split}
b_1&=2i\sin\frac{\theta}{2}\cos\left(\frac{\varphi+\psi}{2}\right){\partial}_\theta
+ i\frac{\sin\left(\frac{\varphi+\psi}{2}\right)}{\cos\frac{\theta}{2}}\left({\partial}_\varphi+(2+\cos\theta){\partial}_\psi\right)\\
b_2&=2i\sin\frac{\theta}{2}\sin\left(\frac{\varphi+\psi}{2}\right){\partial}_\theta
- i\frac{\cos\left(\frac{\varphi+\psi}{2}\right)}{\cos\frac{\theta}{2}}\left({\partial}_\varphi+(2+\cos\theta){\partial}_\psi\right)\\
b_3&=2i\cos\frac{\theta}{2}\cos\left(\frac{\psi-\varphi}{2}\right){\partial}_\theta
+ i\frac{\sin\left(\frac{\psi-\varphi}{2}\right)}{\sin\frac{\theta}{2}}\left({\partial}_\varphi-(2+\cos\theta){\partial}_\psi\right)\\
b_4&=2i\cos\frac{\theta}{2}\sin\left(\frac{\psi-\varphi}{2}\right){\partial}_\theta
- i\frac{\cos\left(\frac{\psi-\varphi}{2}\right)}{\sin\frac{\theta}{2}}\left({\partial}_\varphi-(2+\cos\theta){\partial}_\psi\right)\;.\\
\end{split}$$ The interesting point about these conformal Killing vectors is that they satisfy the conformal Killing equation with a different coefficient than the canonical one in (\[Killingeqk\]): If we again define $\sigma_{b_n}(x)=(\nabla \cdot b_n)/3$, we find that $${{\mathcal L}}_{b_n(x)} g_{ij}=\frac32 \sigma_{b_n}(x)g_{ij}\;.$$ As discussed in [@Britto--Pacumioetal99], there is nothing wrong with this since here there is no inverse metric so it need not impose a particular coefficient.
After this discussion of the two interesting limiting cases of the metric, we will now assume we are at a generic value of ${\lambda}$. In discussing two–point functions on the squashed sphere, we find it extremely convenient to work with variables invariant under the ${\mathrm{SU}}(2)\times{{\mathrm U}}(1)$ symmetry group, rather than the Euler angles of the two points ($\theta_r,\varphi_r,\psi_r$ and $\theta_s,\varphi_s,\psi_s$ respectively). We would also, of course, like to work with variables that are symmetric under the interchange $x_r\leftrightarrow x_s$, since then the symmetry of the two–point function is manifest. These two requirements lead us to define the two combinations $${\mathrm{v}_1}=\cos\frac{{\theta_r}}{2}\cos\frac{{\theta_s}}{2}\cos{\frac{1}{2}}(\psi_r+{\varphi_r}-\psi_s-{\varphi_s})
+\sin\frac{{\theta_r}}{2}\sin\frac{{\theta_s}}{2}\cos{\frac{1}{2}}(\psi_r-{\varphi_r}-\psi_s+{\varphi_s})$$ and $${\mathrm{v}_2}={\frac{1}{2}}\{1+\cos\theta_r\cos\theta_s+
\sin\theta_r\sin\theta_s\cos(\varphi_r-\varphi_s)\}\;\;.$$ Any Green’s function on ${\tilde{\mathrm{S}}^3}$ can be written as a function of ${\mathrm{v}_1}$ and ${\mathrm{v}_2}$ only (six Euler angles minus four constraints from ${\mathrm{SU}}(2)\times{{\mathrm U}}(1)$ equals two independent variables). One can check that both ${\mathrm{v}_1}$ and ${\mathrm{v}_2}$ are ${\mathrm{SU}}(2)\times{{\mathrm U}}(1)$ invariant, by which we mean that for any Killing vector $v\in{\{l_i,r_1\}}$, we have $$({{\mathcal L}}_{v(x_r)}+{{\mathcal L}}_{v(x_s)}){\mathrm{v}_1}=0\;,\quad ({{\mathcal L}}_{v(x_r)}+{{\mathcal L}}_{v(x_s)}){\mathrm{v}_2}=0\;.$$ However, if we want to impose invariance under the full ${\mathrm{SU}}(2)_L\times{\mathrm{SU}}(2)_R$ of the round sphere, i.e. allow $v$ to be $r_2$ or $r_3$, we find that ${\mathrm{v}_2}$ is not invariant, while ${\mathrm{v}_1}$ remains so. This means that on the round sphere two–point functions will depend only on ${\mathrm{v}_1}$, as is indeed the case for $M^0(x,x')$ in section \[Twopoint\].
The laplacian
-------------
From the metric (\[SquashedMetric\]) we readily obtain the laplacian
$$\label{LaplacianSquashed}
\begin{split}
\nabla_B^2&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}{\partial}_i\sqrt{g}g^{ij}{\partial}_j\\
&=\frac{1}{a^2}\left[{\partial}_{\theta\theta}+\cot\theta{\partial}_\theta
+\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}({\partial}_{\varphi\varphi}-2\cos\theta{\partial}_{\varphi\psi}+{\partial}_{\psi\psi})\right]
+\left[\frac{1}{b^2}-\frac{1}{a^2}\right]{\partial}_{\psi\psi}
\end{split}$$
Here the subscript $B$ can be taken to stand for “Berger” or “Boundary”. It is useful to define the operators $$-\Delta_0={\partial}_{\theta\theta}+\cot\theta{\partial}_\theta
+\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}({\partial}_{\varphi\varphi}-2\cos\theta{\partial}_{\varphi\psi}+{\partial}_{\psi\psi})$$ and $$-\Delta_1={\partial}_{\psi\psi}$$ We will also find it convenient to work with a laplacian that is positive definite, and which depends only on the squashing (and not on the overall scale). So we define an operator $\Delta_{(r)}$ as $$\label{Deltar}
\Delta_{(r)}=-a^2\nabla_B^2\;.$$ Given the definitions of $\Delta_0$ and $\Delta_1$ above, at the inner boundary located at a particular radial distance $r$, we have (recall (\[abinner\])) $$\label{Deltarone}
\Delta_{(r)}=\Delta_0+\mu^2r^2\frac{2-\mu^2r^2-k^2r^2}{1-\mu^2k^2r^4}\Delta_1\;.$$ At the boundary at infinity, given by $r{\rightarrow}1/k$, we have, from (\[abboundary\]) or directly from (\[Deltarone\]) $$\label{DeltaB}
\Delta_B=\lim_{r{\rightarrow}1/k} \Delta_{(r)}=\Delta_0+\frac{\mu^2}{k^2}\Delta_1\;.$$
Separation of variables
-----------------------
To look for eigenfunctions of the laplacian (\[LaplacianSquashed\]), we separate variables in a standard way: $$\label{Ylmn}
{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(\theta,\varphi,\psi)=e^{-im\varphi}e^{-in\psi}\eta^{l}_{\;mn}(\theta)$$ with $\eta^{l}_{\;mn}(\theta)$ to be determined. The variables $\varphi$ and $\psi$ separate immediately and we are left with $$\nabla_B^2{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)=\frac{1}{a^2}\left[{\partial}_{\theta\theta}+\cot\theta{\partial}_\theta
-\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}(m^2-2mn\cos\theta+n^2)\right]{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)
-n^2\left[\frac{1}{b^2}-\frac{1}{a^2}\right]{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)\;,$$ where $x$ stands for $(\theta,{\varphi},\psi)$. Renaming $\cos\theta=z$, we obtain $$\label{SUtwofirst}
\frac{1}{a^2}\left[(1-z^2){\partial}_{zz}-2z{\partial}_z-\frac{m^2-2mnz+n^2}{1-z^2}\right]{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)-n^2\left[\frac{1}{b^2}
-\frac{1}{a^2}\right]{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(x)\;.$$ The first bracket is a well–known differential equation, arising from representation theory on ${\mathrm{SU}}(2)$, and its eigenfunctions are the Wigner functions ([@Wigner], see also [@Varshalovichetal; @Vilenkin]), sometimes denoted $d^{l}_{\;mn}(z)$. We follow [@Vilenkin] in denoting them ${P^l_{mn}}(z)$, a notation that indicates that they are simply a generalisation of the Legendre functions ${{\mathrm P}}_l(z)$ and associated Legendre functions ${{\mathrm P}}^l_m(z)$. The eigenvalues of the Wigner functions are simply $-l(l+1)$, depending only on the principal quantum number $l$. In other words, the first bracket of (\[SUtwofirst\]) acts on ${P^l_{mn}}(z)$ as: $$\label{SUtwo}
\left[(1-z^2){\partial}_{zz}-2z{\partial}_z-\frac{m^2-2mnz+n^2}{1-z^2}\right]{P^l_{mn}}(z)=-l(l+1){P^l_{mn}}(z)\;.$$ We can call this equation the “${\mathrm{SU}}(2)$ differential equation” since it always arises when doing representation theory on ${\mathrm{SU}}(2)$, as for instance when describing the spherical top. As discussed in the beginning of this appendix, it is a nice (and well–known) result that the Wigner functions are also eigenfunctions of the more general equation (\[SUtwofirst\]) corresponding to the *homogeneously* squashed sphere, or equivalently to the symmetric top, with very simple eigenvalues[^50]. So substituting $\eta^{l}_{\;mn}(z)={P^l_{mn}}(z)$ in (\[Ylmn\]), we have that the ${\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(\theta,\varphi,\psi)$ satisfy $$\nabla_B^2{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(\theta,\varphi,\psi)=
\left\{-\frac{l(l+1)}{a^2}-\left(\frac{1}{b^2}-\frac{1}{a^2}\right)n^2\right\} {\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(\theta,\varphi,\psi)\;.$$ As mentioned earlier, we find it convenient to use the positive laplacian $\Delta_{(r)}$ defined in (\[Deltar\]) rather that $\nabla^2$. The operators $\Delta_0$ and $\Delta_1$ we defined above clearly give $$\Delta_0{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(\theta,\varphi,\psi)=l(l+1){\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(\theta,\varphi,\psi)$$ and $$\Delta_1{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(\theta,\varphi,\psi)=n^2{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(\theta,\varphi,\psi)$$ so that $$\Delta_{(r)}{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(\theta,\varphi,\psi)=\left\{l(l+1)-\frac{\mu^2r^2(2-\mu^2r^2-k^2r^2)}{(1-\mu^2k^2r^4)}n^2\right\}
{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(\theta,\varphi,\psi)\;.$$ Since $\Delta_{(r)}$ is finite as $r{\rightarrow}1/k$, if we want to look at the Berger sphere at the boundary at infinity (as in the eigenfunction expansions of sections \[Roundsphere\] and \[Bergersphere\]), we can just take $r=1/k$ in $\Delta_B$. We thus obtain[^51] : $$\Delta_B{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(\theta,\varphi,\psi)=\left\{l(l+1)-\frac{\mu^2}{k^2}\cdot n^2\right\}{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(\theta,\varphi,\psi)\;.$$ If the range of $l$ is taken to be $l=0,{\frac{1}{2}},1,\ldots\infty$, and that of $m$ and $n$ as $-l,-l+1,\ldots,l-1,l$, the ${\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(\theta,{\varphi},\psi)$ form a complete orthonormal basis on ${\tilde{\mathrm{S}}^3}$. They satisfy the following orthogonality relation $$\int_0^\pi\int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^{4\pi}\mathrm{Y}^{l_1}_{\;m_1n_1}(\theta,{\varphi},\psi)
\overline{\mathrm{Y}}^{l_1}_{\;m_1n_1}(\theta,{\varphi},\psi){\mathrm{d}}\psi{\mathrm{d}}{\varphi}\sin\theta{\mathrm{d}}\theta
=\frac{16\pi^2}{2l+1}\delta_{l_1l_2}\delta_{m_1m_2}\delta_{n_1n_2}\;,$$ and also completeness $$\sum_{lmn}\frac{2l+1}{16\pi^2}{\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(\theta,{\varphi},\psi)
\overline{\mathrm{Y}}^{l}_{\;mn}(\theta',{\varphi}',\psi')=\delta(\theta-\theta')\delta({\varphi}-{\varphi}')\delta(\psi-\psi')\;.$$ For this reason in the main text we actually use a normalised version: $${\mathrm{Y}^{l}_{mn}}(\theta,{\varphi},\psi)=\sqrt{2l+1}e^{-im\phi}e^{-in\psi}{P^l_{mn}}(\cos\theta)\;.$$
Pseudodifferential Operators on Manifolds {#Pseudodifferential}
=========================================
Here we will give just a few basic definitions from the theory of pseudodifferential operators. The reader interested in better understanding pseudodifferential operators should consult one of the books on the subject (e.g. [@Taylor; @Kumano-go; @Treves]). See also [@Gilkey84] for a discussion oriented towards applications to index theorems.
The definition of a pseudodifferential operator on ${\mathrm{I}\kern-.18em\mathrm{R}}^d$ usually starts from the observation that one can think of a differential operator $P$ acting on a function $f(x)$ as defined through its Fourier transform: $$\label{pseudodiffdefinition}
P f(x)=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^d}\int_{{\mathrm{I}\kern-.18em\mathrm{R}}^d}e^{ix\cdot\xi}p(x,\xi)\hat{f}(\xi){\mathrm{d}}\xi\;.$$ Here $\hat{f}$ is the Fourier transform of $f$, and the function $p(x,\xi)$ is called the *symbol* of $P$. Now for differential operators, which for order $m$ can be written as $P=\sum_{i=0}^{m} a_i(x)(-i{\partial}_x)^i$, the symbol is a polynomial in $\xi$: $p(x,\xi)=\sum_{i=0}^m a_i(x) \xi^i$. It is natural to generalise by considering symbols that are not polynomials, and this leads us to pseudodifferential operators. In that case one has to be more precise about the definition of the symbol of the operator, and thus its order. We will not need the full definition, but only a more restricted one called a *classical* symbol: We say that a (classical) pseudodifferential operator belongs to $\mathbb{S}^m$ (the set of pseudodifferential operators of order $m$) if its symbol $p(x,\xi)$ is smooth in $x$ and $\xi$, and is an asymptotic expansion in homogeneous terms, the degree of each term decreasing by an integer. That is, $$\label{classical}
p(x,\xi)=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} p_{m-i}(x,\xi)$$ where $p_{m-i}$ is a homogeneous function of degree $m-i$. This definition is sufficient for our purposes, since, as discussed in [@SylvesterUhlmann88], the Dirichlet–to–Neumann operator is a classical pseudodifferential operator.
Another useful definition is that of the *principal symbol* of a pseudodifferential operator, which is the highest–order part $p_m$ of its symbol. The principal symbol contains a large amount of information about the operator, for instance it is enough to decide whether the operator is elliptic or not.
In the theory of pseudodifferential operators, one often encounters *infinitely smoothing* operators, the operators whose symbols belong to $\mathbb{S}^{-\infty}$ (defined as the intersection of all the $\mathbb{S}^m$). These operators will completely smoothen out the support of any distribution. They can be arbitrarily added to any asymptotic series (like (\[classical\])), so one is often forced to work modulo smoothing operators.
Probably the major conceptual difference between differential and pseudodifferential operators is that the latter are nonlocal. However they are a very restricted set of nonlocal operators, being what is known as *pseudolocal*. This means that, although they are defined through the Fourier transform, which smears out the support of the function they act on, they don’t smear out the *singular* support. In other words, if a function is smooth in some domain, then $P$ acting on it will also be smooth in that domain.
It is a well–known result, due to Seeley, that any complex power of an elliptic operator is pseudodifferential. This tells us that the operator (\[BAdS\]) is well defined. As for the expression we found for the full Dirichlet–to–Robin operator on QTN, we will need the following result (see e.g. [@Taylor], p. 297): A function $p(A_1,A_2)$ of two self–adjoint operators is pseudodifferential if $A_1$ and $A_2$ (in our case $\sqrt{{\Delta_0}+1/4}$ and $\sqrt{{\Delta_1}}$) commute, $A_1^2+A_2^2$ is elliptic, and the function $p({\lambda})$ is a symbol in the appropriate symbol class. The first two conditions are trivial to show, however we have actually shown the third condition (cf. (\[Basymptotic\])) only for a special case.
So far we have been discussing pseudodifferential operators on ${\mathrm{I}\kern-.18em\mathrm{R}}^d$. However they can be readily defined on curved manifolds, by first defining them on a coordinate patch (transferring back to ${\mathrm{I}\kern-.18em\mathrm{R}}^d$), and then requiring that the definition holds for all the charts in an atlas. We will not require much knowledge of the technical issues, however it is worth noting that only the *principal symbol* is diffeomorphism invariant. Clearly this makes it rather tedious to work with pseudodifferential operators in a covariant manner, and there has been a lot of effort to try to overcome this difficulty (see e.g. [@FullingKennedy88] for a discussion).
Fortunately in our case things are rather simple: As dicussed in appendix \[BergerSphere\], the Berger sphere allows an explicit expansion into known eigenfunctions, and the eigenvalues are simple enough that we can directly act on these eigenfunctions with any pseudodifferential operator by naively applying the spectral theorem. That means that, assuming we know the eigenfunctions $Y^a$ of some (pseudo)differential operator $A$, we write $$A Y^a={\lambda}_a Y^a\quad \Rightarrow \quad p(A) Y^a=p({\lambda}_a) Y^a\;.$$ Apart from the very important application of pseudodifferential operators in the Atiyah–Singer index theorem (see e.g. [@Gilkey84]), they have long been useful in quantum field theory in curved spacetimes (see e.g. [@Fulling89]): For $P$ an elliptic, positive order operator, the heat kernel $e^{-tP}$ and the zeta function $Tr(P^{-s})$ are pseudodifferential. As for the square root of the laplacian, it has also appeared in quantum field theory in various contexts, mainly related to the construction of non–local actions (some sample references in this field are [@Lammerzahl93; @Junker95; @Gorbar97]). [@Junker95] actually discusses a factorisation of the (flat) laplacian similar to that in section \[Definition\]. In its lorentzian, flat space edition, the square root of the wave operator in 2+1 dimensions is known to satisfy Huygens’ principle (unlike the wave operator itself) [@BolliniGiambiagi93; @Barcietal96] and thus it is natural for it to appear in 2+1–dimensional bosonization (e.g. [@Marino91]) (and thus also invalidating to some extent our comment in a footnote in the introduction that the “square root of the laplacian is nonlocal so has nothing to do with the Dirac operator”).
[^1]: The condition of conformal compactness, together with the Einstein condition, implies that the metric is *asymptotically hyperbolic*, that is, all sectional curvatures approach $-1$ near the boundary [@Anderson01]. (For hyperbolic space, the sectional curvature is $-1$ everywhere). So metrics of this type are often also called asymptotically hyperbolic, or asymptotically AdS.
[^2]: We will very briefly indicate how this equation comes about in section \[Conformal\]. A detailed discussion of similar formulas can be found in [@Erdmenger97].
[^3]: Note however that in the limit of extreme prolate squashing the left–invariant sphere degenerates to a CR structure, which is not a smooth manifold, Obata’s theorem does not apply, and indeed (as discussed in [@Britto--Pacumioetal99], where it was realised as the boundary of the Bergman space ${{\pmb{\mathbb{C}}}\mathrm{H}^2}$) this space allows conformal Killing vectors. Lee [@Lee96] and Schoen [@Schoen95] have analysed this case (the unit sphere in ${\pmb{\mathbb{C}}}^n$), which turns out to be the unique CR manifold to admit a nontrivial conformal group. The analogue of conformal flatness in this case is the CR equivalence to the Heisenberg group.
[^4]: It should be clear that ${\mathcal{B}}$ has nothing to do with the Dirac operator. Apart from the fact that ${\mathcal{B}}^2=\Delta_B+1/4=\Delta_B+{{\mathcal R}}_B/6$ (the scalar curvature of ${{\mathrm S}}^3$ is ${{\mathcal R}}_B=3/2$ in our conventions—see appendix \[BergerSphere\]), while (according to Lichnerowicz) ${{{\mathcal D}}\!\!\!\!\slash\,}^2=\Delta_B+{{\mathcal R}}_B/4$, it is crucial that ${\mathcal{B}}$ has to be a *nonlocal* operator, as will be discussed in section \[DirichlettoNeumann\].
[^5]: There are several other forms of the metric for this manifold, which is often called AdS–Taub–NUT in the physics literature. See [@Zoubos02] for references and more details.
[^6]: In [@Zoubos02] the Bergman space was denoted by $\widetilde{{\pmb{\mathbb{C}}}{{\mathrm P}}^2}$.
[^7]: That is, we ignore self–interactions as well as any backreaction on the geometry.
[^8]: The extra term in the boundary condition can be easily seen to follow from Green’s third identity applied to the modified Neumann problem [@Solodukhin99].
[^9]: It is basically given by $-y{\partial}_y$ in the $(y,{{\vec{x}}})$ coordinates.
[^10]: Here we switch to the coordinates of (\[Pedersen\]), where the boundary is at $r=1/k$, and will use the notation $x_r=(r,x)$ and $x_s=(s,x')$ for the two bulk points, where $r,s$ are the corresponding radial coordinates, and $x,x'$ are shorthand for the angular coordinates $(\theta_r,\varphi_r, \psi_r)$ and $(\theta_s,\varphi_s,\psi_s)$ respectively. See section \[HHfactorisation\] for $N^r$ in AdS and section \[QTNfactorisation\] for $N^r$ in QTN.
[^11]: We found it convenient to rescale ${\mathrm{v}_1}$ to half its value relative to [@Zoubos02], which leads to slight changes in the formulas compared to that paper.
[^12]: By this we mean that it behaves roughly like $\lim_{\epsilon{\rightarrow}0}\epsilon/(\epsilon^2+x^2){\rightarrow}\epsilon^2\delta^{(3)}(x,x')$ close to the boundary. Properly normalising (\[bulktoboundary\]) would require integrating it over the Berger sphere, which is a rather involved calculation and we have not performed it.
[^13]: The difference is that now one obtains $\epsilon^2\delta^{(3)}(x,x')$ from a distribution of the type $\lim_{\epsilon{\rightarrow}0}\epsilon^3/(\epsilon^2+x^2)^2$, rather than the more “exceptional” case above.
[^14]: Note that to solve the problem of prescribing $f(x)$ in (\[phitwo\]), which would lead to correlation functions of a dual ${{{\lambda}}}=2$ operator, we would have to find a Green’s function on QTN scaling as $(1-k^2r^2)^2$ on the boundary (which could of course then be interpreted as the Dirichlet Green’s function for ${{{\lambda}}}=2$ or the Neumann Green’s function for ${{{\lambda}}}=1$). This could be constructed in a similar way to [@Zoubos02], but has not yet been attempted.
[^15]: It is well known, of course, that this term is the first in a series of (covariant) regulators for the boundary theory in the case of scalars, derivable using holographic renormalisation [@deHaroetal01; @Skenderis02]. Since we are working at a rather naive level, being interested only in the functional form of the two–point function rather than the precise normalisation, we will not perform a similar analysis here.
[^16]: However, unlike the case of flat space, we cannot claim that $M(x,x')$ is the *unique* ${{{\lambda}}}=1$ correlation function. See the conclusions for a discussion of this point.
[^17]: By “upper–half space notation” we mean the usual metric ${\mathrm{d}}s^2=({\mathrm{d}}y^2+{\mathrm{d}}\vec{x}^2)/(k^2y^2)$, where $y$ is the radial coordinate.
[^18]: Note that the conformal weight $w$ as it is defined here corresponds to the length dimension of $\phi$. Often in physics it is more convenient to use mass dimensions, which we have been calling ${{{\lambda}}}$, in which case ${{{\lambda}}}=-w$. In this section we will use length dimensions which are more natural from a conformal geometry point of view.
[^19]: Also sometimes referred to as the *Cotton–York* tensor [@Eastwood96] or the *Weyl–Schouten* tensor [@SkenderisSolodukhin00].
[^20]: See appendix \[Pseudodifferential\] for some basic definitions on pseudodifferential operators.
[^21]: See also [@Katchalovetal01] for a discussion of boundary normal coordinates in a similar context.
[^22]: In [@LeeUhlmann89; @Uhlmann92], the Dirichlet–to–Neumann operator is defined as taking functions to $d$–forms, so the definition is slightly different.
[^23]: Note here that the methods of [@Zoubos02] so far have only produced the solution of the Dirichlet problem at infinity of QTN, *not* at some finite radius. Thus, unlike the AdS case where (thanks to the ability to Fourier transform) the equivalent of $M(x,x')$ is also available at some finite radius [@Freedmanetal98], in the QTN case we know it solely at infinity. So, although presumably ${\mathcal{A}}$ at finite radius contains useful information, we will need to take its limit at infinity to compare with $M(x,x')$.
[^24]: The proof of this is based on the expansion we discussed in section \[Definition\]. Knowledge of the coefficients $a_{1-i}$ is enough to find all terms in the Taylor expansion of the metric in boundary normal coordinates in a local neighbourhood, and (given the convexity requirement) this can be extended to the full metric [@LeeUhlmann89].
[^25]: As always, we use “Robin” as short for “conformal Neumann”.
[^26]: In this section we use coordinates $(y,\vec{x})$, where $y$ is the radial variable and $\vec{x}=(x^1,\ldots, x^d)$ parametrise the $d$–dimensional boundary of a conformally compact manifold ${{\mathcal M}}$. If ${{\mathcal M}}$ is ${\mathrm{AdS}}$, the metric would be the usual “upper–half–space” metric. For simplicity, we set $k=1$. Note finally that the outward normal vector in these coordinates is roughly $N=-y{\partial}_y$ (and exactly that for ${\mathrm{AdS}}$).
[^27]: See also [@Katchalovetal01], chapter 4, for a different proof of this.
[^28]: As mentioned in the introduction, the factor $\frac{1}{4}$ could be thought of as *four* dimensional conformal coupling $\frac{1}{6}{{\mathcal R}}_0$ on the three–sphere, where ${{\mathcal R}}_0=3(1-k^2r^2)^2/(2r^2)$.
[^29]: The sign of ${\mathcal{A}}$ also depends on the sign in (\[hyperbolicfactorisation\]) but that is purely conventional, and indeed here it is opposite from that in section \[Definition\]. Even with the opposite sign, we would still choose ${\mathcal{A}}$ as in (\[AcalAdS\]) based on positivity.
[^30]: In [@Branson87], for $d=3$ the expression for ${\mathcal{B}}$ is $\sqrt{\Delta_B+1}$, which comes about because there the definition of the laplacian on ${{\mathrm S}}^3$ is such that its eigenvalues are $j(j+2)$. To compare (since we are allowing half-integral $l$) we need to take $j=2l$, in which case (setting also $k=2$ which corresponds to the unit sphere—see appendix \[BergerSphere\]) the expressions match precisely. The *reason* they match is possibly related to that ${{\mathrm{I}\kern-.18em\mathrm{H}}\mathrm{H}^1}$ is conformal to flat space, and ${\mathcal{B}}$ is conformally invariant.
[^31]: This is, after all, a physics paper.
[^32]: Our expression $1/(1-{\mathrm{v}_1})$ is really just $1/|x-x'|$ if we define $x,x'$ in terms of the embedding coordinates of ${{\mathrm S}}^3$ in ${\mathrm{I}\kern-.18em\mathrm{R}}^4$ as in [@Drummond75].
[^33]: Of course, one can question the validity of taking $h{\rightarrow}1$ when (\[expansionround\]) is really only valid for $h<1$. But since orthonormality leaves only one term in the $h$–expansion for each $l$, namely the one proportional to $h^s$ for $s=l$, questions of convergence should not arise. Of course one can also check this by first taking $h{\rightarrow}1$ in (\[integralround\]) and explicitly doing the integral, say for particular values of $l,n$, using e.g. the tables for the ${P^l_{mn}}(z)$ given in [@Varshalovichetal].
[^34]: In comparing with the formulas in [@Vilenkin], note that the sign of $\theta'$ is opposite to ours, so one must use the property $t^{l}_{mn}(-\theta)=\bar{t}^{l}_{nm}(\theta)$ given on p.123 of that reference.
[^35]: We set $k=1$ here for simplicity.
[^36]: The [maple]{} algebraic manipulation program was instrumental in finding this expression.
[^37]: Here we use the following formulas from [@Lebedev], p. 200, relating the hypergeometric function to the Legendre functions of the first and second kind : $$\nonumber
P_l(z)=\left(\frac{z+1}{2}\right)^{l}F\left(-l,-l;1;\frac{z-1}{z+1}\right),\quad
\text{and}\quad
Q_l(z)=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma(l+1)}{2^{l+1}\Gamma(l+3/2)}(z+1)^{-l-1}
F\left(1+l,1+l;2+2l;\frac{2}{1+z}\right)$$ where in both cases $z=1/(\mu k r^2)$.
[^38]: The factor $b$ is $(-1)^{m-n}/(16\pi^2)$, as in section \[Roundexpansion\].
[^39]: There is one, of course: We can first take the limit $h{\rightarrow}1$ in $I$ and *then* integrate it with a Legendre function, which can be done for particular values of $l$ since the $P_l(z)$s are polynomials. Then we can try to find a general formula for the result, which again leads us to (\[Iresult\]).
[^40]: Note that this expansion holds for both integer and half–integer values of $n$.
[^41]: In (\[SUtwoplus\]) we have added the extra factor of 1/4 which makes the eigenvalues complete squares.
[^42]: Taking also $h{\rightarrow}1$, as in all expressions that follow.
[^43]: To check that we recover (\[alzerozero\]) for $n=0$, note that $n\Gamma((1-\mu)n){\rightarrow}1/(1-\mu)$ for $n{\rightarrow}0$.
[^44]: This is just a formal trick, and could easily be dispensed with.
[^45]: This is of course simply the Wronskian of the two linearly independent Legendre functions, given e.g. in [@Lebedev].
[^46]: We could have written here $\alpha_{lm0}$, but since they are all equal to $\alpha_{l00}$ we just write the latter.
[^47]: The extra factor $(1-\mu^2/k^2)$ clearly has to do with the normalisation of $M(x,x')$ which we have left arbitrary.
[^48]: Which we can verify by inserting specific values of $l$ and $n$.
[^49]: Up to a $(1-\mu^2/k^2)$ term and other possible normalisation factors that do not depend on $l$ and $n$.
[^50]: This is no longer true when we consider the *asymmetric* top, or equivalently the full mixmaster solution $a^2{\sigma_1}^2+b^2{\sigma_2}^2+c^2{\sigma_3}^2$. There the analysis becomes much more involved and can only be approached numerically [@Hu73].
[^51]: Note that this is still positive since $\mu\leq k$ and for unitary representations $n\leq l$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The Gauss self-linking integral of an unframed knot is not a knot invariant, but it can be turned into an isotopy invariant by adding a correction term which requires adding extra structure to the knot. We collect the different definitions/theorems/proofs concerning this correction term, most of which are well-known (at least as folklore) and put everything together in an accessible format. We then show simply and elegantly how these approaches coincide.'
address: 'Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto, 606-8502 JAPAN'
author:
- Daniel Moskovich
date: '04.03.21'
title: 'Framing and the Self-Linking Integral'
---
Introduction
============
In 1833 Carl Friedrich Gauss, in his investigation of electromagnetic theory, discovered an integral formula for the linking number of two space curves. If $\gamma_{0}$ and $\gamma_{1}$ are disjoint embeddings of $S^{1}$ into $S^{3}$— i.e two disjoint space curves, and if $\Phi:S^{1}\times
S^{1}\rightarrow S^{2}$ is the map that assigns to each $(x,y)\in
S^{1}\times S^{1}$ the unit vector from $\gamma_{0}(x)$ to $\gamma_{1}(y)$, with $\omega$ defined as the volume form on $S^{2}$, the Gauss integral is $$\frac{1}{4\pi}\int\limits_{S^{1}\times S^{1}}\Phi^{*}\omega$$ It is natural to ask what happens if we take $\gamma_{0}$ to equal $\gamma_{1}$, in other words if we want to find a knot invariant analogous to the linking number of a two component link. But in the case of a knot we run into the problem that $\Phi(x,x)$ is not defined (how do we define the direction from a point to itself?). So rather than $\Phi$ being a function from $S^{1}\times S^{1}$ to $S^{2}$ it is instead a function from $C_{2}(S^{1}):=\{(x,y)\in S^{1}\times S^{1}\mid x\neq y\}$ (the configuration space of two points on $S^{1}$) to $S^{2}$. The natural way to transport the Gauss integral to the case of a knot is then $$\eta(\gamma):=\frac{1}{4\pi}\int\limits_{C_{2}(S^{1})}\Phi^{*}
\omega$$ The problem now is that since $C_{2}(S^{1})$ is not a compact space, we are not guaranteed that the integral converges. There are two ways that we might try to solve this problem.
1. We could compactify the configuration space, and examine by how much $\eta(\gamma)$ ‘fails’ to be invariant. By Stokes’ Theorem, we find that this quantity depends on the boundary of the compactified configuration space. We seek to eliminate this boundary by pasting some extra discs $D_{0}$ and $D_{1}$ onto our space, thus renormalizing the integral. Our invariant will then be $\eta(\gamma)$ plus a correction term which will depend on a “swaddling” map $\beta$, the extension of $\Phi$ to the extra discs $D_{0}$ and $D_{1}$. The invariant thus constructed will depend on the initial curve and on a choice of a **homotopy class for the swaddling map $\beta$**.
2. We may look at the linking number of two copies of the knot, when the second copy is “pushed off” to a distance of $\varepsilon$ from the first copy, and calculate what happens as $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$. But this linking number will depend on **which direction** we decided to push off the second copy of the knot in relation to the first copy at each point, which implicitly specifies a knot framing. As $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$, the limit will not necessarily be an integer, forcing the introduction of a framing dependant correction term which will turn out to be the total holonomy of the curve. The invariant thus constructed will depend on the initial curve, along with a choice of **framing** for it.
It is not at all clear at first what these two constructions should have to do with one another. The aim of this note is to present both approaches in a clear and accessible fashion, and to showing how they relate in basic differential geometric terms. We are not trying to say anything new per se, but rather to present definitions, facts, and proofs most of which are well known, at least as folklore, in a simple and accessible format.
Historical remarks
------------------
The importance of the Self-Linking Integral is that it is the most simple and basic example of presentation of a Vassiliev invariant as a configuration space integral. Moreover, as the work of Bott and Taubes [@BT] (see also [@AF]) shows, this integral plays a basic role as a correction term for anomalies in the definition of more general finite-type “self-linking invariants”. In this regard, this invariant constitutes a basic ingredient in the understanding of the Chern-Simons invariants of knot theory.
The first effective ‘renormalization’ of the Gauss integral by adding a correction term was carried out by Calugareanu [@Cal], and later by Pohl [@Poh] in the case of a closed space curve with nowhere vanishing torsion.
Who the first person was to extend the invariant to curves that may have a non-vanishing torsion I do not know. The ‘holonomy’ construction (the second method above) appears the more common, and is used for instance by Polyakov [@Pol] (see also Tze [@Tze]), by Bott and Taubes [@BT] and by Bar-Natan [@BN]. Meanwhile, the swaddling construction (the first method mentioned above) is preferred by Dylan Thurston [@Th] and appears more recently in papers by Poirier ([@Poi] and by Lescop [@LeS]. The Poirier paper also gives a brief explanation for the equivalence between the two constructions ([@Poi], remark 6.17).
Acknowledgements
----------------
I would like to thank Prof. Dror Bar-Natan, who had the idea for this paper, and who helped me enormously at every stage of getting it written. I also wish to thank Tomotada Ohtsuki for his many helpful suggestions, Emanuel Farjoun for his generous help with the topological side of things, and Raymond Lickorish for his helpful comments.
The swaddling map construction
==============================
Our problem when attempting to transport the Gauss self-linking integral to knots is what to do about points of the form $(x,x)$, for which the Gauss map is not defined. We cannot simply ignore them, since this would force us to integrate over the space $C_{2}(S^{1})$ which is not compact, so that the Gauss integral would not be guaranteed to converge. If we want to find an invariant based on the concept of self-linking, we have no choice but to extend the Gauss function to points of the form $(x,x)$ in some way. The problem is that as points in $C_{2}(S^{1})$ approach points on the diagonal, the Gauss map has two limits— the forward and the backward sweeping tangents.
Compactifying the configuration space
-------------------------------------
Let us define $\overline{C_{2}(S^{1})}$, a compactification of $C_{2}(S^{1})$, by pasting two copies of the diagonal, $\Delta_{0}$ and $\Delta_{1}$ to its missing diagonal $\{(x,x)|x\in S^{1}\}$, as shown in the diagram below.
$$\xy 0;/r4pc/: (0,0)="a"; (1,1)="b" **@{--}; (0,1)="c" **@{-};
?(0.45)*{>>}; (0,1)="c"; "a" **@{-}; ?(0.45)*{\wedge}; (2,0)="a";
(3,1)="b" **@{-}; (2,1)="c" **@{-}; ?(0.45)*{>>}; (2,1)="c"; "a"
**@{-}; ?(0.45)*{\wedge}; (0,-.2)="a"; (1,.8)="b" **@{--};
(1,-.2)="c" **@{-}; ?(0.45)*{\wedge}; (1,-.2)="c"; "a" **@{-};
?(0.45)*{>>}; (2,-.2)="a"; (3,.8)="b" **@{-}; (3,-.2)="c" **@{-};
?(0.45)*{\wedge}; (3,-.2)="c"; "a" **@{-}; ?(0.45)*{>>};
(.5,1.3)*=0{\textbf{$C_{2}(S^{1})$}};
(2.5,1.3)*=0{\textbf{$\overline{C_{2}(S^{1})}$}};
\endxy$$
Points on $\Delta_{0}$, which are limits of the form $\lim_{y\rightarrow x^{+}}(x,y)$, shall be denoted $(x,x^{+})$, with points on $\Delta_{1}$ correspondingly denoted $(x,x^{-})$. At these boundaries of $C_{2}(S^{1})$, the Gauss map converges to the tangent vector to the curve, sweeping either forwards or backwards depending on whether its input converges to a point in $\Delta_{0}$ or to a point in $\Delta_{1}$. This allows us to solve the problem of how to extend the Gauss map to the diagonal. $\Phi$ can be extended smoothly to a function $\overline{\Phi_{\gamma}}: \overline{C_{2}(S^{1})}\rightarrow
S^{2}$, defined as $\overline{\Phi_{\gamma}}(x,x^{\pm}):=\pm\dot{\gamma}$ on the boundary.
Checking invariance
-------------------
Let $H: S^{1}\times I\rightarrow S^{3}$ be a one parameter family of curves. For $t \in I$, let us define $$\label{ps:inw}
\eta_{t}(\gamma):= \frac{1}{4\pi}\int\limits_{
\overline{C_{2}(S^{1})}\times\{t\}} \overline{\Phi^{*}}\omega$$ Invariance of $\eta$ means that $\eta_{0}(\gamma)=\eta_{1}(\gamma)$ for all $\gamma$. But:
$$\label{ps:inv}
0=\int\limits_{\overline{C_{2}(S^{1})}\times I}
d\overline{\Phi_{H}^{*}}\omega=
\int\limits_{\partial(\overline{C_{2}(S^{1})}\times
I)}\overline{\Phi_{H}^{*}}\omega=
\eta_{1}-\eta_{0}+2\int\limits_{S^{1}\times I}
\overline{\Phi_{H}^{*}}\omega$$
The first equality holds because $d$ and $\overline{\Phi_{H}^{*}}$ commute, and since $\omega$ is a 2-form defined on a 2-manifold, $d\omega = 0$. The second equality is the Stokes theorem. The third equality is simply the fact that $\partial
\overline{C_{2}(S^{1})} = 2S^{1}$.
From (2.2), we learn that $\eta_{1}=\eta_{0}$ if and only if $\int\limits_{S^{1}\times I} \overline{\Phi_{H}^{*}}\omega =0$. But we have no reason to assume that this would generally be the case.
Introducing a correction term
-----------------------------
Let us then “cap off” the cylinder $S^{1}\times I$ by pasting two $D^{2}$’s to it, making it isomorphic to $S^{2}$, as shown in the illustration below.
{width="9cm"}
Let us define a “swaddling” map $\beta$ as a continuous map which wraps $S^{2}$ in $D^{2}$ such that on the boundary $\beta |_{\partial D^{2}}=\dot{\gamma}$. In our case we have two such maps, $\beta_{0}$ and $\beta_{1}$. $\overline{\Phi_{H}}$ maps the boundaries of $S^{1}\times I$ in “antipodally”— i.e. if $x\times \{0\}\in S^{1}\times\{0\}$ maps to $y\in S^{2}$, $x\times
\{1\}\in S^{1}\times\{1\}$ maps to $-y$. Let us now define $\beta_{0}$ as a map that maps the border of a disc to $\pm\dot{\gamma}$, with the sign corresponding to that of $\overline{\Phi_{H}}(S^{1}\times \{0\})$, and $\beta_{1}$ to be $-\beta_{0}$. By abuse of notation, let us now define our total map $\beta$ as the difference between these two maps. Our correction term will then be defined by the equation $$\tau_{\beta}(\gamma):=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{D^{2}}\beta^{*}\omega$$ The motivation for this is that just like with $\gamma$, invariance of $\tau_{\beta}$ means that $\tau_{\beta , {0}}(\gamma)=\tau_{\beta
,{1}}(\gamma)$ for all $\gamma$. But: $$0=\int\limits_{D^{2}\times I} d\beta^{*}\omega=
\int\limits_{\partial(D^{2}\times I)}\beta^{*}\omega= \tau_{\beta
,{1}}-\tau_{\beta ,{0}}+2\int\limits_{S^{1}\times I}
\beta^{*}\omega \label{motv}$$ So $\tau_{\beta}$ is “at a distance” of $2\int\limits_{S^{1}\times I} \beta^{*}\omega$ from being invariant.
We have found that $\partial\tau_{\beta}=\partial\eta$, proving the following:
$\eta-\tau_{\beta}$ is an invariant of ordered pairs of a knot and an integer specifying the homotopy class for the map $\beta$.
Indeed, a simple Stokes’ theorem argument shows that for two homotopic $\beta$’s give us the same $\tau_{\beta}$ (we can push the difference to the boundary, where the two $\beta$’s will coincide). Moreover, our new invariant assumes integer values, because $\beta$ wraps the disc around $S^{2}$ a whole number of times (it has to, since $\pi_{2}(S^{2})=\mathbb{Z}$, and so $\int_{D^{2}}\beta^{*}\omega$ assumes values in $4\pi\mathbb{Z}$).
Thus we find that $sl(\gamma):=\eta(\gamma)-\tau_{\beta}(\gamma)$ (the “self-linking number” of $\gamma$) is an integer-valued invariant of closed space curves along with a choice of homotopy class of swaddling maps $\beta$. But just how much information are we adding about the knot when we specify a homotopy class for a swaddling map?
Relating $\tau_{\beta}$ to the total torsion of a space curve
-------------------------------------------------------------
In passing, we may note that for a curve with nowhere vanishing curvature, $\tau_{\beta}$ corresponds to the notion of the correction term for the self-linking number as it was first defined by Calugareanu and later by Pohl, as the total torsion of a space curve. In section 2.4, we discovered that the correction term $\tau_{\beta}$ is equal, modulo $\mathbb{Z}$, to the area on $S_{2}$ covered by the map $\beta$. By the Gauss-Bonnet Theorem, this is equal to the total curvature of $\dot{\gamma}$. But if $\gamma$ has nowhere vanishing curvature, then this equals simply the total torsion of the space curve $\gamma$.
The holonomy construction
=========================
In the previous section, we transported the concept of a linking number from links to knots by compactifying the configuration space and pasting pieces onto it in order to “force” the Gauss integral to converge and to give us an invariant. There is another way to approach the problem however. We already know that the linking number is a link invariant— well then, let’s pretend that our knot is a link! If we take two copies of our knot that are only an $\varepsilon$ apart, and then see what happens when $\varepsilon$ goes to zero, we may utilize the known invariance of the linking number for links in order to directly conjure up an invariant for knots.
In the approach we are now taking, we have one ‘stationary’ curve, which we shall label $\gamma_{0}$, for which we choose a smooth framing $n(t)$. We then take the curve obtained made up of points $t+\varepsilon\cdot n(t)$ for $t\in \gamma_{0}$, with $0<\varepsilon\in \mathbb{R}$, which we shall denote $\gamma_{\varepsilon}$. Now we let the ‘mobile’ $\gamma_{1}$ descent towards the ‘stationary’ $\gamma_{0}$. What we want to know is what happens the self-linking integral when they touch.
The classical approach here is to take the limit as $\varepsilon
\rightarrow 0$ of the Gauss integral, which involves writing and partially calculating an explicit integral. This leads us to what physicists call the ‘point-splitting regularization integral’. Tze [@Tze] quotes a ‘simplified approach’ which he credits to Anshelevich, as quoted in an article about the twisting of strands of DNA [@KaV] (!), which leads to the conclusion that the correction term must $\frac{1}{2\pi}$ times the total holonomy of the curve. But the same result may be obtained in a more elementary way by making use of a technique we have already used— that of a ‘swaddling map’. This will also help us to visualize why and when the two constructions for the error term of the self-linking integral will coincide.
Two Ways of Looking at the Same Thing
-------------------------------------
### Don’t take limits- compactify!
Rather than thinking of limits of integrals, let’s compactify the space of pairs $$\mathbb{L}^{\overrightarrow{n}}(S^{1}):=\{(t, t+
\varepsilon\cdot n(t))\mid t\in \text{\{a closed space curve\}},
0<\varepsilon\in\mathbb{R}\}$$ by pasting something onto the boundary $\mathbb{L}^{\overrightarrow{n}}_{0}(S^{1}):=
\overline{\mathbb{L}}^{\overrightarrow{n}}(S^{1})\mid_{\varepsilon=0}$, where the overline denotes topological closure. Our problem, as usual, is that $\Phi(x,x)$ is not defined, and what this second approach gives is a way of defining it via a limit which keeps track of the information which is relevant to the Gauss integral— direction— and thus tells us what it wants $\Phi(x,x)$ to be.
Thus, the space we must paste on should consist of pairs $(x,\theta)$ in which we store the “address” $x$ of the point, as well as the direction from which $x$ is coming in on $\gamma_{\varepsilon}$. We may depict the newly created boundary of our compactified space as a continuum of pieces which can be schematically depicted like this:
$$\xy
0;/r3pc/: (2,0)="a"; 0 **@{-}; (0,.1)="b"; (.8,.1)="c" **@{-};
(1.2,.1)="d" **\crv{(1,.4)}; (2,.1)="f" **@{-}
\endxy$$
The leftmost point of the semicircle corresponds to a point $\gamma_{\varepsilon}(t)$ coming in to $\gamma_{t}$ on a backward sweeping tangent, the rightmost one corresponds to the point coming in on a forward sweeping tangent, and the apex corresponds to the point coming in straight off the normal. The tangent and the normal at each point define the framing for the knot, so that we see that we have not lost any information. Let us define $$\tau_{\phi}:=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{L}^{\overrightarrow{n}}(S^{1})_{0}}\overline{\Phi^{*}_{\gamma}}\omega$$
Our main claim in this section is:
$\eta+\tau_{\phi}$ is an invariant of framed knots.
To see that $\eta+\tau_{\phi}$ is in fact the limit of the integral of the pullback of the volume form, note that the domain at every $\varepsilon >0$ where $\varepsilon$ is fixed is cobordant to the integral at ‘the bottom’, where $\varepsilon=0$, and hence via a standard Stokes’ theorem argument, the “point-splitting regularization integral” used by [@Tze] is the same as the integral along $\mathbb{L}^{\overrightarrow{n}}_{0}(S^{1})$.
### “$C$-swaddling”
Let us eliminate the boundary of our configuration space this time in a different way— rather than pasting two discs onto the $S^{1}\times I$ boundary, let us instead paste another $S^{1}\times I$ to it (which we shall call $C$ for cylinder), completing the cylinder $C_{2}(S^{1})$ to a torus $C_{2}(S^{1})\cup_{\partial}C$ as shown in the illustration below:
$$\xy
0;/r3pc/: (-2,1)="a"; (-1,1)="b" **\crv{(-1.5,1.2)}
**\crv{(-1.5,0.8)}, (-2,0)="c" **@{-}; (-1,0)="d"
**\crv{~*=<3pt>{.}(-1.5,.2)} **\crv{(-1.5,-.2)}; "b" **@{-};
(0,1)="e"; (1,1)="f" **\crv{(.5,1.2)} **\crv{(.5,0.8)}, (0,0)="g"
**@{-}; (1,0)="h" **\crv{~*=<3pt>{.}(.5,.2)} **\crv{(.5,-.2)}; "f"
**@{-}; "a" **\crv{~*=<5pt>{.}(-.5, 2.1)};
(-1,1)="b"; "e"
**\crv{~*=<5pt>{.}(-.5,1.3)}; (-2,0)="c"; "h"
**\crv{~*=<5pt>{.}(-.5,-1.1)}; (-1,0)="d"; "g"
**\crv{~*=<5pt>{.}(-.5,-.3)} {\ar@{}|{C_{2}(S^{1})}"a";(-1,0)}
{\ar@{}|{C}"e";(1,0)}
\endxy$$
Then we define a new swaddling map $\phi:C\rightarrow S^{2}$ which maps the boundaries of $C$ to the curves $\pm\dot{\gamma}$ in such a way that $\overline{\Phi_{H}}$ and $\phi$ combine to give us a continuous map $\overline{C_{2}(S^{1})}\cup_{\partial}C\rightarrow
S^{2}$.
As the title to this section suggests, we would like to show that in 3.1.1 and in 3.1.2 we have done one and the same thing (modulo $4\pi$)— that in point of fact, there is no difference between compactifying the space as in section 3.1.1. by storing framing information on the boundary, and between eliminating the boundary of $\overline{C_{2}(S^{1})}$ by the “$C$-swaddling” method as we have done in this section.
### Every framing gives a $C$-swaddling
The integral on the bottom splits into two parts— the “normal” pieces in which we have just the standard Gauss self-linking integral, and the “bumps”. On the bumps, $\theta$ goes from the tangent to the normal to minus the tangent— i.e. it traces out the image of a line between two points of the form $\{x\}\times
\{1\}$, $\{x\}\times \{0\}$ on $S^{1}\times I$, thus defining a $C$-swaddling, as the path can be assumed to be a great circle for all point on the knot.
We thus see that the “$C$-swaddling” construction gives us $\tau_{\phi}$, in just the same way as the construction in the first section gave us $\tau_{\beta}$.
### Every $C$-swaddling gives a framing
The fact that every $C$-swaddling gives a framing follows from the following lemma.
\[E:matz\] Every $C$-swaddling map is homotopic via $C$-swaddling maps to a map in which the path on $S^{2}$ from $\dot{\gamma}(s)$ to $-\dot{\gamma}(s)$ for each $s$ in the knot is a great circle between the two points.
1. Every $C$-swaddling map is homotopic to a boundary-fixing diffeomorphisms from the cylinder to itself composed with a mapping from the cylinder to $S^{2}$ taking the boundaries of the cylinder to $\dot{\gamma}$ and to $-\dot{\gamma}$ and mapping the line $s\times\{i\}$, $i\in \mathbf{I}$ to a great circle from $\dot{\gamma}(s)$ to $-\dot{\gamma}(s)$ for each $s\in S^{1}$. Let us fix the second map in this composition and call it $g$. By [@Gra] there is a $\mathbb{Z}$-worth of boundary-preserving diffeomorphisms of the cylinder $S^{1}\times \mathbf{I}$ to itself up to homotopy by such diffeomorphisms. The generator of the this homotopy group is a Dehn twist about a boundary-parallel curve.
2. Let $p_{s}$ be the image of $s\times {I}$ in the $S^{2}$ under a power of the generator which we found in step 1. Let $D_{\varepsilon}$ be a disc in $S^{2}$ of radius $\varepsilon$ centred at the image of $s\times \{1\}$. The homotopy which fixes $s\times \{0\}$ and $s\times\{1\}$ and revolves $p_{s}\cap\partial D_{\varepsilon}$ in a full circle around $\partial D_{\varepsilon}$ for all $s\in S^{1}$ undoes the Dehn twist.
Concretely, let’s look at $\varphi_{t}$ $t\in \mathbf{I}$ which takes $p_{s}$ to a smoothing of the curve obtained by taking a radius of $D_{\varepsilon}$ at angle $2\pi t$, then travelling around the circumference of $D_{\varepsilon}$ clockwise until we hit $p_{s}$ and continuing with $p_{s}$. $\varphi_{1}(p_{s})$ can be taken by homotopy to a curve in the image of the cylinder on $S^{2}$, which is $p_{s}$ with a Dehn twist added.
3. Thus for each mapping $g$ considered in step 1, the map from the cylinder has a single representative $g$ composed with the identity. There are a $\mathbb{Z}$-worth of choices of $g$, corresponding to taking the path on the cylinder from $s\times {i}$, $i\in \mathbf{I}$, to the great circle which wraps around the circle $n$ times for all $n\in \mathbb{Z}$.
Choosing the midpoint for each such great circle gives us a normal to the knot at $s$. In other words, given a family of forward-sweeping tangents to the knot, a $C$-swaddling map gives us a smooth family of normals to the knot, thus giving the knot a framing.
Holonomy through $C$-swaddling
------------------------------
To show that the correction term $\tau_{\phi}$ that we get is the total holonomy, we must first represent $\phi^{*}\omega$ as the pullback of an element of $SO(3)$. For this purpose, as the $\phi$ swaddling map is a smooth extension of the Gauss map, let us redefine $\overline{\Phi_{\gamma}}(x,y)$ to be $\Phi_{\gamma}(x,y)$ when $x\neq y$ and $\phi$ on the boundary.
### Transporting the pullback of the volume form to SO(3)
Since we are now moving into SO(3), we shall convert the discussion into the language of framings. Let us break $\overline{\Phi_{\gamma}}(x,y)$ into the mapping $\phi$ from $S^{1}$ to $SO(3)$ composed on a mapping $e_{1}(x,y)$ from $SO(3)$ to $S^{2}$ . Following [@Poh], let $e_{2}$ be the unit vector normal to $e_{1}$ on the plane spanned by $e_{1}$ and the tangent, extending smoothly to the normal defined by $\phi$ on the boundary. We shall then define $e_{3}$ to be $e_{1}\times e_{2}$ at every point. The following lemma is due to William Pohl [@Poh].
$$e_{1}^{*}\omega=d(de_{3}\wedge e_{2})$$
For every $1\leq i_{3}$ in $\mathbb{N}$, $e_{i}$ defines a function $x_{i}$ by means of the relation $e_{i}^{0}\cdot
v=x_{i}(v)$ for any vector $v\in\mathbb{R}^{3}$, when $e_{i}^{0}$ denoted the restriction of $e_{i}$ to the point $\overrightarrow{0}$. The volume form in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ is then given by the expression $$x_{1}(dx_{2}\wedge dx_{3})+ \text {
cyclic permutations.}$$
Let us pull back the volume form via $e_{1}$. $e_{i}^{*}x_{j}=
e_{i}\cdot e_{j}^{0} = \delta_{i,j}$, therefore $$e_{1}^{*}\omega= d(e_{1}^{*}x_{2})\wedge d(e_{1}^{*}x_{3})=de_{1}\cdot e_{2}^{0}
\wedge de_{1}\cdot e_{3}^{0}$$ by Leibnitz’s rule. There was nothing special about our choice of 0 as the point by which to define the functions $x_{i}$, therefore we have $de_{1}\cdot
e_{2}\wedge de_{1}\cdot e_{3}$.
But $de_{i}\cdot e_{i}=0$, and by differentiating this equality we find that $de_{i}\cdot e_{j}=-de_{j}\cdot e_{i}$ and so this equals $$\label{de:wej} (de_{3}\cdot
e_{1})\wedge(de_{2}\cdot e_{1})$$
Now we remember that the $e^{i}$’s are an orthonormal to one another, and therefore they satisfy the equality $$de_{3}\cdot de_{2}=\sum_{i=1}^{3}(de_{3}\cdot
e_{i})\wedge(de_{2}\cdot e_{i}) \label{wedg}$$
But according to (3.1) this is exactly $e_{1}^{*}\omega$, and so we have found that $$e_{1}^{*}\omega=de_{3}\cdot de_{2}=de_{3}\cdot de_{2}+
d^{2}e_{3}\cdot e_{2}=d(de_{3}\wedge e_{2}) \label{wege}$$
### Relating $\tau_{\phi}$ to the total torsion of a space curve
In $\gamma$ has nowhere vanishing curvature, we can use Lemma (3.2) to show that this correction term as well is equal to the total torsion of the curve $\gamma$. Here $e_{1}$ is the tangent, $e_{2}$ the normal, and $e_{3}$ the binormal, so $$de_{3}\cdot e_{2}=db\cdot n$$ $-\tau\cdot n\cdot n=-\tau$, so by the Frenet equations, $b'\cdot n=-\tau$ so $db\cdot n=-\tau\cdot
ds$.
Thus, we see that for a curve with a nowhere-vanishing curvature, $$\tau_{\phi}=\int_{S^{1}}\tau ds \label{crv}$$ which is again the total torsion of the space curve $\gamma$.
### Making sense of it all
The last step of our argument is just the Stokes’ theorem. The domain of $\overline{\Phi_{\gamma}}$ is our “cylinder compactification” of $C_{2}(S^{1})$. Pulling back the volume form via this map, when restricted to $C$, will then by Stokes’ Theorem be equivalent to pulling back $de_{3}\wedge e_{2}$ via $\phi$ along $C$’s boundary. But here $\phi$ gives us the tangent, $e_{2}$ the normal, and $e_{3}$ the binormal, $\phi^{*}de_{3}\wedge e_{2}$ is the triple product $(\dot{\gamma},n,\dot{n})$. Here though we have $\int_{S^{1}}(\dot{\gamma},n,\dot{n})ds=
\int_{S^{1}}(\dot{\gamma},n,(n(s)+\dot{n}(s)ds))
=\int_{S^{1}}(\dot{\gamma},n,\dot{n}(s+ds))$. The last integral is measuring “by how far” the normal has strayed from its initial position at $t=0$ by the time we get to $t=L$. In other words, $\tau_{\phi}$ is measuring the **total holonomy** of the curve $\gamma$, with respect to the Reimannian connection on the normal bundle to the curve.
Equivalence to total torsion (again)
------------------------------------
Here again we have an easy proof that the correction term of the self-linking integral equals the total torsion. When our curve has a Frenet frame $(t,n,b)$ with curvature $\kappa$ and torsion $\tau$, the Frenet equations give us $$\tau_{\phi}=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{S^{1}}(\dot{\gamma},n,\dot{n})ds=
\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{S^{1}}(\dot{\gamma},n,(\tau b-\kappa
t))ds=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{S^{1}}\tau ds \label{tort}$$
Equivalence of the two constructions
====================================
In the previous sections, we have presented two alternative ways of introducing a correction term to the Gauss self-linking integral for a knot, making it an invariant. We do not know yet whether these two methods are equivalent, and there is no reason a priori to assume that this should be the case. Why should choosing a homotopy class for a swaddling map have anything to do with choosing a framing for a knot? In both of these approaches, we reach the image on $S^{2}$ via the Gauss map of the tangent bundle to an embedding into $S^{3}$ of $S^{1}$, but in the first approach we come to this image by first embedding $S^{1}$ into $D^{2}$ and then getting to $S^{2}$ via the swaddling map $\beta$, while in the second approach we first map to $SO(3)$ by choosing a framing (we shall call this map $\phi$), and then map down from there onto $S^{2}$. The situation is schematically depicted in the commutative diagram below:
$$\xymatrix{D^2 \ar[drr]_(.6)\beta
&& SO(3) \ar[d]^{e_{1}} \\
S^{1} \ar@{^{(}->}[u] \ar[rr]_{\dot{\gamma}} \ar[urr]^(.6)\phi &&
S^{2}}$$
In this notation, $\tau_{\beta}(\gamma)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{D^{2}}\beta^{*}\omega$, while $\tau_{\phi}(\gamma)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{S^{1}}\phi^{*}\tau$ for $\tau$ a pre-image of omega via the map $e_{1}$. Equality of these terms would follow from the existence of a map $\sigma$ such that the following diagram commutes:
$$\xymatrix{D^2 \ar[drr]_(.6)\beta \ar@{-->}[rr]^\sigma
&& SO(3) \ar[d]^{e_{1}} \\
S^{1} \ar@{^{(}->}[u] \ar[rr]_{\dot{\gamma}} \ar[urr]^(.6)\phi &&
S^{2}}$$ For in that case $$\tau_{\beta}(\gamma)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{D^{2}}\beta^{*}\omega=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{D^{2}}\sigma^{*}d\tau=
\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{S^{1}}\phi^{*}\tau=\tau_{\phi}(\gamma)$$ The second equality stems from the fact that the diagram is commutative, and the fourth we have already shown. So all the action takes place around the middle equality. We have shown that when $\beta^{*}\omega$ is transported to SO(3), it becomes the $d$ of something. So we may use Stokes’ theorem to go from left to right.
We can also see this easily from the swaddling map construction- let us choose a $\beta$ mapping, pasting two discs onto the boundaries of $C_{2}(S^{1})$, making it a compact space. Let us choose our discs such that corresponding points on $D_{1}$ and on $D_{0}$ map to antipodal points on $S^{2}$ via $\beta$. Cutting out a small neighbourhood of the centres of the discs, we may glue a cylinder between them, connecting them into a shape isomorphic to the cylinder on which our $\phi$ map was defined. Now every $\beta$ map can be smoothly extended to a $\sigma$ map, because the two discs with the narrow tube connecting them is homotopically a cylinder.
But as Tahl Novik observed, going from right to left in this set of equalities we have to watch out, because $\pi_{1}(SO(3))=\mathbb{Z}/2$, and for a path belonging to the non-trivial homotopy class of $SO(3)$, there can exist no pre-image via a $\sigma$ mapping.
Let us note that the cylinder of the $C$-swaddling construction can be ‘cut’ into 2 discs if and only if it is homotopic to a cylinder of which the ‘middle circle’ is constant- in other words as a framing it is homotopic to the constant framing. Then and only then can we ‘pinch closed’ that sphere, turning the cylinder into two discs tangent at a point without loss of information. For elements of the non-trivial homotopy class, this is by definition going to be impossible. Notice that by ‘pinching’ the cylinder into discs, we are separating the backward sweeping tangents and the forward sweeping tangents, which is impossible in the non-trivial homotopy class in which these two families of tangent vectors are one and the same.
But for elements of the trivial homotopy class of $SO(3)$, no such difficulty arises. Stokes’ theorem takes us from $\tau_{\phi}(\gamma)$ to $\tau_{\beta}(\gamma)$. We have proved then the following theorem:
$\tau_{\beta}+4\pi=\tau_{\phi}$
The “$+4\pi$” correction is an idea of Tomotada Ohtsuki’s, to remind us that for ‘minimal’ representatives of $\phi$ and $\beta$ the area $\phi$ covers on $S^{2}$ with the cylinder $C$ (in this case ‘minimal’ would be taken to mean that each “vertical” line between the boundaries of the cylinder is mapped to the minimal length line between the tangent and minus the tangent on $S^{2}$, with appropriate sign) is the entire ball, plus the area $\beta$ covers with the two discs (and here ‘minimal’ means simply the minimal such positive area). In any event, modulo $4\pi$ the correction terms are equal. The isomorphism between the two correction terms means that in a very real sense choosing a swaddling map $\beta$ along with the homotopy class in which it sits is exactly the same thing as choosing a framing that is null-homotopic as an element of $SO(3)$. We have shown then that $\beta$ can be lifted to $\sigma$, but only for ‘half’ our possible choices of $\phi$.
So which “half” is it?
----------------------
We have shown then that for framings which give us an element of the trivial homotopy class of $SO(3)$, $\tau_{\phi}(\gamma)=\tau_{\beta}(\gamma)$. We have yet to show what framings those are.
Let us recall the mappings defined in section 2.3. $\overline{\Phi_{H}}$ mapped $S^{1}\times I$ to $S^{2}$, sending the two components of the boundary to the tangent bundle of the knot $\gamma$ in antipodal ways, while $\beta_{0}$ and $\beta_{1}$ took the boundary of a disc, and mapped it to $\dot{\gamma}$ and to $-\dot{\gamma}$ correspondingly. Thus, we have a $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ action on $\overline{C_{2}(S^{1})}$, whose action is to flip: $(x,y)\rightarrow (y,x)$. $\overline{\Phi_{H}}$ then descends to the quotient $$\label{sim}
\Phi_{H}:\overline{C_{2}(S^{1})}/\mathbb{Z}_{2}\rightarrow
S^{2}/\mathbb{Z}_{2}\simeq \mathbb{R}P^{2}$$ But $\overline{C_{2}(S^{1})}/\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ is also just $\mathbb{R}P^{2}$, so $\Phi_{H}$ is in fact a map from $\mathbb{R}P^{2}$ to itself.
$\mathbb{R}P^{2}$ is a non-orientable space, therefore only the degree of $\overline{\Phi_{\gamma}}$ is only defined mod 2. But the flipping action $(x,y)\rightarrow (y,x)$ is precisely the non-trivial path in $\mathbb{R}P^{2}$, hence the degree of $\overline{\Phi_{\gamma}}$ must be 1 (this follows from the topological assertion that the degree of a map is $\pi_{1}$ of that map).
This gives us a complete characterization of the framings for which $\phi$ lifts to $\sigma$- they are exactly those framings for which the mod 2 degree of the ‘extended Gauss mapping’ $\overline{\Phi_{\gamma}}$ is 1. This leads us to the rather startling conclusion that, given the blackboard framing, our ‘trivial’ knot turns out not to be the circle at all, but rather the boundary of the Moebius band.
A combinatorial description of the invariant
============================================
By adding a correction term, we have shown that the Gauss self-linking integral can be made to be an invariant of framed knots. It so happens [@BF] that this invariant coincides with the so-called ‘writhing number’ of the curve, obtained by taking the number of positive crossings and subtracting the number of negative crossings. Thus, we have constructed an invariant analogous to the *linking number* of two disjoint space curves.
There is also another combinatorial description of our invariant, which is to my mind more appealing [@Poh], [@Aic]. Let us imagine the knot as a roller-coaster, with us sitting in a car facing forwards. At every point, the tracks face away from the knot in the direction of the normal vector, and as the car travels along the rails, our head is always pointing “up”. Let us also assume that our head is locked in place, such that we can only look straight ahead (in the direction of the tangent).
The roller coaster starts up, and we start moving along the track. The car rises and falls, twists and loops, swooshing along. Every now and again, we may see another portion of track coming up directly into our field of vision— Pohl calls such points ‘cross-tangents’. We count these with appropriate sign, depending on the orientation of the tracks (which way the car has gone down them or will go down them, and the direction in which we are currently travelling). The roller coaster stops when we return to our initial point, and we sum up all the cross-tangents, with appropriate signs. And we get what we have calculated in this paper— the Gauss self-linking integral with the appropriate correction term, determined by the direction the tracks faced away from the knot at each point.
[99]{}
F. Aicardi *Self-linking of Spacial Curves without Inflections and Its Applications* Functional Analysis and Its Applications, Vol. 34(2), 2000
D. Altschuler and L. Freidel *Vassiliev Knot Invariants and Chern-Simons Perturbation Theory to All Orders* Comm. Math. Phys. **187** (1997) 261-287
Dror Bar-Natan *Perturbative Chern-Simons Theory* 1995 Journal of Knot Theory and its Ramifications
F. Brock-Fuller Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 68 (1971) 815
Raoul Bott and Clifford Taubes *On the Self-Linking of Knots* Journal of Mathematical Physics 35(10) 5247-5287 October 1994
G. Calugareanu *L’integral de Gauss et l’analyse des noeuds tridimensionnels* Rev . Math. Pures Appl. 4 (1959) 5-20
M.P. Do-Carmo *Differential geometry of curves and surfaces* Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs 1976
A. Gramain *Le type d’homotopie du groupe des difféomorphismes d’une surface compacte* Ann. Scient. Éc. Norm. Sup. $4^{e}$ serie, t. 6, 1973, p.53 à 66
M.D. Frank-Kamenetskii and A.V. Vologodskii, Sov. Phys. Usp. 24 (8)(1981) 679
Christine Lescop *On configuration space integrals for links* Notes for the proceedings of the Kyoto conference “Invariants of knots and 3-manifolds, RIMS, September 2001”, February 2002
W.F. Pohl *The Self-Linking Number of a Closed Space Curve* 975-985 J. Math. Mech. (1968) vol 17
Sylvian Poirier *The Configuration space integral for links and tangles in $R^{3}$* May 1, 2002
A.M. Polyakov *Fermi-Bose transmutations induced by gauge fields* Mod. Phys. Lett. A3 (1988) 325-328
Dylan P. Thurston *Integral Expressions for the Vassiliev Knot Invariants* arXiv:math.QA/9901110
Chia-Hsiung Tze *Manifold-Splitting Regularization, Self-Linking, Twisting, Writhing Numbers os Space-Time Ribbons and Polyakov’s Proof of Fermi-Bose Transmutations* Int. J. Mod. Phys. A3 (1988) 1959-1979
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We compute the contact term of the two-point function for the SL($2,\mathbb R$)-WZNW model in the winding sector. After reviewing some generalities of the model and its Euclidean counterpart, we discuss the reflection symmetry for the spectral flowed sector. We define the corresponding intertwining operator and use it to find the explicit form of the contact term of the propagator for a vertex carrying an arbitrary amount of spectral flow. Finally, we enhance the already known integral expression of a singly flowed vertex in order to reproduce such contact term directly in the space-time picture.'
author:
- 'Sergio M. Iguri[^1]'
- 'Nicolás Kovensky[^2]'
- 'Leila Maestri[^3]'
- 'Lucas Martín[^4]'
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
date: 'December 20, 2019'
title: 'Winding modes and the reflection symmetry in AdS$_3$'
---
Introduction
============
The study of strings propagating in AdS$_3$ has generated many interesting insights, ranging from string theory itself, integrability and AdS$_3$ quantum gravity [@Seiberg:1990eb; @Witten:1988hc; @Witten:1991yr; @Mukhi:1993zb; @Ghoshal:1995wm; @Giveon:1999px; @Giveon:1999tq; @Banados:1992wn; @Beisert:2010jr] to Liouville theory and condensed-matter physics [@Zirnbauer:1996zz; @Zirnbauer:1999ua; @Bhaseen:1999nm; @Kogan:1999hz]. When the background is purely of the NS-NS type, the worldsheet theory is given by the SL($2,\mathbb R$)-WZNW model, a theory that has been intensively studied since Maldacena’s conjecture [@Maldacena:1997re; @Witten:1998qj] becoming, so far, one of the few known theoretical schemes in which the AdS/CFT correspondence may be explored beyond the supergravity approximation. Furthermore, computations on the AdS$_3$ side can be compared with the two-dimensional CFT description, where powerful techniques are also available, thus giving, in principle, the possibility of constructing dual pairs where both sides can be exactly solved.
Over the last couple of years there has been a renewed interest in this type of AdS/CFT scenario. These efforts are mainly concentrated on the so-called $k=1$ sector, *i.e.* the case with minimal AdS flux. The propagation of strings in space-times of the form AdS$_3\times S^3 \times {\cal{M}}_4$ was considered, including, for example, ${\cal{M}}_4 = T^4$, K3 and $S^3 \times S^1$, and it was argued that the corresponding field theory duals were given by deformations of symmetric orbifold CFT’s [@Gaberdiel:2017oqg; @Eberhardt:2017pty; @Eberhardt:2018ouy; @Eberhardt:2019niq]. Part of these considerations remain valid for the $k>1$ case, albeit now with symmetric orbifold theories containing additional Liouville factors [@Eberhardt:2019qcl].
Unlike the case of a WZNW model having a compact underlying symmetry, when the target space is the universal cover of the SL($2,\mathbb R$) group manifold, the spectrum standardly constructed upon irreducible representations of the zero-mode algebra must be enhanced to avoid a coupling independent restriction on the masses of physical states and to give account of long string configurations, [*i.e.*]{} finite energy states classically corresponding to strings stretched close to the boundary of AdS$_3$ [@Maldacena:1998bw; @Maldacena:1998uz; @Seiberg:1999xz].
The key ingredient for generating the full physical spectrum is the [*spectral flow*]{} [@Maldacena:2000hw; @Maldacena:2000kv; @Maldacena:2001km; @Israel:2003ry], a family of automorphisms of the current algebra, labelled by an integer number $\omega$, the so-called spectral flow number or charge, which, in some cases, can be recognized as the amount of winding of a long string along the angular direction of AdS$_3$. For a rational WZNW model, spectral flow trivializes, as it relates standard representations, mapping primary states of one into the current algebra descendants of another. In the SL($2,\mathbb R$)-WZNW model, a Lorentzian non-rational CFT, modules with different spectral flow charges turn out to be generically non-equivalent, spectral flow automorphisms thus defining new representations. Operators with non-trivial spectral flow describing the *winding sector* of the theory were shown to play an important role in the models described above.
Correlators involving only spectrally unflowed vertex operators are obtained from the correlation functions in the H$_3^+$-WZNW model [@Teschner:1997ft; @Teschner:1999ug], the Euclidean counterpart of the SL($2,\mathbb R$)-WZNW model, by analytic continuation. However, more care must be taken when dealing with amplitudes involving spectral flowed insertions. There are two known strategies for computing these correlation functions, both exploiting the singular properties of the so-called spectral flow operator.
Regarding the first one, the computation is performed in the original space-time picture. Roughly speaking, every vertex operator associated with a state carrying a single unit of spectral flow is expressed as an unflowed vertex convoluted with a spectral flow operator, the corresponding integral being understood to hold while inside a correlator. This integral definition was introduced and subsequently used for determining the regular term of the propagator of two $\omega=1$ states and the three-point function involving two spectrally unflowed states and one vertex with unit spectral flow in [@Maldacena:2001km]. The main restraint of the procedure comes from the fact that the referred integral definition of a spectral flowed vertex exists, so far, only for operators with a single unit of spectral flow. The generalization for an arbitrary charge of spectral flow is still lacking.
The second strategy is the so-called FZZ procedure. It was firstly developed in [@Fateev] based on parafermionic operators and the properties of their correlation functions. According to it, starting with a regular unflowed correlator, a spectral flow operator is inserted for each unit of spectral flow carried by each vertex. After Mellin-transforming the amplitude thus obtained to the basis in which the Cartan generator of SL($2,\mathbb R$) is diagonal, also called the $m$-basis for short, the dependence on the “unphysical” insertion points is removed and the worldsheet dependence, properly adjusted. The computation concludes after transforming back to space-time picture or $x$-basis. No constraint on the value of $\omega$ is imposed.
Transforming correlation functions in the $m$-basis back to the space-time picture is not a simple task. In some cases in which the affine symmetry dictates the functional dependence of a correlator on the space-time coordinates, as for the regular term of the propagator or some three-point functions, no inverse Mellin transformation is needed and the FZZ recipe can be easily carried out. However, knowing the dependence of a correlator on the space-time coordinates may not be enough for the FZZ procedure to be fully completed.
In this paper, we compute the contact term of the propagator in a general setting. Such term is expected to exist in a spectral flowed frame as it already exists for unflowed vertex operators, its occurrence being necessary in order to properly normalize spectral flowed states in the $x$-basis. Our strategy for determining this singular term relies on a generalization of the reflection symmetry in sectors with $\omega\ne 0$, since a single reflection in a two-point function should switch the corresponding regular and contact terms.
Reflection in the Euclidean model is a Weyl-type symmetry expressing the unitary equivalence of certain irreducible representations of SL($2,\mathbb C$) and the affine modules constructed upon them. In the Lorentzian case, in the $m$-basis, this interpretation is retained for the family of continuous series, since the generalized reflection symmetry intertwines between the corresponding affine modules and their spectrally flowed images. In the space-time picture as well as for discrete representations in $m$-basis and their related modules, reflection is recognized as a $\mathbb Z_2$ symmetry relating microscopic states in the sense of [@Teschner:1999ug].
The final expression we get for the two-point function deserves a couple of comments. Of course, it reduces to the known propagator in the unflowed limit, [*i.e.*]{} $\omega \rightarrow 0$. On the other hand, its dependence on the worldsheet coordinates consistently shows that, although they retain some conformal symmetries, the vertex operators in the space-time picture are not even Virasoro quasi-primary fields. Finally, the form of the overall constant in the propagator could be relevant for describing transport properties of conformal field theories associated by duality with string physics in AdS$_3$, a subject that has recently aroused interest [@Polchinski:2012nh; @Hartnoll:2016apf]. Indeed, this constant admits a factorized form that is well suited for a proper normalization of spectral flowed vertex operators in the space-time scenario. This normalization become singular for some configurations suggesting that it could have an impact while studying singularities of the propagator and their interpretation in dual models.
The paper is organized as follows. In sections \[sect2\] and \[sect3\] we review some generalities of the H$_3^+$-WZNW model and its Lorentzian counterpart. We stress that by the latter we understand the WZNW model whose target space is the universal cover of the SL$(2,\mathbb R)$ group manifold. After introducing the spectra of both theories, we discuss the reflection symmetry in the Euclidean model and its emergence in the SL$(2,\mathbb R)$-WZNW model case, including the winding sector. In section \[sect4\], we introduce the vertex operators associated with spectrally flowed states and we review the computation of the regular term of the propagator in the space-time picture as done in [@Maldacena:2001km]. We also clarify some aspects regarding the definition of spectral flowed vertex operators in the $x$-basis. In section \[sect5\], we generalize the expression of the reflection symmetry for a sector with $\omega \ne 0$, and use it to explicitly compute the contact term of the propagator in section \[sect6\]. In section \[sect7\], we discuss the impact of the reflection symmetry on the integral definition of a vertex with a single spectral flow charge. Finally, in section \[disc\], we present our conclusions.
The H$_3^+$-WZNW model and the reflection symmetry {#sect2}
==================================================
Although the WZNW model describing string propagation in AdS$_3$ is the one based on the universal covering group of SL$(2,\mathbb R)$, some aspects of the theory can be read off more easily from its Euclidean counterpart, namely, the H$_3^+$-WZNW model. In this section, we review some basics of the H$_3^+$-WZNW model, as many of the formulas obtained in this context remain valid for the unflowed sector of the SL$(2,\mathbb R)$-WZNW model once the dependence on the space-time momentum is analytically continued. Most of these formulas will be properly generalized for sectors with non trivial spectral flow number in later sections. We shall follow [@Teschner:1997ft] closely.
The spectrum $\mathcal V_{\mbox{\scriptsize H}_3^+}$ of the H$_3^+$-WZNW model carries a representation of two commuting isomorphic $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb C)$ current algebras generated by the modes $J^a_n$ and $\bar J^a_n$, with $a=+,0,-$ and $n\in\mathbb Z$. The holomorphic modes satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left[J^0_n,J^0_m\right]=-\frac{1}{2}k n \delta_{n+m,0},\nonumber\\
&&\left[J^0_n,J^{\pm}_m\right]=\pm J^{\pm}_{n+m},\nonumber\\
&&\left[J^-_n,J^+_m\right]=2J^{0}_{n+m}+k n \delta_{n+m,0},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $k$ denotes the level of the current algebra. Identical relations hold for the antiholomorphic generators as well.
As usual, there are two commuting Virasoro algebras in the universal enveloping algebra of the current algebra with generators $L_n$ and $\bar L_n$, with $n\in\mathbb Z$, defined according to the Sugawara construction, namely, $$L_n=\frac{1}{2(k-2)}\sum_{k\in\mathbb Z}:J^+_{-k}J^-_{n+k}+J^-_{-k}J^+_{n+k}-2J^0_{-k}J^0_{n+k}:,\nonumber$$ where the normal ordering is defined as $$:J^a_nJ^b_m:=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
J^a_nJ^b_m&\mbox{if}~n<m,\\
\frac{1}{2}\left(J^a_nJ^b_n+J^b_nJ^a_n\right)&\mbox{if}~n=m,\\
J^b_mJ^a_n&\mbox{if}~n>m,
\end{array}\right.\nonumber$$ and correspondingly for the antiholomorphic sector. The central charge is given by $$c=\frac{3k}{k-2}.\nonumber$$
The space $\mathcal V_{\mbox{\scriptsize H}_3^+}$ decomposes into irreducible representations of the current algebra as $$\label{decomposition}
\mathcal V_{\mbox{\scriptsize H}_3^+}=\int^{\oplus}_{\mathcal C^+}dj\mathcal R_j,$$ where $\mathcal C^+=-1/2+i\mathbb R_+$. The module $\mathcal R_j$ is constructed standardly. As a first step, one considers $\mathcal P_j=P_j\otimes P_j$, where $P_j$ denotes the unitary principal series of the $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb C)$ algebra generated by the zero-modes. As pointed out in [@Teschner:1997ft], these principal series can be realized on the Schwartz space of functions on $\mathbb C$ by means of the differential operators $$\mathcal D^+_j=x^2\partial_x-2jx, \qquad\qquad \mathcal D^0_j=x\partial_x-j,\qquad\qquad\mathcal D^-_j=\partial_x,\nonumber$$ together with their complex conjugates. $\mathcal P_j$ is then extended to a representation of the full current algebra by requiring $J_n^a \mathcal P_j=\bar J_n^a \mathcal P_j=0$ for $n>0$, and freely generating $\mathcal R_j$ by acting with $J_n^a$ and $\bar J_n^a$ for $n<0$.
Representations $P_j$ and $P_{-1-j}$, and thus $\mathcal P_j$ and $\mathcal P_{-1-j}$, are isomorphic, and so are their affine extensions $\mathcal R_j$ and $\mathcal R_{-1-j}$. The form of the unitary intertwining operator will be given explicitly below. It is useful to extend ${\cal V}_{\mbox{\scriptsize H}_3^+}$ by setting $\mathcal C=-1/2+i\mathbb R$ in Eq. (\[decomposition\]) instead of $\mathcal C^+$, and then quotienting the model by the aforementioned equivalence.
Every state $|j,x\rangle \in \mathcal V_{\mbox{\scriptsize H}_3^+}$ is associated with a vertex $\Phi_j(x|z)$, $x,z \in \mathbb C$, by virtue of the state-operator correspondence, [*i.e.*]{} $$\label{stateoperator}
|j,x\rangle=\lim_{z\rightarrow0}\Phi_j(x|z)|0\rangle,\qquad\qquad\langle j,x|=\lim_{z\rightarrow\infty}|z|^{4\Delta}\langle0|\Phi_{-1-j}(x|z).$$ The vertex operators satisfy the following OPE with the currents, $$J^a(z)\Phi_j(x|w)\sim-\frac{D^a_j\Phi_j(x|w)}{z-w},\nonumber$$ and similarly for the antiholomorphic currents. The operator $\Phi_j(x|z)$ is not only an affine primary but also a primary for the Sugawara-Virasoro algebra, its conformal weight being $$\Delta_0=-b^2j(1+j),\qquad b^2=\frac{1}{k-2}.\nonumber$$ Semiclassically, $\Phi_j(x|z)$ can be identified with the wave function $$\Psi_j(x|z)=\frac{1+2j}{\pi}\left[\left|\gamma(z)-x\right|^2e^{\phi(z)}+e^{-\phi(z)}\right]^{2j},\nonumber$$ where $(\phi,\gamma,\bar\gamma)$ are the Poincaré coordinates on H$_3^+$. The quantum operator lacks such a simple expression because of normal ordering. Nevertheless, in the large-$\phi$ regime the interaction vanishes and $\Phi_j(x|z)$ acquires the following form, $$\label{asymptotic}
\Phi_j(x|z)\sim:e^{-2(1+j)\phi(z)}:\delta\left(\gamma(z)-x\right)+B_j:e^{2j\phi(z)}:\left|\gamma(z)-x\right|^{4j},$$ with $$B_j=-\nu(b)^{1+2j}\frac{1+2j}{\pi}\frac{\Gamma(1+b^2(1+2j))}{\Gamma(1-b^2(1+2j))},\qquad\nu(b)=\pi\frac{\Gamma(1-b^2)}{\Gamma(1+b^2)}.\nonumber$$
As proved in [@Teschner:1997ft], the asymptotic expression given by Eq. (\[asymptotic\]) fixes a normalization of $\Phi_j(x|z)$ consistent with the following two-point function: $$\label{2pt}
\left\langle\Phi_{j_1}(x_1|z_1)\Phi_{j_2}(x_2|z_2)\right\rangle=\left[\delta\left(j_{12}^+\right)\delta\left(x_{12}\right)+B_{j_1}\delta\left(j_{12}\right)\left|x_{12}\right|^{4j_1}\right]\left|z_{12}\right|^{-4\Delta_{01}},$$ where $x_{12}=x_1-x_2$, $z_{12}=z_1-z_2$, $j_{12}=j_1-j_2$, $j_{12}^+=1+j_1+j_2$, and $\Delta_{01}$ stands for the conformal weight associated with $j_1$. The first term of this correlator is a contact term, while the one smeared over the boundary of H$_3^+$ is the so-called bulk or regular term.
As we have already pointed out, representations $\mathcal P_j$ and $\mathcal P_{-1-j}$, and thus $\mathcal R_j$ and $\mathcal R_{-1-j}$, are equivalent. The associated reflection symmetry is explicitly given by $$\label{reflexion}
\Phi_{j}(x|z)=R_j\left(\mathcal I_j\Phi_{-1-j}\right)(x|z),$$ where the reflection amplitude is $$\label{fifteen}
R_j=\frac{\pi}{1+2j}B_j=\nu(b)^{1+2j}\frac{\gamma(1+b^2(1+2j))}{b^2(1+2j)},$$ and the intertwining operator $\mathcal I_j$ is defined by $$\label{intertwining}
\left(\mathcal I_j\Phi_{-1-j}\right)(x|z)=\frac{1+2j}{\pi}\int_{\mathbb C}d^2x'\left|x-x'\right|^{4j}\Phi_{-1-j}(x'|z).$$ The overall factor in Eq. (\[intertwining\]) was chosen so that $\mathcal I_j\circ\mathcal I_{-1-j}=$Id, implying, by virtue of Eq. (\[stateoperator\]), its unitarity for $j\in -1/2+i\mathbb R$. Notice that a single reflection in the two-point function swaps the contact and the bulk terms, leaving the propagator unchanged, as expected.
Following [@Teschner:1997ft], states $|j,x\rangle \in \mathcal V_{\mbox{\scriptsize H}_3^+}$ and their duals will be referred to as “macroscopic states”. They are understood as distributions on dense subspaces of $\mathcal V_{\mbox{\scriptsize H}_3^+}$ and are delta-function normalizable, as it can be read from Eq. (\[2pt\]). Analytic continuations in $j$ of these states deserve the name of “microscopic states”, and their consideration is crucial for the study of the string in AdS$_3$. Moreover, in order to give account of long string configurations in AdS$_3$, we shall need to relax the strong constraint and consider vertex operators built on principal series with possibly different holomorphic and antiholomorphic spins. We will refer to them as microscopic states as well.
The SL$(2,\mathbb R)$-WZNW model and spectral flow {#sect3}
==================================================
The standard spectrum of the SL$(2,\mathbb R)$-WZNW model is obtained after imposing the Virasoro constraints on the affine extensions of $\mathcal C_{j\alpha}=C_{j\alpha}\otimes C_{j\alpha}$ and $\mathcal D^{\pm}_j=D^{\pm}_j\otimes D^{\pm}_j$, where $C_{j\alpha}$, $\alpha \in [0,1)$, $j\in\mathcal C$, denotes the principal continuous representations and $D^{\pm}_j$, $j<-1/2$, are the principal discrete series of $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb R)$ generated by the zero-modes $J^a_0$ and $\bar J^a_0$, respectively for the left and the right sectors. It is known from harmonic analysis that these left-right symmetric combinations of unitary irreducible representations form a complete basis in $\mathcal L^2($AdS$_3)$.
This space of states, if thought of as the complete spectrum, gives rise to two problems. On the one hand, unitarity imposes a seemingly arbitrary upper bound on the mass of string states in AdS$_3$, so that the internal energy of the string could not be too high. On the other hand, it gives no account of long string configurations, known to be present in the theory from both the classical and semiclassical approaches.
Both puzzles were solved in [@Maldacena:2000hw], where the spectrum was proposed to be enhanced by the so-called spectral flow. Spectral flow automorphisms are parametrized by an integer number $\omega$, known as the spectral flow charge, classically related to the number of times a long string winds around the AdS$_3$ boundary. Given such number, the corresponding map is defined by $$\label{auto1}
J^3_n \rightarrow J^3_n - \frac{k}{2}\omega \delta_{n,0},$$ $$J^{\pm}_n \rightarrow J^{\pm}_{n\pm \omega},$$ for $n\in\mathbb Z$, and similarly for the antiholomorphic currents. This current algebra isomorphism turns to be also a Virasoro-Sugawara automorphism with $$\label{auto3}
L_n \rightarrow L_n+\omega J_n^3-\frac{k}{4}\omega^2\delta_{n,0},$$ for $n\in\mathbb Z$, and correspondingly for the $\bar L_n$.
Unlike rational models, which have underlying compact group symmetries, the spectral flow automorphisms generally give rise to non-equivalent representations when acting on a current module. An exception is given by the case of the spectral flow image of a representation induced by a lowest-weight discrete series with spin $j$, which is isomorphic to one built upon a highest-weight discrete series with a “reflected” spin $-k/2-j$ and an additional unit of flow. This module isomorphism, referred to as the series identification, restricts the discrete representations allowed in the spectrum to be either those induced by the lowest or by the highest-weight series, while constraining the spin to lie in the real interval $$-\frac{k-1}{2}<j<-\frac{1}{2}.\nonumber$$
It was conjectured in [@Maldacena:2000hw] that the full spectrum of the SL$(2,\mathbb R)$-WZNW consists of the standard spectrum as well as their spectral flow images, running over all possible values of $\omega$. Explicitly, the spectrum of the model $\mathcal V_{\mbox{\scriptsize SL}(2,\mathbb R)}$ decomposes as $$\begin{aligned}
&& \mathcal V_{\mbox{\scriptsize SL}(2,\mathbb R)} = \bigoplus_{\omega\in\mathbb Z}\left[\int_{-\frac{k-1}{2}}^{-\frac{1}{2}} dj \, \mathcal D^{\omega}_j + \int_{\mathcal C} dj \int_0^1 d\alpha \, \mathcal C^{\omega}_{j\alpha}\right],\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal D^{\omega}_j$ and $\mathcal C^{\omega}_{j\alpha}$ are the spectral flow images of $\mathcal D^{+}_j$ and $\mathcal C_{j\alpha}$, respectively.
A suitable realization of $\mathcal V_{\mbox{\scriptsize SL}(2,\mathbb R)}$ is obtained by means of vertex operators in the so-called $m$-basis, where the label $m$ is introduced in order to keep track of the eigenvalue of $J_0^3$ in the unflowed frame. This basis is the best suited for a Wick rotation from the $H_3^+$-WZNW model as well as to further include a spectral flow charge while computing correlation functions. We shall denote the affine primary fields realizing the unflowed spectrum by $\Phi_j(m|z)$ and their images under a spectral flow automorphism by $\Phi^{\omega}_j(m|z)$. The OPE of these fields with the currents and their conformal weights are given by $$J^{3}(z)\Phi^{\omega}_j(m|w) = \frac{m+k\omega/2}{z-w}\Phi^{\omega}_j(m|w),\nonumber$$ $$J^{\pm}(z)\Phi^{\omega}_j(m|w) = \frac{\mp j + m}{(z-w)^{1 \pm \omega}}\Phi^{\omega}_j(m\pm 1|w),\nonumber$$ $$\Delta=\Delta_0-\omega m - \frac{k}{4} \omega^2,\nonumber$$ and analogously for the antiholomorphic counterparts. Let us stress that spectral flowed primaries $\Phi^{\omega}_j(m|z)$ with non-trivial $\omega$ are not affine primaries. However, after the Sugawara construction in the spectral flowed frame, it can be proved that they are indeed conformal primary fields.
Unflowed vertex operators in the Lorentzian model are related to states in the H$_3^+$-WZNW model through the following Mellin-like transform, $$\label{mellin}
\Phi_j(m|z) = \int d^2x \, \left|x^{j+m}\right|^2 \Phi_{-1-j}(x|z),$$ where the integrated operator corresponds either to a macroscopic state if $\Phi_j(m|z)$ lies in a continuous series or to a microscopic state if $\Phi_j(m|z)$ is associated with a state in a discrete series. Notice that (\[mellin\]) has a meaning as long as $m-\bar m \in \mathbb Z$, a fact that we shall always assume.
After applying this formula to (\[2pt\]) we get the following expression for the two-point function involving only unflowed states, $$\label{2ptsl2}
\left\langle\Phi_{j_1}(m_1|z_1)\Phi_{j_2}(m_2|z_2)\right\rangle=\left[\delta\left(j_{12}^+\right)+Y^{-1-j_1}_{m_1}\delta\left(j_{12}\right)\right]\delta^2(m_1+m_2)\left|z_{12}\right|^{-4\Delta_{01}},$$ where $$Y^j_{m}=\frac{\pi B_j}{\gamma(-2j)}\frac{\gamma(-j-m)}{\gamma(1+j-m)},
\qquad \qquad \gamma(x)=\frac{\Gamma(x)}{\Gamma(1-\bar x)},\nonumber$$ and $$\delta^2(m)=\int_{\mathbb C} d^2x \, \left|x^{m-1}\right|^2= 4\pi^2 \delta(m+\bar m)\delta_{m,\bar m}.\nonumber$$ In order to obtain Eq. (\[2ptsl2\]) we have repeatedly used the following complex extension of Euler integral: $$\label{euler}
\int_{\mathbb C} d^2x \left|x^{a-1}(1-x)^{b-1}\right|^2=\pi\frac{\gamma(a)\gamma(b)}{\gamma(a+b)},$$ and the identity $$\gamma(x)\gamma(1-\bar x)=1.\nonumber$$
The reflection symmetry also has a counterpart in the Lorentzian model. Indeed, Eq. (\[mellin\]) when applied to (\[reflexion\])-(\[intertwining\]) gives $$\label{reflem}
\Phi_j(m|z)=Y^{-1-j}_{m}\Phi_{-1-j}(m|z).$$ For $j\in\mathcal C$, this formula defines the intertwining between $\mathcal C_{j\alpha}$ and $\mathcal C_{-1-j,\alpha}$. For a real value of $j$, this expression lacks this interpretation and Eq. (\[reflem\]) is just a functional relation between the analytic continuations of vertex operators, [*i.e.*]{} microscopic states.
Correlation functions in the SL$(2,\mathbb R)$-WZNW model can violate spectral flow number conservation according to certain selection rules (see [@Maldacena:2001km] for more details), their computation being more involved than those with trivial total spectral flow charge. However, these selection rules state that the two-point function must necessarily preserve the total spectral flow charge. Since different assignments of spectral flow adding up to the same amount only affect the overall worldsheet dependence of correlators, it follows that $$\label{2ptsl2bb}
\left\langle\Phi^{\omega_1}_{j_1}(m_1|z_1)\Phi^{\omega_2}_{j_2}(m_2|z_2)\right\rangle=\delta_{\omega_1+\omega_2,0}\delta^2(m_1+m_2)\left[\delta\left(j_{12}^+\right)+Y^{-1-j_1}_{m_1}\delta\left(j_{12}\right)\right]\left|z_{12}^{-2\Delta_1}\right|^2.$$
Importantly, the reflection symmetry extends to the spectral flowed sector as $$\label{reflembb}
\Phi^{\omega}_j(m|z)=Y^{-1-j}_{m}\Phi^{\omega}_{-1-j}(m|z).$$ We will make extensive use of this property below.
Winding modes in the space-time picture {#sect4}
=======================================
As we have already pointed out, the $m$-basis is convenient for introducing spectral flow charges. However, the space-time picture is the best suited for interpreting any result in the context of the AdS/CFT conjecture since the $x$-basis vertex operators are ingredients for the string theory operators describing states created by sources in the boundary of the target space. Indeed, if $\Theta(z)$ is a spinless worldsheet vertex corresponding to the internal CFT, the operator $$V_{j}(x)\sim \int_{\mathbb C} d^2z \, \Phi_j(x|z) \Theta(z)\nonumber$$ can be realized (as long as the scaling dimension of the full vertex equals one) as describing a string state created by a point-like source located at $x$ on the boundary of AdS$_3$. By means of the AdS/CFT correspondence, it can be identified with a CFT operator inserted at the same point. Scattering amplitudes involving operators in the space-time representation and integrated over the string worldsheet acquire a similar interpretation as correlation functions on the dual two-dimensional CFT.
For unflowed primaries, the definition of the coordinate basis vertex operators comes from the Euclidean model as microscopic states, [*i.e.*]{} through analytic continuation. The corresponding correlators follow analogously from those of the H$_3^+$-WZNW model. Now, when dealing with spectral flowed primary fields the situation is more complicated since these operators generally lie in representations with energy unbounded from below. A solution for this issue was proposed in [@Maldacena:2001km]. An arbitrary lowest-energy state can be seen from a spectral flowed frame with $\omega > 0$ as the lowest-weight state of a certain discrete representation of the global algebra generated by the zero-modes with a spin $J$ being equal to $-m-k\omega/2$. Similarly, if the flow number $\omega$ is negative, the associated spectral flow automorphism maps the same state into the highest-weight state of a discrete representation with $J=m+k\omega/2$. The algebra generated by the $J_0^a$ is identified with the space-time isometry algebra acting on the background and the global $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb C)$ symmetry algebra of the CFT at the boundary. Therefore, vertex operators in the $x$-basis having flowed primaries and their global descendants as moments were proposed as those being relevant for physical applications.
Note that the eigenvalues of the Cartan generators do not necessarily agree and, therefore, it will also be the case for the global right and left-moving spins, namely, spectral flowed vertex in the $x$-basis are no longer expected to be spinless operators, their space-time planar spin being given by the difference between $J$ and $\bar J$. This number has to be an integer in order for the corresponding correlation functions to be single-valued. On the other hand, since the lowest- and highest-weight states both contribute to the same operator, a flowed vertex in the space-time picture is not labelled by the spectral flow number but, strictly speaking, by its absolute value. We shall denote the flowed vertex operators as $\Phi^{j\omega}_{J}(x|z)$, where $\omega$ is now the (positive) amount of spectral flow and the superscript $j$ was introduced in order to remind the spin of the unflowed state this vertex is built from. These operators should be understood as microscopic states, as for the Euclidean theory, that are not Virasoro primaries and thus not affine primary fields either, although they are quasi-primary affine vertices. We shall argue later about some conformal symmetries they retain.
The transformation between the space-time picture and the $m$-basis is carried out in analogy with (\[mellin\]), namely, $$\label{fourierJM}
\Phi^{j\omega}_{J}(M|z) = \int_{\mathbb C} d^2x \left|x^{J+M}\right|^2 \Phi^{-1-j,\omega}_{-1-J}(x|z),$$ where $M$ is the $J^3_0$ eigenvalue. By means of this map, we have $$\label{identif33}
\Phi^{j\omega}_{J}(\pm J|z) \propto \Phi^{\mp\omega}_{j}(\pm J \pm k\omega/2|z).$$ If the normalization of $\Phi^{j\omega}_{J}(x|z)$ is defined so that the the relation in (\[identif33\]) is actually an identity, this can then be used for determining the regular term of the propagator in the $x$-basis. The dependence of the amplitude on the boundary coordinates is fixed once invariance under the global $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb C)$ symmetry is imposed, so that $$\left\langle \Phi^{j_1\omega_1}_{J_1}(x_1|z_1) \Phi^{j_2\omega_2}_{J_2}(x_2|z_2)\right\rangle\propto\delta^2(J_{12})\left|x_{12}^{2J_1}\right|^2,\nonumber$$ for $J_1\sim J_2$. Transforming this expression by means of (\[fourierJM\]) we obtain $$\left\langle \Phi^{j_1\omega_1}_{J_1}(M_1|z_1) \Phi^{j_2\omega_2}_{J_2}(M_2|z_2)\right\rangle \propto \pi \delta^2(J_{12}) \delta^2(M_1+M_2) \frac{\gamma(1+J_1-M_1)\gamma(-1-2J_1)}{\gamma(-J_1-M_1)},\nonumber$$ where the proportionality constant depends on all the parameters, with the exception of the spin projections. This overall factor can thus be computed by setting $M_1=-J_1$ and $M_2=J_2$, after using (\[identif33\]), together with (\[2ptsl2bb\]). We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{regular}
&& \left\langle \Phi^{j_1\omega_1}_{J_1}(x_1|z_1) \Phi^{j_2\omega_2}_{J_2}(x_2|z_2)\right\rangle=\nonumber \\
&& ~~~~~ ~~~~~ -\frac{|1+2J_1|^2}{\pi^2}\delta_{\omega_1\omega_2}\delta^2(J_{12})\left[\delta\left(j_{12}^+\right)+Y^{j_1\omega_1}_{J_1}\delta\left(j_{12}\right)\right]\left|x_{12}^{2J_1}z_{12}^{-2\Delta_1}\right|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $$Y^{j\omega}_{J}=\frac{\pi B_j}{\gamma(-2j)}\frac{\gamma_{\omega}(-1-j-J)}{\gamma_{\omega}(j-J)}, \qquad \qquad
\gamma_{\omega}(x)=\gamma(x+k\omega/2),\nonumber$$ and $$\Delta=\Delta_0-\omega-\omega J+\frac{k}{4}\omega^2.\nonumber$$ In the unflowed limit, namely, for $\omega_1=0$ and $J_1,\bar J_1\rightarrow j_1$, this expression reduces to the regular term of (\[2pt\]).
Notice that a possible contact term in the two-point function of operators in the spectral flowed sector cannot be determined using this type of arguments. Indeed, such a term should only be relevant for $J_1\sim -1-J_2$, which would prevent us from setting both spin projections to extremal weights while attempting to use Eq. (\[identif33\]) as before.
Reflection symmetry in the winding sector {#sect5}
=========================================
A natural way to look for the contact term of the two-point function is by making use of the reflection symmetry, since, as we have already mentioned, a reflection operated in one vertex in the propagator would swap its contact and its regular terms. In this section we describe how such an operation can be defined for vertex operators with non-trivial spectral flow and in the space-time picture.
Eq. (\[reflembb\]) constitutes the naive extension of the reflection symmetry to spectral flowed sectors in the $m$-basis. We can read the effect of this symmetry in the $x$-basis by using, again, Eq. (\[identif33\]). By virtue of this equation, it follows from (\[reflembb\]) that $$\label{refletrucha}
\Phi^{j\omega}_{J}(\pm J|z) = Y^{-1-j,\omega}_{-1-J} \Phi^{-1-j,\omega}_{J}(\pm J|z).$$ The states appearing on the left- and right-hand side in this expression and their global descendants contribute to $\Phi^{j\omega}_{J}(x|z)$ and $\Phi^{-1-j,\omega}_{J}(x|z)$, respectively. Moreover, Eq. (\[refletrucha\]) remains valid for any weight, as can be easily seen simply by acting with rising and lowering operators on both sides. Thus, by shifting to the $x$-basis we can write[^5] $$\label{refletrucha2}
\Phi^{j\omega}_{J}(x|z) = Y^{j\omega}_{J} \Phi^{-1-j,\omega}_{J}(x|z).$$ Note, however, that this $\mathbb Z_2$-symmetry does not constitute a “genuine” reflection symmetry in space-time. In particular, it does not generate any contact term for the propagator when acting on (\[regular\]), which is actually left invariant. In other words, Eq. (\[refletrucha2\]) is merely a remnant of the reflection symmetry in the unflowed frame.
As opposed to , a well-suited reflection should reduce to an integro-differential expression reducing to (\[intertwining\]) upon setting $\omega=0$. In the very same way that the intertwining operator adjusts the asymptotic behavior of $\Phi_{-1-j}(x|z)$ to that of $\Phi_{j}(x|z)$ in the H$^+_3$-WZNW model, the symmetry we seek should properly change the dependence of $\Phi^{-1-j,\omega}_{-1-J}(x|z)$ on the worldsheet coordinates to that of $\Phi^{j\omega}_{J}(x|z)$ as well. As for the Euclidean case, we furthermore expect an integration over the worldsheet with a power-law kernel, namely, an identity of the form $$\label{reflexion222}
\Phi^{j\omega}_{J}(x|z)=R^{j\omega}_J\left(\mathcal I^{j\omega}_J\Phi^{j\omega}_{-1-J}\right)(x|z),$$ with $$\label{refle1}
\left(\mathcal I^{j\omega}_J\Phi^{j\omega}_{-1-J}\right)(x|z)=\frac{1}{\pi^2}|1+2J||1+\alpha|\int_{\mathbb C}d^2x'd^2z'\left|\left(x-x'\right)^{2J}(z-z')^{\alpha}\right|^2\Phi^{-1-j,\omega}_{-1-J}(x'|z'),$$ where $\alpha$ could depend, in principle, on $j$, $J$, and $\omega$.
In order to explicitly determine the quantities $\alpha$ and $R^{j\omega}_J$ appearing in and , let us apply these to both vertex operators in a two-point function. More precisely, we ask for $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Kyalpha}
&& \left\langle \Phi^{j_1\omega_1}_{J_1}(x_1|z_1) \Phi^{j_2\omega_2}_{J_2}(x_2|z_2)\right\rangle= B^{j_1\omega_1}_{J_1}B^{j_2\omega_2}_{J_2}\int_{\mathbb C}d^2x_1'd^2x_2'd^2z_1'd^2z_2'\left|\left(x_1-x'_1\right)^{2J_1}(z_1-z'_1)^{\alpha_1}\right.\times \nonumber \\
&& ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ \left.\left(x_2-x'_2\right)^{2J_2}(z_2-z'_2)^{\alpha_2}\right|^2\left\langle \Phi^{-1-j_1,\omega_1}_{-1-J_1}(x'_1|z'_1) \Phi^{-1-j_2,\omega_2}_{-1-J_2}(x'_2|z'_2)\right\rangle \end{aligned}$$ to hold, where, in analogy with , we have introduced $$B^{j\omega}_J=\frac{1}{\pi^2}|1+2J||1+\alpha|R^{j\omega}_J.$$ Under the assumption that $J=J_1\sim J_2$, the correlators on both sides of this expression take the form in Eq. (\[regular\]). We thus get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Kyalpha2}
&& \left[\delta\left(j_{12}^+\right)+Y^{j_1\omega}_{J}\delta\left(j_{12}\right)\right]\left|x_{12}^{2J}z_{12}^{-2\Delta}\right|^2= B^{j_1\omega}_{J}B^{j_2\omega}_{J}\int_{\mathbb C}d^2x_1'd^2x_2'd^2z_1'd^2z_2'\left|\left(x_1-x'_1\right)^{2J}(z_1-z'_1)^{\alpha_1}\right. \nonumber \\
&& \times \left.\left(x_2-x'_2\right)^{2J}(z_2-z'_2)^{\alpha_2}\right|^2\left[\delta\left(j_{12}^+\right)+Y^{-1-j_1,\omega}_{-1-J}\delta\left(j_{12}\right)\right]\left|x'^{-2-2J}_{12}z'^{-2\Delta-2\omega(1+2J)}_{12}\right|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega=\omega_1=\omega_2$. If, in addition, we set $j=j_1\sim j_2$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
&& Y^{j\omega}_{J}\left|x_{12}^{2J}z_{12}^{-2\Delta}\right|^2= \left(B^{j\omega}_{J}\right)^2Y^{-1-j,\omega}_{-1-J}\int_{\mathbb C}d^2x_1'd^2x_2'd^2z_1'd^2z_2'\left|\left(x_1-x'_1\right)^{2J}(z_1-z'_1)^{\alpha}\right|^2\times \nonumber \\
&& ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ \left|\left(x_2-x'_2\right)^{2J}(z_2-z'_2)^{\alpha}\right|^2\left|x'^{-2-2J}_{12}z'^{-2\Delta-2\omega(1+2J)}_{12}\right|^2.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By using Eq. (\[euler\]) in order to compute all integrals above, together with the following identities $$Y^{j\omega}_J Y^{-1-j,\omega}_J=1, \qquad\qquad Y^{j\omega}_J Y^{j\omega}_{-1-J}= \left[\frac{\pi B_j}{\gamma(-2j)}\right]^2
\frac{\gamma_{\omega}(-1-j-J)\gamma_{\omega}(-j+J)}{\gamma_{\omega}(1+j+J)\gamma_{\omega}(j-J)}\nonumber$$ we obtain $$\alpha = -1+\omega(1+2J),\nonumber$$ and $$\label{K}
B^{j\omega}_{J}=\frac{iB_j|1+2J|}{\pi\gamma(-2j)\gamma(\omega(1+2J))} \sqrt{\frac{\gamma(2\Delta+2\omega(1+2J))\gamma_{\omega}(-1-j-J)\gamma_{\omega}(-j+J)}{\gamma(2\Delta)\gamma_{\omega}(1+j+J)\gamma_{\omega}(j-J)}},$$ so that $$\label{R}
R^{j\omega}_{J}=\frac{i\pi B_j}{\gamma(-2j)}\frac{\gamma(1-\omega(1+2J))}{\omega|1+2J|} \sqrt{\frac{\gamma(2\Delta+2\omega(1+2J))\gamma_{\omega}(-1-j-J)\gamma_{\omega}(-j+J)}{\gamma(2\Delta)\gamma_{\omega}(1+j+J)\gamma_{\omega}(j-J)}}.$$ When $\omega=0$ it follows that $\alpha = -1$, trivializing the worldsheet integration in (\[refle1\]), as expected. Furthermore, by taking $J,\bar J\rightarrow j$ we get $$B^{j\omega}_{J}\rightarrow\frac{B_j}{V_{\mbox{\scriptsize conf}}},\nonumber$$ the conformal volume in this expression cancelling the one coming from the computation of residues in the worldsheet, or, equivalently, $$R^{j\omega}_{J}\rightarrow R_j.\nonumber$$ We thus find a complete agreement of (\[refle1\]) with (\[reflexion\])-(\[intertwining\]) in the unflowed limit.
Setting $j=j_1=j_2$ in (\[Kyalpha2\]) allowed us to compute both $\alpha$ and $B^{j\omega}_{J}$. However, we still need to check that these expressions are consistent with the terms proportional to $\delta(j_{12}^{+})$ in (\[Kyalpha2\]). Since $\alpha$ does not depend on $j$, the worldsheet and space-time integrations in (\[Kyalpha2\]) give the same result if, instead, we set $j=j_1=-1-j_2$. It follows that (\[Kyalpha2\]), and thus (\[Kyalpha\]), are satisfied as long as $$B^{j\omega}_{J}B^{-1-j,\omega}_{J}=-\frac{|1+2J|^2}{\pi^4} \frac{\gamma(2\Delta+2\omega(1+2J))}{\gamma(\omega(1+2J))^2\gamma(2\Delta)}.\nonumber$$ It is easily seen that the expression obtained in satisfies this identity.
Last but not least, we also need to check for the idempotence of the reflection symmetry defined by (\[refle1\]). Indeed, after applying (\[refle1\]) twice, this follows from the expression for the complex delta function, $$\label{deltacomp}
\delta(x_{12})=-\frac{|\epsilon|^2}{\pi^2} \int_{\mathbb C} d^2y\, \left|(x_1-y)^{-1+\epsilon}(y-x_2)^{-1-\epsilon}\right|^2,$$ used on both the worldsheet and the space-time integrations, together with $$R^{j\omega}_{J}R^{-1-j,\omega}_{-1-J}=1,\nonumber$$ an identity that straightforwardly follows from .
The contact term and the full propagator {#sect6}
========================================
Eq. (\[refle1\]) can be used to compute the contact term of the propagator. For this, we take the two-point function and reflect a single vertex operator, leading to $$\begin{aligned}
&& \left\langle \Phi^{j_1\omega_1}_{J_1}(x_1|z_1) \Phi^{j_2\omega_2}_{J_2}(x_2|z_2)\right\rangle= B^{j_1\omega_1}_{J_1}\int_{\mathbb C}d^2x_1'd^2z_1' \left|\left(x_1-x'_1\right)^{2J_1}(z_1-z'_1)^{\alpha_1}\right|^2 \times \nonumber \\
&& ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ \left\langle \Phi^{-1-j_1,\omega_1}_{-1-J_1}(x'_1|z'_1)\Phi^{j_2,\omega_2}_{J_2}(x_2|z_2) \right\rangle.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ For $J_1\sim -1-J_2$, the two-point function in the integral can be replaced by the bulk term written in (\[regular\]), so that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \Phi^{j_1\omega_1}_{J_1}(x_1|z_1) \Phi^{j_2\omega_2}_{J_2}(x_2|z_2)\right\rangle= -\frac{|1+2J_1|^2}{\pi^2}\delta_{\omega_1\omega_2}\delta^2(J_{12}^+)B^{j_1\omega_1}_{J_1}\left[\delta\left(j_{12}\right)+Y^{-1-j_1,\omega_1}_{-1-J_1}\delta\left(j_{12}^+\right)\right] \times \nonumber \\
\int_{\mathbb C}d^2x_1'd^2z_1' \left|\left(x_1-x'_1\right)^{2J_1}(z_1-z'_1)^{-1+\omega_1(1+2J_1)}\left(x_1'-x_2\right)^{-2-2J_1}\left(z_1'-z_2\right)^{-2\Delta_1-2\omega_1(1+2J_1)}\right|^2.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ After integrating over $x'$ and $z'$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&& \left\langle \Phi^{j_1\omega_1}_{J_1}(x_1|z_1) \Phi^{j_2\omega_2}_{J_2}(x_2|z_2)\right\rangle= \delta_{\omega_1\omega_2}\delta^2(J_{12}^+)B^{j_1\omega_1}_{J_1}\left[\delta\left(j_{12}\right)+Y^{-1-j_1,\omega_1}_{-1-J_1}\delta\left(j_{12}^+\right)\right] \times \nonumber \\
&& ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ \pi \frac{\gamma(2\Delta_1+\omega_1(1+2J_1))\gamma(\omega_1(1+2J_1))}{\gamma(2\Delta_1+2\omega_1(1+2J_1))}\delta\left(x_{12}\right)\left|z_{12}^{-2\Delta_1-\omega_1(1+2J_1)}\right|^2, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ or, more explicitly, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{contact4}
\left\langle \Phi^{j_1\omega_1}_{J_1}(x_1|z_1) \Phi^{j_2\omega_2}_{J_2}(x_2|z_2)\right\rangle=\frac{i|1+2J_1|}{\pi} \delta_{\omega_1\omega_2}\delta^2(J_{12}^+)\left[\delta\left(j_{12}^+\right)+Y^{j_1\omega_1}_{-1-J_1}\delta\left(j_{12}\right)\right] \times \nonumber \\
\sqrt{\frac{\gamma(2\Delta_1+\omega_1(1+2J_1))^2\gamma_{\omega_1}(1+j_1+J_1)\gamma_{\omega_1}(-1-j_1-J_1)}{\gamma(2\Delta_1)\gamma(2\Delta_1+2\omega_1(1+2J_1))\gamma_{\omega_1}(j_1-J_1)\gamma_{\omega_1}(-j_1+J_1)}}\delta\left(x_{12}\right)\left|z_{12}^{-2\Delta_1-\omega_1(1+2J_1)}\right|^2.\end{aligned}$$ The full expression of the propagator for the SL$(2,\mathbb R)$-WZNW model is obtained by adding (\[contact4\]) to (\[regular\]). A well suited parametrization of the two-point function can be obtained by considering the following [*ansatz*]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2ptdef}
&&\left\langle \Phi^{j_1\omega_1}_{J_1}(x_1|z_1) \Phi^{j_2\omega_2}_{J_2}(x_2|z_2)\right\rangle = S_{J_1}^{j_1\omega_1}S_{J_2}^{j_2\omega_2}\delta_{\omega_1\omega_2}\left[\delta\left(j_{12}^+\right)+L^{j_1\omega_1}_{J_1}\delta\left(j_{12}\right)\right] \times \nonumber \\
&& ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ \left[\delta^2\left(J_{12}^+\right)\delta\left(x_{12}\right)+M^{j_1\omega_1}_{J_1}\delta^2\left(J_{12}\right)\left|x_{12}^{2J_1}\right|^2 \right]\left|z_{12}^{-\Delta_1-\Delta_2}\right|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the factorization of the overall constant is a highly nontrivial proposal that, if fulfilled, would allow us to absorb this factor through a proper redefinition of the spectral flowed vertex fields. Let us show that this is indeed the case.
It can be seen from (\[regular\]) and (\[contact4\]) that the identities $$S_{J}^{j\omega}S_{-1-J}^{-1-j,\omega}=\frac{i|1+2J|}{\pi}\sqrt{\frac{\gamma(2\Delta+\omega(1+2J))^2\gamma_{\omega}(1+j+J)\gamma_{\omega}(-1-j-J)}{\gamma(2\Delta)\gamma(2\Delta+2\omega(1+2J))\gamma_{\omega}(j-J)\gamma_{\omega}(-j+J)}},\nonumber$$ $$S_{J}^{j\omega}S_{-1-J}^{j\omega}L_{J}^{j\omega}=\frac{i|1+2J|B_j}{\gamma(-2j)}\sqrt{\frac{\gamma(2\Delta+\omega(1+2J))^2\gamma_{\omega}(-j+J)\gamma_{\omega}(-1-j-J)}{\gamma(2\Delta)\gamma(2\Delta+2\omega(1+2J))\gamma_{\omega}(j-J)\gamma_{\omega}(1+j+J)}},\nonumber$$ $$S_{J}^{j\omega}S_{J}^{-1-j,\omega}M_{J}^{j\omega}=-\frac{|1+2J|^2}{\pi^2},\nonumber$$ $$\left(S_{J}^{j\omega}\right)^2L_{J}^{j\omega}M_{J}^{j\omega}=-\frac{|1+2J|^2}{\pi^2}Y_J^{j,\omega}\nonumber$$ must hold. The solution is given by $$\label{defS}
S_{J}^{j\omega}=\sqrt{\frac{\gamma(2+2J)\gamma(2\Delta+\omega(1+2J))\gamma_{\omega}(-1-j-J)}{\pi\gamma(2\Delta)\gamma_{\omega}(j-J)}},$$ $$\label{defL}
L_{J}^{j\omega}=\frac{\pi B_j}{\gamma(-2j)},$$ $$\label{defM}
M_{J}^{j\omega}=\frac{\gamma(-2J)\gamma(2\Delta)}{\pi\gamma(2\Delta+\omega(1+2J))}.$$ As a consistency check, note that in the unflowed limit these expressions reduce to $$S_{J}^{j\omega}\rightarrow V_{\mbox{\scriptsize conf}}^{-1/2}
\ \ , \ \
L_{J}^{j\omega}\rightarrow\frac{\pi B_j}{\gamma(-2j)}
\ \ , \ \
M_{J}^{j\omega}\rightarrow\frac{\gamma(-2j)}{\pi},\nonumber$$ so that the conformal volume factors coming from $S_{J_1}^{j_1\omega_1}$ and $S_{J_2}^{j_2\omega_2}$ cancel the divergence coming from the product of delta functions and the expected propagator (\[2pt\]) is obtained.
As stated in [@Maldacena:2001km], the terms proportional to $\delta\left( j_{12}^+\right)$ in are irrelevant for operators describing short strings. This also holds for the contributions with a factor $\delta^2\left(J_{12}^+\right)$ in situations with non-trivial winding, since $J_{12}^+$ also becomes a strictly positive number. As for the unflowed case, this results in the absence of a contact term. For the continuous series this is not longer the case since $m_1$ and $m_2$ are allowed to take any real value. Consequently, the contact term has to be taken into account for long strings configurations.
A relevant aspect to point out concerning the propagator is related to the dependence of its contact term on the worldsheet coordinates, which is, indeed, different from that of the regular term . This fact shows that, as advertised above, the spectral flowed vertex operators in the space-time picture are not only not conformal primaries, but not even Virasoro quasi-primary fields. As it can be read off from , invariance of the two-point functions under special conformal transformations is manifestly broken in spectrally flowed sectors, although they retain their invariance under translations, rotations and dilations.
We would like to make a final comment about the spectral flowed two-point function in target space. In order to compute the propagator in space-time, we need to consider , modify its dependence on the worldsheet coordinates to give account of the internal CFT, then integrate over $z$ and $\bar z$ and divide it by the volume of the conformal group on the sphere. At the end, this produces an additional factor $V_{\mbox{\scriptsize conf}}^{-1}$. Since none of the delta functions appearing in needs to be evaluated for the continuous series, a finite result is achieved in string theory by normalizing the vertex fields as $\Phi^{j\omega}_{J}(x|z)\rightarrow \sqrt{V_{\mbox{\scriptsize conf}}}\, \Phi^{j\omega}_{J}(x|z)$. Note that this normalization differs from the one in [@Maldacena:2001km]. For short strings, delta functions involving $J_1$ and $J_2$ must be evaluated producing an extra overall factor $V_{\mbox{\scriptsize conf}}$. Therefore, unlike the case of the long string, we do not have to rescale the operator $\Phi^{j\omega}_{J}(x|z)$.
The singly flowed sector {#sect7}
========================
In [@Maldacena:2001km] the authors introduced a definition of vertex operators with one unit of spectral flow based on the fusion of the unflowed state $\Phi_{-1-j}(x|z)$ and the so-called spectral flow operator $\Phi_{-k/2}(x|z)$, with no transformation neither from nor to the $m$-basis. In our notation, this definition reads $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Psi^{j}_{J}(x|z)= \frac{|1+2J|^2}{\pi^2} Y_J^{j,\omega=1} \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \left|\epsilon^{1+J-k/2}\right|^2 \int_{\mathbb C} d^2x'd^2y \left|(x-x')^{2J}y^{j-1-J+k/2}\right|^2\times \nonumber\\
&& ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ \Phi_{-1-j}(x'+y|z+\epsilon)\Phi_{-k/2}(x'|z).
\label{defw1Malda}\end{aligned}$$
As a quick consistency check of this equation, let us replace the unflowed vertex in the integrand in by means of its reflection (\[reflexion\]). We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Psi^{j}_{J}(x|z)= \frac{|1+2J|^2}{\pi^2} Y_J^{j,\omega=1} B_{-1-j} \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \left|\epsilon^{1+J-k/2}\right|^2 \int_{\mathbb C} d^2x'd^2x''d^2y \times \nonumber\\
&& ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ \left|(x-x')^{2J}(x'+y-x'')^{-2-2j}y^{j-1-J+k/2}\right|^2\Phi_{j}(x''|z+\epsilon)\Phi_{-k/2}(x'|z).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ After the integration over $y$ is performed, and defining $u=(x''-x')$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Psi^{j}_{J}(x|z)= \frac{|1+2J|^2}{\pi^2}Y_{J}^{j,\omega=1}
\frac{\pi B_{-1-j}}{\gamma(2+2j)} \frac{\gamma_{\omega=1}(j-J)}{\gamma_{\omega=1}(-1-j-J)}\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \left|\epsilon^{1+J-k/2}\right|^2 \times \nonumber\\
&& ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
\int_{\mathbb C} d^2x'd^2u
\left|(x-x')^{2J}u^{-2-j-J+k/2}\right|^2\Phi_{j}(x'+u|z+\epsilon)\Phi_{-k/2}(x'|z) \nonumber\\
&& ~~~~~ ~~~~~ = Y^{j\omega=1}_{J} \Psi^{-1-j}_{J}(x|z),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ which explicitly shows that a reflection in the unflowed sector does not induce the emergence of a reflection in the spectrally flowed case but simply the identification Eq. (\[refletrucha2\]).
Starting from and using the four-point function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4pt}
&& \langle \Phi_{j_1}(x_1'+y_1|z_1+\epsilon_1)\Phi_{-k/2}(x_1'|z_1)
\Phi_{j_2}(x_2'+y_2|z_2+\epsilon_2)\Phi_{-k/2}(x_2'|z_2)
\rangle = \nonumber \\
&& \ \ B_{j_1}\delta(j_{12})\left|
z_{21}^{k/2}\left(z_{21}+\epsilon_{21}\right)^{-2\Delta_{01}} z^{-j_1}\left(1-z\right)^{-j_1}
x_{21}'^{-k}\left(x_{21}'+y_{21}\right)^{2j_1} \left(z-x\right)^{2j_1}
\right|^2, \end{aligned}$$ where the cross ratios are given by $$x = \frac{y_1 y_2}{x_{21}'(x_{21}'+y_{21})}, \qquad \ z = \frac{\epsilon_1 \epsilon_2}{z_{21}'(z_{21}'+\epsilon_{21})},\nonumber$$ the authors re-obtained the bulk term of the propagator for the case $\omega=1$. More precisely, this method generates only the part of the bulk term that is proportional to $\delta (j_{12})$. In order to get the term proportional to $\delta(j_{12}^+)$ one has to consider a second solution to the Knizhnik–Zamolodchikov equation and null-state condition associated to the four point function on the left-hand side of , which is of the form $z^{j_1} \delta(x-z)$ [@Maldacena:2001km]. Of course, this term had to be there, otherwise would lead to an inconsistency. Alternatively, we could obtain the same result by re-defining $$\Psi^{j}_{J}(x|z) \to \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[ \Psi^{j}_{J}(x|z) + Y_J^{j,\omega=1} \Psi^{-1-j}_{J}(x|z)\right],\nonumber$$ which is not unexpected since, as stated above, the identity is a manifestation of the reflection symmetry of the unflowed sector of the theory.
As described in the previous section, the two-point function is not given solely by the bulk contribution. It also includes a contact term that cannot be derived from . In order to address this issue our guide will once again be the reflection symmetry in the spectrally flowed sector. Recall that, for unflowed vertex operators, both terms in were simply exchanged upon reflecting one of the operators by using , leaving the full correlator unchanged. An analogous statement of course holds for the two-point function in the $\omega=1$ sector, where the reflection is now given by . Based on this property, and inspired by the asymptotic expression in Eq. , we introduce a simple [*ansatz*]{} for completing the definition of $\Phi^{j\omega=1}_{J}(x|z)$ in the space-time picture. Concretely, we propose to include the reflected version of the expression in the right-hand side of , [*i.e.*]{} we define $$\Phi^{j\omega=1}_{J}(x|z) \equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left[
\Psi^{j}_{J}(x|z) + R^{j\omega=1}_J\left(\mathcal I^{j\omega=1}_J\Psi^{j}_{-1-J}\right)(x|z)
\right].
\label{newdef}$$ Let us show how the new term looks like. By using , and performing a trivial integration in the $x$-variables, we find $$\begin{aligned}
&& \left(\mathcal I^{j\omega=1}_J\Psi^{j}_{-1-J}\right)(x|z) =
\frac{1}{\pi^2} |1+2J|^2 \int_{\mathbb C}d^2 x' d^2 z'\left|\left(x-x'\right)^{2J}(z-z')^{2J}\right|^2 \Psi^{-1-j}_{-1-J}(x'|z') \nonumber \\
&& ~~~~~ ~~ = - \frac{1}{\pi^2} |1+2J|^2 Y_{-1-J}^{-1-j,\omega=1}
\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \left|\epsilon^{-J-k/2}\right|^2
\int_{\mathbb C} d^2z'd^2y \left|(z-z')^{2J}y^{J-1-j+k/2}\right|^2 \times \nonumber \\
&& ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ \times \Phi_j(x+y|z'+\epsilon) \Phi_{-k/2}(x|z').\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Equivalently, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
&& \left(\mathcal I^{j\omega=1}_J\Psi^{j}_{-1-J}\right)(x|z) = - \frac{1}{\pi^2} |1+2J|^2 Y_{-1-J}^{-1-j,\omega=1}
\lim_{y\rightarrow 0} \left|y^{J-j-k/2}\right|^2 \times \nonumber \\
&& ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ \times
\int_{\mathbb C} d^2z'd^2\epsilon \left|(z-z')^{2J}\epsilon^{-1-J-k/2}\right|^2
\Phi_j(x+y|z'+\epsilon) \Phi_{-k/2}(x|z').\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The last expression was obtained by using the following identity [@Maldacena:2001km] $$\begin{aligned}
&&\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \left|\epsilon^{m}\right|^2
\int_{\mathbb C} d^2y \left|y^{-1-j-m}\right|^2 \Phi_j(x+y|z+\epsilon) \Phi_{-k/2}(x|z)=\nonumber \\
&& ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ \lim_{y\rightarrow 0} \left|y^{-j-m}\right|^2 \int_{\mathbb C} d^2\epsilon \left|\epsilon^{m-1}\right|^2
\Phi_j(x+y|z+\epsilon) \Phi_{-k/2}(x|z).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We see that the integrated variables have shifted from space-time to worldsheet coordinates in comparison to . The new term in the definition of the vertex is thus fully local in space-time.
Our goal, by following the recipe outlined above, is to prove that the definition allows us to obtain the full two-point function, [*i.e.*]{} including the contact term. The proof is two-fold: we need to compute the corresponding two-point function by considering separately the direct and cross terms in the product $\Phi^{j_1\omega=1}_{J_1}(x_1|z_1)\Phi^{j_2\omega=1}_{J_2}(x_2|z_2)$. The former give rise to the bulk term, while the latter originate the novel contact term.
We start with the first cross term, which takes the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
&& R^{j_2\omega=1}_{J_2} \left\langle \Psi^{j_1}_{J_1}(x_1|z_1)\left(\mathcal I^{j_2\omega=1}_{J_2}\Psi^{j_2}_{-1-J_2}\right)(x_2|z_2) \right\rangle = A \times
\lim_{\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2\rightarrow 0} \left|\epsilon_1^{1+J_1-k/2}
\epsilon_2^{-J_2-k/2}\right|^2 \times \nonumber \\
&& ~~~~~ ~~~
\int_{\mathbb C} d^2x_1'd^2y_1 d^2z'_2 d^2y_2 \left| \left(x_1 - x_1'\right)^{2J_1} \left(z_2 - z_2'\right)^{2J_2} y_1^{j_1 - J_1 -1 + k/2} y_2^{J_2 - j_2 - 1 + k/2} \right|^2 \times \nonumber \\
&& ~~~~~ ~~~
\langle \Phi_{-1-j_1}(x_1'+y_1|z_1+\epsilon_1)\Phi_{-k/2}(x_1'|z_1)
\Phi_{j_2}(x_2+y_2|z_2'+\epsilon_2)\Phi_{-k/2}(x_2|z_2')
\rangle,
\label{cross1}\end{aligned}$$ with $$A = -\frac{|1+2J_1|^2}{\pi^2} Y_{J_1}^{j_1,\omega=1} Y_{-1-J_2}^{-1-j_2,\omega=1} B_{J_2}^{j_2 \omega=1}.
\label{A1At2}$$ Inserting and changing variables to $$w_i = \frac{y_i}{x_{21}'} \ , \ \xi_i = \frac{\epsilon_i}{z_{21}'},\nonumber$$ for $i=1,2$, with $x_{21}' = x_2 - x_1'$ and $z_{21}' = z_2' - z_1$, becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&& R^{j_2\omega=1}_{J_2} \left\langle \Psi^{j_1}_{J_1}(x_1|z_1)\left(\mathcal I^{j_2\omega=1}_{J_2}\Psi^{j_2}_{-1-J_2}\right)(x_2|z_2) \right\rangle = A \, B_{-1-j_1}\delta(j_{12}^+) \times \nonumber \\
&& ~~~~~ \lim_{\xi_1,\xi_2\rightarrow 0} \left|\xi_1^{2+J_1+j_1-k/2}
\xi_2^{1+j_1-J_2-k/2}\right|^2
\int_{\mathbb C} d^2x_1'd^2z'_2 \left|
\left(x_1-x_1'\right)^{2J_1}
\left(z_2-z_2'\right)^{2J_2} \right. \times \nonumber \\
&& ~~~~~ \left. x_{21}'^{\, J_2 - J_1 - 1}
z_{21}'^{\, \, 1+J_1-J_2-k/2-2\Delta_{01}} \right|^2 \int_{\mathbb C} d^2w_1 d^2w_2 \left| w_1^{j_1 - J_1 - 1 + k/2}
w_2^{J_2 - 1 - j_2 + k/2} \right. \times \nonumber \\
&& ~~~~~ \left. \left(w_1 w_2 - \xi_1 \xi_2 (1 + w_2 - w_1)\right)^{-2-2j_1}
\right|^2.
\label{cross2}\end{aligned}$$ The last integral over $w_1$ and $w_2$ can be explicitly computed after a further change of variables: $$w_1 = \sqrt{sz} \, t, \qquad w_2 = \sqrt{sz} \, t^{-1}. \nonumber$$ Recalling that we are only interested in the small-$z$ limit, it reduces to $$\delta^2\left(J_{12}^+\right) \frac{\pi \, \gamma_{\omega=1}(j_1 - J_1)
\gamma(-1-2j_1)}{\gamma_{\omega=1} (-1-j_1-J_1)} \left(\xi_1 \xi_2
\right)^{-2-j_1-J_1+k/2}.
\label{Iwresult}$$ This formula is important for several reasons. First, we have obtained the non-trivial condition on the weights, [*i.e.*]{} $J_2=-1-J_1$, through the delta function $\delta^2\left(J_{12}^+\right)$. Moreover, this same condition implies that the exponents of $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$ in are equal, and these factors are exactly cancelled by the last factor in , trivializing the $\xi_{1,2} \to 0$ limit. Furthermore, we see that $x_1'$ integral is also greatly simplified. It takes exactly the form in up to the overall constant and this means that what we just computed is actually a contact term. The remaining integration over $z_2'$ results in a factor proportional to $$\left|z_{12}^{1-k/2-2\Delta_{01}}\right|^2 = \left|z_{12}^{-\Delta_1 - \Delta_2}\right|^2. \nonumber$$ The dependence on $z_{12}$ thus reproduces that of . Putting everything together we find that becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&& R^{j_2\omega=1}_{J_2} \left\langle \Psi^{j_1}_{J_1}(x_1|z_1)\left(\mathcal I^{j_2\omega=1}_{J_2}\Psi^{j_2}_{-1-J_2}\right)(x_2|z_2) \right\rangle = \nonumber \\
&& - \frac{\pi^4 A B_{-1-j_1} \gamma (1+2J_1 +2\Delta_1)\gamma_\omega (j_1 - J_1)}{
|1+2J_1|^2 \gamma(2j_1)\gamma(2J_1)\gamma(2\Delta_1) \gamma_\omega(-1-j_1-J_1)} \delta\left(j_{12}^+\right) \delta^2\left(J_{12}^+\right)
\delta\left(x_{12}\right) \left|z_{12}^{ -\Delta_1 - \Delta_2}\right|^2.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By means of one can show this expression exactly reproduces that of the contact term in for $\omega=1$. More precisely, we have only obtained one of the two contributions to the contact term. This was to be expected since the reflection acts on both $j_2$ and $J_2$ simultaneously. In order to get the one proportional to $\delta\left(j_{12}\right)$ it is necessary to redo this calculation by using the contact term of the unflowed four-point function mentioned above.
The second crossed term in the product $\Phi^{j_1\omega=1}_{J_1}(x_1|z_1)\Phi^{j_2\omega=1}_{J_2}(x_2|z_2)$ is computed analogously and renders the same result. Therefore, it just remains to show that the contribution with two reflected operators also gives the usual bulk term. We do not write any details here and simply state that this is indeed the case. The manipulations needed to carry out this computations are similar to those we just used.
Thus, we conclude that the definition is consistent with the general two-point function in the spectral flowed sector written in Eq. for the particular case of unit winding. Of course, it would be interesting to see whether this simple [*ansatz*]{} holds for higher-point functions as well. We leave this computation for future work.
Final remarks {#disc}
=============
Let us recall what we have done and summarize the main results of this paper. First, we briefly reviewed the relevant aspects of the H$_3^+$-WZNW model: conserved currents, spectrum and vertex operators. In particular, we highlighted some important properties of the latter, namely, the reflection symmetry presented in Eqs. -, relating $\Phi_j(x|z)$ and $\Phi_{-1-j}(x|z)$, and also the exact two-point function, given in , where the bulk and contact terms are precisely the reflection the one of the other. Then, we studied the Lorentzian counterpart, that is, the SL$(2,\mathbb R)$-WZNW model, focusing on the appearance of the spectrally flowed operators. At the classical level, some of these states are related to long strings winding $\omega$ times around the AdS$_3$ boundary. As a matter of fact, vertex operators can be thought of more intuitively by shifting to the $m$-basis, where they can be constructed by starting with one of the unflowed affine primaries $\Phi_j$ and acting with the spectral flow automorphism characterized by Eqs. -. In the space-time picture, the resulting flowed vertex was denoted $\Phi_J^{j\omega}(x|z)$, where, besides $\omega$, $J$ (and $\bar{J}$, which is omitted) is the relevant quantum number, [*i.e.*]{} the eigenvalue of the Cartan generator, while $j$ is only written explicitly as a reminder of how the operator was constructed.
In the spectral flowed sector of the theory only the regular term of the two-point function had been computed so far. Moreover, and not unrelated to this, no counterpart of the reflection symmetry was known. Indeed, a naive extension was introduced in Eq. and, roughly speaking, it merely states the existence of alternative ways to define operators with the same values of the spectral flow charge and spin. We proposed a full-fledged reflection symmetry for operators with non-trivial spectral flow, namely, $$\label{reflexion222bis}
\Phi^{j\omega}_{J}(x|z)=R^{j\omega}_J\left(\mathcal I^{j\omega}_J\Phi^{j\omega}_{-1-J}\right)(x|z),$$ with $$\left(\mathcal I^{j\omega}_J\Phi^{j\omega}_{-1-J}\right)(x|z)=\frac{\omega}{\pi^2}|1+2J|^2\int_{\mathbb C}d^2x'd^2z'\left|\left(x-x'\right)^{2J}(z-z')^{-1+\omega(1+2J)}\right|^2\Phi^{-1-j,\omega}_{-1-J}(x'|z'),\nonumber$$ the reflection amplitude $R^{j\omega}_J$ being defined in . This property is consistent with the form of the bulk term in the two-point function. Furthermore, it relates operators with spins $J$ and $-1-J$, so that it allowed us to compute exactly the missing contact term in the propagator. We presented the complete form of the correlator in Eq. .
Interestingly enough, the factorization of the global factor in Eqs. as $S_{J_1}^{j_1\omega_1}S_{J_2}^{j_2\omega_2}$, where $S_{J}^{j\omega}$ is explicitly given by Eq. , suggests a normalization for the flowed vertex operators more suited than the one set when introducing above. More precisely, by rescaling $$\Phi^{j\omega}_{J}(x|z) \rightarrow S_{J}^{j\omega}\Phi^{j\omega}_{J}(x|z),\nonumber$$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
&& \left\langle \Phi^{j_1\omega_1}_{J_1}(x_1|z_1) \Phi^{j_2\omega_2}_{J_2}(x_2|z_2)\right\rangle = \delta_{\omega_1\omega_2} \left[\delta\left(j_{12}^+\right)+L^{j_1\omega_1}_{J_1}\delta\left(j_{12}\right)\right] \times \nonumber \\
&& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \left[\delta^2\left(J_{12}^+\right)\delta\left(x_{12}\right)+M^{j_1\omega_1}_{J_1}\delta^2\left(J_{12}\right)\left|x_{12}^{2J_1}\right|^2 \right] \left|z_{12}^{-\Delta_1-\Delta_2}\right|^2,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $L^{j\omega}_{J}$ and $M^{j\omega}_{J}$ are given by and , respectively. Moreover, in this normalization the reflection symmetry is still given by , albeit with a much simpler coefficient given by $$R^{j\omega}_J=\frac{\pi B_j\gamma(-2J)}{\pi\gamma(-2j)}\frac{\gamma(1-\omega(1+2J))}{\omega|1+2J|^2}.\nonumber$$ Notice that, unlike in the Euclidean case, none of the factors in the propagator coincide with the reflection coefficient.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The work of S.I. is supported by the National Agency for the Promotion of Science and Technology of Argentina (ANPCyT-FONCyT) Grant PICT-2016-1358 and by CONICET under grant no 22920160100060CO. The work of N.K. is supported by the Leverhulme Trust under grant no RPG-2018-153, and additionally by ANPCyT-FONCyT Grants PICT-2017-1647 and PICT-2015-1525.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: [email protected]
[^4]: [email protected]
[^5]: This relation will be checked explicitly for operators with unit winding in section \[sect7\].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present a new reduction pipeline for the detector and describe the method developed to obtain high-precision astrometry with the VISTA Variables in the Vía Láctea (VVV) data set. We derive an accurate geometric-distortion correction using as calibration field the globular cluster NGC 5139, and showed that we are able to reach a relative astrometric precision of about 8 mas per coordinate per exposure for well-measured stars over a field of view of more than 1 square degree. This geometric-distortion correction is made available to the community. As a test bed, we chose a field centered around the globular cluster NGC 6656 from the VVV archive and computed proper motions for the stars within. With 45 epochs spread over four years, we show that we are able to achieve a precision of 1.4 mas yr$^{-1}$ and to isolate each population observed in the field (cluster, Bulge and Disk) using proper motions. We used proper-motion-selected field stars to measure the motion difference between Galactic disk and bulge stars. Our proper-motion measurements are consistent with UCAC4 and PPMXL, though our errors are much smaller. Models have still difficulties in reproducing the observations in this highly-reddened Galactic regions.'
author:
- |
M. Libralato[^1][^2]$^{1,2,3}$, A. Bellini$^{3}$, L. R. Bedin$^{2}$, J. Anderson$^{3}$, G. Piotto$^{1,2}$, V. Nascimbeni$^{1,2}$, I. Platais$^{4}$, D. Minniti$^{5,6,7}$, M. Zoccali$^{7,8}$\
$^{1}$ Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia, Università di Padova, Vicolo dell’Osservatorio 3, Padova, I-35122, Italy\
$^{2}$ INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, Vicolo dell’Osservatorio 5, Padova, I-35122, Italy\
$^{3}$ Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD-21218, USA\
$^{4}$ Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD-21218, USA\
$^{5}$ Departamento de Ciencias Fisicas, Universidad Andres Bello, Republica 220, Santiago, Chile\
$^{6}$ Vatican Observatory, V00120 Vatican City State, Italy\
$^{7}$ Millenium Institute of Astrophysics, Av. Vicuña Mackenna 4680, Macul, Santiago, Chile\
$^{8}$ Instituto de Astrofísica, Facultad de Física, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Av. Vicuña Mackenna, Santiago, Chile\
date: 'Received 03 December 2014 / Accepted 25 March 2015'
title: 'High-precision astrometry with VVV. I. An independent reduction pipeline for VIRCAM@VISTA[^3]'
---
\[firstpage\]
Instrumentation: Infrared Detectors / Astrometry / Techniques: Image processing / Galaxy: bulge, disk / Globular clusters: NGC 5139, NGC 6656 / Proper motions
Introduction {#intro}
============
The VISTA Variables in the Vía Láctea (VVV) variability campaign started in 2010. Thanks to the VISTA InfraRed Camera (VIRCAM, @Dal06 [@Eme06]), mounted at the 4.1m telescope VISTA (Visible and Infrared Survey Telescope for Astronomy), this ongoing survey is mapping the Galactic bulge and disk to create a 3-D map of the Milky Way [@Min10; @Sai12]. As for many long-term variability surveys, the observing strategy is mainly focused on covering a portion of the sky as large as possible in a single night, scanning the full field of view many times every few days. To this aim, the exposure time of each image has to be short enough in order to achieve the survey specifications. In the VVV survey, the typical exposure time for $K_{\rm S}$-filter images is about 4s, e.g., a factor 7 smaller than the 30-s threshold set by @Pla02 and @Pla06 as the minimum exposure time required to average out the large-scale semi-periodic and correlated atmospheric noise that harms ground-based astrometry. In spite of this, we chose to exploit the astrometric capabilities of this survey that will release to the community a data set with more than one hundred epochs over six years.
In this paper, we present our reduction pipeline for the detectors and the geometric-distortion correction. As an example, we also show a few applications made possible by the astrometric accuracy reached by the VVV data set so far.
\[tab:obs\]
[ccccc]{} **Filter** & **$N_{\rm step}$** & **Exposure Time** & **Seeing** & **Airmass**\
& & (NDIT$\times$DIT) & (arcsec) & ($\sec z$)\
&\
\
\
&\
\
&\
$J$ & $25_{1.2}$ & (6$\times$10s) & $0.97$-$1.42$ & 1.026-1.107\
$J$ & $25_{8.5}$ & (6$\times$10s) & $0.74$-$1.08$ & 1.134-1.198\
&\
Instrument and observations {#OBS}
===========================
VIRCAM is a mosaic of 4$\times$4 detectors mounted at the focus of the VISTA 4.1m telescope. Each detector is a Raytheon VIRGO 2048$\times$2048-pixel array and covers $\sim$694$\times$694 arcsec$^2$ on the sky. The average pixel scale is $0^{\prime\prime}\!\!.339$ pixel$^{-1}$ [@Suth14]. The gaps between the detectors are quite large and correspond to 42.5% and 90% of the detector size along the $X$ and $Y$ direction, respectively.
Dithered observations are recommended to self-calibrate the geometric distortion of a detector (e.g., @Ande06, @BB10, @Libra14). However, the standard dither pattern adopted by VVV is not adequate for this purpose. For this reason, a calibration program (Program ID: 488.L-0500(A), PI: Bellini) was approved in 2012. The calibration field is centered on globular cluster NGC 5139 ($\omega$Cen). This field was chosen due to its star density over more than one square degree.
The field was observed in the $J$ filter in two runs of 25 images each (Table \[tab:obs\]), both organized in an array of 5$\times$5 pointings, but with a different dither spacing (Fig. \[fig1\]). Large dithers were taken to cover the gap between the 16 chips and to allow us to construct a single reference system for all observations. The small dither pattern was obtained to allow independent modeling of the residuals of the geometric distortion for each chip.
![Outline of our adopted dither pattern used for $J$-filter data. Large- and small-dither images are organized in two 5$\times$5 arrays. The pointings of the large-dither images are taken to cover the gap between the 16 detectors. The total field of view covered by our observations is about $1^\circ\!\!.7$$\times$$2^\circ\!\!.0$ on sky. The two zoomed-in panels show the dither spacing for large (azure panel) and small (red panel) dither pattern.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.ps){width="9.cm"}
Data reduction {#datared}
==============
We developed a reduction package that makes use of the same tools described in [@Libra14] for the HAWK-I detector. Here, we briefly describe the software, and focus on the few differences between the two works.\
One peculiarity of VIRCAM is the striped pattern that affects all the images, both calibration and scientific. These stripes are generated by the IRACE electronics [@Suth14] and change from one exposure to the next. To correct them, we made a FORTRAN routine based on the Cambridge Astronomy Survey Unit (CASU) pipeline correction, that resembles the correction applied by [@May08] for the WFPC2@*HST* background streaks. We computed in each image the clipped-median value of the counts in each row, then we took the median of these values and subtracted it from the clipped-median value of each row. These differences represent the corrections to be applied to each row. We did not include bad/warm/hot pixels while computing the median values.
Using archival flat-field images we were not able to completely correct for the pixel-to-pixel sensitivity variation of the detectors, in particular for chip \[16\] where the very high quantum-efficiency variation on short timescales sometimes makes it impossible to properly apply the flat-field correction[^4]. So, we constructed master flat-field frames using the scientific images themselves, masking all bad/warm/hot pixels and those in close proximity of any significant source (stars and galaxies) and considered these purged images as on-sky flat-field images.
First, we applied dark and flat-field corrections to all images. Then, for each chip we computed the median sky value in a 5$\times$5 grid and subtracted it according to the table. Then we made a 5$\times$5 grid of fully-empirical PSF models for each detector of each exposure, following the prescription given in [@Ande06]. Unlike the procedure given in the original and programs, the finding criteria (minimum flux and minimum separation from brighter stars) to choose the stars that would be used to model the PSF are applied locally and are different in each cell of the grid. This way, we are able to find the most suitable combination of these criteria in each of the 5$\times$5 regions of the chip (e.g., if the cluster center is located in a corner of a chip, the minimum separation from the brighter stars in that corner is usually lower than in the opposite corner where the crowding is lower). With an array of PSF models, we are able to measure positions and fluxes for all sources on an image. The final catalogs (one for each chip) contain positions, instrumental magnitudes[^5], and another quantity called quality-of-PSF-fit () which represents the absolute fractional error in the PSF-model fit to the star [@Ande08]. The lower the , the better is the PSF fit. The parameter is a useful quantity to discriminate among well-measured and poorly-measured stars. Typically, in $\omega$ Cen catalogs we considered bright, unsaturated stars with a $<$0.05 to be well-measured stars. These selections allow us to always have at disposal over 100 stars per chip, with an average value of 350 well-measured stars for a corner chip and 1000 stars for a centermost chip.
{width="\textwidth"}
Geometric-distortion correction {#GDC}
===============================
In the large field of view (FoV) of VIRCAM, the tangential-plane projection effects are not negligible (at one degree from the tangent point this corresponds to more than 0.18 arcsec, $\sim$0.5 VIRCAM pixel). This means the farther from the center, the larger is the difference between the true position and the projected position of a star.
We chose to perform an auto-calibration. By using as a reference system 2MASS [@Skru06] or UCAC4 [@Zac13], which are among the most accurate absolute systems, we would have unavoidably ended up limited by their accuracy (of the order of 0.2-0.3 arcsec for 2MASS). Not to mention the non-negligible contribution from the stellar motion between the reference system and our exposures. Furthermore, as stated in [@BB10], it is difficult to find a distortion-free reference frame with an homogeneous stellar density and luminosity. Therefore we adopted the auto-calibration solution. The basis of the auto-calibration is to observe the same star in as many different locations on the detector as possible and to compute its average position once it is transformed onto a common reference frame. Thanks to the large number and varied spacing of our dither pattern, a given star will be observed in several different locations in the FoV and, as such, the systematic errors in its mean position should average out. This way, the average positions of the stars should provide a reasonable approximation of their true positions in a distortion-free frame (the master frame). We built the master frame by cross-identifying the stars in each single-detector catalog of each exposure. We used conformal transformations (four-parameter linear transformations: rigid shifts in the two coordinates, one rotation, and one change of scale) to bring the stellar positions measured in each image into the reference system of the master frame. In the left panels of Fig. \[fig2\] we show the effects of the projection on the master frame. The positional residuals along the $X$ and $Y$ axes show several bumps where two different chips overlap.
When we first examined plots like these, it was clear that the bumps at the boundaries of the chips could be due either to internal distortions within each chip or to errors in placing the chips properly with respect to each other. To ensure that the distortion within each chip was properly accounted for, we independently solve for the geometric distortion of each chip, as done in [@Libra14]. For this specific purpose, we only used the small-dither images where the gaps between the chips are not covered (no detector overlaps with any other detector). The accuracy of the single-chip distortion solution was at the 0.02-pixel level ($\sim$7 mas). As an example, in the middle-left panels of Fig. \[fig2\] we show the residuals after we applied the single-chip correction to the catalogs and constructed a small-dither-based master frame using only chip \#10. As shown in Fig. \[fig1\], the small dithers do not allow us to put all the 16 chips in the same reference system since the gaps are so large that the chips do not overlap each other. For this reason we selected one random chip (chip \#10) to show that our single-chip distortion solution was good as we wrote above. Then, we applied our single-chip correction to all catalogs and used four-parameter linear transformations to create a new master frame based on large-dither images. Again, the positional-residual bumps were still visible (middle-right panels of Fig. \[fig2\]). Therefore, these trends in the positional residuals are ascribable to projection effects, which have to be taken into account while cross-identifying the catalogs.
We chose to define a meta reference system in which to properly project all single-chip catalogs and, at the same time, solve for most of the geometric distortion that affects this detector. We proceeded as follows. We used the 2MASS catalog as our initial reference frame. We projected the 2MASS catalog onto a tangent plane centered on $\omega$Cen and followed the prescriptions given in [@Van06] to convert R.A. and Dec. positions into pixel-based coordinates. This is an important step because we imposed the master-frame scale to be exactly equal to 0.339 arcsec pixel$^{-1}$ for all chips. This value is the average pixel scale declared by [@Suth14].
Initially, we cross-identified all stars of each single-chip raw frames with the 2MASS catalog by using six-parameter linear transformations (which also include the deviation from orthogonality and the change of relative scale between the two axes). Then, we located the center of each chip ($x$,$y$)$=$(1024,1024) on the 2MASS-based reference system. Without properly taking into account for the projection effects, the chip-center positions on the 2MASS reference frame depend on their distances from the tangent point ($\omega$Cen center) and on the geometric distortion. To get rid of the first dependency and find the best position of the chip centers, we iteratively de-projected the 2MASS catalog onto the celestial sphere, and then projected it again using as the tangent point the current chip-center position on the 2MASS reference system, in order to compute new, improved transformations. For each chip of each exposure/image we iterated the whole process five times (after the fifth iteration the adjustments were negligible).
Once the chip centers in the 2MASS reference frame converged to fixed positions, in order to build the meta-reference system, we had to impose additional constraints. First, the meta center was defined as the average position of the four centermost chips. The second constraint we imposed is that the $Y$ and $X$ axes of our meta-frame system had to be oriented up and to the right, respectively. For each of the four centermost chips, we computed the angle between the expected meta-frame $X$ axis and the segment that connects the center of the meta frame to the chip center. Then we rotated all chips by the average of the four angles.
For each image we de-projected the 2MASS frame onto the celestial sphere and projected it back on a tangent plane, but this time using as tangent point the meta center computed as described above. Then, we rotated and shifted these 2MASS-based positions according to the other constraint. The final products of this effort are 2MASS-based positions projected on the meta-frame center of each image, rotated and shifted to have the meta center in ($x$,$y$)$=$(0,0). These positions represent the best approximation of the expected distortion-free meta positions.
For each star in common between our catalogs and the 2MASS-based catalog, we have a pair of positional residuals that correspond to the difference between the raw-chip positions and the expected meta-frame positions (given by the stellar positions on the modified 2MASS reference frame). We used both saturated and unsaturated stars with magnitude $J$$<$-12 and $<$0.2. Since 2MASS is a shallow survey, we had to use saturated ($J$$\lesssim$$-$13.4) stars in order to have an adequate sample size. We divided each chip into a 3$\times$3-grid elements and, in each such element, we defined the grid-point value as the average value of the residuals within. The cells have different sizes, with those close to the edges (for example 512$\times$512 pixels on the corners) smaller than the central one (1024$\times$1024 pixels), in order to better model the distortion close to the edges. As described in [@Libra14], for those cells adjoining the detector edges we shifted the grid points to the edge. We built a look-up table of correction for any location of the chip, using a bi-quadratic interpolation among the surrounding four grid points. To avoid extrapolation, our grid points extended to the corners, but this meant that we needed several iterations (each time applying 90% of the suggested correction to the raw positions and computing new residuals) before convergence could be achieved.\
After this first part of the correction, we have star positions transformed into a meta reference frame and corrected for geometric distortion. All the stellar positions collected in one meta catalog are those of the stars imaged in one exposure. Therefore, accordingly to the Table \[tab:obs\], we have 50 meta catalogs at our disposal (25 of which are based on large-dither exposures, while the other 25 are based on the small-dither exposures). The astrometric accuracy achieved is about 0.2–0.3 pixel, similar to that of 2MASS. The astrometric quality of our measurements should be ten times better than this, so to further improve our result, we applied an additional table-of-residuals correction to each chip by comparing the positions of the stars as measured in different meta catalogs, thus enabling a precision of $\sim$0.03 pixel per comparison, as follows. For each pair of meta catalogs (hereafter catalogs \#1 and \#2), we cross-identified all stars in common by using six-parameter linear transformations. We found the meta center of catalog \#1 into the reference system of catalog \#2 and projected the stellar positions measured in catalog \#2 into the tangent plane centered at the center of catalog \#1. Then we computed the positional residuals as the difference between the stellar positions in the meta \#1 reference system and the positions in the meta \#2 reference system, once projected and transformed into the meta \#1 reference system. For those meta catalogs obtained from the large-dither images, we compared each of them to the other 49 catalogs, while small-dither catalogs were only compared to the large-dither ones. When we computed the distortion correction for each chip individually, we used only small-dither images. We then applied this correction to large-dither images and looked at the residuals computed by comparing our stellar positions with those of 2MASS. We noticed that the non-linear terms of the distortion over a very large scale were not completely accounted for. Therefore, we chose to compute the positional residuals by comparing only images far enough on the sky from each other. For each chip, we collected all these residuals together and divided them into an array of 11$\times$11 square elements. We assigned to each array element the median value of the residuals within. For any location on the chip, the correction is computed as the bi-linear interpolation between the surroundings four grid points. We iterated five times, computing new residuals and adding the new correction to the previous one.
In summary, the distortion solution of each chip consists of two parts: a 3$\times$3 look-up table of residuals (that is used to compute the correction at any inter-chip location via a bi-quadratic interpolation between the surrounding four grid points), and an additional fine-tuning 11$\times$11 look-up table of residuals (this time using a bi-linear interpolation to compute the correction). The final stellar positions are distortion corrected and projected with respect to the center of the meta catalog. Therefore, each meta catalog is projected into a different tangent plane. It is important to transform all the catalogs into the same tangent plane during the construction of the master frame. In the rightmost panels of Fig. \[fig2\] we show the result of our efforts. We applied our distortion correction to the stars in each meta catalog. We used six-parameter linear transformations to bring these corrected positions on the master-frame reference system using the same tangent plane for each catalog. This way, the $\sigma$(Radial residuals)[^6] improves from $\sim$1.025 pixels (347.3 mas) to 0.023 pixel (7.9 mas).
In Appendix \[appendix\] we show the distortion maps and the positional residuals along the $X$ and $Y$ axes, before and after the correction, for each of the 16 chips of VIRCAM.\
With this paper, we release a `FORTRAN` routine to correct the geometric distortion. It requires the single-chip raw coordinates ($x^{\rm raw}$,$y^{\rm raw}$) and the chip number. In output, the code computes ($x^{\rm corr}$,$y^{\rm corr}$) coordinates in the meta-frame reference system. The code is available at our group’s web page[^7].
Application: NGC 6656
=====================
To test our geometric-distortion correction we computed relative proper motions (PMs) of stars in the field of the globular cluster NGC 6656, $(\alpha,\delta)_{\rm J2000.0}=(\rm
18^h36^m23^s\!\!.94,-23^{\circ}54^{\prime}17^{\prime\prime}\!\!.1$, @Har96, 2010 edition), using VVV data. We chose this object for its closeness and relatively-high PM with respect to the field objects. We used images taken between 2010 and 2014. We have 12 images in each of the 45 epochs used (except for one epoch for which we have 14 images) in the $K_{\rm S}$ filter (from 2010 to 2014), while for the $J$ filter there are only 12 images taken in 2010.
![Multi-epoch fit of PMs for a field-like (“BULGE”) and a cluster-like (“M22 HB”) star. (*Top*): in panels (a) and (c), the empty circles represent star’s positions at different epochs transformed into the reference master frame, (as defined in the bottom panels) depending on the time interval relative to the reference epoch (J2012.62423). The master-frame position is represented by the solid black square (surrounded by an ellipse with semi-axes equal to the positional r.m.s. along the $X$ and $Y$ direction); the solid black circle is the expected position of the star at the reference epoch based on the PM fit. In the panel (a), the black arrow shows the $\sim$4-yr displacement of the star. In panel (b) we show the position of the selected stars on the CMD. (*Bottom*): Motion in $Y$ \[panels (d) and (f)\] and in $X$ \[panels (e) and (g)\] as a function of the time from the reference epoch. The black line is the least-squares fit of the PM.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
![(*Left*): $K_{\rm S}$ vs. ($J$$-$$K_{\rm S}$) CMD of the NGC 6656 field. We show only well-measured-PM stars. We split the CMD in nine intervals of one mag each. The gray dashed line sets the average saturation threshold. The saturation level slightly varies within each VIRCAM chip. The variation becomes substantial across the total FoV, and of course from one exposure to the next (because of generally different seeing conditions). (*Middle-left*): VPDs for each of the corresponding magnitude interval. The mean motion of cluster members is centered at (0,0) in the VPDs. We plotted with red dots the stars. The radius for the cluster-member selection (green circle) ranges from $\sim$4.4 mas for stars with 16.5$<$$K_{\rm S}$$\le$17.5 to $\sim$4.1 mas for those stars with 8.5$<$$K_{\rm S}$$\le$9.5. (*Middle-right*): Histograms for the $\mu_\alpha\cos\delta$ proper motion distribution. The bin size changes depending on the total number of stars in each magnitude bin. Dual-Gaussian fit in black; individual Gaussians in red and azure are used for cluster and field $\mu_\alpha\cos\delta$ distributions respectively. The field distribution is wider than that of the cluster and contaminate the cluster-member sample in all magnitude bins. (*Right*): CMD with only cluster-like-motion stars. It is clear that the fainter the magnitude bin, the higher is the field contamination in our sample. The PMs have been corrected for differential-chromatic refraction as described in the text.[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
![(*Bottom-left*): $K_{\rm S}$ vs. ($J$$-$$K_{\rm S}$) CMD of NGC 6656. We plotted the horizontal-branch stars with light blue open squares and red-giant-branch stars with light red open circles. We considered only stars with $K_{\rm S}$ between 13.5 and 15. (*Top-left*): VPD with only the blue and red stars before the differential-chromatic-refraction correction. The azure solid square represents the mean motion of the blue stars, while the red solid circle that of the red stars. We also plot the 3$\sigma$ error bar as reference. (*Bottom-right*): $\mu_\alpha\cos\delta$ and $\mu_\delta$ as function of the ($J$$-$$K_{\rm S}$) color. A linear fit (solid black line) in each direction was used to model the correction. (*Top-right*): VPD after the correction.[]{data-label="fig5"}](fig5.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
We obtained astro-photometric catalogs for each image of each epoch as described in Sect. \[datared\], distortion corrected as described in Sect. \[GDC\]. The VIRCAM photometry is calibrated by using stars in common with the 2MASS catalog. We applied linear relations between the VVV instrumental magnitudes and the 2MASS magnitudes based on well-measured, unsaturated stars. We replaced the photometry of VVV saturated stars with that of 2MASS.
The adopted reference frame is based on images taken on August 16$^{\rm th}$ 2012 (which have the best available seeing, are the closest to the zenith, and are taken halfway between 2010 and 2014). The covered FoV is about $1^\circ\!\!.1$$\times$$1^\circ\!\!.5$. We limited our PM analysis to the innermost region of the field, within a radius of 20 arcmin from the cluster center, where there is a significant number of cluster members. We then computed the coefficients of the local transformations to transform the stars’ positions of each image into the reference frame (@Ande06). Local transformations reduce most of the uncorrected distortion residuals and other systematic effects that could harm our measurements. Indeed, the astrometric accuracy reached in our reference master frame is $\sim$0.08 pixel (27 mas), more than three times larger than that described in Sect. \[GDC\]. The main reason for this larger uncertainty is that the VVV observations are not taken with an astrometric strategy in mind (see discussion in Sect. \[intro\] and \[OBS\]). Furthermore, our correction is an *average* solution, suited for $J$-filter images and at a specific epoch. The fact that the positional residuals are three times larger also implies that the distortion correction is not stable over time scales of 6 months. The local-transformation approach compensates for these issues.
In our local-transformation approach, we transformed the stellar positions as measured in each image into the reference-frame system using a subset of close-by, likely-cluster member (reference stars) to a given star to compute its linear-transformation coefficients. As such, our PMs are computed relative to the cluster mean motion, and cluster members will end up around the (0,0) location on the vector-point diagram (VPD). At the first iteration we selected the reference stars for the local transformation based on their position on the color-magnitude diagram (CMD). Once PMs were also estimated, we improved our reference-star list by removing all those stars which motion is not consistent with the cluster mean motion.\
We computed the stellar displacements as the difference between the transformed single-exposure positions and the master-frame positions. In Fig. \[fig3\] we illustrate the PM fit for a Bulge star (left panels) and for a cluster member (right panels). In the top panels of the figure we show the stellar positions transformed into the reference frame, according to their epoch. In the bottom panels we show the displacements as a function of time (relative to the reference epoch). The black lines are the weighted least-squares fit to the data, where the weight is defined as the square root of stars’ (with stars’ having less weight). The proper motion along the two directions ($\mu_x$, $\mu_y$) is the slope of the straight lines. The relative PM errors are the formal errors of the least-squares fit. The constant terms $x_0$ and $y_0$ indicate the corrections to be applied to our reference-frame positions at epoch J2012.62423. To exclude obvious outliers, for each star we iteratively removed one point at a time from the sample, fit the proper motion with the remaining points, and re-computed the vertical residual of the removed point. We rejected all those points for which vertical residuals were five times larger than the fit residual. A final fit to all the remaining points provides our PM estimate for the star.
![(*Top-left*): $K_{\rm S}$ vs. ($J$$-$$K_{\rm S}$) CMD. We plotted Disk main sequence stars with blue open circles and Bulge red-giant-branch stars with red open squares. We limited our samples to 12.8$\le$$K_{\rm S}$$\le$14 in order to use only well-measured bright stars. We did not plot all stars within 5 mas yr$^{-1}$ from the center of the VPD to exclude most of the NGC 6656 members. (*Bottom-right*): VPD with stars within 12.8$\le$$K_{\rm S}$$\le$14. The green circle used to exclude cluster members has a radius of 5 mas yr$^{-1}$. (*Bottom-left*): histograms of the $\mu_\delta$ for the Bulge and Disk stars previously selected. We fitted each histogram with a single Gaussian. (*Top-right*): as on *Bottom-left* but for the $\mu_\alpha\cos\delta$.[]{data-label="fig6"}](fig6.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig4\] we show the $K_{\rm S}$ vs. ($J$$-$$K_{\rm S}$) CMDs and the VPDs for the stars in the NGC 6656 field. In the VPDs we show the ($\mu_\alpha\cos\delta$,$\mu_\delta$) PMs. In the left panel we plotted the CMD of the entire sample of well-measured-PM stars[^8] observed in the selected field, and split it into nine bins, one $K_{\rm S}$-magnitude wide. In the middle-left panels we show the corresponding VPD for each magnitude bin, in which we drew a circle to enclose cluster-like-PM stars. The radius is a compromise between including field stars with a cluster-like mean motion and excluding cluster members with larger PM uncertainties. Saturated and faint stars have poorly-measured PMs, so the selection radii are more generous. In the middle-right panels we show the histograms of the motion along the $\mu_\alpha\cos\delta$ direction (where the difference between cluster and field stars in the PMs is more evident) to show the field contamination expected by our selections. The rightmost panel shows the CMD of NGC 6656 members. The horizontal branch, red-giant branch, main sequence turn-off and upper main sequence are mostly cleaned by field stars and can be used for studies of the properties of these stars in the near infrared. We also analyzed the possible impact of differential-chromatic-refraction effects on our PMs (Fig. \[fig5\]). We selected two samples of NGC 6656 stars with a $K_{\rm S}$ magnitude between 13.5 and 15, one on the horizontal branch (blue stars) and the other on the red giant branch (red stars). Even if the mean motion of both samples is the same within the error bars, we chose to remove the small contribution of this effect (clearly visible in the $\mu_\alpha\cos\delta$ direction). All PMs in Fig. \[fig4\], \[fig6\] and \[fig7\] have been corrected accordingly.\
To evaluate our PM precision we proceeded as follow. By construction, our PMs are relative to the cluster mean motion. As such, the mean location of cluster members on the VPD is (0,0), and the observed dispersion of cluster members should in principle reflect the stellar internal-motion dispersion plus our measurement errors. The internal dispersion of NGC 6656 is about 0.5 mas yr$^{-1}$ (assuming a distance of 3.2 kpc and a central velocity dispersion of 7.8 km s$^{-1}$, @Har96, 2010 edition). The 1-D dispersion (defined as the 68.27$^{\rm th}$ percentile of the distribution around the median) of bright, unsaturated (13$\le$$K_{\rm S}$$\le$14) cluster stars in the VPD is of about 1.5 mas yr$^{-1}$. By subtracting in quadrature the internal dispersion of 0.5 mas yr$^{-1}$, we end up with an external estimate of our PM precision, which is of about 1.4 mas yr$^{-1}$.\
To further test of our astrometric accuracy we measured the relative difference between the Bulge and the Disk bulk motion within the same selected VVV field of NGC 6656 (Fig. \[fig6\]). To this aim, we selected two samples of stars, one from the Disk main sequence and one from the Bulge red giant branch. We considered only Disk (Bulge) stars that in the $K_{\rm S}$ vs. ($J$$-$$K_{\rm S}$) CMD are bluer (redder) than the respective fiducial line of the sequence. Furthermore, we considered only those stars with PMs larger than 5 mas yr$^{-1}$ with respect to the bulk motion of the cluster. We fit a single Gaussian to the histograms of the Bulge and Disk PMs along each direction, and found a relative displacement of ($\Delta\mu_\alpha\cos\delta$,$\Delta\mu_\delta$)$=$($-$2.13$\pm$0.22,$-$3.58$\pm$0.24) mas yr$^{-1}$. The absolute difference between Bulge and Disk bulk motions is therefore 4.18$\pm$0.32 mas yr$^{-1}$.
To test this result, we measured the relative displacement between the Bulge and the Disk components using the motion of the same test stars as measured in the UCAC4 and the PPMXL (@Roe10) catalogs. We found a relative displacement of 3.79$\pm$0.98 mas yr$^{-1}$ using UCAC4 and 2.93$\pm$1.3 mas yr$^{-1}$ using PPMXL, which are in agreement with our estimate within the error bars, though our estimate has a smaller uncertainty. We also compared our measured difference between Bulge and Disk motion with that predicted by the Besançon models (@Rob03). We simulated both populations in the same field covered by our application. We adopted an exponential trend for photometric and PM errors as function of the magnitude to create a model as close as possible to our data. The major challenge was to take into account for the correct absorption toward the Galactic plane. We used the Bulge Extinction And Metallicity (BEAM, see @Gonz12 [@Gonz13]) calculator to compute the average extinction in our field. This value, divided by NGC 6656 distance, gives us the diffuse absorption of 0.15 mag kpc$^{-1}$. The difference between Bulge and Disk motion obtained this way is 1.38$\pm$0.12 mas yr$^{-1}$. This value is not consistent with our measurements. We performed different simulations varying the absorption coefficients to understand if the absorption law could somehow change the simulated kinematics, but we found the results were about the same. We attribute this significant difference to the difficulty of the Besançon model in simulating the reddening, Galaxy stellar densities and kinematics toward the Galactic Plane where the extinction is high.\
Future perspectives
-------------------
The VISTA Variables in the Vía Láctea will be completed in 2016 [@He14], and the time baseline provided by the uniform VVV data will be about six years. As an example, we combined the VVV images of NGC 6656 and the HAWK-I data previously used by [@Libra14]. Since the HAWK-I images were taken in 2007, we used only the VVV archival images between 2010 and 2013 in order to have approximately the 6 years of time baseline. We computed the PMs as described in the previous section and in Fig. \[fig7\] we show the resulting CMDs and VPDs. As expected, with a larger time baseline we are able to completely separate cluster and field stars. This example shows again the great astrometric potential of the full-baseline VVV data. Older epochs (both optical and near-infrared data) are available in the archives, and the proper motions will be an invaluable resource to distinguish the different stellar populations in the Galaxy.
![(*Top*): vector-point diagrams with a time baseline of about six years obtained combining the HAWK-I and VVV data. (*Bottom*): $K_{\rm S}$ vs. ($J$$-$$K_{\rm S}$) color-magnitude diagrams of the stars in common between the HAWK-I and VVV fields. We plot only well-measured-PM stars. On the left panels we plot the entire sample, while in the center and right panels we plot only cluster members and field stars respectively. We considered NGC 6656 stars those stars with a proper motion within 4 mas yr$^{-1}$ around the cluster mean motion (red circle centered in (0,0) in the middle VPD); while the stars enclosed in the ellipse centered in ($-$11.5,1.2) mas yr$^{-1}$ with major and minor axes of 12 and 9 mas yr$^{-1}$ are probable field stars.[]{data-label="fig7"}](fig7.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we present our reduction pipeline for the VIRCAM detector and the geometric distortion solution based on the $J$ filter. Thanks to our distortion correction and to the adopted dithered observing strategy, we are able to reach a positional residual of $\sim$8 mas in each coordinate in each exposure across the entire FoV of VIRCAM. Note that we are talking about relative astrometry. Our absolute astrometry is not as good as the relative one because the linear terms are constrained only with 2MASS.
We release a `FORTRAN` routine to correct the geometric distortion. For a given position in a single-chip raw frame ($x^{\rm
raw}$,$y^{\rm raw}$) and the chip number, the code produces ($x^{\rm
corr}$,$y^{\rm corr}$) coordinates in the meta-frame reference system. The code is available at our group’s web page[^9]. The use of this distortion solution is encouraged regardless of the specific method adopted to measure stellar positions. Each meta catalog is projected into a plane tangential to its center. This offers the best single-catalog, distortion-free positions. Please note that, in order to construct a common reference frame, all meta catalogs should be instead projected into the same tangent plane (see Sect. \[GDC\]).
As a test bed of the astrometric accuracy reached by our geometric-distortion correction, we applied our reduction pipeline to a set of VVV archival images. We chose a field centered on the globular cluster NGC 6656 and we computed the relative proper motion of the NGC 6656 and Galactic bulge and disk stars, as well as the individual motion of each star in the field. We noticed that our astrometric accuracy is worse ($\sim$0.08 pixel) using VVV data. Our correction is an average solution and the distortion is not entirely stable. However, by starting with a good average solution, local transformations (used to compute the proper motions) can be used to efficiently achieve optimal precision even with this type of data. We demonstrate that we are able to separate cluster and background/foreground field stars with a time baseline of only four years. The cluster stars, in the cleaned CMD, can be used for the study of the stellar populations of NGC 6656. We also showed that the field stars, in the direction of NGC 6656, are of great use, e.g., to separate (and study) the proper motions of the Galactic disk and bulge components. We demonstrated that our results are consistent with what can be obtained using UCAC4 and PPMXL catalogs, though our measurements have a much smaller error. Galactic models fail to reproduce the observations, likely because of the difficulties to reproduce the reddening and kinematics towards the Galactic bulge.
With the images analyzed in this paper and a time baseline of about four years, we obtained a typical astrometric precision of 1.4 mas yr$^{-1}$ for bright, unsaturated well-measured stars. This value corresponds to $\sigma_v$$\sim$21 km s$^{-1}$ at the distance of NGC 6656 (3.2 kpc from @Har96, 2010 edition), or $\sim$53 km s$^{-1}$ at 8 kpc (a reference distance for the Bulge). At the end of the VVV survey, the total time baseline will be of about six years, thus further increasing the final achievable PM accuracy. The use of older, archive, optical and near-infrared data will further enhance the proper-motion capability of the VVV survey. The astrometric capability of this survey is complementary to GAIA, in particular in the most crowded and heavily-absorbed regions not reachable by GAIA, and to study objects below its magnitude limit ($G$$\sim$20).
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
M.L. and G.P. acknowledge partial support from the Università degli Studi di Padova CPDA101477 grant. M.L. acknowledges support from the STScI 2013 DDRF Spring program “High-precision astrometry with wide-field detectors” (PI: Bellini). V.N. acknowledges support from “Studio preparatorio per le osservazioni della missione ESA/CHEOPS” (\#42/2013). M.Z. acknowledges funding from the BASAL Center for Astrophysics and Associated Technologies PFB-06, Proyecto FONDECYT Regular 1110393, and the Ministry for the Economy, Development, and Tourism’s Programa Iniciativa Científica Milenio through grant IC120009, awarded to the Millennium Institute of Astrophysics (MAS). We thank the anonymous referee for the useful comments and suggestions that considerably improved the quality of our paper.
Anderson J., Bedin L. R., Piotto G., Yadav R. S., Bellini A., 2006, A&A, 454, 1029
Anderson J., et al., 2008, AJ, 135, 2114
Bellini A., Bedin L. R., 2010, A&A, 517, AA34
Dalton G. B., et al., 2006, SPIE, 6269, 62690X
Emerson J., McPherson A., Sutherland W., 2006, Msngr, 126, 41
Gonzalez O. A., Rejkuba M., Zoccali M., Valenti E., Minniti D., Schultheis M., Tobar R., Chen B., 2012, A&A, 543, AA13
Gonzalez O. A., Rejkuba M., Zoccali M., Valent E., Minniti D., Tobar R., 2013, A&A, 552, AA110
Harris W. E., 1996, AJ, 112, 1487
Hempel M., et al., 2014, Msngr, 155, 29
Libralato M., Bellini A., Bedin L. R., Piotto G., Platais I., Kissler-Patig M., Milone A. P., 2014, A&A, 563, AA80
Maybhate A., Grumm D., McMaster M., Sirianni M., 2008, wfpc.rept, 3
Minniti D., et al., 2010, NewA, 15, 433
Platais I., et al., 2002, AJ, 124, 601
Platais I., Wyse R. F. G., Zacharias N., 2006, PASP, 118, 107
Robin A. C., Reyl[é]{} C., Derri[è]{}re S., Picaud S., 2003, A&A, 409, 523
Roeser S., Demleitner M., Schilbach E., 2010, AJ, 139, 2440
Saito R. K., et al., 2012, A&A, 537, AA107
Skrutskie M. F., et al., 2006, AJ, 131, 1163
Sutherland W., et al., 2014, arXiv, arXiv:1409.4780
van de Ven G., van den Bosch R. C. E., Verolme E. K., de Zeeuw P. T., 2006, A&A, 445, 513
Zacharias N., Finch C. T., Girard T. M., Henden A., Bartlett J. L., Monet D. G., Zacharias M. I., 2013, AJ, 145, 44
Geometric distortion maps {#appendix}
=========================
{width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"}
In this appendix we show the distortion maps (Fig. \[app1\]) and the positional residuals (Fig. \[app2\] and Fig. \[app3\]) for the 16 chips of VIRCAM before and after we applied the distortion solution described in Sect. \[GDC\].
{width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"}
{width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"}
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: <[email protected]>
[^2]: Visiting Ph.D. Student at STScI under the 2013 DDRF Spring program.
[^3]: Based on observations with the 4m VISTA ESO telescope.
[^4]: <http://casu.ast.cam.ac.uk/surveys-projects/vista/technical/known-issues>
[^5]: Defined as $-2.5\times \log (\sum \rm{counts})$, where $\sum\rm{counts}$ is the sum of the total counts under the fitted PSF.
[^6]: The $\sigma$(Radial residuals) is defined as: $$\sigma(\textrm{Radial residual})_{i} = \sqrt{\frac{ (x_{i,j}^{T_{j}}
- X_{i}^{\rm master})^2 + (y_{i,j}^{T_{j}} - Y_{i}^{\rm
master})^2 }{ 2 }}\phantom{1} ,$$ where ($x_{i,j}^{T_{j}},y_{i,j}^{T_{j}}$) is the position of the $i$-th star of the $j$-th image, distortion corrected and transformed into the master-frame reference system, $T_j$ is the the transformation of the $j$-th image into the master frame, and ($X_{i}^{\rm master},Y_{i}^{\rm master}$) is the distortion-free (master-frame) position of the $i$-th star.
[^7]: <http://groups.dfa.unipd.it/ESPG/>
[^8]: We plot the PM errors as a function of the $K_{\rm S}$ magnitude and drew by hand a fiducial line to remove obvious outliers. The cut is more important for faint stars, where PMs are less accurate. We used the same purging method for the stellar . Furthermore, we kept only those stars measured in at least 50 exposures.
[^9]: <http://groups.dfa.unipd.it/ESPG/>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The busy beaver problem is a well-known example of a non-computable function. In order to determine a particular value of this function, it is necessary to generate and classify a large number of Turing machines. Previous work on this problem has described the processes used for the generation and classification of these machines, but unfortunately has generally not provided details of the machines considered. While there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the results known so far, it is difficult to accept such results as scientifically proven without being able to inspect the appropriate evidence. In addition, a list of machines and their classifications can be used for other results, such as variations on the busy beaver problem and related problems such as the placid platypus problem. In this paper we investigate how to generate classes of machines to be considered for the busy beaver problem. We discuss the relationship between quadruple and quintuple variants of Turing machines, and show that the latter are more general than the former. We give some formal results to justify our strategy for minimising the number of machines generated, and define a process reflecting this strategy for generating machines. We describe our implementation, and the results of generating various classes of machines with up to 5 states or up to 5 symbols, all of which (together with our code) are available on the author’s website.'
author:
- |
James Harland\
School of Science\
RMIT University\
GPO Box 2476\
Melbourne, 3001\
Australia\
[*[email protected]*]{}
bibliography:
- 'busybeaver.bib'
title: |
Generating Candidate Busy Beaver Machines\
(Or How to Build the Zany Zoo)
---
Busy beaver ,Turing machines ,normal forms
Introduction
============
Tibor Rado introduced the *busy beaver problem* in 1962 as an example of a non-computable function [@Rado62]. It has a surprisingly simple definition: to find the largest number of non-blank characters that is output by a terminating Turing machine, commencing on the blank tape. The machine must be of no more than a given size, so that one can define a function mapping the size of the machine to the maximum size of the output produced. The size of the output can be surprisingly large; for example, there is a machine with six states that terminates on the blank input after $10^{36,534}$ steps and prints out $10^{18,267}$ 1’s [@Marxen; @Harland16].
In principle, this problem could be solved by cleverly composing a particular machine of a given size and proving that it is maximal. In practice, solving the problem means analysing all machines of a given size and determining the maximal one (or ones). Ideally the evidence for the maximality of such machines would also be available, in order to allow the result to be checked or reproduced. However, the known results for the busy beaver problem generally do not provide sufficient data or evidence for this to be done. For example, the work of Lafitte and Papazian [@LP07] is probably the most comprehensive analysis of the busy beaver problem to date. This includes enumeration of all 3-state 2-symbol and 2-state 3-symbol machines, and some less detailed analyses of larger cases, such as those for 4-state 2-symbol, 2-state 4-symbol and 3-state 3-symbol machines. Unfortunately though, there appears to be no code available, nor data files, and whilst they provide a description of the processes used, it is difficult to accept the results provided as complete proof of the properties claimed.
A similar property applies to older results for the busy beaver as well. Lin and Rao [@LR65] provide the earliest systematic analyses of the 3-state 2-symbol case, which involved using a program which was able to analyse all but 40 machines, which were then analysed by hand. They provide a description of their method and a specification of the 40 machines, but the details provided are not sufficient to reproduce exactly what was done, and the code used does not seem to be available. Brady [@Brady83] and Machlin and Stout [@MS90] provide analyses of the 4-state 2-symbol machines, which also use programs to reduce the unknown cases to 218 and 210 respectively. Both times, these remaining machines were determined not to terminate due to a human analysis, but for which there is no direct evidence, or even a specification of exactly which machines were involved, and the code used in these analyses also does not seem to be available.
We have no reason to doubt the correctness of these results, or that they were obtained in good faith, using the best techniques possible at the time. However, we believe that it is not scientifically proper to accept these results as proven, given that there is neither a mathematical proof of their correctness nor sufficient empirical evidence that would allow their claims to be inspected, assessed and checked. It should also be said that the computing resources available now dwarf those of even the recent past, and that many tasks which are now routine were considered unthinkable even ten years ago, let alone fifty. By the same token, those same computing resources which are now available in this era of cloud computing mean that any claims about busy beaver results should be required to provide a substantially higher level of “computational evidence” than those described above. **This evidence should include not only the programs used for the search, but also the list of machines generated as well as the evidence used to draw conclusions about their status.** In other words, in an era when the Flyspeck project has provided a (very large) computer-assisted proof of a long-standing conjecture of Kepler’s [@Hales05; @Flyspeck], it seems particularly important for the evidence for all claims about the busy beaver and related problems to be made on the basis of verifiable and reproducable evidence, including all relevant code and data. A similar conclusion has been reached by de Mol, who has argued that computer-assisted proofs such as these should include a *description of the computational process*, its *output* and the *code used* [@deMol].
As we have argued previously [@Harland16], this means that there is a need to re-examine our knowledge of the busy beaver problem, and to provide the appropriate level of evidence for the results derived (as well as to determine new results in a similar manner, of course). This will involve providing sufficient detail (including code and data) so that the results can be verified, or reproduced if desired, by an interested researcher. In this paper we address the problem of how to generate the classes of machines needed in order to determine the busy beaver function, corresponding to steps 1 and 2 of the framework in [@Harland16]. In principle, we can do this independently of the execution of machines. Generating the machines independently from the execution and analysis of them not only seems intuitively natural but also allows for different analyses of the same class of machines, possibly by different researchers. This ability to reproduce and hence confirm or refute empirical results seems fundamental to the busy beaver problem.
![Disconnected machine[]{data-label="fig:example1"}](Diagrams/example1.png){width="70.00000%"}
In practice, the separation between these two processes is not so neat and simple. Firstly, the number of machines of a given size grows very quickly; in fact, there are $O(n^n)$ machines of size $n$. Hence any saving that can be made by reducing the number of machines to be processed is vitally important. Secondly, the process for generating machines needs to be carefully considered and based on sound principles, rather than simply generating all possible machines of a given size. For example, consider the 5-state 2-symbol machine in Figure \[fig:example1\]. As there is no connection between states $a,b,c$ and $d,e$, this is effectively a machine of size 3, rather than size 5. Such redundancies clearly need to be avoided if possible. Thirdly, in order to determine the busy beaver function, we need only analyse the execution of these machines on a single input (i.e. when the tape is entirely blank). This means that we can potentially exploit this property to reduce the number of machines that need to be considered.
The classic way to address these issues is to intermingle the generation of the machines with their execution by use of a technique known as *tree normal form (tnf)*[@Rado62; @LR65]. The idea is to execute a partially defined machine on the blank input (with some suitable initial set of transitions) until an unallocated transition is found, at which point an appropriate additional transition is allocated, and various checks are performed on the resulting machine. If the resulting machine fails one of these checks, an alternative allocation of an additional transition is sought. Otherwise, execution then proceeds with the extended machine. This process continues until the machine is sufficiently defined and a halting transition is added to the machine, at which point the machine generation is complete. In order to find all such machines, it is straightforward to perform a backtracking search over all choices of machine that can be made. This process of lazy generation of machines significantly reduces the number of machines that need to be considered (see Section \[sec:results\]).
The *tnf* approach makes it attractive to use a single process to generate and analyse machines rather than separating the two as discussed above, and this is the method that has generally been used in the past [@LR65; @Brady83; @MS90; @LP07]. However, this has the disadvantage of not allowing multiple analyses of the same data. This is important not just for verification of completed results, but also for developing the methods to derive such results. In other words, it is often useful to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of a given analysis method by testing it on a large number of examples, identifying those machines for which the analysis is problematic or incomplete, and using these examples to refine and improve the analysis method. A “one-shot” approach will suffice if a complete analysis procedure, which is known in advance to be capable of analysing all machines of interest, is available. This is generally unrealistic in practice, and so it seems necessary to have an incremental development cycle involving testing a partially developed technique on a class of machines, and using the results to further improve the effectiveness of the technique. This makes it appropriate to separate the generation and analysis of the machines of interest as best we can.
Our intention is to provide a data set consisting of all machines which need to be considered for the busy beaver problem of a given size. Clearly it is important to minimise the size of this set where possible. However, it is even more important to ensure that all relevant machines are present, or equivalently that any omissions from this set are certainly irrelevant. This means that we cannot generally reduce the number of irrelevant machines retained for analysis to 0, as we will only eliminate a machine from consideration if we are sure it is irrelevant. For this reason we investigate formal results which establish the correctness of constraints on the type of machines that need to be generated in order to solve the busy beaver and related problems. We define what is meant by being relevant to the busy beaver problem, and give results which establish the soundness of eliminating certain classes of machines from consideration. We provide a procedure for generating machines which respects these constraints, and report our results obtained from an implementation of it. The code used and the results obtained are available from the author’s website.[^1]
This paper is organised as follows. In Section \[sec:related\] we discuss related work, and in Section \[sec:definitions\] we discuss some preliminaries. In Section \[sec:qq\] we investigate the relationship between quadruple and quintuple variants of Turing machines, and in Section \[sec:normal\] we show how to obtain a normal form for the machines to be generated. In Section \[sec:monotonicity\] we discuss some issues that arise from the process of generating machines, and in Section \[sec:generation\] we specify a procedure for generating relevant machines. In Section \[sec:results\] we present the results of our generation of various classes of machines, and in Section \[sec:conclusion\] we present our conclusions and discuss possibilities for further work.
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
The busy beaver function is defined as the maximum number of non-blank characters that is printed by a terminating $n$-state Turing machine on the blank input. This function is often denoted as $\Sigma(n)$; in this paper we will use the more intuitive notation of $bb(n)$ (as in [@Harland16]). The number of non-blank characters printed by a terminating machine is known as its [*productivity*]{} [@BBJ]. The number of steps taken by the machine to terminate on the blank input is known as its *activity* [@Harland16]. A non-terminating machine has activity $\infty$. In the literature, the maximum activity for machines of size $n$ is often denoted as ${\cal S}(n)$; in this paper, we denote this function as $\mathit{ff}(n)$.[^2] As we will be considering machines with both a varying number of states and a varying number of symbols, we will generally use the notation $bb(n,m)$ and $\mathit{ff}(n,m)$ for a machine with $n$ states and $m$ symbols.
Rado’s motivation for introducing the busy beaver function was to have a specific example of a non-computable function. That such functions exist had been known for some time [@Church36; @Turing36], but Rado was interested to find a particularly simple definition of a specific function in this class. He was able to show that the busy beaver function is non-computable by showing that it grows faster than any computable function. Not long afterwards, Lin and Rado [@LR65] were the first to produce some specific values for the busy beaver itself, for the cases in which the machine had 1, 2 or 3 states (and exactly 2 symbols). Later, Brady [@Brady83] and independently Machlin and Stout [@MS90] confirmed these results, and extended them to include the case for 4 states. This also included a more sophisticated analysis of non-terminating machines. Lafitte and Papazian [@LP07] provided the most comprehensive examination of these classes of machines to date, which also included the only known systematic analysis thus far of machines with 3 states and 3 symbols. They have also provided some intuitive explanation of why the 2-state 4-symbol class is the potentially the most difficult to analyse of these classes, as well as some empirical results about the apparent square law relationship between activity and productivity for the most productive machines.
The machines with 5 or 6 states have also received some attention, although generally in less detail. Marxen and Buntrock [@HM90] provided the first comprehensive analysis of the 5-state case, and to a lesser extend, of the 6-state one as well. This work sparked off an informal competition to find machines of very large productivity, which continues to this day, and is very well documented in great detail on Marxen’s website [@Marxen]. The machines of greatest activity and productivity given in [@HM90] have been superceded over the years by a series of increasingly productive (and active) machines, found by various contributors in unpublished work. There is also some analysis of this class of machines in the work of Michel [@Michel93; @Michel]. There seems to be an informal consensus that the maximum productivity for 5-state 2-symbol machines is 4,098 (although there are two machines with this productivity, with activity 47,176,870 and 11,798,826), but for other classes there are machines with productivity and activity much larger than this. Kellett [@Kellett], building on the earlier work of Ross [@Ross], has provided an analysis of the 5-state machines, using so-called “quadruple” machines, (i.e. each transition is a quadruple rather than a quintuple, reflecting the fact that each transition can either change the symbol on the tape or move the tape head, but not both). As with seemingly all previous studies in this area, the classification is not fully automated; in particular, it is reported that the 98 unclassified machines were analysed by hand, rather than by an automated procedure. Kellett also reports some results for 6-state machines, but without any analysis of the non-terminating machines.
It is well-known that the quadruple and quintuple variants of Turing machines are equivalent from a computability perspective (i.e. for any machine in one class there is an equivalent machine in the other), it is not obvious that this equivalence is maintained when the number of states is restricted; in particular, it is not obvious that for any *5-state quintuple* machine that there is an equivalent *5-state quadruple* machine. This means that it is appropriate, if perhaps a little conservative, to consider the quadruple and quintuple cases as separate problems. There are some quadruple machines of notable size on Marxen’s web page, but it is also worth noting that the machines of largest known productivity are all quintuple machines. We discuss this issue in more detail in Section \[sec:qq\], where we will show that the quintuple problem subsumes the quadruple one.
Preliminaries and Definitions {#sec:definitions}
=============================
We use the following definition of a Turing machine, which is essentially that of Sudkamp [@Sudkamp] with some minor variations as discussed in [@Harland16]. Here we assume the tape alphabet and the input alphabet are the same.
\[def:tm\] A Turing machine is a quadruple $(Q \cup \{z\}, \Gamma, \delta, a)$ where
- $z$ is a distinguished state called a [*halting state*]{}
- $\Gamma$ is the tape alphabet
- $\delta$ is a partial function from $Q \times \Gamma$ to $Q \cup \{z\} \times \Gamma \times \{l,r\}$ called the [*transition function*]{}
- $a \in Q$ is a distinguished state called the [*start state*]{}
Note that due to the way that $\delta$ is defined, this is the so-called *quintuple transition variation* of Turing machines, in that a transition must specify for a given input state and input character, a new state, an output character and a direction for the tape in which to move. Hence a transition can be specified by a quintuple of the form
$(State, Input, Output, Direction, NewState)$
where $State \in Q$, $NewState \in Q \cup \{z\}$, $Input, Output \in \Gamma$ and $Direction \in \{l,r\}$.
We call a transition a *halting transition* if $NewState = z$; otherwise it is a *standard transition*.
The quadruple machines mentioned above allow only one of the $Output$ or $Direction$ to be specified in a transition, i.e. that each transition must either write a new character on the tape or move, and not both; for such machines, clearly only a tuple of 4 elements is required, which is why we refer to this case as the *quadruple transition variation*.
Given some notational convention for identifying the start state and halting state, a Turing machine can be characterised by the tuples which make up the definition of $\delta$. In this paper the start state is denoted $a$ and the halt state is denoted $z$. We also denote the blank symbol as $0$. We will also use $\_$ to indicate a variable whose values may be arbitrary (a la Prolog [@swi]), so that for example a tuple in which *Input* is 1, *Output* is 0 and all other values are arbitrary would be denoted $(\_, 1, 0, \_, \_)$.
We denote by an $n$-state Turing machine one in which $|Q| = n$. In other words, an $n$-state Turing machine has $n$ standard states and a halting state. Note also that there are no transitions from state $z$, and that as $\delta$ is a partial function, there is at most one transition for a given pair of a state and a character in the tape alphabet. This means that our Turing machines are all *deterministic*; there is never a case when a machine has to “choose” between two possible transitions for a given state and input symbol. Note that it is possible for there to be no transition for a given state and symbol combination. If such a combination is encountered during execution, the machine halts. We generally prefer to have explicit halting transitions rather than have the machine halt in this way.
A *configuration* of a Turing machine is the current state of execution, containing the current tape contents, the current machine state and the position of the tape head [@Sudkamp]. We will use $111\{b\}011$ to denote a configuration in which the Turing machine is in state $b$ with the string 111011 on the tape and the tape head pointing at the 0. In this paper, we do not formally define how an initial configuration and a (deterministic) Turing machine can be used to specify a possibly infinite sequence of configurations, as this is well-known and is not of central importance. We will refer to this sequence of configurations as a *computation*, or the *execution* of the machine.
Machine states are labelled $a,b,c,d,e \ldots$ where $a$ is the initial state of the machine. The halting state is labelled $z$. Symbols are labelled $0,1,2,3,\ldots $ where $0$ is the blank symbol.
We will find the following notion of *dimension* useful.
Let $M$ be a Turing machine with $n$ states and $m$ symbols (where $n,m \geq 2$). Then we say $M$ has *dimension* $n \times m$.
The busy beaver problem is based on terminating machines of a given size. Hence a vital aspect of generating the appropriate machines to consider is the how the halting transitions are introduced to the machine, and the point in the process when this is done. This is the motivation for the definition below.
We say a Turing machine $M$ is
- **k-halting** if there are $k$ transitions of the form $(\_,\_,\_,\_,z)$ in $M$.
- **exhaustive** if $\delta$ is a **total** function from $Q \times \Gamma$ to $Q \cup \{z\}
\times \Gamma \times \{l,r\}$, i.e. that\
$\forall q \in Q \; \forall \gamma \in \Gamma, \; \exists q' \in Q \cup \{z\}, \gamma' \in \Gamma$ and $D \in \{l,r\}$ such that $\delta(q,\gamma) = \langle q',\gamma',D \rangle$.
- **n-state full** if $|Q| = n$.
- **m-symbol full** if $|\Gamma| = m$.
Note that machines which are exhaustive but not 1-halting are either guaranteed not to terminate (as there is no transition into the halting state and every combination of state and input symbol has a transition defined for it), or have multiple halting transitions, of which at most only one can ever be used in a given computation, making the other halting transitions spurious. It is interesting to note that the Wolfram prize for finding minimal universal Turing machines [@wolframprize] used machines which are exhaustive and 0-halting, and hence these machines can never terminate[^3]. In our case, we will seek to generate $k$-halting machines for some $k > 0$, and preferably with $k = 1$.
In this paper we will assume that an $n$-state $m$-symbol Turing machine has $n \geq 2$ and $m \geq 2$. When discussing exhaustive machines, we will sometimes find it useful to explicitly refer to $n$ and $m$, so we call a Turing machine $n$-$m$-exhaustive when it is exhaustive and we have $|Q| = n$ and $|\Gamma| = m$.
Note that as we will be generating machines incrementally, we may find that we have a machine containing, say, 3 states and 2 symbols during the process of generating a 5-state 2-symbol machine. In this case, the generated machine is 3-state full (and 2-symbol full) but not 4-state full or 5-state full, and as a 3-state 2-symbol machine can have at most 6 transitions, it is not 5-2-exhaustive.
As we are interested in finding the maximum number of non-blank characters that can be printed by a terminating machine, we will use the concept of *maximising* machines, defined below.
Let $M$ be a Turing machine.
- $M$ is a **maximising** machine if for every tuple of the form $(\_,\_,O,\_,z)$ in $M$, $O \not = 0$.
- $M$ is a **minimising** machine if for every tuple of the form $(\_,\_,O,\_,z)$ in $M$, $O$ is 0.
The final transition that is executed in a terminating computation in a maximising machine, i.e. the halting transition, can be guaranteed not to reduce the number of non-blank symbols on the tape. This seems an entirely desirable property in a search for busy beavers. Note that when generating machines, we can satisfy the requirement for the machine to be maximising by ensuring that $O = 1$ in any halting transition. This is a convenient choice, as we can be sure that $1$ will occur in every machine we consider, but not necessarily any other non-blank symbol. In some circumstances it can be useful to consider minimising machines, but this is comparatively rare. Note that if there is more than one halting transition, it is possible for the machine to be neither maximising nor minimising.
When searching for busy beaver machines, it seems natural to focus on machines which are *1-halting, exhaustive* and *maximising*. As there is only one input on which the machine is evaluated (the blank input), there is only ever one halting transition that can be executed. This means that a $k$-halting machine where $k > 1$ is potentially wasteful. in that such transitions may be better used to define a larger and more complex machine. For similar reasons, it seems natural to focus on exhaustive machines, as non-exhaustive ones are also potentially wasteful. As discussed above, it also seems natural to insist on maximising machines. It is worth noting that all known “monster” busy beaver machines are 1-halting, exhaustive and maximising [@Marxen; @Harland16], although to the best of the author’s knowledge, this is merely an empirical observation rather than a proven result. We will use the term *dreadful dragons* to refer to Turing machines of very high productivity and activity. We will also refer to the $n$th entry in the table of 100 dreadful dragons in [@Harland16] as Dragon $n$.
Note that in a 1-halting, exhaustive and maximising machine, we may assume that the (unique) halting transition is always of the form $(S,I,1,D,z)$, and we may arbitrarily assign $D$ as $r$. This means that the halting transition can be completely specified once $S$ and $I$ are known. Note that all 1-halting, exhaustive and maximising machines will have exactly $n \times m$ transitions, one for each combination of state and tape symbol, and with $(n \times m) - 1$ standard transitions, and one halting transition.
It should be noted that if we consider all possible machines, rather than those generated by the *tnf* process, there are as many $n$-state $m$-symbol machines as there are $m$-state $n$-symbol machines. When determining values for each of *State, Input, Output, Direction* and *NewState* in the tuple *(State, Input, Output, Direction, NewState)*, for an $n$-state $m$-symbol machine there are $n$ choices for each of *State* and *NewState*, and $m$ choices for each of *Input* and *Output* whereas for an $m$-state $n$-symbol machine there are $m$ choices for each of *State* and *NewState*, and $n$ choices for each of *Input* and *Output*. This means that if we generate the machines naively, we will find that there are the same number of machines with say 5 states and 2 symbols as there are with 2 states and 5 symbols (although the use of the *tnf* process disrupts this neat symmetry). This is why we will speak of generating machines of a given dimension, rather than a given number of states.
It should also be noted that we have a rather unusual property for Turing machines, which is that we are only interested in their execution on the blank input. This means that we can make some significant reductions on the machines that need to be considered (see Section \[sec:normal\]).
Not all machines will be relevant to the busy beaver problem, and in fact there are some terminating machines which will be of little interest. This leads us to the definition below.
Let $M$ be a Turing machine. We say $M$ has [**activity**]{} $k$ if the execution of $M$ on the blank input terminates in $k$ steps. If the execution of $M$ on the blank input does not terminate, we say the activity of $M$ is $\infty$. The [**productivity**]{} of a machine $M$ whose activity is finite is the number of non-blank characters on the tape after $M$ has halted. If the activity of $M$ is $\infty$, then the productivity of $M$ is not defined.
We denote the activity and productivity of a Turing machine $M$ as [*activity(M)*]{} and [*productivity(M)*]{} respectively.
We say two machines $M_1$ and $M_2$ are [**activity equivalent**]{} if $activity(M_1)$ and $activity(M_2)$ are both $\infty$, or if $activity(M_1)$ and $activity(M_2)$ are both finite and $activity(M_1) = activity(M_2)$.
We say two machines $M_1$ and $M_2$ are [**productivity equivalent**]{} if $productivity(M_1)$ and $productivity(M_2)$ are both undefined, or $productivity(M_1)$ and $productivity(M_2)$ are both defined and $productivity(M_1) = productivity(M_2)$.
Note that the productivity of a Turing machine is only defined for machines which terminate on the blank input. This is slightly different to the productivity defined in [@BBJ] (page 42), in which the productivity is defined for contiguous non-blanks, and the productivity of a non-terminating machine is $0$. We believe it is more intuitive for the productivity only to be defined for machines which terminate on the blank input, and that it is appropriate to define productivity to include discontiguous non-blanks (i.e. that the non-blank symbols can be on any pattern on the tape). This is consistent with the machines of very high productivity reported on Marxen’s web page [@Marxen].
We are now in a position to define restrictions on the machines generated which will eliminate some uninteresting cases.
\[def:blank\] We say a Turing machine $M$ [**satisfies the blank tape condition**]{} iff during the computation of $M$ on the blank input, the only configuration in which the tape is blank is the initial configuration.
\[def:relevant\] We say an $n$-state Turing machine $M$ where $n \geq 2$ is [**irrelevant to the busy beaver problem**]{} if at least one of the following conditions is satisfied.
- $activity(M)$ is $\infty$
- $activity(M) \leq n$
- $productivity(M) = 0$
- $M$ does not satisfy the blank tape condition
Otherwise it is [**relevant to the busy beaver problem.**]{}
This means that in order to be relevant to the busy beaver problem, a Turing machine $M$ must be such that $activity(M)$ is finite and $> n$, $productivity(M) > 0$ and $M$ must satisfy the blank tape condition. In order to solve the busy beaver problem, clearly machines of productivity 0 are of little interest. Similarly machines of activity 1 or 2, which terminate after 1 or 2 steps of computation, are also of little interest. It is also simple to construct an $n$-state machine of activity $n$ and productivity $n$ as follows. We label the states as $a_1 = a, a_2, \ldots, a_n$ for convenience.
----------- ----------- ------------ --------------- ---------------
**State** **Input** **Output** **Direction** **New State**
$a_1$ 0 1 r $a_2$
$a_2$ 0 1 r $a_3$
…
$a_n$ 0 1 r $z$
----------- ----------- ------------ --------------- ---------------
Note that this is actually a template for many machines; as the machine will only be executed on the blank input, all transitions other than those for which **Input** is 0 will not be executed. Any machine satisfying this template terminates in $n$ steps with $n$ 1’s on the tape, as follows. The notation $C_1 \Rightarrow C_2$ is used to indicate that configuration $C_2$ is the result of one execution step in configuration $C_1$.
$\{a_1\}0 \Rightarrow 1\{a_2\}0 \Rightarrow 11\{a_3\}0 \Rightarrow \ldots \Rightarrow 1^{n-1} \{a_n\}0 \Rightarrow 1^n 0 \{z\}$
![Gutless goanna template and example machine[]{data-label="fig:goanna"}](Diagrams/goanna.png){width="80.00000%"}
A diagrammatic representation of this machine template and an example of a machine which conforms to this template are given in Figure \[fig:goanna\]. The similarity between this representation and a goanna[^4] is the reason for the name *gutless goanna* for this kind of machine.
This means that we should concentrate our search on $n$-state machines of activity $> n$. It may also seem natural to insist that relevant machines have productivity $> n$ rather than just $> 0$. However, it is generally much harder to guarantee a minimum level of productivity than it is to guarantee a minimum level of activity.
The most unusual aspect of Definition \[def:relevant\] is the blank tape condition. The reason that this condition is included is to minimise the number of machines that need to be considered. For example, consider a machine in which the tape remains blank until the third step of execution (i.e. the first two such steps do not alter the tape, which is initially blank). As we shall see in Section \[sec:normal\], it is straightforward to transform this machine into one which does not have this property, and yet has the same productivity as the original. The new machine will, though, have a lower activity than the original, but the new machine does not “waste” the first two steps of execution. This may be thought of as only considering the part of the execution of the machine that involves a non-blank tape (apart from at the very beginning) as appropriate for consideration for the busy beaver problem. Taking this approach a little further, we can also perform a similar transformation on a machine whose execution returns the configuration to one containing a blank tape at some point after the initial configuration. Again, the transformed machine will have the same productivity but a lower activity, and may be thought of as only considering the part of the computation that involves a non-blank tape. Details of these transformations and proofs that they preserve productivity are given in Section \[sec:normal\].
![Dragon 91[]{data-label="fig:m91raw"}](Diagrams/monster91-raw.png){width="70.00000%"}
The important consequence of requiring the blank tape condition is that it will reduce the number of machines that are considered. This introduces some minor variation into the precise definition of some aspects of the problem. As mentioned above, the transformations do not change productivity, and so the value of $bb$ will not be altered. However, our approach may result in some slightly lower values of $\mathit{ff}$, and in general some slightly lower values for activity than may be found elsewhere, such as some of the activity values for the known dreadful dragons reported by Marxen [@Marxen]. For example, consider the machine in Figure \[fig:m91raw\], which is Dragon 91. This machine returns the tape to blank after 5 steps, and then proceeds for around $10^{14,000}$ steps before halting. The initial steps of the execution of this machine are below.
$\{a\}0 \Rightarrow 1\{b\}0 \Rightarrow \{c\}12 \Rightarrow 2\{b\}2 \Rightarrow \{c\}20 \Rightarrow \{b\}0 \Rightarrow \{c\}02 \Rightarrow 1\{a\}2 \Rightarrow \ldots$
This computation can be considered as “restarting” in configuration $\{b\}0$ after 5 steps of execution from $\{a\}0$. Clearly transforming the machine to avoid this will reduce the number of steps executed by 5, but does not change the productivity of the machine (which is around $10^{7,000}$).
While it is certainly true that maximising computational properties (and hence maximising the value of $\mathit{ff}$ by whatever means) is very much in the spirit of the busy beaver problem, it is also a fundamental aspect of the problem to define precisely the class of Turing machines of interest, and hence precisely define the problem. As with many issues, there is no obvious “right” way to choose such a definition; in our case, we prefer one which when compared to the machines on Marxen’s website both preserves productivity (and hence $bb$ values) and reduces the number of machines to be considered over one that preserves both productivity and activity at the cost of an increased number of machines to be analysed.
Quintuple versus Quadruple {#sec:qq}
==========================
A further issue that arises in discussion about the precise definition of Turing machine that is to be used is whether to the quintuple or quadruple variant. As noted above, some previous analyses have used the quadruple variant of Turing machines. An attraction of this approach is that there are generally less machines to consider (as there are only 4 elements to consider for each transition rather than 5). However, the precise relationship between the two variants with respect to the busy beaver problem is not obvious, especially as all the known dreadful dragons are quintuple machines. In this section we explore the relationship between the two types of Turing machine, and show that searching quintuple machines will find a superset of those found by searching quadruple machines.
Ross [@Ross] and Kellett [@Kellett] have given an analysis of 5-state 2-symbols machines based on the quadruple variant of Turing machines. It is well-known that the quadruple and quintuple variants of Turing machines are equivalent, i.e. that for every quadruple machine there is an equivalent quintuple machine, and vice-versa [@Ross]. However, this result is not strong enough for our purposes, as it is not clear that this equivalence is maintained if we impose the extra restriction of requiring the transformation to preserve the number of states and symbols in the Turing machine. In particular, it is not clear that for a given $n$-state $m$-symbol quintuple machine that there is an equivalent *$n$-state $m$-symbol* quadruple machine. It is also worth noting that whilst there are some quadruple machines of notable size [@Marxen], the largest known machines in all classes are all defined as quintuple machines.
With a little care, it is not overly difficult to show that for an $n$-state $m$-symbol quadruple machine that there is an equivalent $n$-state $m$-symbol quintuple machine. We do this below.
\[def:tm4\] A [**quadruple**]{} Turing machine is a quadruple $(Q \cup \{z\}, \Gamma, \delta, a)$ where
- $z$ is a distinguished state called a [*halting state*]{}
- $\Gamma$ is the tape alphabet
- $\delta$ is a partial function from $Q \times \Gamma$ to $Q \cup \{z\} \times \Gamma \cup\{l,r\}$ called the [*transition function*]{}
- $a \in Q$ is a distinguished state called the [*start state*]{}
We say a transition $(S,I,OD,NS) \in M$ is a [**movement transition**]{} if $OD \in \{l,r\}$. Otherwise we say it is an [**output transition**]{}.
Note that the only difference between this definition and Definition \[def:tm\] is that $\delta$ is now a function that results in a state and either a direction or an output, but not both.
An interesting point to note is that for an output transition $(S, I, O, NS)$, the next configuration will have the machine in state $NS$ with input $O$. This means that if there are two output transitions in $M$ of the form $(S, I, O_1, S_1)$ and $(S_1, O_1, O_2, S_2)$, then we obtain an equivalent machine by replacing the first transition with $(S, I, O_2, S_2)$. Clearly the second machine will perform less steps than the first, but the same set of final configurations will be reached. What follows is a formalisation of this idea.
We note the following about sequences of output transitions.
\[def:tm4cycle\] Let $M$ be a quadruple Turing machine. We say
- $S_0,I_0$ is in an [**output cycle in $M$**]{} if there is a sequence of output transitions in $M$ of the form $(S_0, I_0, O_1, S_1), (S_1, O_1, O_2, S_2), (S_2, O_2, O_3, S_3), \ldots (S_k, O_k, I_i, S_i)$ for some $0 \leq i \leq k$.
- $S_0,I_0$ is in an [**output chain in $M$**]{} if there is a sequence of output transitions in $M$ of the form
$(S_0, I_0, O_1, S_1), (S_1, O_1, O_2, S_2), (S_2, O_2, O_3, S_3), \ldots (S_{k-1}, O_{k-1}, O_k, S_k)$
where there is no transition of the form $(S_k, O_k, \_, \_)$ in $M$, and $\forall 1 \leq i \leq k$, $(S_0, I_0, O_1, S_1), \ldots (S_{i-1}, O_{i-1}, O_i, S_i)$ is not an output cycle.
- $S_0, I_0$ is in a [**movement chain in $M$**]{} if $(S_0,I_0,D,S_1)$ is a movement transition, or there is a sequence of transitions in $M$ of the form
$(S_0, I_0, O_1, S_1), (S_1, O_1, O_2, S_2), (S_2, O_2, O_3, S_3), \ldots (S_{k-1}, O_{k-1}, O_k, S_k), (S_k, O_k, D, S_{k+1})$
where $(S_k, O_k, D, S_{k+1})$ is a movement transition, all the other transitions are output transitions, and $\forall 1 \leq i \leq k$, $(S_0, I_0, O_1, S_1), \ldots (S_{i-1}, O_{i-1}, O_i, S_i)$ is not an output cycle.
Note that a movement chain is basically an output chain which is followed by an appropriate movement transition. We may also think of output chains and output cycles as two exclusive and exhaustive classes of sequences of output transitions.
It is then simple to show the following result.
\[lemma:output\] Let $M$ be a quadruple Turing machine. Then for any transition $(S,I,\_,\_)$ in $M$, $S,I$ is in either an output cycle, an output chain or a movement chain in $M$.
If $(S,I,OD,NS)$ is a movement transition, then $S,I$ is trivially in a movement chain in $M$. Otherwise, $(S,I,OD,NS)$ is an output transition. We then follow the chain of transitions starting at $NS, OD$ until we either find there is no transition, encounter a movement transition, or encounter an output cycle. This results in either an output chain, a movement chain, or output cycle respectively.
\[definition:normalised\] Let $M$ be a quadruple Turing machine. We say $M$ is [**normalised**]{} if for every output transition $(S,I,OD,NS) \in M$ one of the following conditions holds.
- $S = NS$ and $I = OD$
- There is no transition for $NS,OD$
- There is a movement transition in $M$ of the form $(NS,OD,\_,\_)$
It is then straightforward to show the following Proposition.
\[prop:quadnormal\] Let $M$ be a quadruple Turing machine. Then there is a normalised machine $M'$ which is productivity equivalent to $M$.
By Lemma \[lemma:output\], for any transition $(S,I,\_,\_)$ in $M$, $S,I$ is either contained in an output cycle, an output chain or a movement chain. We generate $M'$ from $M$ as below.
- If $(S,I,OD,NS) \in M$ and $S,I$ is in an output cycle, replace $(S,I,OD,NS)$ with $(S,I,I,S)$.
- If $(S,I,OD,NS) \in M$ and $S,I$ is in an output chain $(S,I,OD,NS), \ldots (S_{k-1}, O_{k-1}, O_k, S_k)$, replace $(S,I,OD,NS)$ with $(S,I,O_k,S_k)$.
- If $(S,I,OD,NS) \in M$ and $M$ has a movement chain $(S,I,OD,NS), \ldots (S_{k-1}, O_{k-1}, O_k, S_k), (S_k, O_k, D, S_{k+1})$, replace $(S,I,OD,NS)$ with $(S,I,O_k,S_k)$
This generates a normalised machine $M'$ which is productivity equivalent to $M$.
For example, consider the three sets of transitions below.
$(a,0,1,b), (b,1,0,c), (c,0,1,d), (d,1,0,e), (e,0,0,a)$\
$(a,0,1,b), (b,1,0,c), (c,0,1,d), (d,1,0,e)$\
$(a,0,1,b), (b,1,0,c), (c,0,1,d), (d,1,0,e), (e,0,r,a)$
The first is an output cycle. The second, as there is no transition for $e,0$, is an output chain. The third is a movement chain. Under the transformation of Proposition \[prop:quadnormal\], these would be replaced by the transitions below.
$(a,0,0,a), (b,1,1,b), (c,0,0,c), (d,1,1,d), (e,0,0,e)$\
$(a,0,0,e), (b,1,0,e), (c,0,0,e), (d,1,0,e)$\
$(a,0,0,e), (b,1,0,e), (c,0,0,e), (d,1,0,e), (e,0,r,a)$
Clearly if an output cycle is encountered during execution, then the machine will never terminate. This leads us to the following result.
\[prop:4nocrap\] Let $M$ be a normalised quadruple machine, and let $M'$ be the machine resulting from deleting all transitions of the form $(S,I,I,S)$ from $M$. If $M$ terminates on the blank input, then $M'$ also terminates on the blank input.
Clearly as $M$ terminates on the blank input, no transition of the form $(S,I,I,S)$ is used in this execution. Hence deleting these transitions from $M$ will have no effect.
We can now show the main result of this section, which is that a normalised quadruple machine can be easily rewritten as a quintuple machine which is productivity equivalent.
\[prop:4to5\] Let $M$ be a normalised quadruple machine containing no transition of the form $(S,I,I,S)$. Then there is a quintuple machine $M'$ that is productivity equivalent to $M$.
As $M$ is normalised and does not contain a transition of the form $(S,I,I,S)$, then every transition is either
- a movement transition $(S,I,D,NS)$
- an output transition $(S,I,O,NS)$ where there is no transition for $NS,O$
- an output transition $(S,I,O,NS)$ where the transition for $NS,O$ is a movement transition
We construct $M'$ by transforming each transition in $M$ as follows.
- For each movement transition $(S,I,D,NS)$ in $M$, there is a transition $(S,I,I,D,NS)$ in $M'$
- For each output transition $(S,I,O,NS)$ in $M$ where there is no transition for $NS,O$ in $M$, there is a transition $(S,I,O,r,z)$ in $M'$
- For each output transition $(S,I,O,NS)$ in $M$ where the transition for $NS,O$ in $M$ is a movement transition $(NS,O,D,NS1)$, there is a transition $(S,I,O,D,NS1)$ in $M'$.
Note that in the third case there will also be a transition $(NS,O,O,D,NS1)$ in $M'$ resulting from the first case.
Taken together, Propositions \[prop:4nocrap\] and \[prop:4to5\] show that for every normalised quadruple machine that terminates on the blank input, there is a quintuple machine that is productivity equivalent. Hence any machines relevant for the busy beaver will be found by searching amongst the quintuple machines alone. In other words, the quadruple machines will not contribute more to the busy beaver problem than the quintuple ones will.
This of course does not rule out the possibility that there are some intriguing machines to be found amongst the quadruple machines. However, it seems unlikely that there is a productivity-equivalent 5-state 2-symbol quadruple machine machine for any 5-state 2-symbol quintuple machine that terminates on the blank input. Clearly it is possible to find [*some*]{} productivity-equivalent quadruple machine for any 5-state 2-symbol quintuple machine (Ross in fact gives one such transformation), but it seems unlikely that there is a productivity-equivalent quintuple machine *with only 5 states and 2 symbols*. It is an item of future work to settle this issue, either by providing such a transformation or showing that it is impossible. For now, we note that searching quintuple machines subsumes searching for quadruple ones.
Normal Form {#sec:normal}
===========
In order to solve the busy beaver problem, we are only interested in evaluating machines on the blank input, which means we are able to reduce the number of machines that require non-trivial analysis. In this section we establish the results that show this. To begin with, it is simple to establish the following results, whose proofs are trivial.
\[lemma:a01\] Let $M$ be a Turing machine containing a tuple of the form $(a,0,\_,\_,a)$. Then the activity of $M$ is $\infty$.
\[lemma:a01a\] Let $M$ be a Turing machine containing a tuple of the form $(a,0,\_,\_,z)$. Then the activity of $M$ is $1$.
Hence we need only consider machines whose first transition is of the form $(a,0,\_,\_,b)$. It should be noted that we can assume that the second state used in the machine is $b$ (rather than say $c$ or $d$), as justified by the following simple lemma.
\[lemma:a02\] Let $M$ be a $k$-halting $n$-state $m$-symbol Turing machine containing a tuple of the form $(a,0,\_,\_,S)$ where $S \not \in \{a,b,z\}$. Then there is another $k$-halting $n$-state $m$-symbol Turing machine $M'$ containing the tuple $(a,0,\_,\_,b)$ such that $M$ and $M'$ are productivity and activity equivalent.
Let $M'$ be the machine found by swapping all occurrences of $S$ and $b$ in $M$. The result then trivially follows.
This means that we can insist that the second state encountered in the machine (after the start state $a$) is $b$. Similarly we can insist that the third state (if any) encountered is $c$, and so on. In particular it is straightforward to show the result below.
\[lemma:statename\] Let $M$ be a Turing machine, and let $S_1, S_2$ be two distinct states in $M$ such that $S_1, S_2 \not \in \{a,z\}$. Let $M'$ be the machine obtained by swapping the states $S_1$ and $S_2$ in every transition in $M$. Then $M'$ is productivity and activity equivalent to $M$ and $M'$ contains the same number of state, symbols and halting transitions as $M$.
It is similarly straightforward to show a similar result for symbols.
\[lemma:symbolname\] Let $M$ be a Turing machine, and let $O_1, O_2$ be two distinct symbols in $M$ such that $O_1 \not = 0$ and $O_2 \not = 0$. Let $M'$ be the machine obtained by swapping the symbols $O_1$ and $O_2$ in every transition in $M$. Then $M'$ is productivity and activity equivalent to $M$ and $M'$ contains the same number of state, symbols and halting transitions as $M$.
Taken together, Lemmas \[lemma:statename\] and \[lemma:symbolname\] mean that we can insist on a specific order in which the states and symbols appear in the execution of the machine. In particular, given that the first state must be $a$, we can insist that the second state encountered be $b$, the third one $c$ and so forth. Similarly, we can insist that the first non-blank symbol countered be 1, the second 2, and so on. In addition, as we know that the second step executed will always be the $b,0$ transition, we can insist that in any transition of the form $(b,0,O,D,S)$ we have $O \in \{0,1,2\}$.
This means that we can assume that the first transition is of the form $(a,0,O,D,b)$ for some output $O$ and some direction $D$. Now if $O$ is blank, ie the transition is of the form $(a,0,0,D,b)$, then either the tape remains blank throughout the entire execution of the machine, or there is a transition $(s,0,O,D,NS)$ where $s \not = a$ and $O \not = 0$, in which case we simply swap $a$ and $s$. This leads us to the result below.
\[lemma:a03\] Let $M$ be a $k$-halting $n$-state $m$-symbol Turing machine of finite activity and productivity $\geq 1$ containing a tuple of the form $(a,0,0,\_,NS)$ where $NS \not = z$. Then there is another $k$-halting $n$-state $m$-symbol Turing machine $M'$ of finite activity containing the tuple $(a,0,O,\_,\_)$ where $O \not = 0$ such that $M'$ is productivity equivalent to $M$.
As $productivity(M) \geq 1$, there must be a transition of the form $(S,0,O,\_,\_)$ $S \not = a$ and $O \not = 0$ in $M$, and that this is the first transition in the execution of $M$ which writes a non-blank symbol on the tape. Let $M'$ be the machine found by swapping all occurrences of $a$ and $S$ in $M$. The result then trivially follows.
Note that a similar property will follow for a machine of activity $\infty$; however, this case is uninteresting for the busy beaver problem. Note also that the activity of $M'$ will be less than that of $M$, as this change effectively ignores the initial execution steps which do not change the blank tape.
For example, consider the machine in Figure \[fig:m82raw\], which is Dragon 82, a 4-state 3-symbol machine of activity 250,096,776 and productivity 15,008. Normalising this machine as above (by swapping states $a$ and $b$) gives the machine in Figure \[fig:m82refine1\] which has activity 250,096,775 and productivity 15,008.
![Dragon 82[]{data-label="fig:m82raw"}](Diagrams/monster82-raw.png){width="70.00000%"}
![Dragon 82 transformed[]{data-label="fig:m82refine1"}](Diagrams/monster82-refine1.png){width="70.00000%"}
We can perform a similar transformation under some other circumstances, as specified in the following lemma. Note that as machines of productivity 0 are irrelevant, we only consider those of finite activity and productivity $\geq 1$.
\[lemma:a03a\] Let $M$ be a $k$-halting $n$-state $m$-symbol Turing machine of finite activity and productivity $\geq 1$ which violates the blank tape condition. Then there is another $k$-halting $n$-state $m$-symbol Turing machine $M'$ of finite activity which is productivity equivalent to $M$ and which satisfies the blank tape condition.
As the execution of $M$ on the blank tape terminates, there must be a final configuration in this execution trace in which the tape is blank. Let $S$ be the state in which this occurs. As the activity of $M$ is finite and the productivity is at least 1, this state cannot be either $z$ or $a$. Let $M'$ be the machine found by swapping all occurrences of $a$ and $S$ in $M$. The result then trivially follows.
A similar property will also hold for machines of activity $\infty$.
![Dragon 91 transformation 1[]{data-label="fig:m91refine1"}](Diagrams/monster91-refine1.png){width="80.00000%"}
![Dragon 91 transformation 2[]{data-label="fig:m91refine2"}](Diagrams/monster91-refine2.png){width="80.00000%"}
For an example of the application of Lemma \[lemma:a03a\], consider again Dragon 91 in Figure \[fig:m91raw\], which has activity around $10^{14,072}$ and productivity around $10^{7,036}$. In the execution of this machine, after 5 steps the machine is in state $b$ and the tape is blank. Swapping $a$ and $b$ gives us the machine in Figure \[fig:m91refine1\]. We then swap $c$ and $b$ to get the machine in Figure \[fig:m91refine2\]. This machine needs further processing, however, due to the transition $(a,0,2,l,b)$. We can apply Lemma \[lemma:symbolname\] to a transition $(a,0,O,\_,S)$ where $O \not \in \{0,1\}$, to ensure that the first transtion must be of the form $(a,0,1,D,b)$. The choice of $D$, left or right, is entirely arbitrary; as long as this choice is applied consistently, it will have no bearing on the results. We choose $D$ to be $r$, which is consistent with many of the machine definitions on Marxen’s website.[^5]
We can then transform the machine in Figure \[fig:m91refine2\] to one which has initial transition $(a,0,1,r,b)$ by applying both the transformation of Lemma \[lemma:symbolname\] and swapping $l$ for $r$ everywhere to get the machine in Figure \[fig:m91refine3\].
![Dragon 91 transformation 3[]{data-label="fig:m91refine3"}](Diagrams/monster91-refine3.png){width="70.00000%"}
To be strict, we could also insist that the halting transition be $(c,2,1,r,z)$ rather than $(c,2,2,l,z)$ but this is more of a notational convenience than anything else as this changes neither activity nor productivity. In practice, this means that we can restrict our attention to a specific type of halting transition such as $(\_,\_,1,r,z)$ in order to reduce the number of machines that need to be generated, but no essential properties are lost if this constraint is not met, provided that the machine is maximising. Further discussion on this and related issues can be found in Section \[sec:results\].
This means that the initial transition in all of the machines we consider is $(a,0,1,r,b)$. Given this constraint, we can also deduce some constraints on the second transition used. These are given in the lemma below, whose proof is trivial.
\[lemma:b01\] Let $M$ be a Turing machine containing tuples of the form $(a,0,\_,r,b)$ and $(b,0,\_,r,S)$ where $S \in \{a,b\}$. Then $M$ has activity $\infty$.
This means that we can restrict our attention to transitions of the form $(b,0,\_,l,\_)$ or $(b,0,\_,r,c)$. Furthermore, it is clear that a machine with transitions $(a,0,\_,r,b)$ and $(b,0,\_,\_,z)$ has activity 2, and is hence irrelevant. This observation, together with Lemmas \[lemma:a01\], \[lemma:a02\], \[lemma:a03\], \[lemma:a03a\], \[lemma:statename\], \[lemma:symbolname\] and \[lemma:b01\] means that we need only consider machines with a particular initial transition and some constraints on the second one.
We next show that a particular class of machines (similar to the gutless goanna) is irrelevant to the busy beaver problem.
An $n$-state Turing machine is [**$0$-dextrous**]{} if there are $n$ transitions of the form $(\_, 0, \_, \_, \_)$ and all $n$ such transitions are of the form $(\_, 0, \_, r, \_)$.
Note that a gutless goanna machine is $0$-dextrous. The reason that we identify the $0$-dextrous class of machines is that they are all irrelevant.
\[lemma:0d\] Let $M$ be a $0$-dextrous Turing machine. Then $M$ is irrelevant to the busy beaver problem.
Let the number of states in $M$ be $n$. If $M$ does not terminate on the blank input, then its activity is $\infty$ and $M$ is hence irrelevant. Otherwise, $M$ terminates on the blank input, which, as $M$ is $0$-dextrous, is only possible if there is a transition in $M$ of the form $(\_,0,\_,r,z)$. This means that $M$ halts in at most $n$ steps, and so $activity(M) \leq n$, which means that $M$ is irrelevant.
This result shows that we can safely ignore any $0$-dextrous machines generated. As this property requires that at least all of the transitions for input $0$ are known, this can generally only be implemented as a constraint on the final machine, i.e. that any $0$-dextrous machine that is generated is ignored.
These results allow us to define an appropriate normal form for machines. Such a definition is given below.
\[def:normal\] A Turing machine $M$ is [**normal**]{} iff it has all of the following properties:
- $M$ contains the tuple $(a,0,1,r,b)$
- $M$ contains either a tuple of the form $(b,0,O,l,S)$ where $S \in \{a,b,c\}$ and $O \in \{0,1,2\}$, or a tuple of the form $(b,0,O,r,c)$ where $O \in \{0,1,2\}$.
- $M$ is not $0$-dextrous
- When executing $M$ on the blank input,
- states are encountered in alphabetical order
- symbols are encountered in numerical order
- the blank tape condition is satisfied
The first and second conditions, and the first two parts of the fourth condition, follow from the sequence of results in this section. The third condition follows directly from Lemma \[lemma:0d\]. The third part of the fourth condition follows from Lemmas \[lemma:a03\] and \[lemma:a03a\].
The constraints on the order of states and symbols exploit Lemmas \[lemma:statename\] and \[lemma:symbolname\] to eliminate certain types of redundancy. Due to the $(a,0,1,r,b)$ transition, we know that the states $a$ and $b$ and the symbols $0$ and $1$ will be present in every normal machine. This ensures that the third state encountered during computation is $c$, the fourth is $d$ and so on. Clearly there is a productivity and activity equivalent machine in which states $c$ and $d$ are swapped, but in this latter machine, the third state encountered during execution would be $d$, which means this machine is not normal. Similar remarks apply to the symbols, so that in a normal machine, the third symbol encountered will be $2$, the fourth $3$ and so on. One way in which this property becomes important is when comparing machines generated by our process with existing machines. For example, there are some published dreadful dragons which include a transition $(b,0,3,l,a)$. As such a machine is not in normal form, we need to first transform it, which in this case involves swapping the symbols $2$ and $3$, and possibly doing further transformations. More discussion on this point can be found in Section \[sec:results\].
We are now in a position to show the main result of this section, which relates normal machines to those relevant to the busy beaver problem.
\[prop:relevant\] Let $M$ be an $n$-state Turing machine. If $M$ is relevant to the busy beaver problem, then $M$ is productivity equivalent to a normal machine.
Let $M$ be a Turing machine which is relevant to the busy beaver problem.
Then $M$ has finite activity, $activity(M) > n$, $productivity(M) > 0$ and satisfies the blank tape condition.
Consider the four conditions of Definition \[def:normal\].
By the combination of Lemmas \[lemma:a01\], \[lemma:a01a\], \[lemma:a02\], \[lemma:statename\], \[lemma:symbolname\] and \[lemma:a03\], $M$ is productivity equivalent to a machine which satisfies the first condition.
By the combination of Lemmas \[lemma:statename\], \[lemma:symbolname\] and \[lemma:b01\], $M$ is productivity equivalent to a machine which satisfies the second condition.
As $M$ has finite activity, by Lemma \[lemma:0d\] it cannot be $0$-dextrous.
By Lemmas \[lemma:statename\] and \[lemma:symbolname\], $M$ is productivity equivalent to a machine which satisfies the first two parts of the fourth condition. The third part of the fourth condition follows immediately from the definition of relevance.
This means that in order to solve the busy beaver problem, it is sufficient to consider only normal machines. In other words, we can be certain that any machines excluded from consideration are guaranteed to be irrelevant. Note also that the case $O = 2$ in the second condition is only applicable when the number of symbols in the machine is at least 3 and the number of states is at least 3.
The results of this section allow us to define an appropriate normal form for machines, which means that there are certain machines that need not be generated at all, thus reducing the work we need to do, and others which once generated can be immediately dismissed as irrelevant, thus reducing the number of machines to be stored. This means we are almost in a position to define a procedure to generate machines, but there is one final aspect to consider before we do.
Monotonicity and Machine Generation {#sec:monotonicity}
===================================
As noted above, when generating machines for the busy beaver problem, it seems intuitively natural to concentrate on machines that are *1-halting, exhaustive* and *maximising*. We can ensure that a machine is maximising by specifying that any halting transition be of the form $(\_, \_, 1, r, z)$. It is more difficult to ensure that a machine is exhaustive and 1-halting. In fact, we cannot guarantee that a generated machine satisfies either of these properties.
![Partially generated machine 1[]{data-label="fig:partial1"}](Diagrams/machine4.png){width="60.00000%"}
For example, consider the partial machine in Figure \[fig:partial1\] which is generated as part of the process of generating $5$-state $2$-symbol machines. Execution of this partial machine brings us to the configuration $1\{d\}10$. So what are our choices for the $(d,1,O_1,D_1,N_1)$ transition? The set of states used in the machine so far is $\{a,b,c,d\}$ and the set of symbols used so far is $\{0,1\}$. This means that we have used all the symbols necessary for a 2-symbol machine, but have used only 4 states. Hence we should consider only the possibilities $O_1 \in \{0,1\}$, $D_1 \in \{l,r\}$ and $N_1 \in \{a,b,c,d,e\}$. Note that $z$ is excluded from the possible states for this transition, as we are generating a 5-state machine and have only used $\{a,b,c,d\}$ so far, and so if we allow $z$ as a possible resulting state from this transition, we will have generated a terminating 4-state 2-symbol machine, and not a 5-state 2-symbol one. Let us assume that we choose $O_1 = 1, D_1 = r$ and $N_1 = e$. This gives us the machine in Figure \[fig:partial2\] in the configuration $11\{e\}0$.
![Partially generated machine 2[]{data-label="fig:partial2"}](Diagrams/machine5.png){width="80.00000%"}
Our next decision is for the transition $(e,0,O_2, D_2, N_2)$. Now as we have used 5 states and 2 symbols in the definition so far, one possibility is to choose this transition to be the halting transition, in which case we have $O_2 = 1, D_2 = r$ and $N_2 = z$. Alternatively we may choose $O_2 \in \{0,1\}, D_2 \in \{l,r\}$ and $N_2 \in \{a,b,c,d,e\}$ and continue the process. It may seem counterproductive to choose the halting transition at this point, as we have a number of alternatives to it. **The problem is that we have no way to guarantee that any of these alternatives will result in a terminating machine.** What we do know is that the choice of the halting transition at this point *will* result in a terminating machine. Hence, despite the apparent redundancy, it seems the only safe course at this point is to output the machine in Figure \[fig:partial3\] as one possibility, and continue to search for more. This means that we can generally only guarantee that the generation of an $n$-state $m$-symbol machine will result in a machine that is **$n$-state full and $m$-symbol full**, rather than one which is $n$-$m$-exhaustive.
![Partially generated machine 3[]{data-label="fig:partial3"}](Diagrams/machine6.png){width="80.00000%"}
The reason that we can always ensure that the generation of an $n$-state $m$-symbol machine results in a machine which is $n$-state full and $m$-symbol full is *the strict monotonicity of the busy beaver function.* In other words, if we know that that $bb(n_1, m) > bb(n_2, m)$ whenever $n_1 > n_2 \geq 2$, then this justifies the above step in which the halting transition was not considered when searching for the $(d,1,O_1,D_1,N_1)$ transition for the machine in Figure \[fig:partial2\]. Specifically, knowing that $bb(5,2) > bb(4,2)$ means that we are justified in not considering the halting transition until there are at least 5 states in the machine generated. In general, this means that when generating an $n$-state $m$-symbol machine, we do not allow the halting transition to be added until we have all $n$ states and all $m$ symbols present in the machine. As noted above, the transition $(a,0,1,r,b)$, which occurs in all machines, guarantees the occurrence of at least 2 states and at least 2 symbols.
It is intuitively obvious that the busy beaver function is monotonic in both the number of states and the number of symbols, i.e. that that $bb(n_1, m) \geq bb(n_2, m)$ whenever $n_1 > n_2 \geq 2$ and that $bb(n, m_1) \geq bb(n, m_2)$ whenever $m_1 > m_2 \geq 2$, as any machine with at most $n$ states (respectively $m$ symbols) clearly has at most $n+1$ states (respectively $m+1$ symbols).
It is not difficult to show that the $bb$ function (and $\mathit{ff}$ for that matter) is strictly monotonic in the number of states. This is done in the Proposition below, which is a straightforward generalisation of Example 4.5 in [@BBJ].
\[prop:states\] Let $M$ be a $k$-halting $n$-state $m$-symbol Turing machine with finite activity. Then there is a $k$-halting $(n+1)$-state $m$-symbol Turing machine $M'$ with finite activity such that $activity(M') \geq activity(M) + 1$ and $productivity(M') = productivity(M) + 1$. Furthermore, if $M$ is $n$-$m$-exhaustive, then $M'$ is $(n+1)$-$m$-exhaustive.
As $M$ terminates on the blank input, there must be a halting transition of the form $(S, I, O, D, z)$ in $M$. Let $s$ be a state which does not occur in $M$. Consider the machine $M'$ which is obtained from $M$ by replacing the transition $(S, I, O, D, z)$ with $m$ transitions as below. A diagrammatic representation of this transformation is in Figure \[fig:transform1\].
----------- ----------- ------------ --------------- ---------------
**State** **Input** **Output** **Direction** **New State**
S I O D s
s 0 1 r z
s 1 1 r s
…
s m-1 m-1 r s
----------- ----------- ------------ --------------- ---------------
Note that once $M'$ enters state $s$, it will skip to the right until it comes across a $0$, and then halt. So the execution of $M'$ on the blank input will behave exactly as $M$ until the halting transition of $M$ occurs, at which point $M'$ will change to the new state $s$ and will execute at least one more step than $M$ before terminating. Note also that when $M'$ enters state $s$, the tape will be in exactly the same configuration as when $M$ terminates, apart from being in state $s$ rather than state $z$. This means that when $M'$ terminates, it will change a 0 into a 1, and hence have productivity one more than that of $M$.
For the exhaustiveness property, note that one transition in $M$ is replaced with $m+1$ transitions in $M'$, and so if $M$ contains $n \times m$ transitions, then $M'$ contains $(n \times m) - 1 + (m+1) = (n+1) \times m$ transitions.
An example of this transformation is given in Figure \[fig:exampletransform\].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Machine transformation[]{data-label="fig:transform1"}](Diagrams/transform1.png "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![Machine transformation[]{data-label="fig:transform1"}](Diagrams/transform2.png "fig:"){width="55.00000%"}
Original machine Transformed machine
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Example transformation[]{data-label="fig:exampletransform"}](Diagrams/example2.png "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![Example transformation[]{data-label="fig:exampletransform"}](Diagrams/example2-transformed.png "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
Original machine Transformed machine
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This transformation is straightforward, and this method of increasing machine size is highly unlikely to be of any practical use in finding busy beaver values. However, it establishes the strict monotonicity of the busy beaver function in the number of states, which despite being virtually the weakest possible statement of strict monotonicity, is sufficient to ensure that the above procedure for adding the halting transition is sound.
It seems intuitively clear that a similar result should hold for the number of symbols, i.e. that $bb(n, m_1) > bb(n, m_2)$ whenever $m_1 > m_2 \geq 2$, and so that when generating an $m$-symbol machine, we require that at least $m$ symbols be present in the machine before we add a halting transition. As noted above, the presence of the transition $(a,0,1,r,b)$ in every machine generated ensures that every generated machine contains at least 2 symbols.
A formal statement of this desired result is given below.
\[conj:symbols\] Let $M$ be a $k$-halting Turing machine with $n$ states and $m$ symbols for some $k \geq 1$ with finite activity. Then there is a $k$-halting $n$-state $(m+1)$-symbol Turing machine $M'$ with finite activity such that $activity(M') > activity(M)$ and $productivity(M') > productivity(M)$.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Machine 3[]{data-label="fig:machine3"}](Diagrams/machine3.png "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Machine 3[]{data-label="fig:machine3"}](Diagrams/machine3transformed.png "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately we have been unable to prove this result, despite it seeming to be obviously true. The difficulty for the proof is to find a similar transformation to the one in the proof of Proposition \[prop:states\]. In particular, it seems problematic to come up with a transformation that will take a terminating computation in an $m$-symbol machine, and transform it into a terminating computation in an $(m+1)$-symbol machine. To see the difficulty, consider the machine in the left hand side of Figure \[fig:machine3\]. This has activity 7 and productivity 2. It is not hard to tweak this machine by changing the halting transition from $(c,0,1,r,z)$ to $(c,0,2,l,c)$, and adding a new halting transition $(c,2,1,r,z)$. This machine is given in the right hand side of Figure \[fig:machine3\]. This makes the execution as below.
$\{a\}0 \Rightarrow 1\{b\}0 \Rightarrow \{a\}1 \Rightarrow \{a\}01 \Rightarrow 1\{b\}1 \Rightarrow \{c\}1 \Rightarrow 1\{c\}0 \Rightarrow \{c\}12 \Rightarrow 1\{c\}2 \Rightarrow 11\{z\}$
This has activity 9, which is an increase on the previous 7, but still has productivity only 2. We may of course consider other changes to the machine, but it only seems safe to change the halting transition, and to add transitions of the form $(\_,2,\_,\_,\_)$, as changing any of the other 5 transitions means that we will not be able to guarantee that the execution of this machine still terminates. Finding some appropriate transformation and hence providing a proof of Conjecture \[conj:symbols\] remains an item of future work.
As mentioned above, an even stronger result is desirable here, i.e. that we can guarantee that all generated machines are exhaustive. To do so would require a result similar to Proposition \[prop:states\], but showing the strict monotonicity of the busy beaver function in terms of the number of transitions in the machine. As Chaitin has argued [@Chaitin87], it may be more natural to stratify the busy beaver values by classifying them in terms of the number of transitions in the machine, rather than the number of states or symbols used in its definition. Whilst this seems intuitively appealing, the generation of exhaustive machines can only be guaranteed by proving this form of strict monotonicity, which seems significantly more difficult to show than the simple proof given above. Finding and proving such a result will presumably require a much deeper understanding of the nature of terminating busy beaver machines than we have at present.
It should also be noted that we cannot guarantee that a generated machine will be 1-halting, as we cannot guarantee that a partially generated machine will always terminate, and so executing the machine may never result in an opportunity to add a halting transition. This means that we sometimes have to settle for a machine which is 0-halting, due to the way in which machines are generated by executing partially defined machines. Further discussion on this point is deferred until Sections \[sec:generation\] and \[sec:results\].
Generation process {#sec:generation}
==================
We are now in a position to define the process for generating machines with $n$ states and $m$ symbols where $n,m \geq 2$. This will follow the same general strategy as the *tnf* process described by Lin and Rado [@LR65], but refined in the light of the above results.
We refer to the states in the transitions defined in $M$ as *states*$(M)$, and to the symbols in the transitions defined in $M$ as *symbols*$(M)$. For convenience, we will refer to the states as $\{a_1, a_2, \ldots a_n\}$ where $a_1 = a$ and $a_2 = b$. We denote by $state\_choice(n, \{a_1, \ldots a_k\})$ the set $\{a_1, \ldots a_k, a_{k+1}\}$ if $k < n$ and $\{a_1, \ldots a_n\}$ otherwise. Similarly we denote by $symbol\_choice(m, \{0,1,\ldots l\})$ the set $\{0,1,\ldots l, l+1\}$ if $l < m-1$ and $\{0,1,\ldots m-1\}$ otherwise. For example, $state\_choice(4, \{a_1, a_2\}) = \{a_1,a_2,a_3\}$, which will be used to ensure that the next state chosen after $a_1$ and $a_2$ is $a_3$. Similarly $symbol\_choice(4, \{0,1\}) =\{0,1,2\}$, which will be used to ensure that the next symbol chosen after 1 is 2.
Note that the procedure $generate(n,m)$ below is non-deterministic; to find all appropriate machines, we need to exhaustively search all ways of outputting a machine from it.
The procedure $generate(n,m)$ is defined as below.\
$generate(n,m)$
1. Initialise the machine $M$ to the tuple $(a,0,1,r,b)$.
2. Choose the $b,0$ transition satisfying one of the conditions below and add this transition to $M$.
- $(b,0,O,l,NS)$ where $NS \in \{a,b\}$, $O \in symbol\_choice(m, \{0,1\})$
- if $n \geq 3$, $(b,0,O,D,c)$ where $D \in \{l,r\}$, $O \in symbol\_choice(m, \{0,1\})$
3. Execute $M$ on the blank input until either
- $M$ is known to be irrelevant, or the bound on the number of execution steps is exceeded. Output $M$ and halt.
- an undefined combination of state $S$ and input $I$ is found.
4. Choose a new transition $(S,I,O,D,NS)$ for $M$ as follows.
- If $M$ is $n$-state full and $m$-symbol full, and $M \cup \{(S,I,1,r,z)\}$ is not 0-dextrous\
$~~~$ add $(S,I,1,r,z)$ to $M$, output $M$ and halt
- If $M \cup \{(S,I,O,D,NS)\}$ is not 0-dextrous\
$~~~$ add $(S,I,O,D,NS)$ to $M$\
$~~~~~$ where $NS \in state\_choice(n,states(M))$, $O \in symbol\_choice(m,symbols(M))$, $D \in \{l,r\}$
5. If $|M| = n \times m - 1$ add $(S,I,1,r,z)$ to $M$ for the appropriate $S$ and $I$, output $M$ and halt.
6. Go to step 3.
Note that we halt the process whenever a halting transition is added to $M$.
Steps 1 and 2 are derived directly from Proposition \[prop:relevant\].
Step 3 us where the machine is executed until either the machine is known to be irrelevant (such as halting with activity $\leq n$, or violating the blank tape condition), exceeds a given bound on computation length, or finds a place in the machine where a new transition is needed. Clearly we need to store the machines whose computation length which exceeds the given bound, but strictly speaking, we could insist that machines that are known to be irrelevant are not stored at all. Whilst this would reduce the number of machines considered, we have chosen to retain such machines in order to simplify the definition of the generation process. The only exception to this rule is that we choose not to store $0$-dextrous machines, due to the fact that we can easily check whether a machine is $0$-dextrous or not from its definition alone (i.e. without executing the machine). However this is very much a matter of taste rather than anything of great significance.
Step 4 is based on Proposition \[prop:states\] and Conjecture \[conj:symbols\]. This means that a halting transition is only considered if the partial machine generated already contains $n$ states and $m$ symbols, i.e. there are no unused states or symbols. Otherwise, Proposition \[prop:states\] and Conjecture \[conj:symbols\] indicate that generate a machine of larger activity. The second bullet point in Step 4 ensures that states and symbols are added in the appropriate order, so that if for example the partial machine contains states $\{a,b,c\}$ and symbols $\{0,1\}$, then the next state (if any) to be added is $d$, and the next symbol (if any) is $2$.
Step 5 ensures that if we get to a point where there is only one possible transition to add, then the halting transition is added, and as the machine is fully defined, there is no need for any further execution. For example, consider generating a 5-state 2-symbol machine, in which there are 8 transitions, leaving the only two unspecified transitions as those for $e,0$ and $d,1$. If in Step 3 find that we need a transition where $S = e$ and $I = 0$, then there are two possibilities. One is to add the halting transition as the one for $e,0$ (Step 4, first bullet point). This is because we already have all states $\{a,b,c,d,e\}$ occurring in transitions in the machine, as well as the symbols $\{0,1\}$. Another possibility is to add a non-halting transition for $e,0$ (Step 4, second bullet point), at which point we will have 9 non-halting transitions in the machine. As there is only one remaining unspecified transition (the one for $d,1$), this must be the halting transition, and so we add the transitions $(d,1,1,r,z)$ and halt.
Note that in Step 4 we include a test to ensure that the machine generated is not 0-dextrous. By Lemma \[lemma:0d\] we know that such machines are irrelevant, and so there is no need to generate such machines. Note also that we cannot guarantee that any machine generated by this process is exhaustive; as noted above, the best we can do seems to be a guarantee that it is $n$-state full and $m$-symbol full for the appropriate $n$ and $m$.
A further issue arises from Step 3, which is that it is possible that the machine generated so far may not terminate. In order to deal with this issue it seems sensible to incorporate some kinds of non-termination check into the execution process. This might include checking whether the current configuration has occurred earlier, based on the history of the execution trace, or possibly more sophisticated techniques [@harland07]. At the very least, it would seem prudent to include an upper bound on the number of execution steps permitted. A further check is suggested by Lemma \[lemma:a03\], which is that we should ignore any machine in which a blank tape occurs other than in the initial configuration. As in the Lemma, a terminating machine in which a blank tape occurs for a state other than $a$ or $z$ will have an equivalent machine without this property. A machine for which this occurs in state $z$ has productivity 0 and is hence irrelevant. A machine for which this occurs in state $a$ other than the initial configuration has activity $\infty$ and is hence irrelevant, as is any other kind of non-terminating machine. Hence if we find that the configuration is blank at any point other than the initial configuration, we should cease execution and note the machine generated as irrelevant.
This means that there will be some machines generated whose status is known immediately. These include any non-terminating machines detected in Step 3, as well as machines generated by the first bullet point in Step 4, which are known to terminate. So there will be some machines that are already classified as they are generated, including some (the ones found in Step 3 to be non-terminating) which are 0-halting, whilst many of the other machines generated will be unclassified (those whose execution exceeds the bound in Step 3, and those found in Step 5). This somewhat messy arrangement seems to be an unavoidable consequence of the use of the *tnf* technique. In principle, we could add halting transitions to the 0-halting machines so that the set of machines would appear more uniform. However, this seems to be needlessly complicated, and is not difficult to perform if it is required later for some reason.
A further issue that arises from 0-halting machines is that it is possible that some of these machines may need to be revisited at a later point. As noted above, some 0-halting machines are generated due to the execution bound being exceeded during the generation process. It is possible that later analyses will show that these machines do not terminate. However, if that subsequent analysis cannot do this, then we need to consider the possibility that these machines may need to be defined in more detail, as it may be that these machines can be extended to machines which will terminate on the blank input. For example, consider the 4-state 2-symbol machine in Figure \[fig:0halting\]. This machine exceeded the bound, and so did not have a halting transition added.
![0-halting machine[]{data-label="fig:0halting"}](Diagrams/machine7.png){width="70.00000%"}
After 5 steps of computation, this machine is in the configuration $0\{c\}1$, and it is not hard to see that this machine will oscillate between the configuration $0\{c\}1$ and the configuration $\{d\}01$, and so any extension of this machine will have the same non-terminating behaviour. However, it is not clear that this property will always hold, and so we may need to reconsider such 0-halting machines at a later point. An example of this behaviour is given in the next section.
Implementation and Results {#sec:results}
==========================
We have implemented the above procedure in SWI-Prolog (version 7.2.3, multi-threaded, 64-bits) [@swi]. This is part of a suite of around 5,000 lines of code, with the part dealing specifically with the generation process (when separated from the execution of machines) being only around 200 lines of code. We have used this procedure to generate machines of dimension 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 (Table \[table:machines\]). As in [@Harland16], we use the term **Blue Bilby** for machines of dimension up to 6, **Ebony Elephant** for those of dimension 8, **White Whale** for those of dimension 9 or 10, and **Demon Duck of Doom** for those of dimension 12. All of our results were obtained on a PC running Windows 7 with an Intel i7 3.6 GHz processor, 8 GB of RAM and a disk capacity of 500 GB. All of the code and data referred to here are available at the author’s website at [www.cs.rmit.edu.au/\~jah/busybeaver](www.cs.rmit.edu.au/~jah/busybeaver).
For comparison, we have also implemented two further processes for generating machines, which will only be possible for the smaller classes. This will provide a means of analysing the effectiveness of the tree normal form procedure and a basis for debugging if need be. The first of these, which we refer to as *free* generation, generates 1-halting machines by using the same set of $a,0$ and $b,0$ transitions as in the tree normal form process, but otherwise the transitions are generated arbitrarily. The second, which we refer to as *all* generation, generates 1-halting machines arbitrarily, without any restrictions on either the $a,0$ or $b,0$ transitions. In both of these cases, the generation of a 1-halting $n$-state $m$-symbol proceeds until the machine contains $(n \times m) - 1$ transitions, at which point the halting transition is added and the machine is complete. Note that the *free* machines are precisely the *all* machines in which the first transition is $(a,0,1,r,b)$ and the $b,0$ transition obeys the same restrictions as in Step 2 of procedure $generate(n,m)$. Both of these methods, as shown above, will generate redundant machines, and we cannot expect these to be as effective as the tree normal form process. However, doing so will hopefully give us some guidance in the cases when we only have available the *tnf* machines.
For example, Table \[table:machines\] shows that there are 2,148,483,648 machines for the $4 \times 2$ *all* case, compared to 50,311,648 for the $4 \times 2$ *free* case and 511,145 from the tree normal form process. This shows that tree normal form generation in this case reduces the number of machines to be considered by a factor of over 4,000 compared to *all* generation, and by a factor of just under 100 over *free* generation. For the $2 \times 4$ case, there are 37,748,736 and 342,516 machines in the *free* and *tnf* cases respectively, which means the tnf process reduces the number of machines by a factor of over 6,000 compared to *all* generation, and by a factor of a little over 100 over *free* generation.
Note also that whilst we have not explicitly generated the $2 \times 4$ machines in the *all* case, we know that there will be exactly the same number of these machines as for the $4 \times 2$ *all* case. We can also generate these from the $4 \times 2$ machines if need be. As all possible $4 \times 2$ machines have been generated, this will include all possible instances of transitions $(S,I,O,D,NS)$, where $S, NS \in \{a,b,c,d\}$ and $I,O \in \{0,1\}$. By swapping states and symbols, this same set of machines can be easily transformed into a set of transitions that includes all possible instances of $(I,S,NS,D,O)$, and by renaming $a,b,c$ and $d$ to $0,1,2$ and $3$ respectively and $0$ and $1$ to $a$ and $b$ respectively, we can generate the corresponding $2 \times 4$ machines. Whilst it seems plausible that this will be faster than generating all such machines from scratch, we have not confirmed this.
**Class** **Size** **Tnf** **Time (s)** **Free** **Time (s)** **All** **Time (s)**
------------------ -------------- ----------------------- ------------------ ------------ -------------- --------------- -------------------
*Blue Bilby* $2 \times 2$ 36 0.04 64 0.01 2,048 0.08
$3 \times 2$ 3,508 0.88 55,296 2.75 1,492,992 74.31
$2 \times 3$ 2,764 0.79 41,472 2.04 1,492,992 72.90
*Ebony Elephant* $4 \times 2$ 511,145 196.11 50,331,648 3,039.24 2,148,483,648 $\approx$ 170,000
$2 \times 4$ 342,516 145.61 37,748,736 2,271.52 2,148,483,648 –
*White Whale* $3 \times 3$ 26,813,197 10,784.62 – – – –
$5 \times 2$ 102,550,546 78,490.98 – – – –
$2 \times 5$ 75,402,497 48,399.56 – – – –
*Demon Duck* $6 \times 2$ $ \geq 1,540,000,000$ $\geq$ 1,200,000
: Number of machines[]{data-label="table:machines"}
**2 $\times$ 2** **2 $\times$ 3** **2 $\times$ 4** **2 $\times$ 5** **3 $\times$ 3** **3 $\times$ 2** **4 $\times$ 2** **5 $\times$ 2** **6 $\times$ 2**
------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ----------------------
**Total** 36 2764 342,516 75,402,497 26,813,197 3508 511,145 102,550,546 **??**
$b,0,0,l,a$ 25.0% 6.0% 3.2% 2.3% 3.2% 6.5% 3.6% 2.5% 503,314,910
$b,0,1,l,a$ 25.0% 17.2% 9.3% 6.1% 10.5% 18.7% 12.4% 8.7% $\geq$ 1,036,685,090
$b,0,2,l,a$ 35.2% 50.1% 57.4% 15.7%
$b,0,0,l,b$ 25.0% 6.5% 4.0% 2.7% 3.0% 6.5% 3.1% 2.1%
$b,0,1,l,b$ 25.0% 16.4% 9.0% 6.0% 7.0% 13.3% 7.2% 4.9%
$b,0,2,l,b$ 18.7% 24.4% 25.5% 7.6%
$b,0,0,l,c$ 5.3% 8.9% 10.5% 11.0%
$b,0,0,r,c$ 3.7% 7.4% 13.5% 16.6%
$b,0,1,l,c$ 12.0% 22.9% 28.0% 29.0%
$b,0,1,r,c$ 7.1% 15.9% 21.7% 25.2%
$b,0,2,l,c$ 14.3%
$b,0,2,r,c$ 10.6%
: Number of machines per $b,0$ transition[]{data-label="table:machines3"}
Apart from the $4 \times 2$ *all* and $2 \times 4$ *all* cases, for all classes up to and including **White Whale** the number of machines in Table \[table:machines\] are not overwhelmingly large for a typical modern personal computer. In particular, the tree normal form cases can be stored with relative ease. In our implementation we have chosen to store these machines in plain text files, with 1,000,000 machines per file. This is a simple and convenient means of storage, but not a particularly efficient one. Nevertheless, with judicious use of modern compression tools such as *7-Zip* [@7zip], this is adequate for our purposes. The figure of 1,000,000 seems a reasonable one, but is more or less arbitrary, although a conveniently round figure like this makes it simpler to count the number of machines generated. It may be appropriate at some point to store these machines in a database accessible via the Web, but making these available via compressed text files is presumably adequate for experimental purposes.
It is hoped that the analysis of the machines up to and including the **White Whale** will provide some insights that will lead to further reductions that can be made before tackling the **Demon Duck of Doom**, for which the numbers seem prohibitive at present. In particular, it is hoped that it will be possible to reduce the number of machines that need to be generated by analysing the smaller classes and identifying stronger criteria for relevance that can be translated into significant reductions in the search space, such as requiring a certain sequence of transitions to be present in order to generate large productivities.
It also seems highly likely that the **Demon Duck of Doom** is beyond the capabilities of a typical desktop machine, unlike the smaller cases, and hence will require cloud computing methods, both for generating and storing machines, and for their analysis. At the very least, the **Demon Duck of Doom** will require a significantly greater level of storage. Not only are there four classes of machines to consider ($6 \times 2, 4 \times 3, 3 \times 4$, and $2 \times 6$), but the number of machines in any of these classes is likely to be much greater than we can reasonably expect to store on commodity hardware. We have generated a fraction of the $6 \times 2$ machines, in order to get some indication of the likely number of machines in this class. As shown in the table in Table \[table:machines3\], there are 503,314,910 machines for the first $b,0$ transition (i.e. 503,314,910 6-state 2-symbol machines are generated by the tree normal form process with the transition $(b,0,0,l,a)$). This means that there are around 5 times as many $6 \times 2$ machines for the first $b,0$ transition alone as there are for the entire class of $5 \times 2$ machines. In order to get a more precise estimate of the likely number of $6 \times 2$ machines, we have analysed the numbers of machines for each of the possible $b,0$ transitions (Table \[table:machines3\]). Given that the transition $(b,0,0,l,a)$ accounted for 3.6% and 2.6% of the $4 \times 2$ and $5 \times 2$ machines respectively, it seems likely that the 503,314,910 $6 \times 2$ machines represent at most 1.6% of the total. This means that the total number of $6 \times 2$ machines is at least 32,000,000,000, and possibly higher. Using our current (rather wasteful) approach of around 180 bytes per $6 \times 2$ machine, this means that it will take at least $32 \times 10^9 \times 180 = 5.24$ TB to store the unclassified $6 \times 2$ machines alone. We can of course use compression tools to reduce this size once all the machines are generated. This suggests that finding a more efficient storage mechanism (possibly via bit-mapping methods) will be an important consideration. It also seems that investigating machines up to and including the **White Whale** is a natural “breakpoint” in the analysis, as it seems necessary to learn as much as possible about the distribution of machines and their classifications before tackling the **Demon Duck of Doom**.
We have also included the time taken to generate each class of machines. These range from a few seconds or less to around 2 days for classes up to and including the **White Whale** (and significantly longer for the fraction of the $6 \times 2$ machines generated so far). It is quite possible that these times can be substantially improved, but our point in recording them here is to show that the **White Whale** and all smaller classes can be generated in reasonable amounts of time without the need for any special processing or storage arrangements.
As can be seen from Table \[table:machines\], there are generally less $2 \times n$ machines than there are $n \times 2$ machines. This is due to the $b,0$ transition, as if there are only two possible states, there are only 6 possibilities for this transition. However, for the $n \times 2$ case, there are 8, due to the possibility of a third state (which, as discussed above, can be assumed to be $c$). We note that from the same table the ratio of the number of machines in the $2 \times n$ case to the number of machines in the $n \times 2$ case is 78%, 66% and 73% respectively for $n = 3,4,5$. We presume a similar property will hold for $n = 6$, meaning that there will be more $6 \times 2$ machines than $2 \times 6$ ones, i.e. we expect that if the above estimation of the number of $6 \times 2$ machines is correct, then there are “only” around 24,000,000,000 $2 \times 6$ machines.
Having generated the various classes of machine up to and including the **White Whale**, it seems natural to ask where the known dreadful dragons [@Harland16] are to be found in these classes. Of the 100 machines evaluated in [@Harland16], 50 of these are of dimension 10 or less, and hence will be located somewhere in the machines generated. We have located these 50 machines in our list of machines, as noted in Table \[table:dragons\]. The numbering is the same as used in [@Harland16].
The **No.** entry is the given number of the machine from [@Harland16].\
The **Dim.** entry is the dimension of the machine.\
The **Identifier** entry is our identifier for the machine, based on the sequence in which the machines were generated.\
The **Productivity** entry is the productivity of the machine.\
The **Incomplete** entry indicates whether or not the machine was completely defined in our search.\
The **Modified** entry indicates whether or not it was necessary to modify the published definition of the machine to fit our restrictions.\
The final two columns contain the same information as the previous **No.** and **Identifier** entries, but are sorted by **Identifier** rather than **No.** within each class of machines. These are intended to show the clustering, if any, of dragons around particular places in the search.
--------- ---------- ---------------- ------------------ ---------------- -------------- --------- ----------------
**No.** **Dim.** **Identifier** **Productivity** **Incomplete** **Modified** **No.** **Identifier**
1 2x4 111,941 84 Yes 1 111,941
2 2x4 112,118 90 2 112,118
3 2x4 112,118 90 Yes 3 112,118
4 2x4 229,000 2,050 Yes 4 229,000
5 3x3 1,797,985 31 17 152,890
6 3x3 21,115,998 5,600 10 1,576,778
7 3x3 16,422,605 13,949 5 1,797,985
8 3x3 2,649,261 2,050 Yes 8 2,649,261
9 3x3 16,815,108 36,089 16 7,787,080
10 3x3 1,576,778 32,213 13 8,733,341
11 3x3 15,148,462 43,925 Yes 11 15,148,462
12 3x3 17,780,452 107,900 7 16,422,605
13 3x3 8,733,341 43,925 9 16,815,108
14 3x3 18,413,439 1,525,688 12 17,780,452
15 3x3 18,071,120 2,950,149 Yes 15 18,071,120
16 3x3 7,787,080 95,524,079 14 18,413,439
17 3x3 152,890 374,676,383 6 21,115,998
18 5x2 99,152,813 4,098 24 397,553
19 5x2 68,312,662 4,098 25 51,991,303
20 5x2 58,627,384 4,097 23 58,580,865
21 5x2 58,620,022 4,097 22 58,580,871
22 5x2 58,580,871 4,096 21 58,620,022
23 5x2 58,580,865 4,096 20 58,627,384
24 5x2 397,553 1,915 19 68,312,662
25 5x2 51,991,303 1,471 26 78,774,278
26 5x2 78,774,278 501 18 99,152,813
27 2x5 67,639,951 90,604 47 1,249,263
28 2x5 58,764,276 64,665 49 1,267,093
29 2x5 1,724,449 97,104 50 1,267,591
30 2x5 48,504,073 458,357 48 1,267,697
31 2x5 59,334,694 668,420 29 1,724,449
32 2x5 44,049,832 1,957,771 41 13,130,674
33 2x5 22,975,390 1,137,477 40 13,143,213
34 2x5 29,026,306 2,576,467 Yes 42 15,559,001
35 2x5 43,147,682 4,848,239 Yes 45 15,973,730
36 2x5 60,397,442 143 38 20,503,550
37 2x5 47,902,356 4,099 Yes 39 20,685,942
38 2x5 20,503,550 3,685 Yes 33 22,975,390
39 2x5 20,685,942 11,120 Yes Yes 34 29,026,306
40 2x5 13,143,213 36,543,045 46 31,987,521
41 2x5 13,130,674 114,668,733 35 43,147,682
42 2x5 15,559,001 398,005,342 32 44,049,832
43 2x5 72,578,263 620,906,587 37 47,902,356
44 2x5 49,459,622 (10 digits) Yes 30 48,504,073
45 2x5 15,973,730 (10 digits) 44 49,459,622
46 2x5 31,987,521 (12 digits) 28 58,764,276
47 2x5 1,249,263 (31 digits) 31 59,334,694
48 2x5 1,267,697 (106 digits) 36 60,397,442
49 2x5 1,267,093 (106 digits) 27 67,639,951
50 2x5 1,267,591 (353 digits) 43 72,578,263
--------- ---------- ---------------- ------------------ ---------------- -------------- --------- ----------------
: Locations of known dreadful dragons[]{data-label="table:dragons"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Dragons 2 and 3[]{data-label="fig:machines2and3"}](Diagrams/monster2.png "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Dragons 2 and 3[]{data-label="fig:machines2and3"}](Diagrams/monster3.png "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Dragon 39 original and modified[]{data-label="fig:dragon39"}](Diagrams/monster39original.png "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Dragon 39 original and modified[]{data-label="fig:dragon39"}](Diagrams/monster39.png "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Dragon 39 incomplete definition[]{data-label="fig:dragon39partial"}](Diagrams/monster39partial.png){width="50.00000%"}
![Partially defined machine which does not terminate[]{data-label="fig:partial4"}](Diagrams/partialgoing1.png){width="50.00000%"}
There are a couple of interesting aspects of the generation proces that are highlighted by Table \[table:dragons\]. Consider first Dragons 2 and 3 (i.e. numbers 2 and 3 in Table \[table:dragons\]). The definition of these machines is given in Figure \[fig:machines2and3\]. These are taken from Marxen’s comprehensive list of busy beaver machines [@Marxen], and are labelled as \#b and \#c respectively in the 2x4 class as originally discovered by Pascal Michel. It was not difficult to find Dragon 2 in the list of generated $2 \times 4$ machines. However, finding Dragon 3 proved more difficult, and in fact it did not appear to be in the list. On closer inspection, it can be seen that Dragon 3 is in fact productivity and activity equivalent to Dragon 2 (as specified in Lemma \[lemma:symbolname\] above), as swapping symbols 2 and 3 in the definition of Dragon 3 gives us Dragon 2. This means that the restrictions we use to generate our machines should also be applied to machines found by other sources in order to do such comparisons.
This is the reason that the **Modified** column is included, to show whether or not the definition of the machine as given by Marxen needs to be modified in order to be found in our list of machines. This may involve renaming states and symbols, as well as other transformations given in Section \[sec:normal\] which preserve productivity and activity. As can be seen from Table \[table:dragons\], 12 out of the 50 dragons required modification in this way.
Another interesting aspect of our search is indicated by Dragon 39. The definition given by Marxen, where it is identified as \#c in the $2 \times 5$ class and discovered by T.J. & S. Ligocki, and our modification of it are given in Figure \[fig:dragon39\]. Once this modification was done, we searched for the machine, and found the incomplete definition of it given in Figure \[fig:dragon39partial\] generated as number 20,685,942. This has 8 of the same transitions as the modified machine above, but does not include transitions for the $b,4$ and $b,1$ cases.
The reason that only the incomplete definition was found is due to the bound placed on the amount of execution allowed during the *tnf* search process. The eighth transition added to this machine is $(a,2,4,l,a)$, which is added after 31 execution steps, as this is the first time that the machine is in state $a$ and encounters $2$ as input. This partial definition stays the same until step 1,376, which is the first time that the machine is in state $b$ and encounters $4$ as input. At this point, the $(b,4,1,r,a)$ transition is added, and as there is only one more transition in the machine to be defined, this must be the halting transition, and so the complete machine has been found. However, during the search process, the limit on the number of steps to be executed is set at 200. This means that only the incomplete definition was found (i.e. the state of the machine after 200 steps, in which there were 8 transitions known, not 10).
One reasonable conclusion from this result is that the bound on the number of execution steps needs to be increased, so that this machine (and the other 20 machines with the same first 8 transitions) are found in the generation process. This will of course increase the time taken to generate the machines, but as this generation is intended to be only done once, this is not the most important consideration. The trickier part is to know what value is appropriate for this bound. For Dragon 39, a bound of say 1,500 would be sufficient. However, it is far from clear whether this bound is appropriate for all machines in the $2 \times 5$ class, or even for a substantial fraction of the other incompletely defined machines generated. It seems fundamental to have some such limit, as there will of course be some incompletely defined machines which do not terminate. For example, the machine in Figure \[fig:partial4\] does not terminate, as execution of this machine continually results in configurations of the form $1\{a\}3 2^n 132$ for $n \geq 1$. Accordingly, the *tnf* process will never generate any machine with a strict superset of these seven transitions.
Unless we were to abandon entirely the process of separating the generation of machines from their analysis, it seems that the problem of such incompletely defined machines will remain. We can set the bound on execution during the search process to something that appears reasonable, but there seems to be no way to determine *in advance* a value of this bound which will ensure that the only incompletely defined machines which exceed this bound are those which do not terminate. There must, in fact, be such a bound; in fact, the busy beaver value for the relevant class of machines is an upper bound on this number. However, as the busy beaver value is precisely what we are ultimately trying to determine, this information is not very helpful in setting an appropriate value for this bound. In addition, while the time taken to generate the machines is not of great concern, it cannot be totally ignored, especially given the lack of any guarantee of success. With a bound of 200, the generation of the $2 \times 5$ machines takes around 13 hours; increasing this bound to say 1,500 will clearly significantly increase this time, possibly to around 90 hours, and it is not clear in advance how much difference this extended generation time will make to the number of incompletely defined machines that are generated.
For now, we note that this issue exists, and that we anticipate the number of such incompletely defined machines is relatively small, based purely on the data that of the 50 known dreadful dragons in the machines up to and including the **White Whale** (i.e. machines 1-50 in [@Harland16]), only 1 machine exhibited this problem. Naturally the precise number of such machines (i.e. those which are not completely defined by the generation process, and which we cannot show to be non-terminating) will not be known until the class of machines is analysed (i.e. step 3 of the process in [@Harland16]). One outcome of such an analysis may well be that there are too many such machines, which means that the bound used in the search needs to be larger, and so the generation must be performed again with this larger bound. If, however, the number of such machines is relatively small (say less than 1 machine in 10,000), then it may be reasonable to keep the same generated class of machines, and perform a more extensive *tnf* search on this relatively small number of machines during the analysis step.
Conclusions and Further Work {#sec:conclusion}
============================
This paper is the second in what may be a lengthy sequence aimed at fleshing out the framework of [@Harland16]. In this paper we have concentrated on steps 1 and 2, which involve the generation of the classes of machines which need to be analysed. As we have seen, it is not altogether straightforward to separate the generation of the machines from their analysis, but doing so as best we can seems appropriate. This will not only allow for separate and independent analyses of the machines, but also for the incremental development of analysis techniques. The latter may seem to be a rather trite purpose, but given the apparent complexity of the analysis of some machines, it seems altogether prudent.
We have given a precise specification of the busy beaver problem, both in terms of the specific variety of Turing machines that we use, as well as the central issues around the productivity and activity of these machines. We have seen how quintuple machines are at least as general as quadruple machines, which means that searching among the quintuple machines will not omit any machines in the quadruple ones, and possibly allow for more cases than the quadruple machines allow. We have given formal results which establish the soundness of our constraints on the machines to be generated, and given a procedure to generate machines satisfying these constraints. We have implemented this procedure and reported our results, which together with all the code used, is available on the author’s website. It is hope that this code and data will be useful to other researchers interested in this problem.
There remain some unresolved issues arising from the results of this paper. One such item of further work is to provide a proof of Conjecture \[conj:symbols\], i.e. that the $bb$ and $\mathit{ff}$ functions are strictly monotonic in the number of symbols used in the machine. This seems obviously true, but as discussed in Section \[sec:generation\], the difficulty is finding a way to extend a terminating $m$-symbol machine into a terminating $(m+1)$-symbol machine of strictly greater activity and productivity. It may be that productivity preserving transformations along the lines of those of Shannon [@Shannon56] will be useful here.
Another issue is to investigate whether a similar strict monotonicity result holds for the number of transitions in a machine. Chaitin [@Chaitin87] has argued that this is a more natural way in which to organise the busy beaver problem, in that this more directly reflects the complexity of the computation specified by the machine than the number of states or symbols used (or both). This suggests that it may be interesting to re-stratify the classes of machines up to and including the **White Whale**, once the analysis of the machines is done. Not only would this potentially remove some redundancies, it may also introduce some finer-grained analysis, such as comparing the maximum productivity of a 5-state 2-symbol machine with 8 transitions with a similar maximum for machines with 9 or 10 transitions. Such a reworking of the **White Whale** results may also yield some useful insights for tackling the **Demon Duck of Doom**.
A further item of future work is to sharpen our knowledge of the relationship between the quadruple and quintuple variants. As we have seen in Section \[sec:qq\], the quintuple machines are at least as general as the quadruple ones, which is a justification of our choice to concentrate on quintuple machines. It seems that a stronger result is possible, i.e. that there are quintuple machines for which there are no productivity-equivalent quadruple machines. It is certainly possible to show that certain ways of simulating quintuple machines on quadruple ones will not work, and even if there is one specific quintuple machine that can be shown inequivalent to any quadruple machine of the same dimension, that would suffice to establish the required separation. However, the difficulty is being able to establish the inequivalence of such a given quintuple machine with *any* quadruple machines of the same dimension. It may be more effective to perform an enumeration of the quadruple machines similar to the one described in this paper in order to understand the relationships between these variants in more detail.
The next step in the process of [@Harland16] is to analyse the generated machines, and in particular to classify them as either terminating or non-terminating. This is likely to take significantly more effort than the results reported in this paper. We also expect that this analysis will suggest further items of theoretical interest, just as this phase of the process has done.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The author would like to thank Jeanette Holkner, Barry Jay, Pascal Michel, Sandra Uitenbogerd, Michael Winikoff, and some anonymous referees for valuable feedback on this material.
[^1]: [www.cs.rmit.edu.au/\~jah/busybeaver](www.cs.rmit.edu.au/~jah/busybeaver)
[^2]: We call this function the [*frantic frog.*]{}
[^3]: Termination is simulated by repeatedly reproducing the final simulated configuration.
[^4]: A goanna is an Australian lizard.
[^5]: This choice means that our machines are *dextrous*, or right-handed. For every such machine there is a *sinister sibling*, which has exactly the same execution behaviour as the *orthodox original* except that the direction of each transition is reversed.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Local Reconstruction Codes (LRCs) allow for recovery from a small number of erasures in a local manner based on just a few other codeword symbols. They have emerged as the codes of choice for large scale distributed storage systems due to the very efficient repair of failed storage nodes in the typical scenario of a single or few nodes failing, while also offering fault tolerance against worst-case scenarios with more erasures. A maximally recoverable (MR) LRC offers the best possible blend of such local and global fault tolerance, guaranteeing recovery from all erasure patterns which are information-theoretically correctable given the presence of local recovery groups. In an $(n,r,h,a)$-LRC, the $n$ codeword symbols are partitioned into $r$ disjoint groups each of which include $a$ local parity checks capable of locally correcting $a$ erasures. The codeword symbols further obey $h$ heavy (global) parity checks. Such a code is maximally recoverable if it can correct all patterns of $a$ erasures per local group plus up to $h$ additional erasures anywhere in the codeword. This property amounts to linear independence of all such subsets of columns of the parity check matrix.
MR LRCs have received much attention recently, with many explicit constructions covering different regimes of parameters. Unfortunately, all known constructions require a large field size that exponential in $h$ or $a$, and it is of interest to obtain MR LRCs of minimal possible field size. In this work, we develop an approach based on function fields to construct MR LRCs. Our method recovers, and in most parameter regimes improves, the field size of previous approaches. For instance, for the case of small $r \ll {\varepsilon}\log n$ and large $h {\geqslant}\Omega(n^{1-{\varepsilon}})$, we improve the field size from roughly $n^h$ to $n^{{\varepsilon}h}$. For the case of $a=1$ (one local parity check), we improve the field size quadratically from $r^{h(h+1)}$ to $r^{h \lfloor (h+1)/2 \rfloor}$ for some range of $r$. The improvements are modest, but more importantly are obtained in a unified manner via a promising new idea. We associate distinct places with different local groups, and for each group, use functions with a single pole at that place and define a Moore matrix as the portion of the parity check matrix corresponding to that group. The requisite linear independence is established using properties of the Moore determinant to reduce linear independence over an extension field to that over the base field. The latter is established using the distinctness of places across groups, and by direct code based design within a group.
author:
- Venkatesan Guruswami
- Lingfei Jin
- Chaoping Xing
title: Constructions of maximally recoverable local reconstruction codes via function fields
---
Introduction
============
Interest in erasure codes has surged in recent years, with the demands of massive cloud storage systems raising hitherto unexplored, yet very natural and mathematically deep, questions concerning the parameters, robustness, and efficiency of the code. Distributed storage systems need to build in redundancy in the data stored in order to cope with the loss or inaccessibly of the data on one or more storage nodes. Traditional erasure codes offer a natural strategy for such robust data storage, with each storage node storing a small part of the codeword, so that the data is protected against multiple node failures. In particular, MDS codes such as Reed-Solomon codes can operate at the optimal storage vs. reliability trade-off — for a given amount of information to be stored and available storage space, these codes can tolerate the maximum number of erasures without losing the stored information. Individual storage nodes in a large scale system often fail or become unresponsive. Reconstruction (repair) of the content stored on a failed node with the help of remaining active nodes is important to reinstate the system in the event of a permanent node failure, and to allow access to the data stored on a temporarily unavailable node. The use of erasure codes in large storage systems, therefore, brings to the fore a new requirement: the ability to *very efficiently* reconstruct *parts* of a codeword from the rest of the codeword.
Local Reconstruction Codes (LRCs), introduced in [@GHJY14], offer an attractive way to meet this requirement. An LRC imposes local redundancies in the codewords, so that a single (or a small number of) erased symbol can be recovered locally from less than $r$ other codeword symbols.[^1] Here $r$ is the locality parameter that is typically much smaller than the code length $n$. In the distributed storage context, an LRC allows for the low-latency repair of any failed node as one only needs to wait for the response from $r$ nodes. LRCs have found spectacular practical applications with their use in the Windows Azure storage system [@HSX12].
The challenge in an LRC design is to balance the locality requirement, that allows fast recovery from a single or few erasures, with good global erasure-resilience (via traditional slower methods) for more worst-case scenarios. One simple metric for global fault tolerance is the minimum distance $d$ of the code, which means that any pattern of fewer than $d$ erasures can be corrected. The optimal trade-off between the distance, redundancy, and locality of an LRC was established in [@GHSY12], and an elegant sub-code of Reed-Solomon codes meeting this bound was constructed in [@TB].
This work concerns a much stronger requirement on global fault-tolerance, called [*Maximal Recoverability*]{}. This requires that the code should simultaneously correct every erasure pattern that is information-theoretically possible to correct, given the locality conditions imposed on the codeword symbols. Let us describe it more formally in the setting of interest in this paper. Define an $(n,r,h,a)_\ell$-LRC to be a linear code over ${\mathbb{F}}_\ell$ of length $n$ whose $n$ codeword symbols are partitioned into $r$ disjoint groups each of which include $a$ local parity checks capable of locally correcting $a$ erasures. The codeword symbols further obey $h$ heavy (global) parity checks. With this structure of parity checks, it is not hard to see that the erasure patterns one can hope to correct are precisely those which consist of up to $a$ erasures per local group plus up to $h$ additional erasures anywhere in the codeword. A *maximal recoverable* (MR) LRC is a *single* code that is capable of simultaneously correcting *all* such patterns. Thus, an MR code gives the most bang-for-the-buck for the price one pays for locality.
This notion was introduced in [@BHH13] motivated by applications to storage on solid-state devices, where it was called partial MDS codes. The terminology maximally recoverable codes was coined in [@GHJY14], and the concept was more systematically studied in [@GHJY14; @GHK17]. By picking the coefficients of the heavy parity checks randomly, it is not hard to show the existence of MR LRCs over *very large* fields, of size exponential in $h$. An explicit construction over such large fields was also given in [@GHJY14], which also proved that random codes *need* such large field sizes with high probability.[^2]
Since encoding a linear code and decoding it from erasures involve performing numerous finite field arithmetic operations, it is highly desirable to have codes over small fields (preferably of characteristic 2). Obtaining MR LRCs over finite fields of minimal size has therefore emerged as a central problems in the area of codes for distributed storage. So far, no construction of MR LRCs that avoids the exponential dependence on $h$ has been found. A recent lower bound shows that, unlike MDS codes, for certain parameter settings one cannot have MR LRCs over fields of linear size. This shows that the notion of maximal recoverability is quite subtle, and pinning down the optimal field size is likely a deep question. There remains a large gap between the upper and lower bounds on field size of MR LRCs, closing which is a challenge of theoretical and practical importance.
In this work, we develop a novel approach to construct MR LRCs based on function fields. Our framework recovers and in fact slightly improves most of the previous bounds in the literature in a unified way. We note that since there are at least three quantities of significance — the locality $r$, the local (intra group) erasure tolerance $a$, and number of global parity checks $h$ — the landscape of parameters and different constructions in this area is quite complex. Also, depending on the motivation, the range of values of interest of these parameters might be different. For example, if extreme efficiency of local repair is important, $r$ should be small. But on the other hand this increase the redundancy and thus storage requirement of the code, so from this perspective a modest $r$ (say $\sqrt{n}$) might be relevant. If good global fault tolerance is required, we want larger $h$, but then the constructions have large field size. It is therefore of interest to study the problem treating these as independent parameters, without assumptions on their relative size. We next review the field size of previous constructions, and then turn to the parameters we achieve in different regimes.
Known field size bounds
-----------------------
For $a\in\{0,r-1\}$, optimal maximally recoverable local reconstruction codes (MR LRCs, for short) can be constructed by using either Reed-Solomon codes or their repetition. For $h{\leqslant}1$, constructions of maximally recoverable LRCs over fields of size $O(r)$ were given in [@BHH13]. For the remaining case: $1{\leqslant}a{\leqslant}r-2$ and $h{\geqslant}2$, there are quite number of constructions in literature [@BHH13; @Bla13; @TPD16; @GHJY14; @HY16; @GHK17; @CK17; @BPSY16; @GYBS17; @GGY17].
For the cases of $h=2$ and $h=3$, the best known constructions of MR LRCs were given in [@GGY17] with field sizes of $O(n)$ and $O(n^3)$ respectively, uniformly for all $r,a$. (Their field sizes were worse by $n^{o(1)}$ factors compared to these bounds when the field is required to be of characteristic $2$.) For most other parameter settings, the best constructions by [@GYBS17] provide a family of MR LRCs over fields of sizes $$\label{eq:1}
\ell=O\left(r\cdot n^{(a+1)h-1}\right)$$ as well as $$\label{eq:2}
\ell= \max\left\{O(\frac nr),\ O(r)^{h+a}\right\}^h \ ,$$ The bound outperforms the bound when $r=\Omega(n)$, while the bound is better when $r\ll n$. In both the bounds, the field size grows exponentially with $h$ and $a$.
Recently, by using maximum rank distance (MRD) codes, the paper [@NH18] (specifically Corollary 14) gives a family of MR LRCs over fields of sizes $$\label{eq:3}
\ell=O\left(r^{\frac{n(r-a)}r}\right).$$ When $r=\Omega(n)$, and $a$ is close to $r$ or $h$ is large, is better than bounds or . By using probabilistic arguments, the paper [@NH18] shows existence of a family of MR LRCs over fields of sizes $$\label{eq:3a}
\ell=O\left({n-1\choose k-1}\right),$$ where $k=n\left(1-\frac ar\right)-h$ is the dimension of the code.
On the other hand, a lower bound on the field size was presented in [@GGY17]. Stating the bound when $h {\leqslant}\frac{n}{r}$ for simplicity, they show that the field size $\ell$ of an $(n,r,h,a)_\ell$ MR LRC must obey $$\label{eq:4}
\ell=\Omega_{a,h}\left(n\cdot r^{\min\{a,h-2\}}\right).$$ The lower bound is still quite far from the upper bounds and . In particular, the exponent of $a$ or $h$ is to the base growing with $n$ in the known constructions, but only to the base $r$ in the above lower bound. Thus, one can conjecture that there is still room to improve both the constructions and the lower bounds. We note that under more complex structural requirements on the local groups, notably grid-like topologies and product codes, the optimal field size has been pinned down to $\exp(\Theta(n))$ [@KLR-grid-MR].
Several techniques have been employed in literature for constructions of MR LRCs. One prevalent idea is to use a “linearized" version of the Vandermonde matrix, where the heavy parity check part of the matrix consists of columns $(\alpha_i, \alpha_i^q, \dots, \alpha_i^{q^{h-1}})^T$ where $\alpha_i \in {\mathbb{F}}_\ell$ for a sufficiently high degree extension field ${\mathbb{F}}_\ell$ of ${\mathbb{F}}_q$. This construction is combined with $2h$-wise independent spaces to get an $O(n^h)$ field size in [@GHJY14], and is also employed in [@GYBS17]. Another approach is based on rank-metric codes (see, for instance, [@CK17; @NH18]). Various ad hoc methods have been employed for good constructions of MR LRCs for small $h$, for example for $h=2,3$ in [@GGY17].
Our results
-----------
In this work, we develop a new approach to construct MR LRCs based on algebraic function fields. We discuss the key elements underlying our strategy in Section \[subsec:techniques\], but for now state the field sizes of the MR LRCS we can construct for various regimes of parameters. Most of the existing results in literature can be recovered through our methods in a unified way. In most regimes, the parameters of our codes beat the known ones. For easy reference, we summarize the different possible trade-offs we can achieve in one giant theorem statement below. Since this comprehensive statement may be overwhelming to parse, let us highlight just two of our significant improvements: item (i) for $a=1$, where we improve $r^{h+1}$ term in quadratically to $r^{\lfloor \frac{h+1}{2}\rfloor}$, and item (vi) for sufficiently large $h$, where the exponent $h$ in bounds and is improved to ${\varepsilon}h$. Also the exponent $h$ is replaced by $\min\{h,n/r\}$ in the bounds (i)-(iv) that improve . In the bounds (vii) and (viii) the factor $n/r$ in the exponent is improved to $\min\{k,n/r\}$; this improved is less significant as it only applies to the low-rate setting but included for completeness and also to reflect a construction approach based on generator matrices (as opposed to parity check matrices which is a more potent way to reason about MR LRCs that underlies the other parts of the theorem).
\[thm:1.1\] One has a maximally recoverable $(n,r,h,a)_\ell$-local reconstruction code over a field of size $\ell$ with parameters satisfying any of the following conditions. (Below $\tilde{O}(f)$ denotes $f \log^{O(1)} f$.)
- [(see Theorem \[thm:3.9\])]{} $a=1$,$r{\geqslant}h+2$ and $$\ell {\leqslant}\left(\max\left\{\tilde{O}(\frac n{r}), (2r)^{\left\lfloor\frac{h+1}2\right\rfloor}\right\}\right)^{\min\{h,\frac nr\}} \mbox{ and $\ell$ is even};$$
- [(see Theorem \[thm:3.10\])]{} $a=1$ and $$\ell {\leqslant}\left( \max\left\{ \tilde{O}(\frac nr), 2^r\right\}\right)^{\min\{h,\frac nr\}} \mbox{ and $\ell$ is even};$$
- [(see Theorem \[thm:3.12\])]{} for all settings of $n,r,h,a$ and $$\ell {\leqslant}\left(\max\left\{\tilde{O}(\frac nr), (2r)^{h+a}\right\}\right)^{\min\{h,\frac nr\}} ;$$
- [(see Theorem \[thm:3.13\])]{} for all settings of $n,r,h,a$ and $$\ell {\leqslant}\left(\max\left\{\tilde{O}(\frac nr), (2r)^r\right\}\right)^{\min\{h,\frac nr\}};$$
- [(see Theorem \[thm:4.3\])]{} $r = O\left(\frac{\log n}{\log\log n}\right)$ and $hr {\geqslant}\Omega\left( \frac{ n^{\frac23}}{{{\varepsilon}}}\right)$ for a positive real ${{\varepsilon}}\in(0,0.5)$ and $$\ell {\leqslant}O\left(n^{\frac{2h}{3}\left(1+{{{\varepsilon}}}\right)}\right);$$
- [(see Theorem \[thm:4.4\])]{} $r= O\left(\frac{{{\varepsilon}}\log n}{\log\log n}\right)$ and $hr=\Omega\left(n^{1-{{\varepsilon}}}\right)$ for a positive real ${{\varepsilon}}\in(0,0.5)$ and $$\ell {\leqslant}n^{{{\varepsilon}}h};$$
- [(see Theorem \[thm:3.3\])]{} for all settings of $n,r,h,a$ $$\ell {\leqslant}\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
2^{\min\left\{rk,n \right\}} {\leqslant}2^{ n} &\mbox{ if $r{\geqslant}\log n$} \\
2^{\lceil\log n\rceil \min \{k, \frac nr \}}&\mbox{ if $r{\leqslant}\log n$}
\end{array}\right.$$ where $k=\left(1-\frac ar\right)-h$ is the dimension of the code;
- [(see Theorem \[thm:3.5\])]{} $r-a=\Omega(\log n)$ and $$\ell
{\leqslant}2r^{\lfloor\frac{r-a}2\rfloor \min\{k,\frac {n}{r}\}} \mbox{ and $\ell$ is even}.$$
The first two bounds, and the bounds in (vii) and (viii) of Theorem \[thm:1.1\] are derived from the rational function fields ${\mathbb{F}}_2(x)$. In addition, the bounds in (i) and (viii) of Theorem \[thm:1.1\] are obtained via a combination with binary BCH codes. The bounds in (iii) and (iv) of Theorem \[thm:1.1\] are derived from rational function field ${\mathbb{F}}_q(x)$, where $\ell$ is a power of $q$. The fifth bound is obtained via Hermitian function fields, while the sixth bound is derived from the Garcia-Stichtenoth function field tower. Our codes achieving the trade-offs stated in the above theorem can in fact be explicitly specified. But we note that for MR codes even existence questions over small fields are interesting and non-trivial.
Comparison.
-----------
Each of our bounds in Theorem \[thm:1.1\] beats the known results in some parameter regimes. Let us compare them one by one.
- The bound in Theorem \[thm:1.1\](i) outperforms the bound due to the quadratically better exponent for $r$.
- The bound in Theorem \[thm:1.1\](ii) outperforms even the bound in Theorem \[thm:1.1\](i) for $\frac r{\log r}<\left\lfloor\frac{h+1}2\right\rfloor$.
- The bound in Theorem \[thm:1.1\](iii) outperforms the bound for $h>\frac nr$.
- The bound in Theorem \[thm:1.1\](iv) even outperforms the bound in Theorem \[thm:1.1\](iv) for $r<h+a$, and hence it beats the bound for $\frac nh<r<h+a$.
- The bound in Theorem \[thm:1.1\](v) outperforms both the bounds and for all parameter settings subject to $r=\widetilde{O}(\log n)$ and $hr=\Omega\left( \frac{ n^{\frac23}}{{{\varepsilon}}}\right)$. It is clear that the bound in Theorem \[thm:1.1\](v) is better than . As $r=\widetilde{O}(\log n)$, then we have $\left(\frac nr\right)^h>n^{h(1-o(1))}>n^{2h(1+{{\varepsilon}})/3}$ and hence the bound in Theorem \[thm:1.1\](v) beats in this case.
- As the bound in Theorem \[thm:1.1\](vi) is even better than the bound in Theorem \[thm:1.1\](v), the bound in Theorem \[thm:1.1\](vi) beats both the bounds and for all parameter settings subject to $r=\widetilde{O}({{\varepsilon}}\log n)$ and $hr=O\left(n^{1-{{\varepsilon}}}\right)$ for a positive real ${{\varepsilon}}\in(0,0.5)$.
- When the dimension $k$ is much smaller than $n$, then the probabilistic bound gives the field size $O(n^k)=O(2^{k\log n})$ which is the same size as in Theorem \[thm:1.1\](vii) for $r{\leqslant}\log n$. When the dimension $k$ is proportional to $n$, then the probabilistic bound gives the field size $2^{O(n)}$ which is the same as the bound $2^n$ in Theorem \[thm:1.1\](vii) for $r{\geqslant}\log n$.
- Finally, the bound in Theorem \[thm:1.1\](viii) clearly outperforms the bound when $k < n/r$.
The bound in Theorem \[thm:1.1\](vii) beats both of the bounds and for $\frac{n}{h\log n}<a<r\left(1-\frac{2}{\log r}\right)$. Furthermore, when the dimension $k$ of the code is proportional to $n$, our bound \[thm:1.1\](vii) gives $2^n$ for $r{\geqslant}\log n$ which almost matches the probabilistic bound $O(2^{nH_2(k/n)})$ given in , where $H_2(x)=-x\log x-(1-x)\log(1-x)$ is the binary entropy function.
Our techniques {#subsec:techniques}
--------------
Note that construction of MR LRCs is equivalent to construction of certain generator or parity-check matrices with requirement of column linear independence (see Section \[subsec:2.1\]).
Our construction idea departs from previous approaches and is based on function fields over a finite field ${\mathbb{F}}_q$. The key in constructing an MR LRC is the choice of the heavy parity checks. We now briefly describe our idea to pick these. We associate with each of the $g=n/r$ local groups a distinguishing (high degree) place $P_i$, $1 {\leqslant}i {\leqslant}g$. The degree of the place is chosen large enough to guarantee the existence of at least $g$ such places. For each local group, we pick functions $f_{ij}$, $1 {\leqslant}j {\leqslant}r$, that have *exactly one pole at $P_i$*. The coefficients of the $h$ heavy parity checks corresponding to the $j$’th symbol of $i$’th local group are chosen to be $$\label{eq:pc-col}
(f_{ij}(Q), f_{ij}^q(Q),\dots,f_{ij}^{q^{h-1}}(Q))^T \ ,$$ where $Q$ is a place of sufficiently high degree, so that the evaluations $f_{ij}(Q)$ belong to an extension field ${\mathbb{F}}_\ell$ which will be the final alphabet size of the MR LRC. By properties of the Moore determinant (Section \[subsec:2.2\]) and the large degree of $Q$, the required linear independence of columns such as over ${\mathbb{F}}_\ell$ reduces to a certain linear independence requirement for the $f_{ij}$’s over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$. Across different local groups such linear independence follows because a function with one pole at $P_i$ cannot cancel a function with one pole at a different place $P_{i'}$. Within a local group, the required linear independence is ensured by choosing the $f_{ij}$’s within a group so that any $h+a$ of them (which is the maximum number of erasures we can have within a group) are linearly independent over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$.
We remark that all our various guarantees of Theorem \[thm:1.1\] except Parts (v) and (vi) are obtained using just the rational function field, and can be described in elementary language using just polynomials, as we do in Section \[sec:rational-FF\]. The idea is: (i) choose a divisor $G$ of degree $2\g-1$, where $\g$ is the genus of the function field; (ii) choose $g$ positive divisors $P_i$ with disjoint supports of degree $m$ and functions $g_{i1},\dots,g_{ir}$ such that the pole divisors of these functions are upper bounded by $G+P_i$ and any $h+a$ of them are linearly independent. Thus, any linear combination of these functions still has pole divisor upper bounded by the divisor $G+P_i$. We can then choose a place $Q$ of larger degree and consider evaluation of these functions at this place. The values of these functions at $Q$ belong to a larger constant field which is the field of desired partial MR LRCs.
As $Q$ has large enough degree, showing linear independence of columns is equivalent to showing linear independence of these functions by the Moore determinant. As $P_i$ are positive divisors with disjoint supports, linear independence of these functions is guaranteed.
Organization
------------
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce some preliminaries such as MR LRCs (both the generator and parity check matrix viewpoints) and Moore determinants. In Section 3, we present our constructions of MR LRCs using the rational function field together with a concatenation with classical codes of good rate vs. distance trade-off. We give two constructions, using the generator matrix viewpoint in the first part (yielding Parts (vii) and (viii) of Theorem \[thm:1.1\]), and then a parity check based construction in second part which yields Parts (i)-(iv) of Theorem \[thm:1.1\]. This section is elementary and only uses properties of polynomials. In Section 4, we generalize the construction of MR LRCs via parity-check matrix given in Section 3 by making use of arbitrary algebraic function fields. The necessary preliminaries on function fields are deferred to this section as we do not need them in Section 3. We then apply this construction to Hermitian function fields and the Garcia-Stichtenoth tower to obtain MR LRCs promised in Parts (v) and (vi) of Theorem \[thm:1.1\] respectively.
theory of function fields, Hermitian function fields and the Garcia-Stichenoth tower. In the first part of Section 3, we present a construction of MR LRCs based on generator matrix of an MR LRC and concatenation of classical codes with good parameters and then apply this construction to obtain MR LRCs in various regimes. In the second part of Section 3, we give a construction of MR LRCs based on parity-check matrix of an MR LRC and concatenation of classical codes with good parameters.
Preliminaries
=============
Maximally recoverable local reconstruction codes {#subsec:2.1}
------------------------------------------------
Throughout this paper, ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ denotes the finite field of $q$ elements for a prime power $q$. We use ${\mathbb{F}}_q^{k\times n}$ to denote the set of all $k\times n$ matrices over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$.
Consider a distributed storage system where there are $g$ disjoint locality groups and each group has size $r$ and can locally correct any $a$ erasure errors. In addition, the system can correct any $h$ erasure errors together with any $a$ erasure errors in each group. This requires a class of codes called [*maximally recoverable local reconstruction codes*]{} or [*partial MDS codes*]{} for error correction of such a system. The precise definition of MR LRCs is given below.
\[def:1\]
Let $\ell$ be a prime power and let $a,g,r,h$ be positive integers satisfying $ga+h<gr$. Put $n=gr$ and $k=n-ga-h$. An $\ell$-ary $[n,k]$-linear code with a generator matrix of the form $$G=(B_1|B_2|\cdots|B_g)\in{\mathbb{F}}_{\ell}^{k\times n}$$ is called a maximally recoverable $(n,r,h,a)_\ell$-local reconstruction code (or an MR $(n,r,h,a)_\ell$-LRC, for short) if
- each $B_i$ has size $k\times r$;
- the row span of each $B_i$ is an $[r,r-a,a+1]_\ell$-MDS code for $1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}g$ (note that $B_i$ is not a generator matrix of this MDS code in general);
- after puncturing $a$ columns from each $B_i$, the remaining matrix of $G$ generates an $[n-ga,k,h+1]_\ell$-MDS code.
From the definition, an MR $(n,r,h,a)_q$-LRC can correct $h$ erasure errors at arbitrarily positions together with any $a$ erasure errors in each of $g$ groups. The following lemma directly follows from Definition \[def:1\].
\[lem:2.1\] A matrix $G=(B_1|B_2|\cdots|B_g)\in{\mathbb{F}}_\ell^{k\times n}$ is a generator matrix of an MR $(n,r,h,a)_\ell$-LRC if and only if every $k\times k$ submatrix $S$ of $G$ with at most $r-a$ columns per block $B_i$ is invertible.
One can have an equivalent definition via parity-check matrix.
\[def:2\]
Let $\ell$ be a prime power and let $a,g,r,h$ be positive integers satisfying $ga+h<gr$. Put $n=gr$ and $k=n-ga-h$. An $\ell$-ary $[n,k]$-linear code with a parity-check matrix of the form $$\label{eq:5} H=\left(\begin{array}{c|c|c|c}
A_1&O&\cdots&O\\ \hline
O&A_2&\cdots&O \\ \hline
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots \\ \hline
O&O&\cdots&A_g \\ \hline
D_1&D_2&\cdots&D_g
\end{array}
\right)\in{\mathbb{F}}_{\ell}^{(n-k)\times n}$$ is called an MR $(n,r,h,a)_\ell$-LRC if
- each $A_i$ has size $a\times r$ and each $D_i$ has size $h\times r$;
- each $A_i$ generates an $[r,a,r-a+1]_\ell$-MDS code for $1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}g$ (note that the nullspace of $A_i$ is $[r,r-a,a+1]_\ell$ code);
- every $ag+h$ columns consisting of any $a$ columns in each group and other arbitrary $h$ columns are ${\mathbb{F}}_\ell$-linearly independent.
<!-- -->
- To see equivalence between Definitions \[def:1\] and \[def:2\], we note that each $A_i$ in Definition \[def:2\] is actually a parity-check matrix of the code generated by $B_i$ given in Definition \[def:1\].
- In this paper, we will use both Definitions \[def:1\] and \[def:2\] for constructions of MR LRCs. However, the major results of this paper come from the constructions based one Definition \[def:2\], i.e., via parity-check matrices of the required form in .
Moore determinant {#subsec:2.2}
-----------------
Let $\ell$ be a power of $q$. For elements ${\alpha}_1,\dots,{\alpha}_h\in{\mathbb{F}}_\ell$, the Moore matrix is defined by $$M=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
{\alpha}_1&{\alpha}_2&\cdots&{\alpha}_h\\
{\alpha}_1^q&{\alpha}_2^q&\cdots&{\alpha}_h^q\\
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots \\
{\alpha}_1^{q^{h-1}} &{\alpha}_2^{q^{h-1}} &\cdots&{\alpha}_h^{q^{h-1}}
\end{array}
\right)\in{\mathbb{F}}_{\ell}^{h\times h}.$$ The determinant $\det(M)$ is given by the following formula $$\det(M)=\prod_{(c_1,\dots,c_h)}(c_1{\alpha}_1+\cdots+c_h{\alpha}_h),$$ where $(c_1,\dots,c_h)$ runs through all non-zero direction vectors in ${\mathbb{F}}_q^\ell$. Thus, $\det(M)\neq 0$ if and only if ${\alpha}_1,\dots,{\alpha}_h$ are ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linearly independent.
Explicit constructions via rational function fields {#sec:rational-FF}
===================================================
In this section, we only introduce constructions of MR LRCs from rational function fields. Our description will be self-contained and elementary in terms of polynomials and we won’t be requiring any background on algebraic function fields (we have therefore deferred the background on function fields to Section 4 ahead of our more general construction in the next section).
Constructions via generator matrix
----------------------------------
In this subsection, we present constructions of MR LRCs using Definition \[def:1\], i.e., via generator matrices of MR LRCs.
Let $N_q(d)$ denote the number of monic irreducible polynomials of degree $d$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$. Then one has $\sum_{d|m}dN_q(d)=q^m$ for any $m{\geqslant}1$ (see [@LN03 Corollary 3.21 of Chapter 3]). This gives $\sum_{d|m}N_q(d){\geqslant}\frac{q^m}m$. For each monic irreducible polynomial $p(x)$ of degree $d$ with $d|m$, we get a polynomial $g(x)^{m/d}$ of degree $m$. Thus, for any $g{\leqslant}\left\lceil\frac{q^m}m\right\rceil$, there are $g$ polynomials $p_1(x),p_2(x),\dots,p_g(x)$ of degree $m$ such that $\gcd(p_i(x),p_j(x))=1$ for all $1{\leqslant}i\neq j{\leqslant}g$
Assume that (i) $m{\geqslant}r$; or (ii) $m<r$ and there is a $q$-ary $[r,r-m,{\geqslant}r-a+1]$-linear code, i.e. there exists a subset of ${\mathbb{F}}_q^{m}$ of size $r$ such that any $r-a$ elements in this subset are ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linearly independent.
Choose $g{\leqslant}\left\lceil \frac{q^m}m\right\rceil$ polynomials $p_1(x),p_2(x),\dots,p_g(x)$ of degree $m$ such that $\gcd(p_i(x),p_j(x))=1$ for all $1{\leqslant}i\neq j{\leqslant}g$. Then for each $1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}g$, we can form an ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-vector $V_i:=\left\{\frac{f(x)}{p_i(x)}:\; f(x)\in{\mathbb{F}}_q[x],\; \deg(f(x)){\leqslant}m-1\right\}$ of dimension $m$. Under our condition on $m$, one can find $r$ functions $g_{i1}(x),\dots,g_{ir}(x)\in V_i$ such that any $r-a$ polynomials out of $\{g_{i1}(x),\dots,g_{ir}(x)\}$ are ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linearly independent. Choose an irreducible polynomial $Q(x)\in{\mathbb{F}}_q[x]$ such that $Q(x)$ is coprime with every $p_i(x)$ for $1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}g$. For a function $h(x)\in V_i$, we use $h(Q)$ to denote the residue class of $h(x)$ in the residue class field ${\mathbb{F}}_q[x]/Q(x)\simeq{\mathbb{F}}_{q^{\deg(Q)}}$.
\[lem:3.1\] Let $T$ be a subset $\{1,2,\dots,g\}$ with $|T|{\leqslant}\deg(Q)/m$. If $\sum_{i\in T}g_i(Q)=0$ for some functions $g_i\in V_i$, then $g_i=0$ for all $i\in T$.
Write $g_i=\frac{f_i}{p_i}$ for some polynomials $f_i$ with $\deg(f_i){\leqslant}m-1$. The equality $\sum_{i\in T}g_i(Q)=0$ implies that $\sum_{i\in T}f_i(x)\prod_{j\in T\setminus\{i\}}p_j(x)$ is divisible by $Q(x)$. As $\deg(\sum_{i\in T}f_i(x)\prod_{j\in T\setminus\{i\}}p_j(x)){\leqslant}m|T|-1$, we must have that $\sum_{i\in T}f_i(x)\prod_{j\in T\setminus\{i\}}p_j(x)$ is the zero polynomial. Suppose that $f_t\neq 0$ for some $t\in T$, then we have $$\sum_{i\in T\setminus\{t\}}f_i(x)\prod_{j\in T\setminus\{i\}}p_j(x)=-f_t(x)\prod_{j\in T\setminus\{t\}}p_j(x).$$ The left hand side of the above equality is divisible by $p_t(x)$, while the right hand side of the above equality is not divisible by $p_t(x)$. This contradiction completes the proof.
Let $Q$ be an irreducible polynomial in ${\mathbb{F}}_q[x]$ of degree $$\min\{km,gm\}=\min\left\{km,\frac {nm}r\right\}=\min\left\{(n-\frac{an}r-h)m,\frac {nm}r\right\}.$$
Define the $k\times r$ matrix $B_i$ as follows. $$\label{eq:10}B_i=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}
g_{i1}(Q)& g_{i2}(Q)& \cdots & g_{ir}(Q) \\
g_{i1}^q(Q)& g_{i2}^q(Q)&\cdots & g_{ir}^q(Q) \\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots& \vdots\\
g_{i1}^{q^{k-1}}(Q)&g_{i2}^{q^{k-1}}(Q)& \cdots & g_{ir}^{q^{k-1}}(Q)
\end{array}
\right)\in {\mathbb{F}}_{q^{\deg(Q)}}^{k\times r}.$$
\[lem:3.2\] Assume that $m{\geqslant}r$ or there is a $q$-ary $[r,r-m,{\geqslant}r-a+1]$-linear code. Let $B_i$ be the matrix given in . Put $\ell=q^{\min\left\{(n-\frac{an}r-h)m,\frac {nm}r\right\}}=q^{\min\left\{km,\frac {nm}r\right\}}$ and $G=(B_1|B_2|\cdots|B_g)\in{\mathbb{F}}_{\ell}^{k\times n}$. Then the $\ell$-ary code $C$ with the generator matrix $G$ is an MR $(n,r,h,a)_\ell$-LRC.
Let $A$ be a $k\times k$ submatrix of $G$ with at most $r-a$ columns per block $B_i$. By Lemma \[lem:2.1\], it is sufficient to show that $A$ is invertible. It follows from Subsection \[subsec:2.2\] that this is equivalent to showing that the first row of $A$ is ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linearly independent. Let $S_i$ be a subset of $\{(i,1),(i,2),\dots,(i,r)\}$ for $i=1,2,\dots,g$ such that the first row of $A$ is $(g_{ij}(Q))_{j\in S_i,1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}g}$. Then $\sum_{i=1}^{g}|S_i|=k$ and $|S_i|{\leqslant}r-a$. Let $T$ be a subset of $\{1,2,\dots,g\}$ such that $S_i\neq\emptyset$ if and only if $i\in T$. Then $\sum_{i=1}^{g}|S_i|=\sum_{i\in T}|S_i|=k$ and hence $|T|{\leqslant}\min\{k,g\}$. Let ${\lambda}_{ij}\in{\mathbb{F}}_q$ such that $$\sum_{i=1}^{g}\sum_{j\in S_i}{\lambda}_{ij}g_{ij}(Q)=\sum_{i\in T}\left(\sum_{j\in S_i}{\lambda}_{ij}g_{ij}\right)(Q) =0.$$ Since $|T|{\leqslant}\min\{k,g\}=\deg(Q)/m$, it follows from Lemma \[lem:3.1\] that the function $\sum_{j\in S_i}{\lambda}_{ij}g_{ij}=0$ for each $i\in T$. As $\{g_{ij}\}_{j\in S_i}$ are ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linearly independent, we get ${\lambda}_{ij}=0$ for all $j\in S_i$. This completes the proof.
By taking $m=r$, we obtain the following result.
\[thm:3.3\] If $r{\geqslant}\log n$, then there exists an MR $(n,r,h,a)$-LRC of dimension $k=n-\frac{na}r-h$ over a field of size $$\ell{\leqslant}\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
2^{\min\left\{rk,n \right\}} {\leqslant}2^{ n} &\mbox{ if $r{\geqslant}\log n$} \\
2^{\min\left\{k\lceil\log n\rceil,\frac nr \lceil\log n\rceil \right\}}&\mbox{ if $r{\leqslant}\log n$}
\end{array}\right.$$
If $r{\geqslant}\log n$, put $m=r$. If $r{\leqslant}\lceil\log n\rceil$, put $m=\log n$. Consider the rational function field ${\mathbb{F}}_2(x)$. To have $g=\frac{n}r$ pairwise coprime polynomials $\{p_i(x)\}_{i=1}^g$ of degree $m$, it is sufficient to satisfy the inequality $2^m{\geqslant}mg=m\times\frac nr$, i.e., $2^r{\geqslant}n$ which is the given condition. Now the desired result follows from Lemma \[lem:3.2\].
By considering binary BCH codes, we obtain the following binary codes.
\[lem:3.4\] There exists a binary $[r,r-m,{\geqslant}d]$-linear code with $m=\lfloor\frac{d-1}2\rfloor\cdot\lceil\log_2r\rceil+1$.
Put $t=\lceil\log_2r\rceil$. Then we have a binary $[2^t, 2^t-1-\lfloor(d-1)/2\rfloor t, d]$-extended BCH code for any $d{\geqslant}2$.
Puncturing $2^t-r$ positions, one gets a binary $[r,r-1-\lfloor(d-1)/2\rfloor t,{\geqslant}d]$-linear code.
Combining the binary BCH codes of Lemma \[lem:3.4\] with Lemma \[lem:3.2\] applied with rational function field ${\mathbb{F}}_2(x)$ yields the following theorem.
\[thm:3.5\] If $r-a=\Omega(\log n)$, then there exists an MR $(n,r,h,a)$-LRC of dimension $k=n-\frac{na}r-h$ over a field of size $$\ell {\leqslant}2r^{\min\left\{k\lfloor\frac{r-a}2\rfloor,\frac {n}r\lfloor\frac{r-a}2\rfloor\right\}}{\leqslant}2r^{\frac {n}r\lfloor\frac{r-a}2\rfloor}.$$
Consider the rational function field ${\mathbb{F}}_2(x)$ and a binary $[r,r-m, r-a+1]$-linear code with $m=\lfloor\frac{r-a}2\rfloor\cdot\lceil\log_2r\rceil+1$. To have $g=\frac{n}r$ pairwise coprime polynomials $\{p_i(x)\}_{i=1}^g$ of degree $m$, it is sufficient to satisfy the inequality $2^m{\geqslant}mg=m\times\frac nr$. Under the condition that $r-a=\Omega(\log n)$, this inequality is satisfied. Now the desired result follows from Lemma \[lem:3.2\].
Constructions via parity-check matrix {#subsec:rational-pc}
-------------------------------------
To construct parity-check matrices of MR LRCs, we only need to construct matrices $D_i$ given in . As we will see, the idea of constructing matrices $D_i$ is quite similar to that of constructing matrices $B_i$ in the previous subsection. Our goal is to prove the following theorem.
\[thm:3.7\] Let $r,g,a,h,m$ be positive integers with $a{\leqslant}r$. Suppose that $q {\geqslant}r$ is a prime power satisfying $q^m{\geqslant}\frac{mn}r$ and there is a $q$-ary $[r,r-a,a+1]$-linear code. If (i) $m{\geqslant}r$; or (ii) $m<r$ and there exists a $q$-ary $[r,r-m,{\geqslant}h+a+1]$-linear code, then there exists an MR $(n,r,h,a)$-LRC with $n=rg$ over a field of size $\ell={q^{\min\{hm,\frac {nm}r\}}}$.
Let $q$ be a prime power and denote by ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ the finite field of $q$ elements. Assume (i) $m{\geqslant}r$; or (ii) $m<r $ and there is a $q$-ary $[r,r-m,{\geqslant}h+a+1]$-linear code, i.e., there exists a subset of ${\mathbb{F}}_q^{m}$ of size $r$ such that any $h+a$ elements in this subset are ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linearly independent. We can choose $g{\leqslant}\left\lceil \frac{q^m}m\right\rceil$ polynomials $p_1(x),p_2(x),\dots,p_g(x)$ of degree $m$ such that $\gcd(p_i(x),p_j(x))=1$ for all $1{\leqslant}i\neq j{\leqslant}g$. Then for each $1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}g$, we can form an ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-vector space $$V_i:=\left\{\frac{f(x)}{p_i(x)}:\; f(x)\in{\mathbb{F}}_q[x],\; \deg(f(x)){\leqslant}m-1\right\}$$ of dimension $m$. Under our assumption about $m$, one can find $r$ functions $g_{i1}(x),\dots,g_{ir}(x)\in V_i$ such that any $h+a$ polynomials out of $\{g_{i1}(x),\dots,g_{ir}(x)\}$ are ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linearly independent.
Choose an irreducible polynomial $Q(x)\in{\mathbb{F}}_q[x]$ of degree $\min\{hm,\frac {nm}r\}$ and define the matrix $$\label{eq:11}D_i=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}
g_{i1}(Q)& g_{i2}(Q)& \cdots & g_{ir}(Q) \\
g_{i1}^q(Q)& g_{i2}^q(Q)&\cdots & g_{ir}^q(Q) \\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots& \vdots\\
g_{i1}^{q^{h-1}}(Q)&g_{i2}^{q^{h-1}}(Q)& \cdots & g_{ir}^{q^{h-1}}(Q)
\end{array}
\right)$$ Since $q {\geqslant}r {\geqslant}a$, we can pick $A_i\in{\mathbb{F}}_q^{a\times r}$ to be a generator matrix of an $[r,a]_q$-MDS code for $1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}g$. Let $D_i$ be the matrix given in . Then, we will prove that code $C$ with the matrix $H$ defined in is an MR $(n,r,h,a)$-LRC over a field of size $$\ell=q^{\min\{hm,\frac {nm}r\}} ,$$ which will complete the proof of Theorem \[thm:3.7\].
To this end, it is sufficient to prove that the condition (iii) in Definition \[def:2\] is satisfied. Let $T_i$ be a subset of $\{(i,1),(i,2),\dots,(i,r)\}$ with $|T_i|=a$ for $1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}g$. Let $S_i$ be a subset of $\{(i,1),(i,2),\dots,(i,r)\}\setminus T_i$ for $i=1,2,\dots,g$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{g}|S_i|=h$. Put $A_i=(\ba_{i1},\dots,\ba_{ir})$ and let $\bh_{ij}$ be the $j$th column of the block $i$ in $H$, i.e., $\bh_{ij}=(\bo,\cdots, \ba_{ij}^T,\cdots,\bo,g_{ij}(Q),g_{ij}^q(Q),\dots,$ $g_{ij}^{q^{h-1}}(Q))^T$. To prove the condition (iii) in Definition \[def:2\], it is equivalent to proving that the determinant $\det((\bh_{ij})_{1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}n, j\in T_i\cup S_i})$ is nonzero for all possible $T_i$ and $S_i$ given above.
Put $M_i=(\ba_{ij})_{j\in T_i}$ and $N_i=(\ba_{ij})_{j\in S_i}$. Denote by $K_i$ and $L_i$ the submatrices $D_i|_{T_i}$ and $D_i|_{S_i}$ of $D_i$ consisting columns indexed by $T_i$ and $S_i$, respectively. Then we have $$(\bh_{ij})_{1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}n, j\in T_i\cup S_i}=\left(\begin{array}{c|c|c|c}
M_1,N_1&O&\cdots&O\\ \hline
O&M_2,N_2&\cdots&O \\ \hline
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots \\ \hline
O&O&\cdots&M_g,N_g \\ \hline
K_1,L_1&K_2,L_2&\cdots&K_g,L_g
\end{array}
\right)\in{\mathbb{F}}_{\ell}^{(ag+h)\times (ag+h)}$$
As $M_i=(\ba_{ij})_{j\in T_i}\in{\mathbb{F}}_q^{a\times a}$ is invertible, the product [$$\left(\begin{array}{c|c|c|c}
M_1,N_1&O&\cdots&O\\ \hline
O&M_2,N_2&\cdots&O \\ \hline
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots \\ \hline
O&O&\cdots&M_g,N_g \\ \hline
K_1,L_1&K_2,L_2&\cdots&K_g,L_g
\end{array}
\right)\cdot \left(\begin{array}{c|c|c|c}
\begin{array}{cc}I_a,&-M_1^{-1}N_1\\
O&I_{|S_1|}\end{array}
&O&\cdots&O\\ \hline
O&\begin{array}{cc}I_a,&-M_2^{-1}N_2\\
O&I_{|S_2|}\end{array}&\cdots&O \\ \hline
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots \\ \hline
O&O&\cdots&\begin{array}{cc}I_a,&-M_g^{-1}N_g\\
O&I_{|S_g|}\end{array}
\end{array}
\right)$$ ]{} is equal to $$\left(\begin{array}{c|c|c|c}
M_1,O&O&\cdots&O\\ \hline
O&M_2,O&\cdots&O \\ \hline
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots \\ \hline
O&O&\cdots&M_g,O\\ \hline
K_1,-K_1M_1^{-1}N_1+L_1&K_2,-K_2M_2^{-1}N_2+L_2&\cdots&K_g,-K_gM_g^{-1}N_g+L_g
\end{array}
\right)$$ This implies that $\det((\bh_{ij})_{1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}n, j\in T_i\cup S_i})$ is nonzero if and only if the matrix $$\label{eq:12}
(-K_1M_1^{-1}N_1+L_1|-K_2M_2^{-1}N_2+L_2|\cdots|-K_gM_g^{-1}N_g+L_g)\in{\mathbb{F}}_\ell^{h\times h}$$ is invertible. Note that the matrix in is a Moore matrix with the first row: $$\label{eq:13}\left(\left(g_{ij}+\sum_{l\in T_i}\mu_{lj}g_{lj}\right)(Q)\right)_{1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}g,j\in S_i}$$ for some $\mu_{lj}\in{\mathbb{F}}_q$. By the property of the Moore determinant, proving the condition (iii) in Definition \[def:2\] is equivalent to showing that the $h$ elements in are ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linearly independent.
Let $R$ be a subset of $\{1,2,\dots,g\}$ such that $S_i\neq\emptyset$ if and only if $i\in R$. Then $\sum_{i=1}^{g}|S_i|=\sum_{i\in R}|S_i|=h$ and hence $|R|{\leqslant}\min\{h,g\}=\min\{h,\frac nr\}=\deg(Q)/m$. Let ${\lambda}_{ij}\in{\mathbb{F}}_q$ such that\
$\sum_{i=1}^{g}\sum_{j\in S_i}{\lambda}_{ij}\left(g_{ij}+\sum_{l\in T_i}\mu_{lj}g_{lj}\right)(Q)=0$, i.e., $$\sum_{i\in R}\sum_{j\in S_i}{\lambda}_{ij}\left(g_{ij}+\sum_{l\in T_i}\mu_{lj}g_{lj}\right)(Q)=0.$$ By Lemma \[lem:3.1\], $\sum_{j\in S_i}{\lambda}_{ij}g_{ij}+\sum_{l\in T_i}\mu_{lj}\left(\sum_{j\in S_i}{\lambda}_{ij} \right)g_{lj}=0$ for each $1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}g$. As $\{g_{ij}\}_{j\in T_i\cup S_i}$ are ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linearly independent, we get ${\lambda}_{ij}=0$ for all $j\in S_i$. This completes the proof.
We now instantiate Theorem \[thm:3.7\] with suitable choices of parameters to deduce the promises parts (i)-(iv) of Theorem \[thm:1.1\].
### The case where $a=1$
Let $r,h{\geqslant}2$ be integers. Then there is a $q$-ary $[r,1,r]$-MDS code for any prime power $q$. Rewriting Theorem \[thm:3.7\] for $a=1$ gives the following lemma.
\[lem:3.8\] Suppose that $q^m{\geqslant}\frac{mn}r$. If (i) $m{\geqslant}r$; or (ii) $m<r$ and there exists a $q$-ary $[r,r-m,{\geqslant}h+2]$-linear code, then there exists an MR $(n,r,h,1)$-LRC over a field of size $\ell={q^{\min\{hm,\frac {nm}r\}}}$.
To apply Lemma \[lem:3.8\], we need to find suitable codes and function fields as well. By taking the rational function field ${\mathbb{F}}_2(x)$ and applying BCH code given in Lemma \[lem:3.4\], we obtain the following result.
\[thm:3.9\] If $r{\geqslant}h+2$, then there exists an MR $(n,r,h,1)$-LRC over a field of size $$\ell {\leqslant}\left(\max\left\{\tilde{O}(\frac n{r}), (2r)^{\left\lfloor\frac{h+1}2\right\rfloor}\right\}\right)^{\min\{h,\frac nr\}} \ .$$
Consider the rational function field $F={\mathbb{F}}_2(x)$. Put $$m=\max\left\{\left\lfloor\frac{h+1}2\right\rfloor\cdot\lceil\log_2r\rceil+1,\left\lceil\log_2\left(\frac nr\right)+2\log_2\log_2\left(\frac nr\right)\right\rceil\right\}.$$ Then $\frac nr{\leqslant}\frac1m2^m$. This implies that there are $\frac nr$ places of degree $m$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_2(x)$. By Lemma \[lem:3.4\], there exists a binary $[r,r-m,{\geqslant}h+2]$-linear code. It follows from Lemma \[lem:3.8\] that there exists an MR $(n,r,h,1)$-LRC over a field of size $2^{\min\{mh,m\frac nr\}}$. By choice of our parameters, the desired result follows.
\[thm:3.10\] There exists an MR $(n,r,h,1)$-LRC over a field of size $$\ell {\leqslant}\left( \max\left\{ \tilde{O}(\frac nr), 2^r\right\}\right)^{\min\{h,\frac nr\}} \ .$$
Consider the rational function field ${\mathbb{F}}_2(x)$. Put $m=\max\{r,\left\lceil\log_2\left(\frac nr\right)+2\log_2\log_2\left(\frac nr\right)\right\rceil\}$. Then $\frac nr{\leqslant}\frac1m2^m.$ The desired follows from Lemma \[lem:3.8\].
\[rmk:4\][Theorem \[thm:3.10\] gives a better bound on the field size than Theorem \[thm:3.9\] for $h>\frac{2r}{\log_2r}-1$, while Theorem \[thm:3.9\] gives a better bound on the field size than Theorem \[thm:3.10\] for $h<\frac{2r}{\log_2r}-1$. ]{}
### The case where $2{\leqslant}a{\leqslant}r-1$
\[lem:3.11\] Let $a{\leqslant}r{\leqslant}q+1$ and $m{\geqslant}h+a$. If $q^m{\geqslant}\frac{mn}r$, then there exists an MR $(n,r,h,a)$-LRC code over a field of size $\ell={q^{\min\{mh,\frac{mn}r\}}}$.
Under the assumption that $a{\leqslant}r{\leqslant}q+1$ and $m{\geqslant}h+a$, we have an $[r,r-a,a+1]_q$-MDS code and an $[r,r-m,h+a+1]_q$-linear code. The desired result follows from Theorem \[thm:3.7\].
\[thm:3.12\] There exists an MR $(n,r,h,a)$-LRC over a field of size $$\ell {\leqslant}\left(\max\left\{\tilde{O}(\frac nr), (2r)^{h+a}\right\}\right)^{\min\{h,\frac nr\}} \ .$$
Let $q$ be the smallest prime power such that $q-1{\geqslant}r$. We may take $q$ to be a power of two, so that $q {\leqslant}2r$. Consider the rational function field $F={\mathbb{F}}_q(x)$ and let $$m=\max\left\{h+a, \left\lceil\log_q\left(\frac nr\right)+2\log_q\log_q\left(\frac nr\right)\right\rceil\right\}.$$ Then $\frac nr{\leqslant}\frac1m q^m$. The desired result follows from Theorem \[thm:3.7\].
\[rmk:3\][The field size $\ell {\leqslant}\tilde{O}\left(\max\left\{\frac nr, r^{h+a}\right\}^h\right)$ in Theorem \[thm:3.12\] was already given in [@GYBS17 Corollary 11]. Here we provide better result for $h>\frac nr$ via a different approach. ]{}
\[thm:3.13\] There exists an MR $(n,r,h,a)$-LRC over a field of size $$\ell {\leqslant}\left(\max\left\{\tilde{O}(\frac nr), (2r)^r\right\}\right)^{\min\{h,\frac nr\}} \ .$$
Put $q=2^{\lceil \log_2r\rceil}$. Then $2r {\geqslant}q{\geqslant}r$ and hence we have a $q$-ary $[r,a]$-MDS code for any $a{\leqslant}r$. Put $m=\max\{r,\left\lceil\log_q\left(\frac nr\right)+2\log_q\log_q\left(\frac nr\right)\right\rceil\}$. Then $\frac nr{\leqslant}\frac1mq^m.$ The desired follows from Theorem \[thm:3.9\].
\[rmk:5\][Theorem \[thm:3.13\] gives a better bound on the field size than Theorem \[thm:3.12\] for $h+a>r$, while Theorem \[thm:3.12\] gives a better bound on the field size than Theorem \[thm:3.13\] for $h+a<r$. ]{}
Explicit construction via general function fields
=================================================
The construction via rational function fields given in Section 3 can be easily generalized to arbitrary function fields. We begin with some preliminaries on function fields.
Background on function fields
-----------------------------
A function field over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ is a field $F$ containing ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ satisfying that there is a transcendental element $x\in F$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ such that $F$ is an algebraic extension over ${\mathbb{F}}_q(x)$. If ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ is algebraic closed in $F$, then ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ is called the full constant field of $F$, denoted by $F/{\mathbb{F}}_q$.
Each discrete valuation $\nu$ from $F/{\mathbb{F}}_q$ to $\ZZ\cup\{+
\infty\}$ defines a local ring $O=\{f\in F:\; \nu(f){\geqslant}0\}$. The maximal ideal $P$ of $O$ is called a [*place*]{}. We denote the valuation $\nu$ and the local ring $O$ corresponding to $P$ by $\nu_P$ and $O_P$, respectively. The residue class field $O_P/P$, denoted by $F_P$, is a finite extension of ${\mathbb{F}}_q$. The extension degree $[F_P:{\mathbb{F}}_q]$ is called [*degree*]{} of $P$, denoted by $\deg(P)$. A place of degree one is called a [*rational*]{} place. For two functions $f,g\in F$ and a place $P$, we have $\nu_P(f+g){\geqslant}\min\{\nu_P(f),\nu_P(g)\}$ and the equality holds if $\nu_p(f)\neq\nu_P(g)$ (note that we set $\nu_P(0)=+\infty$). In particular, this implies that $f+g\neq 0$ if $\nu_P(f)\neq\nu_P(g)$. [^3]
Let $\PP_F$ denote the set of places of $F$ and let $\PP_F(m)$ denote the set of places of degree $m$ of $F$. A divisor $D$ of $F$ is a formal sum $\sum_{P\in\PP_F}m_PP$, where $m_P\in\ZZ$ are equal to $0$ except for finitely many $P$. The degree of $D$ is defined to be $\deg(D)=\sum_{P\in\PP_F}m_P\deg(P)$. We say that $D$ is positive, denoted by $D{\geqslant}0$, if $m_P{\geqslant}0$ for all $P\in\PP_F$. For a nonzero function $f$, the principal divisor $(f)$ is defined to be $\sum_{P\in\PP_F}\nu_P(f)P$. Then the degree of the principal divisor $(f)$ is $0$. The Riemann-Roch space associated with a divisor $D$, denoted by $\mL(D)$, is defined by $$\label{eq:6}
\mL(D):=\{f\in F\setminus\{0\}:\; (f)+D{\geqslant}0\}\cup\{0\}.$$ Then $\mL(D)$ is a finite dimensional space over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$. By the Riemann-Roch theorem [@St93], the dimension of $\mL(D)$, denoted by $\dim_{{\mathbb{F}}_q}(D)$, is lower bounded by $\deg(D)-\g+1$, i.e., $\dim_{{\mathbb{F}}_q}(D){\geqslant}\deg(D)-\g+1$, where $\g$ is the genus of $F$. Furthermore, $\dim_{{\mathbb{F}}_q}(D)= \deg(D)-\g+1$ if $\deg(D){\geqslant}2\g-1$. In addition, we have the following results [@St93 Lemma 1.4.8 and Corollary 1.4.12(b)]:
- If $\deg(D)<0$, then $\dim_{{\mathbb{F}}_q}(D)= 0$;
- For a positive divisor $G$, we have $\dim_{{\mathbb{F}}_q}(D)-\dim_{{\mathbb{F}}_q}(D-G){\leqslant}\deg(G)$, i.e., $\dim_{{\mathbb{F}}_q}(D-G){\geqslant}\dim_{{\mathbb{F}}_q}(D)-\deg(G)$.
For a nonzero function $f$, we denote by $(f)_0$ and $(f)_{\infty}$ the zero and pole divisors of $f$, respectively, i.e., $$(f)_0=\sum_{P\in\PP_F, \nu_P(f)>0}\nu_P(f)P \quad
and \quad (f)_\infty=-\sum_{P\in\PP_F, \nu_P(f)<0}\nu_P(f)P.$$ We have $\deg((f)_0)=\deg((f)_\infty)$ since the degree of the principal divisor $(f) = (f)_0 - (f)_\infty$ equals $0$.
Let $\ell=q^m$ for a positive integer and let $F/{\mathbb{F}}_q$ be a function field. Then every place of degree $m$ of $F$ splits into $m$ ${\mathbb{F}}_\ell$-rational place in the constant field extension ${\mathbb{F}}_\ell\cdot F$. We also call an ${\mathbb{F}}_\ell$-rational place of ${\mathbb{F}}_\ell\cdot F$ an ${\mathbb{F}}_\ell$-rational place of $F$. Let $N_\ell$ denote the number of ${\mathbb{F}}_\ell$-rational places of $F$ and let $B_i$ denote the number of places of $F$ of degree $i$. Then we have the relation (see [@St93 page 178]) $$\label{eq:7}
N_m=\sum_{d|m}d\cdot B_d.$$ It immediately follows from that $\sum_{d|m}B_d{\geqslant}\lceil \frac{N_m}{m}\rceil$. For each divisor $d$ of $m$ and each place $P$ of degree $d$ of $F$, $(m/d)P$ is a positive divisor of degree $m$. Thus, we have at least $$\label{eq:8}g=\sum_{d|\ell}B_d{\geqslant}\left\lceil \frac{N_\ell}{\ell}\right\rceil$$ positive divisors of degree $m$ whose supports are pairwise disjoint.
### Hermitian function field {#subsec:2.4}
Let $q$ be a prime power and let $s=q^m$ be a even power of a prime. The Hermitian function field $F/{\mathbb{F}}_{q}$ is given by $F={\mathbb{F}}_q(x,y)$, where $x,y$ are two transcendental elements over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ satisfying the equation $$y^{\sqrt{s}}+y=x^{\sqrt{s}+1}.$$ The genus of $F$ is $\g(F)=\frac12{\sqrt{s}(\sqrt{s}-1)}{\leqslant}\frac 12 s$. The number of ${\mathbb{F}}_s$-rational places of $F$ is $1+s^{3/2}$. One of these is the “point at infinity" which is the unique common pole of $x$ and $y$. The other $s^{3/2}$ places come from the ${\mathbb{F}}_s$-rational places lying over the unique zero $P_{\alpha}$ of $x-{\alpha}$ for each ${\alpha}\in{\mathbb{F}}_s$. Note that for every ${\alpha}\in{\mathbb{F}}_s$, $P_{\alpha}$ splits completely in ${\mathbb{F}}_s\cdot F$, i.e., there are $\sqrt{s}$ ${\mathbb{F}}_s$-rational places lying over $P_{\alpha}$. Intuitively, one can think of the ${\mathbb{F}}_s$-rational places of $F$ (besides $\Pin$) as being given by pairs $({\alpha},{\beta})\in {\mathbb{F}}_s^2$ that satisfy ${\beta}^{\sqrt{s}}+{\beta}={\alpha}^{\sqrt{s}+1}$. For each value of ${\alpha}\in {\mathbb{F}}_s$, there are precisely $\sqrt{s}$ solutions to $\beta \in {\mathbb{F}}_s$ satisfying ${\beta}^{\sqrt{s}}+{\beta}={\alpha}^{\sqrt{s}+1}$.
Thus, the genus $\g(F)$ of $F$ satisfies $2\g(F){\leqslant}N_m^{2/3}$.
### Garcia-Stichtenoth tower {#subsec:2.5}
The Garcia-Stichtenoth tower is an optimal one in the sense that the ratio of number of rational places against genus achieves the maximal possible value. Again let $q$ be a prime power and let $s=q^m$ be a even power of a prime. The Garcia-Stichtenoth towers that we are going to use for our code construction were discussed in [@GS95; @GS96]. The reader may refer to [@GS95; @GS96] for the detailed background on the Garcia-Stichtenoth function field tower. There are two optimal Garcia-Stichtenoth towers that are equivalent. For simplicity, we introduce the tower defined by the following recursive equations [@GS96] $$\label{eq:9}
x_{i+1}^{\sqrt{s}}+x_{i+1}=\frac{x_i^{\sqrt{s}}}{x_i^{\sqrt{s}-1}+1},\quad i=1,2,\dots,t-1.$$ Put $K_t={\mathbb{F}}_q(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_{t})$ for $t{\geqslant}2$.
[**Rational places.**]{} The function field $K_t$ has at least $s^{(t-1)/2}(s-\sqrt{s})+1$ ${\mathbb{F}}_s$-rational places. One of these is the “point at infinity" which is the unique pole $\Pin$ of $x_1$ (and is fully ramified). The other $s^{(t-1)/2}(s-\sqrt{s})$ come from the ${\mathbb{F}}_s$-rational places lying over the unique zero of $x_1-{\alpha}$ for each ${\alpha}\in{\mathbb{F}}_s$ with ${\alpha}^{\sqrt{s}}+{\alpha}\not=0$. For every ${\alpha}\in{\mathbb{F}}_s$ with ${\alpha}^{\sqrt{s}}+{\alpha}\not=0$, the unique zero of $x_1-{\alpha}$ splits completely in ${\mathbb{F}}_s\cdot K_t$, i.e., there are $s^{(t-1)/2}$ ${\mathbb{F}}_s$-rational places lying over the zero of $x_1-{\alpha}$. Let $\PP$ be the set of all the rational places lying over the zero of $x_1-{\alpha}$ for all ${\alpha}\in{\mathbb{F}}_s$ with ${\alpha}^{\sqrt{s}}+{\alpha}\not=0$. Then, intuitively, one can think of the $s^{(t-1)/2}(s-\sqrt{s})$ ${\mathbb{F}}_s$-rational places in $\PP$ as being given by $t$-tuples $({\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2,\dots,{\alpha}_t)\in {\mathbb{F}}_s^t$ that satisfy ${\alpha}_{i+1}^{\sqrt{s}}+{\alpha}_{i+1}=\frac{{\alpha}_i^{\sqrt{s}}}{{\alpha}_i^{\sqrt{s}-1}+1}$ for $i=1,2,\dots,t-1$ and ${\alpha}_1^{\sqrt{s}}+{\alpha}_1\not=0$. For each value of ${\alpha}\in {\mathbb{F}}_s$, there are precisely $\sqrt{s}$ solutions to $\beta \in {\mathbb{F}}_s$ satisfying ${\beta}^{\sqrt{s}}+{\beta}=\frac{{\alpha}^{\sqrt{s}}}{{\alpha}^{\sqrt{s}-1}+1}$, so the number of such $t$-tuples is $s^{(t-1)/2}(s-\sqrt{s})$ (there are $s-\sqrt{s}$ choices for ${\alpha}_1$, and then $\sqrt{s}$ choices for each successive ${\alpha}_i$, $2 {\leqslant}i {\leqslant}t$).
[**Genus.**]{} The genus $\g_t$ of the function field $K_t$ is given by $$\g_t=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
((\sqrt{s})^{t/2}-1)^2&\mbox{if $t$ is even}\\
((\sqrt{s})^{(t-1)/2}-1)((\sqrt{s})^{(t+1)/2}-1)&\mbox{if $t$ is odd.}\end{array}
\right.$$ Thus the genus of $\g(K_t)$ is upper bounded by $s^{t/2}$ and the number $N_m$ of ${\mathbb{F}}_s$-rational points is lower bounded by $$N_m{\geqslant}\left(q^{\frac m2}-1\right)\g(K_t).$$ By , there are at least $\frac{\left(q^{\frac m2}-1\right)\g(K_t)}{m}$ positive divisors of degree $m$ whose supports are pairwise disjoint.
MR LRCs from function fields
----------------------------
We only generalize the constructions of MR LRCs via parity-check matrices given in Section \[subsec:rational-pc\].
Let $q$ be a prime power and let $a, r,h, g$ be integers with $a{\leqslant}r{\leqslant}q+1$. Let $F/{\mathbb{F}}_q$ be a function field of genus $\g$. Let $P_1,P_2,\dots,P_g$ be $g$ positive divisors of degree $r$ whose supports are pairwise disjoint. Let $G$ be a divisor of degree $2\g-1$. By Riemann-Roch, $\dim \mathcal{L}(G) = \g$. Assume that $\{ f_1,f_2,\dots,f_{\g}\}$ is a basis of $\mL(G)$. For each $i$, extend this basis to a basis $\{f_1,f_2,\dots,f_{\g},f_{i1},f_{i2},\dots,f_{ir}\}$ of $\mL(G+P_i)$.
Let $Q$ be a place of degree $2\g+\min\{hr,n\}$ and define the matrix $$\label{eq:14}D_i=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}
f_{i1}(Q)& f_{i2}(Q)& \cdots & f_{ir}(Q) \\
f_{i1}^q(Q)& f_{i2}^q(Q)&\cdots & f_{ir}^q(Q) \\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots& \vdots\\
f_{i1}^{q^{h-1}}(Q)&f_{i2}^{q^{h-1}}(Q)& \cdots & f_{ir}^{q^{h-1}}(Q)
\end{array}
\right)$$ By mimicking the proof of Theorem \[thm:3.7\], we have the following result.
\[lem:4.1\] Let $A_i\in{\mathbb{F}}_q^{a\times r}$ be a generator matrix of an $[r,a]_q$-MDS code for $1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}g$. Let $D_i$ be the matrix given in . Put $\ell=q^{2\g+\min\{hr,n\}}$. Then the $\ell$-ary code $C$ with the matrix $H$ defined in is an MR $(n,r,h,a)_\ell$-LRC.
By mimicking the proof of Theorem \[thm:3.7\], it is sufficient to show that $$\left(\left(f_{ij}+\sum_{l\in T_i}\mu_{lj}f_{lj}\right)(Q)\right)_{1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}f,j\in S_i}$$ is ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linearly independent for any $\mu_{lj}\in{\mathbb{F}}_q$.
Let $T$ be a subset of $\{1,2,\dots,g\}$ such that $S_i\neq\emptyset$ if and only if $i\in T$. Then $\sum_{i=1}^{g}|S_i|=\sum_{i\in T}|S_i|=h$ and hence $|T|{\leqslant}\min\{h,g\}=\min\{h,\frac nr\}$. Let ${\lambda}_{ij}\in{\mathbb{F}}_q$ such that\
$\sum_{i=1}^{g}\sum_{j\in S_i}{\lambda}_{ij}\left(f_{ij}+\sum_{l\in T_i}\mu_{lj}f_{lj}\right)(Q)=0$, i.e., $$\sum_{i\in T}\sum_{j\in S_i}{\lambda}_{ij}\left(f_{ij}+\sum_{l\in T_i}\mu_{lj}f_{lj}\right)(Q)=0.$$ The function $\sum_{i\in T}\sum_{j\in S_i}{\lambda}_{ij}\left(f_{ij}+\sum_{l\in T_i}\mu_{lj}f_{lj}\right)$ belongs to the Riemann-Roch space $\mL(G+\sum_{i\in T}P_i-Q)$. As $\deg(G+\sum_{i\in T}P_i-Q){\leqslant}2\g-1+r|T|-\deg(Q)<0$, we have\
$\sum_{i\in T}\sum_{j\in S_i}{\lambda}_{ij}\left(f_{ij}+\sum_{l\in T_i}\mu_{lj}f_{lj}\right)=0$. Rewrite this equality into $$\sum_{i\in T}\left(\sum_{j\in S_i}{\lambda}_{ij}f_{ij}+\sum_{l\in T_i}\mu_{lj}\left(\sum_{j\in S_i}{\lambda}_{ij} \right)f_{lj}\right)=0.$$ This forces that $\sum_{j\in S_i}{\lambda}_{ij}f_{ij}+\sum_{l\in T_i}\mu_{lj}\left(\sum_{j\in S_i}{\lambda}_{ij} \right)f_{lj}=0$ for each $1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}g$. As $\{f_{ij}\}_{j\in T_i\cup S_i}$ are ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linearly independent, we get ${\lambda}_{ij}=0$ for all $j\in S_i$. This completes the proof.
Consequently, we have the following theorem.
\[thm:4.2\] Let $r,g,a,h$ be positive integers with $a{\leqslant}r{\leqslant}q+1$. If there is a function field $F/{\mathbb{F}}_q$ of genus $\g$ with $g$ positive divisors of degree $m$ whose supports are disjoint, then there exists an MR $(n,r,h,a)$-LRC with $n=rg$ over a field of size $\ell=q^{2\g+\min\{hr,n\}}$.
Finally, let us instantiate the above result with the Hermitian function fields and the Garcia-Stichtenoth tower, to deduce Parts (v) and (vi) promised in Theorem \[thm:1.1\] respectively. Note that both the results below kick-in for block lengths which are asymptotically at least $r^{O(r)}$, which is why we have the condition $r {\leqslant}O(\frac{\log n}{\log \log n})$ in the statement of Theorem \[thm:1.1\], Parts (v), (vi).
\[thm:4.3\] Let $a {\leqslant}r$ be integers. Then there are infinitely many $n {\geqslant}r^{\Omega(r)}$ such that there is MR $(n,r,h,a)$-LRC over a field of size at most $n^{\frac{2h}{3}\left(1+{{{\varepsilon}}}\right)}$ for any desired ${{\varepsilon}}\in (0,0.5)$ provided $hr {\geqslant}\Omega\left( \frac{ n^{\frac23}}{{{\varepsilon}}}\right)$.
Let $m$ be a parameter that is at least $\lceil \frac{\log r}{2} \rceil$ and let $q=4^m$. Then $q {\geqslant}r$ and we have a $q$-ary $[r,a]$-MDS code for any $a{\leqslant}r$. Consider the Hermitian function field $F/{\mathbb{F}}_q$ defined by the equation $y^{q^{0.5r}}+y=x^{q^{0.5r+1}}$. By Subsection \[subsec:2.4\], the genus $\g$ of $F$ satisfies $2\g{\leqslant}N_r^{2/3}$, where $N_r=1+q^{3r/2}$ is the number of ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^r}$-rational places of $F$. By , there are at least $\lceil \frac{N_r}{r}\rceil$ positive divisors of degree $r$ whose supports are pairwise disjoint. Let $n=r\times \lceil \frac{N_r}{r} \rceil$. Note that $N_r {\leqslant}n < N_r + r$, so $q^{3r/2} < n {\leqslant}q^{3r/2} + r$. Note that the smallest value of $n$ is $r^{O(r)}$ since we need $q {\geqslant}r$, and as we increase $m$ we get a family of codes with larger block lengths.
By Theorem \[thm:3.9\], there exists an MR $(n,r,h,a)$-LRC over a field of size $$q^{2\g+hr} = q^{hr\left(1+\frac{q^r}{hr}\right)} {\leqslant}n^{2h/3 \left(1+\frac{n^{2/3}}{hr}\right)} {\leqslant}n^{h\left(1+{{{\varepsilon}}}\right)\times\frac23} $$ where the last inequality follows from our assumed lower bound on $h$. .
Suppose $r {\leqslant}c \log n/\log \log n$ for a small enough constant $c$, and let $hr {\geqslant}\Omega\left( \frac{ n^{\frac23}}{{{\varepsilon}}}\right)$ for a positive real ${{\varepsilon}}\in(0,0.5)$. Then there exists an MR $(n_0,r,h,a)$-LRC of length $n_0 \in [n^{1 - o(1)},n+o(\log n)]$ over a field of size $O\left(n^{h\left(1+{{{\varepsilon}}}\right)\times\frac23}\right)$.
Let $q$ be an even power of two such that $q^{3r/2} {\leqslant}n$ and $q {\geqslant}r$. Such a $q$ exists under our assumed upper bound on $r$. Then we have a $q$-ary $[r,a]$-MDS code for any $a{\leqslant}r$. Consider the Hermitian function field $F/{\mathbb{F}}_q$ defined by the equation $y^{q^{0.5r}}+y=x^{q^{0.5r+1}}$. By Subsection \[subsec:2.4\], the genus $\g$ of $F$ satisfies $2\g{\leqslant}N_r^{2/3}$, where $N_r=1+q^{3r/2}$ is the number of ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^r}$-rational places of $F$. By , there are at least $\lceil \frac{N_r}{r}\rceil$ positive divisors of degree $r$ whose supports are pairwise disjoint. Let $n_0=r\times \lceil \frac{N_r}{r} \rceil {\geqslant}N_r$. Note that $q^{3r/2} < n_0 {\leqslant}q^{3r/2}+r$, so that $n_0$ satisfies $n^{1-o(1)} {\leqslant}n {\leqslant}n+o(\log n)$.
By Theorem \[thm:3.9\], there exists an MR $(n_0,r,h,a)$-LRC over a field of size $$q^{2\g+hr} = q^{hr\left(1+\frac{q^r}{hr}\right)} {\leqslant}n^{2h/3 \left(1+\frac{n^{2/3}}{hr}\right)} {\leqslant}n^{h\left(1+{{{\varepsilon}}}\right)\times\frac23} $$ as desired.
Let $q$ be an even power of a prime such that $q{\geqslant}r$. Then we have a $q$-ary $[r,a]$-MDS code for any $a{\leqslant}r$. Consider the Hermitian function field $F/{\mathbb{F}}_q$ defined by the equation $y^{q^{0.5r}}+y=x^{q^{0.5r+1}}$. By Subsection \[subsec:2.4\], the genus $\g$ of $F$ satisfies $2\g{\leqslant}N_r^{2/3}$, where $N_r=1+q^{3r/2}$ is the number of ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^r}$-rational places of $F$. By , there are at least $\frac{N_r}{r}$ positive divisors of degree $r$ whose supports are pairwise disjoint. Let $n=r\times \frac{N_r}{r}=N_r$. Then $r {\leqslant}O(\log n/\log \log n)$. By Theorem \[thm:3.9\], there exists an MR $(n,r,h,a)$-LRC over a field of size $$q^{2\g+hr}=q^{n^{2/3}+hr}=q^{hr\left(\frac{n^{2/3}}{hr}+1\right)}{\leqslant}n^{h\left({{{\varepsilon}}}+1\right)\times\frac23}. \qedhere$$
We now turn to a similar result using the Garcia-Stichtenoth tower of function fields.
\[thm:4.4\] Let $a {\leqslant}r$ be positive integers and let ${{\varepsilon}}\in(0,0.5)$. Then there are infinitely many $n {\geqslant}r^{\Omega(r/{{\varepsilon}})}$ such that there is MR $(n,r,h,a)$-LRC over a field of size at most $n^{{{\varepsilon}}h}$ provided $hr {\geqslant}\Omega\left(n^{1-{{\varepsilon}}}\right)$.
Let $m$ be a parameter that is at least $\lceil \frac{\log r}{2} \rceil$ and let $q=4^m$. Then $q {\geqslant}r$ and we have a $q$-ary $[r,a]$-MDS code for any $a{\leqslant}r$. Put $s=q^r$ and $t= \lceil \frac{4}{{{\varepsilon}}} \rceil$. Consider the $t$’th function field $K_t={\mathbb{F}}_q(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_{t})$ in the Garcia-Stichtenoth tower defined by $$\label{eq:15}
x_{i+1}^{\sqrt{s}}+x_{i+1}=\frac{x_i^{\sqrt{s}}}{x_i^{\sqrt{s}-1}+1},\quad i=1,2,\dots,t-1.$$ in Subsection \[subsec:2.5\].
Then the number $N_r$ of ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^r}$-rational places of $K_t$ is $s^{(t-1)/2}(s-\sqrt{s})+1=q^{rt/2}(q^{r/2}-1)+1$. Thus, there are at least $g=\lceil \frac 1r N_r \rceil$ positive divisors of degree $r$ of $K_t$ whose supports are pairwise disjoint. Let $n=gr$ be the block length of the $r$-local LRC that we will construct. Note that $q^{rt/2}(q^{r/2}-1) < n {\leqslant}q^{r(t+1)/2}$. Note that the smallest value of $n$ is $r^{O(rt)}=r^{O(r/{{\varepsilon}})}$ since we need $q {\geqslant}r$, and as we increase $m$ we get a family of codes with larger block lengths.
By Theorem \[thm:3.9\], there exists an MR $(n,r,h,a)$-LRC over a field of size $$\label{eq:GS-field-size}
q^{2\g+hr}=q^{hr\left(1+\frac{2\g}{hr}\right)} \ .$$ We have $q^r {\leqslant}n^{2/t} {\leqslant}n^{{{\varepsilon}}/2}$. Also $$\g=\g(K_t){\leqslant}N_r/(q^{r/2}-1) {\leqslant}2nq^{-r/2} {\leqslant}2n^{1-2/(t+1)}{\leqslant}2 n^{1-{{\varepsilon}}} $$ Therefore, the field size in is at most $n^{{{\varepsilon}}h}$ assuming $hr {\geqslant}4 n^{1-{{\varepsilon}}} {\geqslant}2\g$.
\[thm:4.4\] For any positive real ${{\varepsilon}}\in(0,0.5)$, if $r=\Theta({{\varepsilon}}\log n/\log\log n)$ and $hr=\Omega\left(n^{1-{{\varepsilon}}}\right)$, then there exists an MR $(n,r,h,a)$-LRC over a field of size $O\left(n^{{{\varepsilon}}h}\right)$.
Let $q=2^{2\lceil(\log r)/2\rceil}$. Put $s=q^r$ and ${{\varepsilon}}=\frac2{t+2}$. Consider the $t$’th function field $K_t={\mathbb{F}}_q(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_{t})$ in the Garcia-Stichtenoth tower defined by $$\label{eq:15}
x_{i+1}^{\sqrt{s}}+x_{i+1}=\frac{x_i^{\sqrt{s}}}{x_i^{\sqrt{s}-1}+1},\quad i=1,2,\dots,t-1.$$ in Subsection \[subsec:2.5\].
Then the number $N_r$ of ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^r}$-rational places of $K_t$ is $s^{(t-1)/2}(s-\sqrt{s})+1=q^{r(t+1)/2}(q^{r/2}-1)+1$. Furthermore, the genus $\g(K_t)$ satisfies $$N_m{\geqslant}\left(q^{\frac r2}-1\right)\g(K_t).$$ Thus, there are at least $ g=\frac 1r q^{r(t+1)/2}(q^{r/2}-1)$ positive divisors of degree $r$ of $K_t$ whose supports are pairwise disjoint. Hence, $n=gr= q^{r(t+1)/2}(q^{r/2}-1)$. Note that $n {\leqslant}q^{r/{\varepsilon}}$. Then $r=\Theta({{\varepsilon}}\log n/\log\log n)$. Furthermore, we get $q^r\approx n^{\frac1{t+2}}$ and hence, $\g=\g(K_t){\leqslant}n(q^{r/2}-1)^{-1}\approx n^{1-\frac{1}{t+2}}$.
By Theorem \[thm:3.9\], there exists an MR $(n,r,h,a)$-LRC over a field of size $$q^{2\g+hr}=q^{hr\left(1+\frac{2\g}{hr}\right)}{\leqslant}n^{h\frac1{t+1}\left(2+\frac{4\g}{hr}\right)}{\leqslant}n^{h\left(\frac2{t+1}+\frac{4n^{1-\frac1{t+1}}}{hr}\right)}=O\left(n^{{{\varepsilon}}h}\right) \ . \qedhere$$
[12]{}
M. Blaum, [*Construction of PMDS and SD codes extending RAID5*]{} Arxiv1305.0032, 2013.
M. Blaum, J. Lee Hafner and S. Hetzler, [*Partial-MDS codes and their application to RAID type of architectures,*]{} IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 59:4510-4519, 2013.
M. Blaum, J. Plank, M. Schwartz and E. Yaakobi, [*Construction of partial MDS and sector-disk codes with two global parity symbols,*]{} IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 62: 2673-2681, 2016.
G. Calis and O. Koyluoglu, [*A general construction fo PMDS codes,*]{} IEEE Communications Letters, 21: 452-455, 2017.
M. Chen, C. Huang and J. Li, [*On maximally recoverable property for multi protection group codes<*]{} In IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), pages 486-490, 2007.
R. Gabrys, E. Yaakobi, M. Blaum and P. Siegel, [*Construction of partial MDS codes over small finite fields*]{} In 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), pages: 1-5, 2017.
A. Garcia and H. Stichtenoth, [*A tower of Artin-Schreier extensions of function fields attaining the Drinfeld-Vlăduţ bound,*]{} Inventiones Mathematicae, 121(1995), 211-222.
A. Garcia and H. Stichtenoth, [*On the asymptotic behavior of some towers of function fields over finite fields,*]{} Journal of Number Theory, 61(1996), 248-273.
P. Gopalan, C. Huang, B. Jenkins and S. Yekhanin. [*Explicit maximally recoverable codes with locality,*]{} IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 60: 5245-5256, 2014.
P. Gopalan, G. Hu, S. Kopparty, S. Saraf, C. Wang and S. Yekhanin, [*Maximally recoverable codes for grid-like topologies,*]{} In 28th Annual Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages: 2092-2108, 2017.
P. Gopalan, C. Huang, H. Simitci and S. Yekhanin, [*On the locality of codeword symbols,*]{} IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 58: 6925-6934 (2012).
S. Gopi, V. Guruswami and S. Yekhanin, [*On maximally recoverable local reconstruction codes,*]{} https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.10322.
V. Guruswami, C. Xing, and C. Yuan, [*How long can optimal locally repairable codes be?*]{} In Proceedings of RANDOM 2018, to appear.
C. Huang, H. Simitci, Y. Xu, Aaron Ogus, B. Calder, P. Gopalan, J. Li and S. Yekhanin, [*Erasure coding in Windows Azure Storage,*]{} In USENIX Annual Technical Conference (ATC), pages: 15-26, 2012.
G. Hu and S. Yekhanin, [ *New constructions of SD and MR codes over small finite fields,*]{} In 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), pages: 1591-1595, 2016.
D. Kane, S. Lovett, and S. Rao: [*The Independence Number of the Birkhoff Polytope Graph, and Applications to Maximally Recoverable Codes.*]{} In Proceedings of FOCS 2017, pages 252-259.
R. Lidl and H. Niederreiter, “Finite Fields," Cambridge University Press, 2003.
A. Neri, A.-L. Horlemann-Trautmann, [*Random Construction of Partial MDS Codes,*]{} https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.05848.
D. Papailiopoulos and A. Dimakis. [*Locally repairable codes.*]{} IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 60(10):5843?5855, 2014.
I. Tamo and A. Barg: [*A Family of Optimal Locally Recoverable Codes.*]{} [IEEE Trans. Information Theory]{}, 60(8): 4661-4676 (2014)
I. Tamo, D. Papailiopoulos and A. G. Dimakis, [*Optimal locally repairable code and connections to matroid theory,*]{} IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 62(2016), 6661-6671.
H. Stichtenoth, “Algebraic Function Fields and Codes," 2nd ed., Springer, Berlin, 2009.
[^1]: LRCs are also expanded as Locally Repairable Codes or Locally Reoverable Codes, eg. [@PD14; @TB; @GXY18].
[^2]: This is akin to what happens for random codes to have the MDS property. However, for MDS codes, the Vandermonde construction achieves a linear field size explicitly.
[^3]: Geometrically, a place corresponds to a point on an algebraic curve, and the valuation of a function $f$ at a point $P$ is the order of vanishing of $f$ at $P$. (If $f$ blows up at $P$, i.e., has a pole at $P$, then the valuation is negative, and equal to the zero order of $1/f$ at $P$.) When a function $f$ with non-negative valuation at $P$ is evaluated at $P$ we get a value in the residue field $O_P/P$ — one can think of the coordinates of the point $P$ as belong to the extension field $O_P/P$ of ${\mathbb{F}}_q$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We propose and analyze a finite-difference discretization of the Ambrosio-Tortorelli functional. It is known that if the discretization is made with respect to an underlying periodic lattice of spacing $\delta$, the discretized functionals $\Gamma$-converge to the Mumford-Shah functional only if $\delta\ll{\varepsilon}$, ${\varepsilon}$ being the elliptic approximation parameter of the Ambrosio-Tortorelli functional. Discretizing with respect to stationary, ergodic and isotropic random lattices we prove this $\Gamma$-convergence result also for $\delta\sim{\varepsilon}$, a regime at which the discretization with respect to a periodic lattice converges instead to an anisotropic version of the Mumford-Shah functional.'
address:
- 'Zentrum Mathematik, Technische Universität München, Boltzmannstra[ß]{}e 3, 85748 Garching bei München, Germany'
- 'Zentrum Mathematik, Technische Universität München, Boltzmannstra[ß]{}e 3, 85748 Garching bei München, Germany'
- 'Département Mathématique, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), CP 214, boulevard du Triomphe, 1050 Brussels, Belgium'
author:
- Annika Bach
- Marco Cicalese
- Matthias Ruf
title: 'Random finite-difference discretizations of the Ambrosio-Tortorelli functional with optimal mesh size'
---
Introduction
============
The minimization of the Mumford-Shah functional has been introduced in the framework of image analysis as a simple and yet powerful variational method for image-segmentation problems (see, [[*e.g.*]{}, ]{}[@AuKo; @MSreview; @MoSo; @VeCha]. In this field, a main task consists in detecting relevant object contours of (possibly distorted) digital images. Representing a gray-scale image on a domain $D\subset {\mathbb{R}}^{d}$ as a function $g:D\to[0,1]$ encoding at each point of $D$ the gray-level of the image, a “cartoon" version of $g$ is obtained by minimizing in the pair $(u,K)$ the functional $$\int_{D\setminus K}|\nabla u|^{2}{\,\mathrm{d}x}+\beta\,\mathcal{H}^{d-1}(K)+\gamma\int_{D}|u-g|^2{\,\mathrm{d}x}.$$ In this setting $K\subset D$ is a piece-wise regular and relatively closed set with finite $(d-1)$-dimensional Hausdorff measure $\mathcal{H}^{d-1}$, the function $u$ belongs to $C^{1}(D\setminus K)$ and $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are nonnegative parameters. Loosely speaking, the minimization of the above functional results in a pair $(u,K)$ where $u$ is smooth and close to the input image $g$ outside a set $K$ whose ${\mathcal{H}^{d-1}}$-measure has to be as small as possible. In this sense $K$ may be interpreted as the set of contours of the “cartoon” image $u$, or in other words the set of relevant object contours of $g$. Besides being a simple model for image segmentation (in this case the relevant space dimension is $d=2$), the Mumford-Shah functional has applications also in higher dimensions. The case $d=3$ is particularly important for its mechanical interpretation, as the functional coincides with the Griffith’s fracture energy in the anti-plane case (see [@BFM]).
A weaker formulation of the problem was proposed in [@AmDeG] and led to the introduction of the space $SBV$ of special functions of bounded variation on which the Mumford-Shah functional is defined as $$\label{eq:introMS}
M\!S(u)=\int_{D}|\nabla u|^2{\,\mathrm{d}x}+\beta\,\mathcal{H}^{d-1}(S_u)+\gamma\int_{D}|u-g|^2{\,\mathrm{d}x}.$$ In this new setting the functional depends only on the function $u$, and the role of $K$ is now played by $S_{u}$ the set of discontinuity points of $u$, so that a solution of the original problem can be obtained by proving regularity of the pair $(u,K)$, where $u$ is a minimizer of $MS$ and $K=\overline{ S_{u}}$ (see [@Fo] for a recent review on this research direction). The Mumford-Shah functional belongs to the family of so-called free-discontinuity functionals, whose variational analysis has been initiated in [@Amb] and it is the object of many papers in the last decades (see, [[*e.g.*]{}, ]{}the monograph [@AFP] and the references therein).
It turns out that minimizing the Mumford-Shah functional numerically is a difficult task mainly due to the presence of the surface term $\mathcal{H}^{d-1}(S_u)$. Hence, several kind of approximations have been proposed (cf., [[*e.g.*]{}, ]{}[@AmTo; @AmTo2; @BrDM; @Go; @PCBC]). Among them, the most popular is perhaps the one introduced by Ambrosio and Tortorelli in [@AmTo; @AmTo2]. Given a small parameter ${\varepsilon}>0$ and $0<\eta_{{\varepsilon}}\ll{\varepsilon}$ the elliptic approximation $AT_{{\varepsilon}}:W^{1,2}(D)\times W^{1,2}(D)\to [0,+\infty]$ is given by $$\label{eq:ATintro}
AT_{{\varepsilon}}(u,v)=\int_D (v^2+\eta_{{\varepsilon}})|\nabla u|^2\,\mathrm{d}x+\frac{\beta}{2}\int_D\frac{(v-1)^2}{{\varepsilon}}+{\varepsilon}|\nabla v|^2\,\mathrm{d}x+\gamma\int_D|u-g|^2\,\mathrm{d}x.$$ It is well-known that as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$ the family $AT_{{\varepsilon}}$ approximates the Mumford-Shah functional in the sense of $\Gamma$-convergence (cf. [@AmTo; @AmTo2]). Since the functionals $AT_{\varepsilon}$ are equicoercive this implies that, up to subsequences, the first component $u_{{\varepsilon}}$ of any global minimizer $(u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}})$ of $AT_{{\varepsilon}}$ converges to a global minimizer $u$ of $M\!S$. The second component $v_{{\varepsilon}}$ is a sequence of edge variables that provides a diffuse approximation of $S_{u}$. Being the functionals $AT_{{\varepsilon}}$ elliptic, finite-elements or finite-difference schemes can be implemented. On the one hand, ${\varepsilon}$ should be taken very small in order to be sure that the diffuse approximation of $S_u$ produces almost sharp edges. On the other hand, to guarantee that finite elements/differences still approximate the Mumford-Shah functional, former mathematical results assumed the mesh-size used in the discretization step to be infinitesimal with respect to ${\varepsilon}$ (see [@BeCo; @Bou]). Moreover, in [@BBZ] Braides, Zeppieri and the first author have proven that such a condition is indeed necessary to obtain the isotropic surface term $\mathcal{H}^{d-1}(S_u)$ in the $\Gamma$-limit when using a finite-difference discretization on a square lattice (see also [@BY] for a similar result concerning the Modica-Mortola functional). Dropping the fidelity term $\gamma\int_D|u-g|^2{\,\mathrm{d}x}$, which does not affect the $\Gamma$-convergence analysis, we briefly describe their result. For $\delta_{{\varepsilon}}>0$ such that $\lim_{\varepsilon}\delta_{\varepsilon}=0$, in [@BBZ] the authors considered functionals defined for $u,v:\delta_{{\varepsilon}}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap D\to{\mathbb{R}}$ as $$\label{eq:introBBZ}
E_{{\varepsilon},\delta_{{\varepsilon}}}(u,v)=\frac{1}{2}\Bigg(\sum_{\substack{i,j\in\delta_{{\varepsilon}}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap D\\ |i-j|=\delta_{{\varepsilon}}}}\hspace*{-1em}\delta_{{\varepsilon}}^dv(i)^2\left|\frac{u(i)-u(j)}{\delta_{{\varepsilon}}}\right|^2+\hspace*{-0.5em}\sum_{i\in\delta_{{\varepsilon}}{\mathbb{Z}}^2\cap D}\hspace*{-0.5em}\delta_{{\varepsilon}}^d\frac{(v(i)-1)^2}{{\varepsilon}}+\frac{1}{2}\hspace*{-.4em}\sum_{\substack{i,j\in\delta_{{\varepsilon}}{\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap D\\ |i-j|=\delta_{{\varepsilon}}}}\hspace*{-1em}{\varepsilon}\delta_{{\varepsilon}}^d\left|\frac{v(i)-v(j)}{\delta_{{\varepsilon}}}\right|^2\Bigg).$$ In [@BBZ Theorem 2.1] it has been proven that the $\Gamma$-limit of $E_{{\varepsilon},\delta_{{\varepsilon}}}$ depends on according to the following scheme:
- if $\ell=0$ then $\Gamma$-$\lim_{{\varepsilon}}E_{{\varepsilon},\delta_{{\varepsilon}}}$ is the Mumford-Shah functional ,
- if $\ell>0$ and $d=2$ then $\Gamma$-$\lim_{{\varepsilon}}E_{{\varepsilon},\delta_{{\varepsilon}}}$ is an anisotropic free-discontinuity functional,
- if $\ell=+\infty$ then $\Gamma$-$\lim_{{\varepsilon}}E_{{\varepsilon},\delta_{{\varepsilon}}}$ is finite only on $W^{1,2}(D)$ where it coincides with $\int_D|\nabla u|^2{\,\mathrm{d}x}$.
The scheme above points out that this discretization works only for a very fine mesh-size $\delta_{{\varepsilon}}\ll{\varepsilon}$, while it approximates only an anisotropic version of the $MS$ functional for $\delta_{{\varepsilon}}\sim{\varepsilon}$. However an approximation at a scale $\delta_{{\varepsilon}}\sim{\varepsilon}$ has a lower computational cost with respect to one at a scale $\delta\ll{\varepsilon}$. One possible way to avoid the emergence of anisotropy in the limit, while keeping the computational cost low could be to take into account long-range interactions in the approximation of the gradient of the edge variable $v$ (similar to the approach in [@Ch99] in the case of the so-called weak-membrane energy) and not only neighboring differences as done in [@BBZ]. However such a strategy would increase the computational complexity of the numerical minimization as the adjacency matrix of the graph of interactions would become less sparse. Instead, we take a different approach which draws some inspiration from the recent results in [@R18]. Therein the third author showed how, for the weak membrane approximation of the Mumford-Shah functional, discretizations on random point sets can be used to circumvent anisotropic limits. In particular, statistically isotropic point sets have the flexibility to approximate interfaces without any directional bias also in the case that only short-range interactions are taken into account. Therefore, we replace periodic lattices by so-called stochastic lattices. We then define a random family of discretizations of the Ambrosio-Tortorelli functional with mesh-size $\delta_{{\varepsilon}}={\varepsilon}$ for which we can prove $\Gamma$-convergence to the Mumford-Shah functional almost surely (a.s.).\
In what follows we give a more detailed description of the results contained in this paper. Given a probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$ for each $\omega\in\Omega$ we consider a countable point set ${\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ that satisfies suitable geometric constraints preventing the formation of clusters or arbitrarily large holes (cf. Definition \[defadmissible\]). Then, given ${\varepsilon}>0$ we introduce a random discretization of the functional in as the family of functionals $F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})$ defined on maps $u,v:{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap D\to{\mathbb{R}}$ by $$\label{eq:introdefF}
F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u,v)=F_{{\varepsilon}}^{b}({\omega})(u,v)+F_{{\varepsilon}}^{s}({\omega})(v),$$ where $F_{{\varepsilon}}^{b}({\omega})$ and $F_{{\varepsilon}}^{s}({\omega})$ denote the bulk and surface terms of the discretization, respectively. They are defined as $$\label{eq:introdefbulk}
F_{{\varepsilon}}^{b}({\omega})(u,v)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\substack{(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})\\ {\varepsilon}x,{\varepsilon}y\in D}}{\varepsilon}^{d}v({\varepsilon}x)^2\left|\frac{u({\varepsilon}x)-u({\varepsilon}y)}{{\varepsilon}}\right|^{2}$$ and $$\label{eq:introdefsurf}
F_{{\varepsilon}}^{s}({\omega})(v)=\frac{\beta}{2}\Big(\sum_{{\varepsilon}x\in {\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap D}{\varepsilon}^{d-1}(v({\varepsilon}x)-1)^2+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\substack{(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})\\ {\varepsilon}x,{\varepsilon}y\in D}}{\varepsilon}^{d+1}\left|\frac{v({\varepsilon}x)-v({\varepsilon}y)}{{\varepsilon}}\right|^{2}\Big).$$ In the above sums $\mathcal{E}({\omega})\subset{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\times{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}$ denotes a suitable set of short-range edges (for instance the Voronoi neighbors; see Definition \[defgoodedges\] for general assumptions). Our main result (Theorem \[MSapprox\]) reads as follows: Assuming the random graph $(\mathcal{L},\mathcal{E})$ to be stationary, ergodic and isotropic in distribution (for a precise definition see Section \[subsec:stochlatt\]) there exist two positive constants $c_1,c_2$ such that with full probability the functionals $F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})$ $\Gamma$-converge to the deterministic functional $$\label{intro:isotropic}
F(u)=
\displaystyle c_1\int_D|\nabla u|^2\,\mathrm{d}x+c_2\mathcal{H}^{d-1}(S_u).$$ Some remarks are in order:
1. A point process that satisfies all our assumptions is given by the random parking process [@glpe; @Pe].
2. The coefficients $c_1$ and $c_2$ are not given in a closed form but can be estimated by solving two asymptotic minimization problems (see Section \[s.presentation\]). Moreover, their ratio can be tuned via the parameter $\beta$ since $c_2$ is proportional to $\beta$, while $c_1$ does depend only on the graph $(\mathcal{L},\mathcal{E})$.
3. Our approach requires to determine only the Voronoi neighbors, but no volume of cells or other related geometric quantities. One can also avoid the determination of the Voronoi neighbors using a $k$-NN algorithm with a sufficiently large $k$ (see also the discussion in [@R18 Remark 2.7]).
4. In the definition of the discrete approximation , , , we have taken the mesh-size equal to ${\varepsilon}$. Except for the value of the constant $c_2$, the above result and the analysis of this paper remain unchanged if we consider a mesh-size that is only proportional to ${\varepsilon}$ (see also Theorem \[t.representationl\]).
5. The addition of a fidelity term of the form $$\label{eq:fidelity}
\gamma\sum_{{\varepsilon}x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap D}{\varepsilon}^d|u({\varepsilon}x)-g_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)|^2$$ to the discrete approximations $F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u,v)$ can be analyzed exactly as in [@R18 Theorem 3.8] and leads to an additive term $c_3\int_D|u-g|^2{\,\mathrm{d}x}$ in the limit functional, provided the discrete approximation $g_{{\varepsilon}}$ of $g$ converges in $L^2(D)$. Moreover, under this assumption the global minimizers of the modified discrete functionals converge in $L^2(D)$ to the minimizers of the new limit functional $$F_g(u)=F(u)+c_3\int_D|u-g|^2{\,\mathrm{d}x}.$$ In this paper we will neglect the fidelity term for the sake of notational simplicity.
We now explain briefly the strategy to prove the approximation result described above. It consists of two main steps, a first deterministic one and a second stochastic one. Applying the so-called localization method of $\Gamma$-convergence together with [@BFLM Theorem 1], in the first step we show that for a single realization $({\mathcal{L}(\omega)},\mathcal{E}({\omega}))$ the functionals $F_{\varepsilon}({\omega})$ $\Gamma$-converge up to subsequences to a free-discontinuity functional of the form $$\label{intro:subseq}
F({\omega})(u)=\int_Df({\omega},x,\nabla u)\,\mathrm{d}x+\int_{S_u}\varphi({\omega},x,\nu_u)\,\mathrm{d}\mathcal{H}^{d-1},$$ (see Theorem \[mainrep\]). Based on this integral representation, in the second step we establish a stochastic homogenization result (Theorem \[mainthm1\]), which states that for a stationary and ergodic graph $(\mathcal{L},\mathcal{E})$ the whole sequence $(F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega}))$ $\Gamma$-converges a.s. to the functional $$\label{intro:homogenization}
F(u)=\int_Df_{\rm hom}(\nabla u)\,\mathrm{d}x+\int_{S_u}\varphi_{\rm hom}(\nu_u)\,\mathrm{d}\mathcal{H}^{d-1}.$$ In contrast to the densities $f_{\rm hom}$ and $\varphi_{\rm hom}$ in do not depend on $x$ and are deterministic. Moreover, assuming that in addition the graph $(\mathcal{L},\mathcal{E})$ is isotropic, one can show that also $f_{\rm hom}$ and $\varphi_{\rm hom}$ are isotropic, which finally allows us to write the $\Gamma$-limit in the form .
We highlight that a crucial step in this procedure consists in proving that a separation of bulk and surface contributions takes place in the limit. More precisely, we show that the bulk density $f({\omega},\cdot,\cdot)$ in coincides with the density of the $\Gamma$-limit of the quadratic functionals $u\mapsto F_{{\varepsilon}}^{b}({\omega})(u,1)$ defined in , while the surface density $\varphi({\omega},\cdot,\cdot)$ is determined by solving a $u$-dependent non-convex constrained optimization problem involving only the surface contribution $F_{{\varepsilon}}^s({\omega})$ (see Remark \[r.blowupformulas\]). Such a separation of energy contributions in the characterization of the surface density has already been a major issue in [@BBZ]. There the authors use a geometric construction to show that in dimension 2 the discrete bulk energy can be neglected in the formula of the surface integrand (cf. [@BBZ Theorem 5.10]). This explicit construction is however not feasible for a stochastic lattice. Instead our approach is more abstract. It makes use of a weighted coarea formula (cf. Proposition \[separationofscales1\]) that works both in the case of stochastic and deterministic lattices and in any dimension. Hence the characterization of $\varphi({\omega},\cdot,\cdot)$ can be seen as one of the main novelties in this paper. Moreover, it is a key ingredient in the proof of the stochastic homogenization result. More in detail, it leads to the definition of a suitable subadditive stochastic process that can be analyzed as in [@ACR; @BCR; @CDMSZ17a] via ergodic theorems and finally to the almost sure existence of the $\Gamma$-limit as in .
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[Sec:prelim\] we introduce the notation used throughout the paper, before presenting the general results in Section \[s.presentation\]. The latter section contains our main approximation result Theorem \[MSapprox\] together with the integral-representation result and the stochastic homogenization theorem mentioned above, which we consider to be of independent interest for the reader. In particular, we also present here the asymptotic minimization formula characterizing $\varphi({\omega},\cdot,\cdot)$. Moreover, we relate our discrete Ambrosio-Tortorelli functionals to weak-membrane energies. More precisely, neglecting the second sum in , we can associate a weak-membrane model to the discrete Ambrosio-Tortorelli functional by optimizing $v\mapsto F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u,v)$ for fixed $u$ (cf. Proposition \[prop:ATandWeak\]). This connection, which we find interesting in itself, also allows us to take advantage of some of the estimates established in [@R18] which is of help in the proofs of Lemmata \[compact\] and \[bounds\] and of Proposition \[p.gradientpartsequal\]. We conclude the section by extending the integral-representation result to the case where the discretization parameter $\delta_{\varepsilon}$ is only proportional to ${\varepsilon}$. In fact, we show that for $\delta_{\varepsilon}=\ell{\varepsilon}$ with $\ell\in (0,+\infty)$ the volume integrand in remains unchanged, while the surface integrand depends on the ratio $\ell$ and blows up linearly as $\ell\to+\infty$ (cf. Theorem \[t.representationl\]). This indicates that as in the deterministic case considered in [@BBZ], the stochastic discretization of the Ambrosio-Tortorelli functionals on a scale $\delta_{\varepsilon}\gg{\varepsilon}$ cannot converge to a functional that is finite on $SBV(D)\setminus W^{1,2}(D)$. Indeed, this is shown at the end of Section \[s.presentation\]. In that sense the discretization of the Ambrosio-Tortorelli functionals defined in can be interpreted as optimal since it approximates the Mumford-Shah functional at the largest possible discretization scale. The proofs of the general results are carried out in Sections \[s.proofs\] and \[s.stochhom\]. Section \[s.proofs\] contains the proof of the integral-representation result and the asymptotic formulas for the integrands, while the stochastic homogenization result is proven in Section \[s.stochhom\].
Setting of the problem and preliminaries {#Sec:prelim}
=========================================
General notation
----------------
We first introduce some notation that will be used in this paper. Given a measurable set $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ we denote by $|A|$ its $d$-dimensional Lebesgue measure, and by $\mathcal{H}^{k}(A)$ its $k$-dimensional Hausdorff measure. We denote by $\mathds{1}_A$ the characteristic function of $A$. If $A$ is finite, $\#A$ denotes its cardinality. Given an open set $O\subseteq{\mathbb{R}}^d$, we denote by $\mathcal{A}(O)$ the family of all bounded, open subsets of $O$ and by $\mathcal{A}^R(O)$ the family of bounded, open subsets with Lipschitz boundary. Given $A\in\mathcal{A}^R(O)$ and $\delta>0$ we set $$\partial_\delta A:=\{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^d\colon {{\rm{dist}}}(x,\partial A)\leq\delta\}.$$ For $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$ we denote by $|x|$ the Euclidean norm. As usual $B_{\varrho}(x_0)$ denotes the open ball with radius $\varrho$ centered at $x_0\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$. We write $B_{\varrho}$ when $x_0=0$. Given $\nu\in S^{d-1}$, we let $\nu_1=\nu,\nu_2,\dots,\nu_d$ be an orthonormal basis of ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ and we define the cube $Q_{\nu}$ as $$\label{eq:defcube}
Q_{\nu}=\left\{z\in{\mathbb{R}}^d:\;|\langle z,\nu_i\rangle| <1/2\right\},$$ where the brackets $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ denote the scalar product. Given $x_0\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$ and $\varrho>0$, we set $Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho)=x_0+\varrho Q_{\nu}$. We also denote by $H_\nu(x_0)$ the hyperplane orthogonal to $\nu$ and passing through $x_0$. If $x_0=0$ we simply write $H_\nu$.
For $p\in [1,+\infty]$ we use standard notation $L^p(D)$ for the Lebesgue spaces and $W^{1,p}(D)$ for the Sobolev spaces. We denote by $SBV(D)$ the space of special functions of bounded variation in $D$ (for the general theory see, [[*e.g.*]{}, ]{}[@AFP]). If $u\in SBV(D)$ we denote by $\nabla u$ its approximate gradient, by $S_u$ the approximate discontinuity set of $u$, by $\nu_u$ the generalized outer normal to $S_u$, and $u^+$ and $u^-$ are the traces of $u$ on both sides of $S_u$. Moreover, we consider the larger space $GSBV(D)$, which consists of all functions $u\in L^1(D)$ such that for each $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ the truncation of $u$ at level $k$ defined as $T_{k}u:=-k\vee(u\wedge k)$ belongs to $SBV(D)$. Furthermore, we set $$SBV^2(D):=\{u\in SBV(D): \nabla u\in L^2(D)\ \text{and}\ {\mathcal{H}^{d-1}}(S_u)<+\infty\}$$ and $$GSBV^2(D):=\{u\in GSBV(D): \nabla u\in L^2(D)\ \text{and}\ {\mathcal{H}^{d-1}}(S_u)<+\infty\}.$$ It can be shown that $SBV^2(D)\cap L^\infty(D)=GSBV^2(D)\cap L^\infty(D)$.
For $x_0\in {\mathbb{R}}^d$, $\nu\in S^{d-1}$ and $a,b\in{\mathbb{R}}$ we define the function $u_{x_0,\nu}^{a,b}:{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\to{\mathbb{R}}^{m}$ as $$\label{eq:purejump}
u_{x_0,\nu}^{a,b}(x):=\begin{cases} a &\mbox{if $\langle x-x_0,\nu\rangle >0$,}
\\
b &\mbox{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ Moreover, for $x_0,\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$ we denote by $u_{x_0,\xi}$ the affine function defined as $$\label{def:affine}
u_{x_0,\xi}(x):=\langle\xi,x-x_0\rangle.$$ Finally, the letter $C$ stands for a generic positive constant that may change every time it appears.
Stochastic lattices {#subsec:stochlatt}
-------------------
Throughout this paper we let $\Omega$ be a probability space with a complete $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal{F}$ and probability measure $\mathbb{P}$. We call a random variable $\mathcal{L}:\Omega\to({\mathbb{R}}^d)^{\mathbb{N}}$ a stochastic lattice. The following definition essentially forbids clustering of points as well as arbitrarily big empty regions in space.
\[defadmissible\] Let $\mathcal{L}$ be a stochastic lattice. $\mathcal{L}$ is called admissible if there exist $R>r>0$ such that the following two conditions hold a.s.:
- ${{\rm{dist}}}(x,\mathcal{L}({\omega}))< R\quad$ for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$;
- ${{\rm{dist}}}(x,{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\setminus\{x\})\geq r\quad$ for all $x\in{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}$.
\[voronoi\] We also make use of the associated Voronoi tessellation $\mathcal{V}({\omega})=\{\mathcal{C}(x)\}_{x\in{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}}$, where the (random) Voronoi cells with nuclei $x\in{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}$ are defined as $$\mathcal{C}(x):=\{z\in{\mathbb{R}}^d:\;|z-x|\leq |z-y|\quad\text{for all }y\in{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\}.$$ If ${\mathcal{L}(\omega)}$ is admissible, then [@ACR Lemma 2.3] yields the inclusions $B_{\frac{r}{2}}(x)\subset \mathcal{C}(x)\subset B_R(x)$.
Next we introduce some notions from ergodic theory that build the basis for stochastic homogenization.
We say that a family of measurable functions $\{\tau_z\}_{z\in \mathbb{Z}^d},\tau_z:\Omega\to\Omega$, is an additive group action on $\Omega$ if $$\tau_0={\rm id}\quad\text{and}\quad\tau_{z_1+z_2}=\tau_{z_2}\circ\tau_{z_1}\quad\text{for all } z_1,z_2\in\mathbb{Z}^d.$$ An additive group action is called measure preserving if $$\mathbb{P}(\tau_z B)=\mathbb{P}(B)\quad \text{ for all } B\in\mathcal{F},\,z\in\mathbb{Z}^d.$$ Moreover, $\{\tau_z\}_{z\in\mathbb{Z}^d}$ is called ergodic if, in addition, for all $B\in\mathcal{F}$ we have the implication $$(\tau_z(B)=B\quad\forall z\in \mathbb{Z}^d)\quad\Rightarrow\quad\mathbb{P}(B)\in\{0,1\}.$$
\[defstatiolattice\] A stochastic lattice $\mathcal{L}$ is said to be stationary if there exists an additive, measure preserving group action $\{\tau_z\}_{z\in\mathbb{Z}^d}$ on $\Omega$ such that for all $z\in\mathbb{Z}^d$ $$\mathcal{L}\circ\tau_z=\mathcal{L}+z.$$ If in addition $\{\tau_z\}_{z\in\mathbb{Z}^d}$ is ergodic, then $\mathcal{L}$ is called ergodic, too.\
We call $\mathcal{L}$ isotropic, if for every $R\in SO(d)$ there exists a measure preserving function $\tau^{\prime}_R:\Omega\to\Omega$ such that $$\mathcal{L}\circ\tau^{\prime}_R=R\mathcal{L}.$$
In order to define gradient-like structures, we equip a stochastic lattice with a set of directed edges.
\[defgoodedges\] Let $\mathcal{L}$ be an admissible stochastic lattice and $\mathcal{E}\subset\mathcal{L}^2$. We say that $\mathcal{E}$ is a collection of admissible edges if for all $i,j\in\mathbb{N}$ the set $\{{\omega}\in\Omega:\;({\mathcal{L}(\omega)}_{i},{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}_{j})\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})\}$ is $\mathcal{F}$-measurable and
- there exists $M>R$ such that a.s. $$\label{finiterange}
\sup\{|x-y|:\; (x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})\}< M;$$
- the Voronoi neighbors ${\mathcal{N}(\omega)}$ are contained in $\mathcal{E}({\omega})$, i.e., $$\label{nncontained}
{\mathcal{N}(\omega)}:=\{(x,y)\in{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}^2:\;\mathcal{H}^{d-1}(\mathcal{C}(x)\cap\mathcal{C}(y))\in (0,+\infty)\}\subset \mathcal{E}({\omega}).$$
If $\mathcal{L}$ is stationary or isotropic, we say that the edges $\mathcal{E}$ are stationary or isotropic if $\mathcal{E}\circ\tau_z=\mathcal{E}+(z,z)$ for all $z\in\mathbb{Z}^d$ or $\mathcal{E}\circ\tau^{\prime}_R=R\mathcal{E}$ for all $R\in SO(d)$.
For every $x\in{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}$ we also set $\mathcal{E}({\omega})(x):=\{y\in{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\colon (x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})\}$.
Enlarging $M$ if necessary, by Remark \[voronoi\] we may assume without loss of generality that $$\label{neighbours}
\sup_{x\in{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}}\#\mathcal{E}({\omega})(x)\leq M.$$
Discretized Ambrosio-Tortorelli functionals
-------------------------------------------
In order to define the discrete approximation of the Ambrosio-Tortorelli functional we scale a stochastic lattice by the same small parameter ${\varepsilon}>0$. Given a fixed bounded Lipschitz domain $D\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ and two functions $u,v:{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap D\to{\mathbb{R}}$ we define the localized discretization on an open set $A\in\mathcal{A}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ by $$\label{eq:defF}
F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u,v,A):=F_{{\varepsilon}}^{b}({\omega})(u,v,A)+F_{{\varepsilon}}^{s}({\omega})(v,A),$$ where the bulk and surface terms are defined as $$\label{eq:defbulk}
F_{{\varepsilon}}^{b}({\omega})(u,v,A):=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\substack{(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})\\ {\varepsilon}x,{\varepsilon}y\in A}}{\varepsilon}^{d}v({\varepsilon}x)^2\left|\frac{u({\varepsilon}x)-u({\varepsilon}y)}{{\varepsilon}}\right|^{2}$$ and $$\label{eq:defsurf}
F_{{\varepsilon}}^{s}({\omega})(v,A):=\frac{\beta}{2}\Big(\sum_{{\varepsilon}x\in {\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap A}{\varepsilon}^{d-1}(v({\varepsilon}x)-1)^2+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\substack{(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})\\ {\varepsilon}x,{\varepsilon}y\in A}}{\varepsilon}^{d-1}|v({\varepsilon}x)-v({\varepsilon}y)|^{2}\Big),$$ respectively. If $A=D$ we write simply $F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(\cdot,\cdot)$ for $F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(\cdot,\cdot,D)$.
In order to recast our approximation problem in the framework of $\Gamma$-convergence (we refer the reader to [@GCB; @DM] for a general overview of this topic), we will identify discrete functions with their piecewise constant interpolations on the Voronoi cells of the lattice, that is with functions of the class $$\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon}}^{{\omega}}:=\{u:{\mathbb{R}}^d\to{\mathbb{R}}:\;u_{|{\varepsilon}\mathcal{C}(x)}\text{ is constant for all }x\in{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\}.$$ With a slight abuse of notation we extend the functional to $F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega}):L^{1}(D)\times L^1(D)\times\mathcal{A}(D)\to[0,+\infty]$ by setting $$\label{deffunctional}
F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u,v,A):=
\begin{cases}
F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u,v,A) &\mbox{if $u,v\in\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon}}^{{\omega}}$, $0\leq v\leq 1$,}\\
+\infty &\mbox{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
Presentation of the general results {#s.presentation}
===================================
In this section we present the main results of the paper.
Integral representation and separation of bulk and surface contributions {#s.intrep}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our first main result is stated below in Theorem \[mainrep\]. It shows that for every admissible lattice $\mathcal{L}$ the discrete functionals defined in $\Gamma$-converge (up to subsequences) in the strong $L^1(D)\times L^1(D)$-topology to a free-discontinuity functional. Moreover, bulk and surface contributions essentially decouple in the limit. More precisely, the volume integrand coincides with the density of the discrete quadratic functionals $u\mapsto F_{{\varepsilon}}^{b}({\omega})(u,1)$ given by , while the surface integrand is determined by solving a $u$-dependent constrained minimization problem which involves only the surface energy $F_{\varepsilon}^s$ (cf. Remark \[r.blowupformulas\]). In order to give the precise statement of the theorem we first recall a convergence result for the functionals $F_{{\varepsilon}}^{b}({\omega})(\cdot,1)$ (here we implicitly consider as domain of this functional the set $\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon}}^{{\omega}}$) which is a direct consequence of [@ACG2 Theorem 3] and of the fact that the $\Gamma$-limit of quadratic functionals is quadratic, too.
\[ACGmain\] For every sequence ${\varepsilon}\to 0$ there exists a subsequence ${\varepsilon}_n$ such that for every $A\in{\mathcal{A}^R(D)}$ the functionals $F_{{\varepsilon}_n}^b({\omega})(\cdot,1,A)$ $\Gamma$-converge in the strong $L^2(D)$-topology to a functional $F^b({\omega})(\cdot,A):L^2(D)\to [0,+\infty]$ that is finite only on $W^{1,2}(A)$, where it takes the form $$F^b({\omega})(u,A)=
\int_A f({\omega},x,\nabla u)\,\mathrm{d}x$$ for some non-negative Carathéodory-function $f({\omega},\cdot,\cdot)$ that is quadratic in the second variable for a.e. $x\in D$ and satisfies the growth conditions $$\frac{1}{C}|\xi|^2\leq f({\omega},x,\xi)\leq C|\xi|^2.$$
We are now in a position to state our first main result.
\[mainrep\] Let $\mathcal{L}({\omega})$ be an admissible stochastic lattice. For every sequence ${\varepsilon}\to 0$ there exists a subsequence ${\varepsilon}_n$ such that for every $A\in{\mathcal{A}^R(D)}$ the functionals $F_{{\varepsilon}_n}({\omega})(\cdot,\cdot,A)$ $\Gamma$-converge in the strong $L^1(D)\times L^1(D)$-topology to a free-discontinuity functional $F({\omega})(\cdot,\cdot,A):L^1(D)\times L^1(D)\to[0,+\infty]$ of the form $$\begin{aligned}
F({\omega})(u,v,A)=
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle\int_A f({\omega},x,\nabla u){\,\mathrm{d}x}+\int_{S_u\cap A}\varphi({\omega},x,\nu_u){\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{d}{\mathcal{H}^{d-1}}}}&\text{if $u\in GSBV^2(A)$, $v=1$ a.e. in $A$},\\
+\infty &\text{otherwise in $L^1(D)\times L^1(D)$},
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where $\varphi({\omega},\cdot,\cdot)$ is a measurable function and $f({\omega},\cdot,\cdot)$ is given by Theorem \[ACGmain\].
\[r.blowupformulas\] Both the integrands $\varphi({\omega},\cdot,\cdot)$ and $f({\omega},\cdot,\cdot)$ provided by Theorem \[mainrep\] can be characterized by asymptotic formulas. We write them after introducing some notation. For every $A\in\mathcal{A}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, $\delta>0$ and every pointwise well-defined function $\bar{u}\in L^\infty_{\rm loc}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ we denote by $\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon},\delta}^{{\omega}}(\bar{u},A)$ the set $$\label{def:discreteboundarycond}
\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon},\delta}^{{\omega}}(\bar{u},A):=\{u\in\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon}}^{{\omega}}:\,u({\varepsilon}x)=\bar{u}({\varepsilon}x)\quad\text{if }{\varepsilon}x\in{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap\partial_\delta A\}$$ of those $\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon}}^{{\omega}}$-functions whose values agree with those of $\bar{u}$ in a $\delta$-neighborhood of $\partial A$. Then for a.e. $x_0\in D$ and every $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$ it holds that $$f({\omega},x_0,\xi)=\lim_{\varrho\to 0}\varrho^{-d}\lim_{n\to+\infty}\inf\{F_{{\varepsilon}_n}^b({\omega})(u,1,Q_{e_1}(x_0,\varrho))\colon u\in\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon}_n, M{\varepsilon}_n}^{\omega}(u_{x_0,\xi},Q_{e_1}(x_0,\varrho))\},$$ where $u_{x_0,\xi}$ is the affine function defined in and $M$ is the maximal range of interactions in Definition \[defgoodedges\]. Moreover, for every $x_0\in D$, $a\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and $\nu\in S^{d-1}$ we define the class of functions $$\label{asymptoticformula}
\mathcal{S}_{{\varepsilon},\delta}^{{\omega}}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{a,0},Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho))=\{u\in \mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon},\delta}^{{\omega}}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{a,0},Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho)):\;u({\varepsilon}x)\in \{a,0\}\text{ for all }x\in{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\}$$ and we introduce the function $$\label{eq:barvboundary}
v_{x_0,\nu}^{{\varepsilon}}(x):=
\begin{cases}
0 &\text{if}\ |\langle x-x_0,\nu\rangle|\leq M {\varepsilon},\\
1 &\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ We also consider the minimization problem $$\begin{gathered}
\label{def:surf:int}
\varphi_{{\varepsilon},\delta}^{{\omega}}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{a,0},Q_\nu(x_0,\varrho))=\inf\Big\{F_{{\varepsilon}}^{s}({\omega})(v,Q_\nu(x_0,\rho))\colon v\in\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon},M{\varepsilon}}^{\omega}(v_{x_0,\nu}^{\varepsilon},Q_\nu(x_0,\varrho)),\\
\exists\, u\in\mathcal{S}_{{\varepsilon},\delta}^{\omega}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{a,0},Q_\nu(x_0,\varrho)):\, F_{{\varepsilon}}^{b}({\omega})(u,v,Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho))=0\Big\}.\end{gathered}$$ For every $(x_0,\nu)\in D\times S^{d-1}$ we then have that the surface density of $F({\omega})$ in Theorem \[mainrep\] is given by $$\label{eq:formula_phi}
\varphi({\omega},x_0,\nu)=\limsup_{\varrho\to 0}\varrho^{1-d}\lim_{\delta\to 0}\limsup_{n\to +\infty}\varphi_{{\varepsilon}_n,\delta}^{\omega}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{1,0},Q_\nu(x_0,\varrho)).$$ Note that the boundary conditions for $v$ in the definition of are posed on a much smaller layer than those for $u$. This is only due to technical reasons in the proof of Proposition \[separationofscales1\]. Alternatively we could also require that $v\in\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon},\delta-M{\varepsilon}}^{\omega}(v_{x_0,\nu}^{\varepsilon},Q_\nu(x_0,\varrho))$, but this would overburden the notation.
Stochastic homogenization and convergence to the Mumford-Shah functional
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our second main result relies on the statistical properties of the lattice and the edges. More precisely, when $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{E}$ are stationary we can prove the following stochastic homogenization result, which shows in particular that in this case the $\Gamma$-limit provided by Theorem \[mainrep\] is independent of the converging subsequence and hence the whole sequence converges.
\[mainthm1\] Let $\mathcal{L}$ be an admissible stationary stochastic lattice with admissible stationary edges in the sense of Definitions \[defadmissible\] and \[defgoodedges\]. Then for $\mathbb{P}$-a.e. ${\omega}\in\Omega$ and for every $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$, $\nu\in S^{d-1}$ there exist the limits $$\begin{aligned}
f_{\rm hom}({\omega},\xi) &=\lim_{t\to+\infty}t^{-d}\inf\{F_{1}^{b}({\omega})(u,1,Q(0,t))\colon u\in\mathcal{PC}_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{0,\xi},Q(0,t))\},\label{ex:hom:bulk}\\
\varphi_{\rm hom}({\omega},\nu) &=\lim_{t\to+\infty}t^{1-d}\varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{0,\nu}^{1,0},Q_{\nu}(0,t)),\label{ex:hom:surf}\end{aligned}$$ where $\varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}$ is defined as in . Moreover, the functionals $F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})$ $\Gamma$- converge in the strong $L^1(D)\times L^1(D)$-topology to the functional $F^{\omega}_{\hom}:L^1(D)\times L^1(D)\to[0,+\infty]$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\rm hom}({\omega})(u,v):=
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle\int_D f_{\rm hom}({\omega},\nabla u){\,\mathrm{d}x}+\int_{S_u}\varphi_{\rm hom}({\omega},\nu_u){\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{d}{\mathcal{H}^{d-1}}}}&\text{if $u\in GSBV^2(D)$, $v=1$ a.e. in $D$},\\
+\infty &\text{otherwise in $L^1(D)\times L^1(D)$}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ If in addition $\mathcal{L}$ is ergodic then $f_{\rm hom}$ and $\varphi_{\rm hom}$ are independent of ${\omega}$.
In order to make the densities $f_{\rm hom}$ and $\varphi_{\rm hom}$ isotropic, we suggest to take as stochastic lattice the so-called [*random parking process*]{}. We refer the interested reader to the two papers [@Pe; @glpe]. We recall that the random parking process defines a stochastic lattice $\mathcal{L}_{RP}$ that is admissible, stationary, ergodic, and isotropic in the sense of Definition \[defstatiolattice\]. Moreover, the choice $\mathcal{E}({\omega})=\mathcal{N}({\omega})$ yields stationary and isotropic edges. We state our result for general stochastic lattices satisfying all these assumptions.
\[MSapprox\] Assume that $\mathcal{L}$ is an admissible stochastic lattice that is stationary, ergodic and isotropic with admissible stationary and isotropic edges. Then there exist constants $c_1,c_2>0$ such that $\mathbb{P}$-a.s. the functionals $F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})$ defined in $\Gamma$-converge with respect to the $L^1(D)\times L^1(D)$-topology to the functional $F:L^1(D)\times L^1(D)\to [0,+\infty]$ with domain $GSBV^2(D)\times\{1\}$, on which $$F(u,1)=c_1\int_D |\nabla u|^2\,\mathrm{d}x+c_2\mathcal{H}^{d-1}(S_u).$$
\[r.fidelityterm\] As explained in the introduction, a discrete version of the fidelity term as in can be added to the functional $F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})$ and leads to an additional term $c_3\int_D|u-g|^2{\,\mathrm{d}x}$ for some $c_3>0$ proportional to the constant $\gamma$ in . For details we refer the reader to the analogous result proved in [@R18 Theorem 3.8] for weak membrane approximations.
Connection to weak-membrane energies
------------------------------------
In this subsection we show how the discretizations of the Ambrosio-Tortorelli functional in , and are related to the weak-membrane energies. This connection, which we find interesting in itself, also turns out to be useful in the proof of our main convergence result.
We first explain what we mean by (generalized) weak-membrane energy. Consider a bounded and monotone increasing function $f:[0,+\infty)\to[0,+\infty)$ such that $f(0)=0$ and $f'(0)=1$. Then, given $u:{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ and $A\in\mathcal{A}(D)$ we set $$\label{eq:defmembrane}
G_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u,A):=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{{\varepsilon}x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap A}{\varepsilon}^{d-1}f\Bigg({\varepsilon}\sum_{{\varepsilon}y\in{\varepsilon}\mathcal{E}({\omega})(x)\cap A}\left|\frac{u({\varepsilon}x)-u({\varepsilon}y)}{{\varepsilon}}\right|^2\Bigg).$$ In our present random setting these functionals are a special case of those considered in [@R18]. While our weak membrane energies depend on non-pairwise interactions, we remark that in the context of computer vision they were introduced and studied in [@BlZi; @GeGe; @Ma] in a simpler form accounting only for pairwise interactions.
For our purpose it will be convenient to consider weak-membrane energies with a special choice of $f$. Namely, for a given parameter $\alpha>0$ we set $f_\alpha(t):=t(1+t/\alpha)^{-1}$ and we notice that $f_\alpha$ satisfies all assumptions listed above. We then define $G_{{\varepsilon},\alpha}$ according to with $f=f_\alpha$. The following convergence result for the sequence $(G_{{\varepsilon},\alpha}({\omega}))$, which can be compared with Theorem \[mainrep\], is a consequence of [@R18 Theorem 3.3 and Remark 3.4]. We recall it here for the reader’s convenience.
\[t.weakmembrane\] Let ${\mathcal{L}(\omega)}$ be an admissible stochastic lattice with admissible edges $\mathcal{E}({\omega})$ in the sense of Definitions \[defadmissible\] & \[defgoodedges\]. For every sequence ${\varepsilon}\to 0$ there exists a subsequence ${\varepsilon}_n\to 0$ such that for every $\alpha>0$ and every $A\in{\mathcal{A}^R(D)}$ the functionals $G_{{\varepsilon}_n,\alpha}({\omega})(\cdot,A)$ $\Gamma$-converge in the strong $L^1(D)$-topology to a free discontinuity functional $G_\alpha({\omega})(\cdot,A):L^1(D)\to [0,+\infty]$ with domain $GSBV^2(A)\cap L^1(D)$, where it is given by $$G_\alpha({\omega})(u,A)=\int_A q({\omega},x,\nabla u){\,\mathrm{d}x}+\int_{S_u\cap A}s_\alpha({\omega},x,\nu_u)\,\mathrm{d}\mathcal{H}^{d-1}.$$ In the above formula the integrand $q({\omega},x,\xi)$ agrees with the $\Gamma$-limit of the quadratic functionals $F_{{\varepsilon}}^{b}({\omega})$ given by Theorem \[ACGmain\] (which in particular exists along ${\varepsilon}_n$) and the surface tension can be equivalently characterized by the two formulas $$\begin{aligned}
s_\alpha({\omega},x_0,\nu) &=\limsup_{\varrho\to 0}\varrho^{1-d}\lim_{\delta\to 0}\limsup_{n\to +\infty}\inf\{G_{{\varepsilon}_n,\alpha}({\omega})(u,Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho)):\,u\in\mathcal{S}_{{\varepsilon}_n,\delta}^{{\omega}}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{1,0},Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho))\}\\
&=\limsup_{\varrho\to 0}\varrho^{1-d}\lim_{\delta\to 0}\limsup_{n\to +\infty}\inf\{I_{{\varepsilon}_n,\alpha}({\omega})(w,Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho)):\,w\in\mathcal{S}_{{\varepsilon}_n,\delta}^{{\omega}}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{1,-1},Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho))\},\end{aligned}$$ with the energy $I_{{\varepsilon},\alpha}({\omega})$ defined on functions $w:{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\to\{\pm 1\}$ via $$I_{{\varepsilon},\alpha}({\omega})(w,A):=\frac{\alpha}{4}\sum_{{\varepsilon}x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap A}{\varepsilon}^{d-1}\max\{|w({\varepsilon}x)-w({\varepsilon}y)|:{\varepsilon}y\in{\varepsilon}\mathcal{E}({\omega})(x)\cap A\}.$$ In particular, we have $s_\alpha({\omega},x_0,\nu)=\alpha s_1({\omega},x_0,\nu)$ and the following estimates $$\frac{1}{C}|\xi|^2\leq q({\omega},x,\xi)\leq C|\xi|^2,\quad\quad\frac{\alpha}{C}\leq s_\alpha({\omega},x,\nu)\leq C\alpha.$$
In what follows, we show that the Ambrosio-Tortorelli approximation can be interpreted as a weak membrane energy $G_{{\varepsilon},\beta}$, provided we neglect the term containing the discrete gradient of the edge variable $v$. Indeed, the following proposition holds true:
\[prop:ATandWeak\] Let ${\mathcal{L}(\omega)}$ be an admissible stochastic lattice with admissible edges $\mathcal{E}({\omega})$ and let $G_{{\varepsilon},\beta}({\omega})$ be defined as in with $f=f_\beta$. Then for all $u:{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ and $A\in\mathcal{A}(D)$ it holds that $$G_{{\varepsilon},\beta}({\omega})(u,A)=\min_{v:{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\to [0,1]} \Big(F_{{\varepsilon}}^{b}({\omega})(u,v,A)+\frac{\beta}{2}\sum_{{\varepsilon}x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap A}{\varepsilon}^{d-1}(v({\varepsilon}x)-1)^2\Big).$$
Recalling the definition of the bulk term $F_{{\varepsilon}}^{b}({\omega})(u,v,A)$ in , we can derive a pointwise optimality condition for the minimization problem, which reads (neglecting the constraint $0\leq v\leq 1$) $${\varepsilon}^dv({\varepsilon}x)\sum_{{\varepsilon}y\in{\varepsilon}\mathcal{E}({\omega})(x)\cap A}\left|\frac{u({\varepsilon}x)-u({\varepsilon}y)}{{\varepsilon}}\right|^2+\beta {\varepsilon}^{d-1}v({\varepsilon}x)=\beta{\varepsilon}^{d-1}\quad\quad\text{for all }{\varepsilon}x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap A.$$ Rearranging terms we find that for ${\varepsilon}x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap A$ we have $$v({\varepsilon}x)=\Bigg(1+\frac{{\varepsilon}}{\beta}\displaystyle\sum_{{\varepsilon}y\in{\varepsilon}\mathcal{E}({\omega})(x)\cap A}\left|\frac{u({\varepsilon}x)-u({\varepsilon}y)}{{\varepsilon}}\right|^2\Bigg)^{-1},$$ so that a posteriori $v({\varepsilon}x)\in (0,1]$ and thus it is a minimizer of the constrained problem as well. Inserting this formula for $v$ yields the claim after some algebraic manipulations.
Discretization with mesh-size proportional to ${\varepsilon}$ and optimality of the lattice-scaling
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we present a version of Theorem \[mainrep\] when the mesh-size is not equal to the elliptic-approximation parameter ${\varepsilon}$, but only proportional to it. More precisely, we let $(\kappa_{\varepsilon})$ be a sequence of positive parameters, decreasing as ${\varepsilon}$ decreases and such that $\lim_{\varepsilon}\kappa_{\varepsilon}=0$ and for every $u,v\in\mathcal{PC}_{\kappa_{\varepsilon}}^{\omega}$ we set $$\label{def:Fdelta}
F_{{\varepsilon},\kappa_{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u,v):=F_{\kappa_{\varepsilon}}^b({\omega})(u,v)+\frac{\beta}{2}\Bigg(\sum_{\kappa_{\varepsilon}x\in\kappa_{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap D}\hspace*{-1em}\kappa_{\varepsilon}^d\frac{(v(\kappa_{\varepsilon}x)-1)^2}{{\varepsilon}}+\sum_{\substack{(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})\\\kappa_{\varepsilon}x,\kappa_{\varepsilon}y\in D}}\hspace*{-0.5em}{\varepsilon}\kappa_{\varepsilon}^d\left|\frac{v(\kappa_{\varepsilon}x)-v(\kappa_{\varepsilon}y)}{\kappa_{\varepsilon}}\right|^2\Bigg).$$ When $\kappa_{\varepsilon}=\ell{\varepsilon}$ for some $\ell\in (0,+\infty)$ we have the following integral-representation result for the functionals $F_{{\varepsilon},\kappa_{\varepsilon}}({\omega})$, similar to Theorem \[mainrep\].
\[t.representationl\] Let ${\mathcal{L}(\omega)}$ be an admissible stochastic lattice with admissible edges $\mathcal{E}({\omega})$ and for a given $\ell\in(0,+\infty)$ let $F_{{\varepsilon},\kappa_{\varepsilon}}({\omega})$ be as in with $\kappa_{\varepsilon}=\ell{\varepsilon}$. For every sequence ${\varepsilon}\to 0$ there exist a subsequence ${\varepsilon}_n\to 0$ and a functional $F_\ell({\omega}):L^1(D)\times L^1(D)\to[0,+\infty]$ of the form $$\begin{aligned}
F_\ell({\omega})(u,v)=
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle\int_D f({\omega},x,\nabla u){\,\mathrm{d}x}+\int_{S_u}\varphi_\ell({\omega},x,\nu_u){\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{d}{\mathcal{H}^{d-1}}}}, &\text{if $u\in GSBV^2(D)$, $v=1$ a.e. in $D$,}\\
+\infty &\text{otherwise,}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ such that $F_{{\varepsilon}_n,\kappa_{{\varepsilon}_n}}({\omega})$ $\Gamma$-converges in the strong $L^1(D)\times L^1(D)$-topology to $F_\ell({\omega})$. Moreover, the volume integrand $f$ is given by Theorem \[ACGmain\] and $\varphi_\ell({\omega},\cdot,\cdot)$ is a measurable function which satisfies for every $x_0\in D$ and every $\nu\in S^{d-1}$ the estimate $$\label{est:phil1}
\beta\ell s_1({\omega},x_0,\nu)\leq\varphi_\ell({\omega},x_0,\nu)\leq\beta\left(\ell+\frac{M}{\ell}\right)s_1({\omega},x_0,\nu).$$ Here $M$ is as in and $s_1$ is the surface integrand of the $\Gamma$-limit given by Theorem \[t.weakmembrane\], which exists upon passing possibly to a further subsequence. In particular, we have $$\lim_{\ell\to+\infty}\frac{1}{\ell}\varphi_\ell({\omega},x_0,\nu)=\beta s_1({\omega},x_0,\nu),\qquad\frac{\ell}{C}\leq\varphi_\ell({\omega},x_0,\nu)\leq C\ell.$$
\[r.otherresults\] Although we don’t state it separately, note that the statements of Theorems \[mainthm1\] & \[MSapprox\] remain valid for the functionals $F_{{\varepsilon},\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}}({\omega})$ with $\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}=\ell{\varepsilon}$ with minor modifications in the proof and with surface densities depending on $\ell$ as in the theorem above.
Theorem \[t.representationl\] shows that the surface density $\varphi_\ell({\omega},x,\nu)$ blows up linearly in $\ell$ when $\ell\to +\infty$. Thus, one expects that (similar to the result in [@BBZ Theorem 2.1(iii) and Theorem 3.1(ii)]) one cannot approximate the Mumford-Shah (or any other free-discontinuity) functional by discretizing the Ambrosio-Tortorelli functional via finite differences on an admissible lattice $\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}$ with $\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}/{\varepsilon}\to +\infty$. In fact, Corollary \[c.optimal\] states that in this regime the $u_{\varepsilon}$-component of any sequence $(u_{\varepsilon},v_{\varepsilon})$ with $(u_{\varepsilon})$ equibounded in $L^2(D)$ and such that $F_{{\varepsilon},\kappa_{\varepsilon}}(u_{\varepsilon},v_{\varepsilon})<+\infty$ converges up to subsequences to some $u\in W^{1,2}(D)$. Thus interfaces are ruled out in the limit.
\[c.optimal\] Let ${\mathcal{L}(\omega)}$ be admissible with admissible edges $\mathcal{E}({\omega})$ and consider a sequence $\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}>0$ with $\kappa_{\varepsilon}$ decreasing as ${\varepsilon}$ decreases and $\lim_{\varepsilon}\kappa_{\varepsilon}=0$ such that $\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\frac{\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}}{{\varepsilon}}=+\infty$. Let $F_{{\varepsilon},\kappa_{\varepsilon}}({\omega})$ be as in and let $u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}}:\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be such that $|v_{{\varepsilon}}|\leq 1$ and $$\|u_{{\varepsilon}}\|_{L^2(D)}+F_{{\varepsilon},\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}}({\omega})(u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}})\leq C\quad \text{for all ${\varepsilon}>0$}.$$ Then, up to subsequences, $u_{{\varepsilon}}\to u$ in $L^1(D)$ for some $u\in W^{1,2}(D)$.
\[r.gammalimit\] Under the assumptions of Corollary \[c.optimal\], (up to subsequences) the $\Gamma$-limit agrees with the one given by Theorem \[ACGmain\]. Indeed, an upper bound is given by setting $v\equiv 1$, while the lower bound is obtained via comparison with weak membrane energies $G_{{\varepsilon},\alpha}({\omega})$ for any $\alpha>0$ in the case of a limit function $u\in W^{1,2}(D)$. We leave the details to the interested reader.
Separation of scales: proof of Theorem \[mainrep\], Theorem \[t.representationl\] and Corollary \[c.optimal\] {#s.proofs}
=============================================================================================================
The main part of this section is devoted to the proof of the integral-representation result Theorem \[mainrep\].
Integral representation in $SBV^2$
----------------------------------
As a first step towards the proof of Theorem \[mainrep\], using the so-called localization method of $\Gamma$-convergence together with the general result [@BFLM Theorem 1] we prove the following preliminary result.
\[limitsbvp\] Given any sequence ${\varepsilon}\to 0$ there exists a subsequence ${\varepsilon}_n$ such that for all $A\in{\mathcal{A}^R(D)}$ the functionals $F_{{\varepsilon}_n}({\omega})(\cdot,\cdot,A)$ $\Gamma$-converge in the strong $L^1(D)\times L^1(D)$-topology to a functional $F({\omega})(\cdot,\cdot,A):L^1(D)\times L^1(D)\to[0,+\infty]$. If $u\in SBV^2(A)$ then $F({\omega})(u,1,A)$ can be written as $$F({\omega})(u,1,A)=
\int_A h({\omega},x,\nabla u){\,\mathrm{d}x}+\int_{S_u\cap A}\varphi({\omega},x,{u^+}-{u^-},\nu_u)\,\mathrm{d}\mathcal{H}^{d-1},$$ where, for $x_0\in D$, $\nu\in S^{d-1}$, $a\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d}$, the integrands are given by $$\label{derivationformula}
\begin{split}
h({\omega},x_0,\xi)&=\limsup_{\varrho\to 0}\varrho^{-d}m^{\omega}(u_{x_0,\xi},Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho)),
\\
\varphi({\omega},x_0,a,\nu)&=\limsup_{\varrho\to 0}\varrho^{1-d}m^{\omega}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{a,0},Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho))
\end{split}$$ with the functions $u_{x_0,\nu}^{a,0}$ and $u_{x_0,\xi}$ defined in and , respectively, and the function $m^{\omega}(\bar{u},A)$ defined for any $\bar{u}\in SBV^2(D)$ and $A\in{\mathcal{A}^R(D)}$ by $$m^{\omega}(\bar{u},A):=\inf\{F({\omega})(u,1,A):\;u\in SBV^2(A),\,u=\bar{u}\text{ in a neighborhood of }\partial A\}.$$
In order to prove this result we will analyze the localized $\Gamma\hbox{-}\liminf$ and $\Gamma\hbox{-}\limsup$ $F^{\prime}({\omega}),F^{\prime\prime}({\omega}):L^{1}(D)\times L^1(D)\times\mathcal{A}(D)\to [0,+\infty]$ of the functionals $F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})$, which are defined as $$\begin{split}
F^{\prime}({\omega})(u,v,A)&:=\inf\{\liminf_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}},A):\;u_{{\varepsilon}}\to u\, \text{ and }\,v_{{\varepsilon}}\to v \text{ in }L^{1}(D)\},\\
F^{\prime\prime}({\omega})(u,v,A)&:=\inf\{\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}},A):\;u_{{\varepsilon}}\to u\, \text{ and }\,v_{{\varepsilon}}\to v\text{ in }L^{1}(D)\}.
\end{split}$$
\[proxi\] Both functionals are $L^1(D)\times L^1(D)$-lower semicontinuous. Moreover, for any $w\in L^{1}(D)$ there exists indeed a sequence $w_{{\varepsilon}}\in\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon}}^{{\omega}}$ such that $w_{{\varepsilon}}\to w$ in $L^{1}(D)$.
Our aim is to apply the integral representation of [@BFLM Theorem 1]. To this end, below we establish several properties of $F^{\prime}({\omega})$ and $F^{\prime\prime}({\omega})$. The next remark about truncations allows to reduce some of the arguments used in the forthcoming proofs to the case of bounded functions.
\[trunc\] Let $u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}}\in\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon}}^{{\omega}}$. For any $k>0$ let $T_ku_{{\varepsilon}}$ denote the truncation of $u_{\varepsilon}$ at level $k$. Then it is immediate to see that $F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(T_ku_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}},A)\leq F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}},A)$ for any $A\in\mathcal{A}(D)$. In particular, whenever $u\in L^{\infty}(D)$ we can compute $F^{\prime}({\omega})(u,1,A)$ and $F^{\prime\prime}({\omega})(u,1,A)$ considering sequences $u_{{\varepsilon}}\in\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon}}^{{\omega}}$ such that $|u_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)|\leq \|u\|_{\infty}$ for all $x\in{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}$. Moreover, also $F^{\prime}$ and $F^{\prime\prime}$ decrease by truncation in $u$. Thus, since in addition both functionals are $L^1(D)$-lower semicontinuous, for all $u\in L^1(D)$ we have $$\begin{split}
\lim_{k\to +\infty}F^{\prime}({\omega})(T_ku,A)&=F^{\prime}({\omega})(u,A),\\
\lim_{k\to +\infty}F^{\prime\prime}({\omega})(T_ku,A)&=F^{\prime\prime}({\omega})(u,A).
\end{split}$$ Moreover, since $F_{\varepsilon}({\omega})$ is invariant under translation in $u$, we deduce that also both $F'({\omega})(\cdot,1,A)$ and $F''({\omega})(\cdot,1,A)$ are invariant under translation in $u$.
We next show that $F^{\prime\prime}({\omega})$ is local.
\[local\] Let $A\in{\mathcal{A}^R(D)}$. If $u,\tilde{u}\in L^1(D)$ and $u=\tilde{u}$ a.e. on $A$, then $F^{\prime\prime}({\omega})(u,1,A)=F^{\prime\prime}({\omega})(\tilde{u},1,A)$.
Due to Remark \[proxi\] there exist sequences $(u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}}),(\tilde{u}_{{\varepsilon}},\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}})\in\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon}}^{{\omega}}\times\mathcal{PC}_{\varepsilon}^{\omega}$ converging to $(u,1)$ and $(\tilde{u},1)$ in $L^1(D)\times L^1(D)$, respectively, and such that $$\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}},A)=F^{\prime\prime}({\omega})(u,1,A),\quad\quad\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(\tilde{u}_{{\varepsilon}},\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}},A)=F^{\prime\prime}({\omega})(\tilde{u},1,A).$$ Define $u^0_{{\varepsilon}},v^0_{{\varepsilon}}\in\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon}}^{{\omega}}$ by $$\begin{split}
u^0_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)&=\mathds{1}_{A}({\varepsilon}x)u_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)+(1-\mathds{1}_A({\varepsilon}x))\tilde{u}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x),
\\
v^0_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)&=\mathds{1}_{A}({\varepsilon}x)v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)+(1-\mathds{1}_A({\varepsilon}x))\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x).
\end{split}$$ Using that $|\partial A|=0$ and the equiintegrability of $u_{{\varepsilon}},\tilde{u}_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}}$, and $\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}$, one can show that $u^0_{{\varepsilon}}\to \tilde{u}$ and $v^0_{{\varepsilon}}\to 1$ in $L^1(D)$. Then by definition $$F^{\prime\prime}({\omega})(\tilde{u},1,A)\leq\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u^0_{{\varepsilon}},v^0_{{\varepsilon}},A)=\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}},A)=F^{\prime\prime}({\omega})(u,1,A).$$ Exchanging the roles of $u$ and $\tilde{u}$ we conclude.
The next lemma provides a lower bound for $F^{\prime}$. We also obtain equicoercivity under an additional equiintegrability assumption.
\[compact\] Assume that $A\in\mathcal{A}^R(D)$ and $u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}}\in\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon}}^{{\omega}}$ are such that $$\sup_{{\varepsilon}}F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}},A)<+\infty.$$ Then $v_{{\varepsilon}}\to 1$ in $L^1(A)$. If $u_{{\varepsilon}}$ is equiintegrable on $A$, then there exists a subsequence (not relabeled) such that $u_{{\varepsilon}}\to u$ in $L^1(A)$ for some $u\in GSBV^2(A)$. Moreover we have the estimate $$\frac{1}{c}\left(\int_A|\nabla u|^2{\,\mathrm{d}x}+\mathcal{H}^{d-1}(S_u\cap A)\right)\leq F^{\prime}({\omega})(u,1,A)$$ for some constant $c>0$ independent of ${\omega},A$ and $u$.
Since $0\leq v_{{\varepsilon}}\leq 1$, boundedness of the energy and Remark \[voronoi\] imply that $v_{{\varepsilon}}\to 1$ in $L^1(A)$. Moreover, due to Proposition \[prop:ATandWeak\] we have $$F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}},A)\geq \min_{v:{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\to [0,1]}F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u_{{\varepsilon}},v,A)\geq G_{{\varepsilon},\beta}({\omega})(u_{{\varepsilon}},A).$$ Hence the compactness statement and the lower bound on the $\Gamma\hbox{-}\liminf$ are a direct consequence of the corresponding result for weak-membrane energies (cf. Theorem \[t.weakmembrane\] or [@R18 Lemma 5.6]).
As a next step we prove the corresponding upper bound for $F^{\prime\prime}({\omega})$.
\[bounds\] Let $u\in L^1(D)$. There exists a constant $c>0$ independent of ${\omega}$ and $u$ such that for all $A\in\mathcal{A}^R(D)$ with $u\in GSBV^2(A)$ it holds that $$F^{\prime\prime}({\omega})(u,1,A)\leq c\left(\int_A|\nabla u|^2{\,\mathrm{d}x}+\mathcal{H}^{d-1}(S_u\cap A)\right).$$
We compare the functionals with weak-membrane energies in the sense of an appropriate upper bound. To this end, let $v:{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\to [0,1]$ and fix an edge $(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})$. We assume without loss of generality that $v({\varepsilon}x)\leq v({\varepsilon}y)$. Then $$|v({\varepsilon}x)-v({\varepsilon}y)|=v({\varepsilon}y)-v({\varepsilon}x)\leq 1-v({\varepsilon}x),$$ so that $|v({\varepsilon}x)-v({\varepsilon}y)|^2\leq (v({\varepsilon}x)-1)^2$. From we then conclude that $$\sum_{\substack{(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})\\ {\varepsilon}x,{\varepsilon}y\in A}}{\varepsilon}^{d-1}|v({\varepsilon}x)-v({\varepsilon}y)|^2\leq 2M\sum_{{\varepsilon}x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap A}{\varepsilon}^{d-1}(v({\varepsilon}x)-1)^2.$$ In particular, applying Proposition \[prop:ATandWeak\], for every $u:{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ we deduce the upper bound $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{v:{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\to [0,1]}F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u,v,A) &\leq\min_{v:{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\to [0,1]}\Big(F_{{\varepsilon}}^{b}({\omega})(u,v,A)+\frac{\beta(1+M)}{2}\sum_{{\varepsilon}x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap A}{\varepsilon}^{d-1}(v({\varepsilon}x)-1)^2\Big)\\
&= G_{{\varepsilon},\beta(1+M)}({\omega})(u,A).\end{aligned}$$ Hence the statement follows by comparison with the upper bound for weak-membrane energies (cf. Theorem \[t.weakmembrane\] or [@R18 Lemma 5.7]). Note that any sequence of optimal $v_{{\varepsilon}}$’s will convergence to $1$ since the energy remains bounded for any target function $u\in GSBV^2(A)$.
The following technical lemma establishes an almost subadditivity of the set function $A\mapsto F^{\prime\prime}({\omega})(u,A)$.
\[subadd\] Let $A,B\in{\mathcal{A}^R(D)}$. Moreover let $A^{\prime}\in{\mathcal{A}^R(D)}$ be such that $A^{\prime}\subset\subset A$. Then, for all $u\in L^1(D)$, $$F^{\prime\prime}({\omega})(u,1,A^{\prime}\cup B)\leq F^{\prime\prime}({\omega})(u,1,A)+F^{\prime\prime}({\omega})(u,1,B).$$
Let $A,A',B$ and $u$ be as in the statement. It suffices to consider the case where both $F''({\omega})(u,1,A)$ and $F''({\omega})(u,1,B)$ are finite. Moreover, Remark \[trunc\] allows us to restrict to the case $u\in L^\infty(D)$. We choose sequences $(u_{\varepsilon},v_{\varepsilon}),(\tilde{u}_{\varepsilon},\tilde{v}_{\varepsilon})\in\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon}}^{{\omega}}\times\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon}}^{{\omega}}$ both converging to $(u,1)$ in $L^1(D)\times L^1(D)$ and satisfying $$\label{recovery}
\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}},A)=F^{\prime\prime}({\omega})(u,A),\qquad\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(\tilde{u}_{\varepsilon},\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}},B)=F^{\prime\prime}({\omega})(u,B).$$ In view of Remark \[trunc\] we may further assume that $\|u_{\varepsilon}\|_{\infty},\|\tilde{u}_{\varepsilon}\|_\infty\leq\|u\|_\infty$. Hence, since also $0\leq v_{\varepsilon},\tilde{v}_{\varepsilon}\leq 1$ we actually have $(u_{\varepsilon},v_{\varepsilon}),(\tilde{u}_{\varepsilon},\tilde{v}_{\varepsilon})\to (u,1)$ in $L^2(D)\times L^2(D)$.
For fixed $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$ we now construct a sequence $(\hat{u}_{\varepsilon},\hat{v}_{\varepsilon})\in\mathcal{PC}_{\varepsilon}^{\omega}\times\mathcal{PC}_{\varepsilon}^{\omega}$ converging to $(u,1)$ in $L^2(D)\times L^2(D)$ such that $$\label{fundest}
\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(\hat{u}_{\varepsilon},\hat{v}_{\varepsilon},A'\cup B)\leq\left(1+\frac{C}{N}\right)\left(F''({\omega})(u,1,A)+F''({\omega})(u,1,B)\right),$$ for some constant $C>0$ depending only on $A,A',B$ and $u$. Then the result follows by the arbitrariness of $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$. We will obtain the required sequence $(\hat{u}_{\varepsilon},\hat{v}_{\varepsilon})$ by a classical averaging procedure, adapting the construction in [@BBZ Proposition 5.2] to a stochastic lattice. To this end we first need to introduce some notation. We consider an auxiliary function $w_{\varepsilon}\in\mathcal{PC}_{\varepsilon}^{\omega}$ defined as $$\begin{aligned}
w_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}x):=\min\{v_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}x),\tilde{v}_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}x)\}\quad\mbox{for every ${\varepsilon}x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap D$.}\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $w_{{\varepsilon}}\to 1$ in $L^1(D)$. Moreover, we fix $h\leq{{\rm{dist}}}(A',A^c)$ and for every $i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$ we set $$\begin{aligned}
A_i:=\left\{x\in A\colon {{\rm{dist}}}(x,A')<\frac{ih}{2N}\right\},\end{aligned}$$ and we also introduce the layer-like sets $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\varepsilon}^i:=\{x\in A'\cup B\colon {{\rm{dist}}}(x,A_{i+2}\setminus A_{i-3})<2M{\varepsilon}\}.\end{aligned}$$ For every $i\in\{2,\ldots,N\}$ let $\Theta_i$ be a smooth cut-off function between the sets $A_{i-1}$ and $A_i$, [[*i.e.*]{}, ]{}$\Theta_i\equiv 1$ on $A_{i-1}$, $\Theta_i\equiv 0$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus A_{i}$ and $\|\nabla\Theta_i\|_\infty\leq\frac{4N}{h}$.
For every $i\in\{4,\ldots,N-2\}$ we now define a pair $(\hat{u}_{\varepsilon}^i,\hat{v}_{\varepsilon}^i)\in\mathcal{PC}_{\varepsilon}^{\omega}\times\mathcal{PC}_{\varepsilon}^{\omega}$ by setting $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{u}_{\varepsilon}^i({\varepsilon}x):=\Theta_i({\varepsilon}x)u_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}x)+(1-\Theta_i)\tilde{u}_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}x),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{v}_{\varepsilon}^i({\varepsilon}x):=
\begin{cases}
\Theta_{i-2}({\varepsilon}x)v_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}x)+(1-\Theta_{i-2}({\varepsilon}x))w_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}x) &\mbox{if ${\varepsilon}x\in {\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap A_{i-2}$,}\\
w_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}x) &\mbox{if ${\varepsilon}x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap(A_{i+1}\setminus A_{i-2})$,}\\
\Theta_{i+2}({\varepsilon}x)w_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}x)+(1-\Theta_{i+2}({\varepsilon}x))\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x) &\mbox{if ${\varepsilon}x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap (D\setminus A_{i+1})$.}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Note that for fixed $i\in\{4,\ldots,N-2\}$ we have $(\hat{u}_{\varepsilon}^i,\hat{v}_{\varepsilon}^i)\to(u,1)$ in $L^2(D)\times L^2(D)$ by convexity. Moreover, we can estimate $F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(\hat{u}_{\varepsilon}^i,\hat{v}_{\varepsilon}^i,A'\cup B)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est:subad1}
F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(\hat{u}_{\varepsilon}^i,\hat{v}_{\varepsilon}^i, A'\cup B) &\leq F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u_{\varepsilon},v_{\varepsilon}, A_{i-3})+F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(\tilde{u}_{\varepsilon},\tilde{v}_{\varepsilon},B\setminus\overline{A_{i+2}})+F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})\left(\hat{u}_{\varepsilon}^i,\hat{v}_{\varepsilon}^i,S_{{\varepsilon}}^i\right)\nonumber\\
&\leq F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u_{\varepsilon},v_{\varepsilon},A)+F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(\tilde{u}_{\varepsilon},\tilde{v}_{\varepsilon},B)+F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})\left(\hat{u}_{\varepsilon}^i,\hat{v}_{\varepsilon}^i,S_{{\varepsilon}}^i\right).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, in view of , estimate follows if we can show that the last term on the right hand side of can be bounded by $C/N$ for a suitable choice of $i$. We start estimating the bulk term. First observe that for every pair $(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})$ it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:graduhat}
\hat{u}_{\varepsilon}^i({\varepsilon}x)-\hat{u}_{\varepsilon}^i({\varepsilon}y) &=\Theta_i({\varepsilon}x)(u_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}x)-u_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}y))+(1-\Theta_i({\varepsilon}x))(\tilde{u}_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}x)-\tilde{u}_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}y))\nonumber\\
&\hspace*{1em}+(\Theta_i({\varepsilon}x)-\Theta_i({\varepsilon}y))(u_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}y)-\tilde{u}_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}y)).\end{aligned}$$ In addition, for every ${\varepsilon}x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap D$ the properties of the cut-off function $\Theta_i$ imply that $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{v}_{\varepsilon}^i({\varepsilon}x)\Theta_i({\varepsilon}x)\leq v_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}x)\quad\mbox{and}\quad\hat{v}_{\varepsilon}^i({\varepsilon}x)(1-\Theta_i({\varepsilon}x))\leq \tilde{v}_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}x).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, using the mean-value theorem for $\Theta_i$ and the convexity inequality $(a+b+c)^2\leq 3(a^2+b^2+c^2)$, from we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{v}_{\varepsilon}^i({\varepsilon}x)^2\left|\frac{\hat{u}_{\varepsilon}^i({\varepsilon}x)-\hat{u}_{\varepsilon}^i({\varepsilon}y)}{{\varepsilon}}\right|^2
&\leq 3\,\Big(v_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}x)^2\left|\frac{u_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}x)-u_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}y)}{{\varepsilon}}\right|^2+\tilde{v}_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}x)^2\left|\frac{\tilde{u}_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}x)-\tilde{u}_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}y)}{{\varepsilon}}\right|^2\Big)\\
&\hspace*{1em}+C\frac{N^2}{h^2}|u_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}y)-\tilde{u}_ {\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}y)|^2\end{aligned}$$ for every pair $(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})$ with ${\varepsilon}x,{\varepsilon}y\in S_{\varepsilon}^{i}$. Summing the above estimate over all such pairs $(x,y)$ we infer that $$\label{eq:subad:bulk2}
F_{{\varepsilon}}^{b}({\omega})\left(\hat{u}_{\varepsilon}^i,\hat{v}_{\varepsilon}^i,S_{\varepsilon}^{i}\right) \leq 3\Big(F_{{\varepsilon}}^{b}({\omega})\left(u_{\varepsilon},v_{\varepsilon},S_{\varepsilon}^{i}\right)+F_{{\varepsilon}}^{b}({\omega})\left(\tilde{u}_{\varepsilon},\tilde{v}_{\varepsilon},S_{\varepsilon}^{i}\right)\Big)+CN^2\hspace{-1em}\sum_{{\varepsilon}y\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap S_{\varepsilon}^{i}}\hspace{-1em}{\varepsilon}^d|u_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}y)-\tilde{u}_ {\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}y)|^2.$$ Next we consider the surface term. Since the function $x\mapsto (x-1)^2$ is convex, we obtain from the definition of $\hat{v}_{{\varepsilon}}^i$ that $$\label{eq:boundlocal}
(\hat{v}_{{\varepsilon}}^i({\varepsilon}x)-1)^2\leq
(v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)-1)^2+(\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)-1)^2.$$ For the finite differences, observe that we can equivalently write $$w_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)=
\begin{cases}
\Theta_{i-2}({\varepsilon}x)v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)+(1-\Theta_{i-2}({\varepsilon}x))w_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x) &\mbox{if ${\varepsilon}x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\setminus A_{i-2}$,}
\\
\Theta_{i+2}({\varepsilon}x)w_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)+(1-\Theta_{i+2}({\varepsilon}x))\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x) &\mbox{if ${\varepsilon}x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap A_{i+1}$.}
\end{cases}$$ Then, by the analogue of formula , we can estimate $$\begin{aligned}
|\hat{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)-\hat{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)|^2\leq &3\left(|v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)-v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)|^2+|\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)-\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)|^2+|w_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)-w_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)|^2\right)
\\
&+C\frac{N^2}{h^2}{\varepsilon}^2|v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)-\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where we used that the distance between the sets ${\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus A_{i+1}$ and $A_{i-2}$ is of order $\tfrac{h}{N}\gg M{\varepsilon}$ to reduce the number of possible interactions with respect to the case-by-case definition of $\hat{v}_{{\varepsilon}}^i$. Inserting the elementary inequality $$|w_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}x)-w_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}y)|^2\leq\max\left\{|v_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}x)-v_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}y)|^2,|\tilde{v}_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}x)-\tilde{v}_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}y)|^2\right\},$$ the above estimate can be continued to $$\label{eq:vgradbound}
|\hat{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)-\hat{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)|^2\leq 4\left(|v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)-v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)|^2+|\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)-\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)|^2\right)+C\frac{N^2}{h^2}{\varepsilon}^2|v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)-\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)|^2.$$ Combining and and summing over all pairs $(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})$ gives $$F_{{\varepsilon}}^{s}({\omega})(\hat{v}_{{\varepsilon}}^i,S_{{\varepsilon}}^i)\leq 4\left(F_{{\varepsilon}}^{s}({\omega})(v_{{\varepsilon}},S_{{\varepsilon}}^i)+F_{{\varepsilon}}^{s}({\omega})(\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}},S_{{\varepsilon}}^i)\right)+CN^2{\varepsilon}\sum_{{\varepsilon}y\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap S_{{\varepsilon}}^i}{\varepsilon}^d|v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)-\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)|^2.$$ Combining the above inequality with then yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:beforeaveraging}
F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(\hat{v}_{{\varepsilon}}^i,S_{{\varepsilon}}^i)\leq& 4\left(F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(v_{{\varepsilon}},S_{{\varepsilon}}^i)+F_{{\varepsilon}}^{s}({\omega})(\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}},S_{{\varepsilon}}^i)\right)\nonumber
\\
&+CN^2\sum_{{\varepsilon}y\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap S_{{\varepsilon}}^i}{\varepsilon}^d\left(|u_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)-\tilde{u}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)|^2+{\varepsilon}|v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)-\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)|^2\right).\end{aligned}$$ We eventually notice that for every $i,j\in\{4,\ldots,N-2\}$ we have $S_{\varepsilon}^i\cap S_{\varepsilon}^j=\emptyset$ whenever $|i-j|>5$ and ${\varepsilon}>0$ is small enough. Moreover, for $i\in\{4\ldots,N-2\}$ we have $S_{\varepsilon}^i\subset B$ and $S_{\varepsilon}^i{\subset\subset}A$. Thus, summing over $i\in\{4,\ldots,N-2\}$ and averaging, we find $i({\varepsilon})\in\{4,\ldots,N-2\}$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
& F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega}) \left(\hat{u}_{\varepsilon}^{i({\varepsilon})},\hat{v}_{\varepsilon}^{i({\varepsilon})},S_{\varepsilon}^{i({\varepsilon})}\right)\leq\frac{1}{N-5}\sum_{i=4}^{N-2}F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})\left(\hat{u}_{\varepsilon}^{i},\hat{v}_{\varepsilon}^{i},S_{\varepsilon}^{i}\right)
\\
&\hspace{1em}\leq\frac{C}{N}(F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u_{\varepsilon},v_{\varepsilon},A)+F_{\varepsilon}(\tilde{u}_{\varepsilon},\tilde{v}_{\varepsilon},B))+CN\|u_{{\varepsilon}}-\tilde{u}_{{\varepsilon}}\|^2_{L^2(A)}+CN{\varepsilon}\|v_{{\varepsilon}}-\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}\|^2_{L^2(A)},\end{aligned}$$ where we used Remark \[voronoi\] to pass from the sum to the integral norms. Since $u_{\varepsilon}$ and $\tilde{u}_{\varepsilon}$ have the same limit in $L^2(D)$ and $0\leq v_{\varepsilon},\tilde{v}_{\varepsilon}\leq 1$, thanks to we obtain the required sequence satisfying by setting $(\hat{u}_{\varepsilon},\hat{v}_{\varepsilon}):=\big(\hat{u}_{\varepsilon}^{i({\varepsilon})},\hat{v}_{\varepsilon}^{i({\varepsilon})}\big)$.
The next lemma is a standard consequence of Proposition \[subadd\] and Lemma \[bounds\]. A proof can be found for example in [@R18 Lemma 5.9].
\[almostmeasure\] Let $u\in L^1(D)$. Then for any $A\in{\mathcal{A}^R(D)}$ it holds that $$F^{\prime\prime}({\omega})(u,A)=\sup_{A^{\prime}\subset\subset A}F^{\prime\prime}({\omega})(u,A^{\prime}).$$
Now we are in a position to establish the main result of this subsection.
Having at hand Remark \[trunc\] and Lemmata \[local\], \[compact\], \[bounds\], and \[almostmeasure\] as well as Proposition \[subadd\], the well-known argument can be found, [[*e.g.*]{}, ]{}in [@R18 Proposition].
Characterization of the bulk density
------------------------------------
In this subsection we argue that the function $h$ given by Proposition \[limitsbvp\] agrees with the density of the $\Gamma$-limit of the sequence of discrete quadratic functionals $u\mapsto F_{{\varepsilon}}^{b}({\omega})(u,1,D)$ defined in .
\[p.gradientpartsequal\] Let ${\varepsilon}_n$ and $F({\omega})$ be as in Proposition \[limitsbvp\]. Then for a.e. $x_0\in D$ and every $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d}$ it holds that $$|B_1|h({\omega},x_0,\xi)=\lim_{\varrho\to 0}\varrho^{-d}F({\omega})(u_{x_0,\xi},1,B_{\varrho}(x_0))=|B_1|f({\omega},x_0,\xi),$$ where $f({\omega},\cdot,\cdot)$ is an (equivalent) integrand given by the $\Gamma$-limit of $F_{{\varepsilon}_n}^b({\omega})(\cdot,1,D)$, which in particular exists along the sequence ${\varepsilon}_n$.
The first equality characterizing the function $h$, which does not rely on the discrete functionals, but only on the structure and growth of the continuum limit, can be proven as in [@R18 Lemma 5.11]. Hence we only prove the second inequality. By Theorem \[ACGmain\], upon passing temporarily to a further subsequence (not relabeled), we may assume that the sequence $F_{{\varepsilon}_n}^b({\omega})(\cdot,1,D)$ $\Gamma$-converges to some integral functional $F^b({\omega})(\cdot,D)$ with density $f({\omega},\cdot,\cdot)$. Fix $x_0\in D$ satisfying the first equality.
Since $v_{{\varepsilon}}\equiv 1$ is an admissible phase-field for any trial recovery sequence of the affine function $u_{x_0,\xi}$ and $F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u,1,B_{\rho}(x_0))=F_{{\varepsilon}}^{b}({\omega})(u,1,B_{\rho}(x_0))$ for every $u\in\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon}}^{{\omega}}$, we deduce that $$\varrho^{-d}F({\omega})(u_{x_0,\xi},B_{\varrho}(x_0))\leq |B_1|\dashint_{B_{\rho}(x_0)}f({\omega},x,\xi)\,\mathrm{d}x.$$ In order to prove the reverse inequality, note that due to Proposition \[prop:ATandWeak\] we have $$\varrho^{-d}F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u,v,B_{\varrho}(x_0))\geq \varrho^{-d}G_{{\varepsilon},\beta}({\omega})(u,B_{\varrho}(x_0)).$$ Hence, possibly passing to a further subsequence, the separation of scales in weak membrane models (cf. Theorem \[t.weakmembrane\]) implies $$\begin{aligned}
\varrho^{-d}F({\omega})(u_{x_0,\xi},B_{\varrho}(x_0))&\geq\varrho^{-d}\, \Gamma\hbox{-}\lim_{{\varepsilon}_n\to 0}G_{{\varepsilon}_n,\beta}({\omega})(u_{x_0,\xi},B_{\varrho}(x_0))
\\
&=\varrho^{-d} \,\Gamma\hbox{-}\lim_{{\varepsilon}_n\to 0}F_{{\varepsilon}_n}^b({\omega})(u_{x_0,\xi},1,B_{\varrho}(x_0))=|B_1|\dashint_{B_{\varrho}(x_0)}f({\omega},x,\xi){\,\mathrm{d}x}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the uniform local Lipschitz continuity of $f$ in the third variable (which is a consequence of the quadratic dependence and local boundedness) one can pass to the limit in $\rho$ by Lebesgue’s differentiation theorem except for a null set independent of $\xi$, which yields $$\lim_{\varrho\to 0}\varrho^{-d}F({\omega})(u_{x_0,\xi},B_{\varrho}(x_0))= |B_1|f({\omega},x_0,\xi)$$ for a.e. $x_0\in D$ and every $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$.
Hence we proved the claim along the chosen subsequence. In particular, along any subsequence of ${\varepsilon}_n$ the $\Gamma$-limit of $F_{{\varepsilon}}^{b}({\omega})(\cdot,1,D)$ is uniquely defined by the integrand $h({\omega},x,\xi)$, so that the $\Gamma$-limit along the sequence ${\varepsilon}_n$ exists by the Urysohn-property of $\Gamma$-convergence, although the integrand might differ on a negligible set depending on the subsequence.
Characterization of the surface density
---------------------------------------
Having identified the bulk term, we now show that the surface integrand $\varphi({\omega},x,a,\nu)$ can be computed with the discrete functional $F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})$ restricted to functions $u$ taking only the two values $a$ and $0$ and functions $v$ that vanish on all couples $({\varepsilon}x,{\varepsilon}y)$ where $u$ jumps. This implies in particular that along such sequences $F_{{\varepsilon}}^{b}({\omega})(u,v)=0$, so that $F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u,v)=F_{{\varepsilon}}^{s}({\omega})(v)$. Nevertheless the variable $u$ enters the procedure in the form of a non-convex constraint (cf. ).
We first study the asymptotic minimization problems given by Proposition \[limitsbvp\] and their connection to boundary value problems for the discrete functionals $F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})$. As a first step, we compare the two quantities $$\label{def:med}
\begin{split}
m_{{\varepsilon},\delta}^{{\omega}}(\bar{u},\bar{v},A)&=\inf\{F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u,v,A):\;(u,v)\in\mathcal{PC}^{{\omega}}_{{\varepsilon},\delta}(\bar{u},A)\times\mathcal{PC}^{{\omega}}_{{\varepsilon},M{\varepsilon}}(\bar{v},A)\},\\
m^{\omega}(\bar{u},A)&=\inf\{F({\omega})(u,1,A):\;u\in SBV^2(A),\,u=\bar{u}\text{ in a neighborhood of }\partial A\},
\end{split}$$ where the limit functional $F({\omega})$ is given (up to subsequences) by Proposition \[limitsbvp\] and $\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon},\delta}^{{\omega}}(\bar{u},A)$ is as in . Along the subsequence ${\varepsilon}_n$ provided by Proposition \[limitsbvp\] we can prove the following result about the asymptotic behavior of $m_{{\varepsilon}_n,\delta}^{{\omega}}(\bar{u},\bar{v},Q)$ on cubes $Q=Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho)$ when first ${\varepsilon}_n\to 0$ and then $\delta\to 0$.
\[approxminprob\] Let ${\varepsilon}_n$ and $F({\omega})$ be as in Proposition \[limitsbvp\]. Then, for $u_{x_0,\nu}^{a,0}$ as in and $v_{x_0,\nu}^{{\varepsilon}}$ given by , it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
m^{\omega}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{a,0},Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho))&=\lim_{\delta\to 0}\liminf_{n\to+\infty} m_{{\varepsilon}_n\delta}^{\omega}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{a,0},v_{x_0,\nu}^{{\varepsilon}_n},Q_{\nu}(x_0,\rho))
\\
&=\lim_{\delta\to 0}\limsup_{n\to+\infty}m_{{\varepsilon}_n,\delta}^{\omega}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{a,0},v_{x_0,\nu}^{{\varepsilon}_n},Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho))\end{aligned}$$ with the cube $Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho)$ defined in and the succeeding line.
By monotonicity the limits with respect to $\delta$ exist. To reduce notation, we replace ${\varepsilon}_n$ by ${\varepsilon}$ in what follows and write $Q=Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho)$. Moreover, we set $\bar{u}:=u_{x_0,\nu}^{a,0}$ and $\bar{v}_{\varepsilon}:=v_{x_0,\nu}^{{\varepsilon}}$. For every ${\varepsilon}>0$ let $u_{{\varepsilon}}\in\mathcal{PC}^{{\omega}}_{{\varepsilon},\delta}({\bar{u}},Q)$ and $v_{{\varepsilon}}\in\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon},M{\varepsilon}}^{{\omega}}(\bar{v}_{{\varepsilon}},Q)$ be such that $m_{{\varepsilon},\delta}^{\omega}({\bar{u}},\bar{v}_{{\varepsilon}},Q)=F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}},Q)$. Due to Remark \[trunc\] we can assume without loss of generality that $|u_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)|\leq |a|$ for all $x\in{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}$. Testing the pointwise evaluation of the functions $\bar{u}$ and $\bar{v}_{{\varepsilon}}$ as competitors for the minimization problem, we see that for ${\varepsilon}$ small enough $$\label{eq:bounded}
F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}},Q)\leq F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(\bar{u},\bar{v}_{{\varepsilon}},Q)\leq F_{{\varepsilon}}^{s}({\omega})(\bar{v}_{{\varepsilon}},Q)\leq C,$$ where in the second inequality we used the implication $$\label{eq:implication}
u_{x_0,\nu}^{a,0}({\varepsilon}x)\neq u_{x_0,\nu}^{a,0}({\varepsilon}y)\quad\;\implies\quad\;\begin{cases}
|\langle {\varepsilon}x-x_0,\nu\rangle|\leq |{\varepsilon}x-{\varepsilon}y|\leq M{\varepsilon}\\
|\langle {\varepsilon}y-x_0,\nu\rangle|\leq |{\varepsilon}x-{\varepsilon}y|\leq M{\varepsilon}\end{cases}
\quad\;\implies\quad\; \bar{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)=\bar{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)=0.$$ and the last bound in follows from counting lattice points in an $2M{\varepsilon}$ tubular neighborhood of the hyperplane $H_\nu(x_0)$. Hence Lemma \[compact\] yields that, up to a subsequence (not relabeled), $u_{{\varepsilon}}\to u$ in $L^1(Q)$ for some $u\in SBV^2(Q)$ (recall the $L^{\infty}$-bound) and $v_{{\varepsilon}}\to 1$ in $L^1(Q)$. Using Remark \[voronoi\], we infer that $u={\bar{u}}$ on $({\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus Q)+B_{\delta}(0)$. Consequently $u$ is admissible in the infimum problem defining $m^{\omega}({\bar{u}},Q)$ and and the $\Gamma$-convergence result of Proposition \[limitsbvp\] yields $$m^{\omega}({\bar{u}},Q)\leq F({\omega})(u,1,Q)\leq\liminf_{{\varepsilon}} F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})({\omega})(u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}},Q)\leq\liminf_{{\varepsilon}} m_{{\varepsilon},\delta}^{\omega}({\bar{u}},\bar{v}_{{\varepsilon}},Q).$$ As $\delta>0$ was arbitrary, we conclude that $m^{\omega}({\bar{u}},Q)\leq\lim_{\delta\to 0}\liminf_{{\varepsilon}}m_{{\varepsilon},\delta}^{\omega}({\bar{u}},\bar{v}_{{\varepsilon}},Q)$.
In order to prove the second inequality, for given $\theta>0$ we let $u\in SBV^2(Q)$ be such that $u={\bar{u}}$ in a neighborhood of $\partial Q$ and $F({\omega})(u,1,Q)\leq m^{\omega}({\bar{u}},Q)+\theta$. By Remark \[trunc\] we can also assume that $u\in L^{\infty}(D)$. Due to $\Gamma$-convergence we find $u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}}\in\mathcal{PC}^{{\omega}}_{{\varepsilon}}$ converging to $u$ and $1$ in $L^2(D)$ (again we rely on Remark \[trunc\]) and such that $$\label{eq:rec}
\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}},Q)=F({\omega})(u,1,Q).$$ Our goal is to modify both sequences such that they attain the discrete boundary conditions. The argument is closely related to the proof of Proposition \[subadd\], so we just sketch some parts. Since $u=\bar{u}$ in a neighborhood of $\partial Q$, we find equally orientated cubes $Q^{\prime}\subset\subset Q^{\prime\prime}\subset\subset Q$ with $$\label{eq:uonlayer}
u={\bar{u}} \quad\text{ on }Q\setminus Q^{\prime}.$$ Fix $N\in\mathbb{N}$. For $h\leq {{\rm{dist}}}(Q^{\prime},\partial Q^{\prime\prime})$ and $i\in\{1,\dots,N\}$ we define the sets $$Q_i:=\left\{x\in Q:\;{{\rm{dist}}}(x,Q^{\prime})<i\frac{h}{2N}\right\}$$ and consider an associated cut-off function $\Theta_i\in C^{\infty}_c(Q_{i},[0,1])$ such that $\Theta_i\equiv 1$ on $Q_{i-1}$ and $\|\nabla\Theta_i\|_{\infty}\leq \frac{4N}{h}$. Set $w_{{\varepsilon}}=\min\{v_{{\varepsilon}},\bar{v}_{{\varepsilon}}\}$ and define $u^i_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}}^i\in \mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon}}^{{\omega}}$ by $$\hat{u}^i_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)=\Theta_i({\varepsilon}x)u_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)+(1-\Theta_i({\varepsilon}x)){\bar{u}}({\varepsilon}x)$$ and $$\hat{v}_{\varepsilon}^i({\varepsilon}x):=
\begin{cases}
\Theta_{i-2}({\varepsilon}x)v_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}x)+(1-\Theta_{i-2}({\varepsilon}x))w_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}x) &\mbox{if ${\varepsilon}x\in {\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap Q_{i-2}$,}\\
w_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}x) &\mbox{if ${\varepsilon}x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap(Q_{i+1}\setminus Q_{i-2})$,}\\
\Theta_{i+2}({\varepsilon}x)w_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}x)+(1-\Theta_{i+2}({\varepsilon}x))\bar{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x) &\mbox{if ${\varepsilon}x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap (D\setminus Q_{i+1})$.}
\end{cases}$$ Since we may assume that $u_{|D\setminus Q}={\bar{u}}$, by we have that $u^i_{{\varepsilon}}\to u$ in $L^1(D)$. Moreover, also $v^i_{{\varepsilon}}\to 1$ in $L^1(D)$ for all $i\in\{4,\dots,N-2\}$. Setting $S_{{\varepsilon}}^{i}:=\{x\in Q:\;{{\rm{dist}}}(x,Q_{i+2}\setminus{Q_{i-3}})<2M{\varepsilon}\}$, the energy can be estimated via $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:splitineq}
F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(\hat{u}^i_{{\varepsilon}},\hat{v}_{{\varepsilon}}^i,Q)&\leq F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}},Q_{i-3})+F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(\bar{u},\bar{v}_{{\varepsilon}},Q\setminus\overline{Q_{i+2}})
+F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(\hat{u}_{{\varepsilon}}^i,\hat{v}_{{\varepsilon}}^i,S_{{\varepsilon}}^i)\nonumber
\\
&\leq F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}},Q)+F_{{\varepsilon}}^{s}({\omega})(\bar{v}_{{\varepsilon}},Q\setminus\overline{Q'})
+F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(\hat{u}_{{\varepsilon}}^i,\hat{v}_{{\varepsilon}}^i,S_{{\varepsilon}}^i),\end{aligned}$$ where we used again . The behavior of first term in the last line is controlled by . In order to bound the second one, note that the structure of $\bar{v}_{{\varepsilon}}$ (cf. ) and Remark \[voronoi\] imply that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:counting}
F_{{\varepsilon}}^{s}({\omega})(\bar{v}_{{\varepsilon}},Q\setminus \overline{Q'})&\leq C {\varepsilon}^{d-1}\#\left\{{\varepsilon}x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap Q\setminus \overline{Q'}:{{\rm{dist}}}({\varepsilon}x,H_{\nu}(x_0))\leq 2M{\varepsilon}\right\}\nonumber
\\
&\leq C \frac{1}{{\varepsilon}} \left|(Q\setminus Q')\cap H_{\nu}(x_0)+B_{2M{\varepsilon}}(0)\right|.\end{aligned}$$ Since the set $(\overline{Q\setminus Q'})\cap H_{\nu}(x_0)$ admits a $(d-1)$-dimensional Minkowski content that agrees (up to a multiplicative constant) with the Hausdorff measure of the closure, we conclude that $$\label{eq:closetobd}
\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}F_{{\varepsilon}}^{s}({\omega})(\bar{v}_{{\varepsilon}},Q\setminus \overline{Q'})\leq C\mathcal{H}^{d-1}((Q\setminus Q')\cap H_{\nu}(x_0)),$$ where we used that $\mathcal{H}^{d-1}(\partial Q\cap H_{\nu}(x_0))=0$. For the last term $F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(\hat{u}_{{\varepsilon}}^i,\hat{v}_{{\varepsilon}}^i,S_{{\varepsilon}}^i)$ in one can use the same arguments already used to prove in order to show that $$\begin{aligned}
F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(\hat{u}_{{\varepsilon}}^i,\hat{v}_{{\varepsilon}}^i,S_{{\varepsilon}}^i)\leq& C\left(F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}}, S_{{\varepsilon}}^i)+F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(\bar{u},\bar{v}_{{\varepsilon}},S_{{\varepsilon}}^i)\right)
\\
&+CN^2\sum_{{\varepsilon}y\in {\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap S^i_{{\varepsilon}}}{\varepsilon}^d\left(|u_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)-\bar{u}({\varepsilon}x)|^2+{\varepsilon}|v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)-\bar{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)|^2\right).\end{aligned}$$ By construction we have $S_{{\varepsilon}}^i\cap S_{{\varepsilon}}^j=\emptyset$ for $|i-j|> 5$ and $S_{{\varepsilon}}^i\subset\subset Q\setminus \overline{Q^{\prime}}$ for $i\in\{4,\dots,N-2\}$. Averaging the previous inequality we find an index $i({\varepsilon})\in\{4,\dots,N-2\}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(\hat{u}_{{\varepsilon}}^{i({\varepsilon})},\hat{v}_{{\varepsilon}}^{i({\varepsilon})},S_{{\varepsilon}}^{i({\varepsilon})})\leq&\frac{1}{N-5}\sum_{i=4}^{N-2}F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(\hat{u}_{{\varepsilon}}^i,\hat{v}_{{\varepsilon}}^i,S_{{\varepsilon}}^i)
\\
\leq&\frac{C}{N}\big(F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}},Q)+F_{{\varepsilon}}^{s}({\omega})(\bar{v}_{{\varepsilon}},Q\setminus \overline{Q^{\prime}})\big)
\\
&+CN\left(\|u_{{\varepsilon}}-{\bar{u}}_{{\varepsilon}}\|^2_{L^2(Q\setminus Q^{\prime})}+{\varepsilon}\|v_{{\varepsilon}}-\bar{v}_{{\varepsilon}}\|^2_{L^2(Q\setminus Q^{\prime})}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Due to we have that $u_{{\varepsilon}}-\bar{u}_{{\varepsilon}}\to 0$ in $L^2(Q\setminus Q^{\prime})$. Moreover, $\hat{u}_{{\varepsilon}}^{i({\varepsilon})}({\varepsilon}x)=\bar{u}({\varepsilon}x)$ and $\hat{v}_{{\varepsilon}}^{i({\varepsilon})}=\bar{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)$ for all ${\varepsilon}x\in {\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap Q\setminus Q^{\prime\prime}$, so that $\hat{u}^{i({\varepsilon})}_{{\varepsilon}}\in\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon},\delta}^{{\omega}}(\bar{u},Q)$ and $\hat{v}_{{\varepsilon}}^{i({\varepsilon})}\in\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon},M{\varepsilon}}(\bar{v}_{{\varepsilon}},Q)$ for all ${\varepsilon},\delta>0$ small enough. Hence from , , and we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{{\varepsilon}} m_{{\varepsilon},\delta}^{\omega}({\bar{u}},\bar{v}_{\varepsilon},Q)&\leq\limsup_{{\varepsilon}} F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(\hat{u}^{i({\varepsilon})}_{{\varepsilon}},\hat{v}_{{\varepsilon}}^{i({\varepsilon})},Q)
\\
&\leq \left(1+\frac{C}{N}\right)\left(m^{\omega}(\bar{u},Q)+\theta+\mathcal{H}^{d-1}((Q\setminus Q^{\prime})\cap H_{\nu}(x_0))\right)\end{aligned}$$ As $\theta>0$ was arbitrary, the claim follows letting first $\delta\to 0$, then $N\to +\infty$ and finally $Q^{\prime}\uparrow Q$.
Our next aim is to provide a simplified form of the discrete minimization problem that is suitable for subadditivity estimates. To this end we will compare the two quantities $m_{{\varepsilon},\delta}^{{\omega}}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{a,0},v_{x_0,\nu}^{{\varepsilon}},Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho))$ and $\varphi_{{\varepsilon},\delta}^{\omega}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{a,0},Q_\nu(x_0,\varrho))$ given by . Namely, we show that we have the following equivalent characterization for the surface density.
\[separationofscales1\] Let ${\varepsilon}_n\to 0$. Then, for all $x_0\in D$, all $a\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and all $\nu\in S^{d-1}$ it holds that $$\limsup_{\varrho\to 0}\varrho^{1-d}\lim_{\delta\to 0}\limsup_{n\to+\infty} \varphi_{{\varepsilon}_n,\delta}^{{\omega}}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{a,0},Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho))
\\
=\limsup_{\varrho\to 0}\varrho^{1-d}\lim_{\delta\to 0}\limsup_{n\to+\infty}m_{{\varepsilon}_n,\delta}^{{\omega}}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{a,0},v_{x_0,\nu}^{{\varepsilon}_n},Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho)).$$
Note that it suffices to bound the left hand side from above by the right hand side. To reduce notation, we set $Q_{\varrho}:=Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho)$ and write ${\varepsilon}$ instead of ${\varepsilon}_n$. If $a=0$ then both sides are zero. Thus we assume that $a> 0$ (the case $a<0$ can be treated similarly). Fix $(u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}})\in\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon},\delta}^{{\omega}}(u^{a,0}_{x_0,\nu},Q_{\varrho})\times \mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon},M{\varepsilon}}^{{\omega}}(v^{{\varepsilon}}_{x_0,\nu},Q_{\varrho})$ such that $$\label{eq:almostopt}
F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}},Q_{\varrho})\leq C\varrho^{d-1},$$ which exists at least for small ${\varepsilon}$ taking for instance $u_{{\varepsilon}}=u_{x_0,\nu}^{a,0}$ and $v_{{\varepsilon}}=v_{x_0,\nu}^{{\varepsilon}}$. In particular, $0\leq v_{{\varepsilon}}\leq 1$. In what follows we construct sequences $\tilde{u}_{{\varepsilon}}\in \mathcal{S}_{{\varepsilon},\delta}^{{\omega}}(u^{a,0}_{x_0,\nu},Q_{\varrho})$ and $\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}\in\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon},M{\varepsilon}}^{{\omega}}(v_{x_0,\nu}^{{\varepsilon}},Q_{\rho})$ such that $$\label{eq:firsttermzero}
\sum_{\substack{(x,y)\in \mathcal{E}({\omega})\\ {\varepsilon}x,{\varepsilon}y\in Q_{\varrho}}}\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)^2|\tilde{u}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)-\tilde{u}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)|^2=0$$ and which have almost the same energy. We fix $\eta\in (0,1/2)$ and consider the set of points $$L_{v_{{\varepsilon}}}(\eta):=\{{\varepsilon}x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap Q_{\varrho}:\;v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)>\eta\}.$$ For $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$ we define $$L_{u_{{\varepsilon}}}(t):=\{{\varepsilon}x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap Q_{\varrho}:\;u_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)>t\}.$$ To reduce notation, we also introduce the set $$\mathcal{R}_{{\varepsilon}}(t):=\{(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega}):\;{\varepsilon}x\in Q_{\varrho}\cap L_{u_{\varepsilon}}(t),\,{\varepsilon}y\in Q_{\varrho}\setminus L_{u_{\varepsilon}}(t)\text{ or vice versa}\}.$$ Observe that for $(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})$ with ${\varepsilon}x,{\varepsilon}y\in Q_{\varrho}$ we have $(x,y)\in \mathcal{R}_{{\varepsilon}}(t)$ if and only if $t\in [u_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x),u_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y))$ or $t\in [u_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y),u_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x))$. Hence for such $(x,y)$ the following coarea-type estimate holds true: $$\int_{0}^{a}|v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)|\mathds{1}_{\{(x,y)\in\mathcal{R}_{{\varepsilon}}(t)\}}\,\mathrm{d}t\leq|v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)||u_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)-u_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)|.$$ Summing this estimate, we infer from Hölder’s inequality that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{coarea}
\int_{0}^{a}\sum_{(x,y)\in \mathcal{R}_{{\varepsilon}}(t)}{\varepsilon}^{d-1}|v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)|\,\mathrm{d}t&\leq \sum_{\substack{ (x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})\\ {\varepsilon}x,{\varepsilon}y\in Q_{\varrho}}}{\varepsilon}^{d}|v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)|\Big|\frac{u_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)-u_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)}{{\varepsilon}}\Big|
\\
&\leq C{\varepsilon}^{\frac{d}{2}}(\#({\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap Q_{\varrho}))^{\frac{1}{2}}\bigg(\sum_{\substack{ (x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})\\ {\varepsilon}x,{\varepsilon}y\in Q_{\varrho}}}{\varepsilon}^{d}v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)^2\Big|\frac{u_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)-u_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)}{{\varepsilon}}\Big|^2\bigg)^{\frac{1}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ The last sum is bounded by the energy, while for ${\varepsilon}={\varepsilon}(\varrho)$ small enough the cardinality term can be bounded via $\#({\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap Q_{\varrho})\leq C(\varrho{\varepsilon}^{-1})^d$. Hence in combination with we obtain $$\int_{0}^{a}\sum_{(x,y)\in \mathcal{R}_{{\varepsilon}}(t)}{\varepsilon}^{d-1}|v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)|\,\mathrm{d}t\leq C\varrho^{d-\frac{1}{2}}.$$ From this inequality we deduce the existence of some $t_{{\varepsilon}}\in (0,a)$ such that $$\label{eq:goodchoice}
\sum_{(x,y)\in \mathcal{R}_{{\varepsilon}}(t_{{\varepsilon}})}{\varepsilon}^{d-1}|v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)|\leq Ca^{-1}\varrho^{d-\frac{1}{2}}.$$ Define $\tilde{u}_{{\varepsilon}}$ and $\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}$ by its values on ${\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}$ setting $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{u}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x):=&
\begin{cases}
0 &\mbox{if $u_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)\leq t_{{\varepsilon}}$,}\\
a &\mbox{if $u_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)>t_{{\varepsilon}}$.}
\end{cases}
\\
\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x):=&
\begin{cases}
0 &\mbox{if $(x,y)\in \mathcal{R}_{{\varepsilon}}(t_{{\varepsilon}})$ for some ${\varepsilon}y\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}$,}
\\
v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x) &\mbox{otherwise.}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ As $t_{{\varepsilon}}\in (0,a)$, the boundary conditions imposed on $u_{{\varepsilon}}$ imply that the function $\tilde{u}_{{\varepsilon}}$ satisfies $\tilde{u}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)=u_{x_0,\nu}^{a,0}({\varepsilon}x)$ for all ${\varepsilon}x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap\partial_{\delta}Q_{\varrho}$, so that $\tilde{u}_{{\varepsilon}}\in\mathcal{S}_{{\varepsilon},\delta}^{{\omega}}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{a,0},Q_{\varrho})$ as claimed. Moreover, whenever ${{\rm{dist}}}({\varepsilon}x,{\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus Q_{\varrho})\leq M{\varepsilon}$, then for all ${\varepsilon}y\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}$ with $(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})$ we have ${{\rm{dist}}}({\varepsilon}y,{\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus Q_{\varrho})\leq 2M{\varepsilon}\ll\delta$. Hence the boundary conditions on $u_{{\varepsilon}}$ are active and $(x,y)\in \mathcal{R}_{{\varepsilon}}(t_{{\varepsilon}})$ implies that $|\langle {\varepsilon}x-x_0,\nu\rangle|\leq M{\varepsilon}$, so that $v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)=0$. Consequently $\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)=v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)$ and therefore $\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}\in\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon},M{\varepsilon}}(v_{x_0,\nu}^{{\varepsilon}},Q_{\varrho})$. In order to verify condition , observe that for any pair $(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})$ with ${\varepsilon}x,{\varepsilon}y\in Q_{\varrho}$ we have $\tilde{u}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)\neq \tilde{u}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)$ if and only if $(x,y)\in\mathcal{R}_{{\varepsilon}}(t_{{\varepsilon}})$, so that by its very definition $v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)=0$. Hence holds true. Next we estimate the energy difference. Recall that $0\leq v_{{\varepsilon}},\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}\leq 1$. We first estimate the energy term involving the discrete gradients of $\tilde{v}_{\varepsilon}$. Consider first the case when $\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)=0\neq v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)$ and $\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)=v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
|\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)-\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)|^2=&|v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)|^2
\\
\leq&
\begin{cases}
(1+\eta)|v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)-v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)|^2+\left(1+\frac{1}{\eta}\right)\eta^2 &\mbox{if ${\varepsilon}x\notin L_{v_{{\varepsilon}}}(\eta)$,}
\\
1 &\mbox{if $\exists \,{\varepsilon}x^{\prime}\in {\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}:\,(x,x^{\prime})\in\mathcal{R}_{{\varepsilon}}(t_{{\varepsilon}})$.}
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ The symmetric conclusion holds true when we exchange the roles of $x$ and $y$. In all remaining cases we have $|\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)-\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)|\leq |v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)-v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)|$. Hence we obtain the global bound $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gradv}
\sum_{\substack{ (x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})\\ {\varepsilon}x,{\varepsilon}y\in Q_{\varrho}}}{\varepsilon}^{d-1}|\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)-\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)|^2\leq& (1+\eta)\sum_{\substack{ (x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})\\ {\varepsilon}x,{\varepsilon}y\in Q_{\varrho}}}{\varepsilon}^{d-1}|v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)-v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}y)|^2\nonumber
\\
&+C\eta {\varepsilon}^{d-1}\# \left({\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap Q_{\varrho}\setminus L_{v_{{\varepsilon}}}(\eta)\right)\nonumber
\\
&+C{\varepsilon}^{d-1} \#\{(x,y)\in\mathcal{R}_{{\varepsilon}}(t_{{\varepsilon}}):\,{\varepsilon}x\in L_{v_{{\varepsilon}}}(\eta)\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Next we bound the ’singe-well’-term. Since the function $x\mapsto (x-1)^2$ is $2$-Lipschitz on $[0,1]$, we obtain $$(\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)-1)^2\leq
\begin{cases}
1 &\mbox{if $\exists\,{\varepsilon}y\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}: \,(x,y)\in\mathcal{R}_{{\varepsilon}}(t_{{\varepsilon}})$,}
\\
(v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)-1)^2+2\eta &\mbox{if ${\varepsilon}x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap Q_{\varrho}\setminus L_{v_{{\varepsilon}}}(\eta)$,}
\\
(v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)-1)^2 &\mbox{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ Summing this estimate over all ${\varepsilon}x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap Q_{\varrho}$ and adding the result to , we infer from that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:errorseparated}
F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(\tilde{u}_{{\varepsilon}},\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}},Q_{\varrho})\leq& F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}},Q_{\varrho})+C\eta\varrho^{d-1}+C\eta{\varepsilon}^{d-1}\#\left({\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap Q_{\varrho}\setminus L_{v_{{\varepsilon}}}(\eta)\right)\nonumber
\\
&+C{\varepsilon}^{d-1} \#\{(x,y)\in\mathcal{R}_{{\varepsilon}}(t_{{\varepsilon}}):\,{\varepsilon}x\in L_{v_{{\varepsilon}}}(\eta)\}
\end{aligned}$$ We claim that the last three terms can be made small relatively to $\varrho^{d-1}$ by choosing the right order of limits. On the one hand, note that since $\eta\in(0,1/2)$ we have by $$\label{eq:sublevelbound}
{\varepsilon}^{d-1}\#\left({\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap Q_{\varrho}\setminus L_{v_{{\varepsilon}}}(\eta)\right)\leq C\sum_{{\varepsilon}x\in{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap Q_{\varrho}}{\varepsilon}^{d-1}(v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)-1)^2\leq C\varrho^{d-1}.$$ On the other hand, since $v_{{\varepsilon}}\geq 0$, from we deduce $$\label{eq:R_ebound}
{\varepsilon}^{d-1} \#\{(x,y)\in\mathcal{R}_{{\varepsilon}}(t_{{\varepsilon}}):\,{\varepsilon}x\in L_{v_{{\varepsilon}}}(\eta)\}\leq \frac{1}{\eta}\sum_{(x,y)\in\mathcal{R}_{{\varepsilon}}(t_{{\varepsilon}})}{\varepsilon}^{d-1}|v_{{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon}x)|\leq C\frac{1}{\eta a}\varrho^{d-\frac{1}{2}}.$$ Inserting and in we obtain the estimate $$\varrho^{1-d}F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(\tilde{u}_{{\varepsilon}},\tilde{v}_{{\varepsilon}},Q_{\varrho})\leq \varrho^{1-d}F_{{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}},Q_{\varrho})+C\eta+C\frac{1}{\eta a}\varrho^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$ Taking the appropriate infimum on each side, then letting first ${\varepsilon}\to 0$, then $\delta\to 0$ and $\varrho\to 0$, we conclude by the arbitrariness of $\eta>0$.
\[r.jumpindependence\] The condition $F_{{\varepsilon}}^{b}({\omega})(u,v,Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho))=0$ in the definition of $\varphi_{{\varepsilon},\delta}^{{\omega}}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{a,0},Q_\nu(x_0,\varrho))$ implies that the latter is independent of the jump opening $a$. More precisely, for every $a\in{\mathbb{R}}$ we have $\varphi_{{\varepsilon},\delta}^{{\omega}}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{a,0},Q_\nu(x_0,\varrho))=\varphi_{{\varepsilon},\delta}^{{\omega}}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{1,0},Q_\nu(x_0,\varrho))$.
Gathering Proposition \[limitsbvp\], Proposition \[p.gradientpartsequal\], Lemma \[approxminprob\] and Proposition \[separationofscales1\] we can now prove Theorem \[mainrep\].
Let ${\mathcal{L}(\omega)}$ be an admissible lattice with admissible edges and let ${\varepsilon}_n$ and $F({\omega})$ be the subsequence and the functional provided by Proposition \[limitsbvp\]. Thanks to Proposition \[p.gradientpartsequal\] we know that along the subsequence ${\varepsilon}_n$ also the functionals $F_{{\varepsilon}_n}^b({\omega})(\cdot,1,A)$ $\Gamma$-converge to $F^b({\omega})(\cdot,A)$ for every $A\in{\mathcal{A}^R}(D)$ with $F^b({\omega})$ given by Theorem \[ACGmain\]. Combining Propositions \[limitsbvp\] and \[p.gradientpartsequal\] we then deduce that for every $A\in{\mathcal{A}^R}(D)$ and every $u\in SBV^2(A)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
F({\omega})(u,1,A)=\int_A f({\omega},x,\nabla u){\,\mathrm{d}x}+\int_{S_u\cap A}\varphi({\omega},x,u^+-u^-,\nu_u){\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{d}{\mathcal{H}^{d-1}}}},\end{aligned}$$ where $f({\omega},\cdot,\cdot)$ is given by Theorem \[ACGmain\] and $\varphi({\omega},\cdot,\cdot,\cdot)$ is determined by the derivation formula . Moreover, Lemma \[approxminprob\] together with Proposition \[separationofscales1\] ensure that the surface integrand $\varphi$ does not depend on the jump opening $u^+-u^-$ (see also Remark \[r.jumpindependence\]). In fact, for every $A\in{\mathcal{A}^R}(D)$ and every $u\in SBV^2(A)$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gammalimsbv}
F({\omega})(u,1,A)=\int_A f({\omega},x,\nabla u){\,\mathrm{d}x}+\int_{S_u\cap A}\varphi({\omega},x,\nu_u){\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{d}{\mathcal{H}^{d-1}}}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\varphi({\omega},\cdot,\cdot):D\times S^{d-1}\to[0,+\infty)$ is given by the asymptotic formula . Finally, using a standard truncation argument (see, [[*e.g.*]{}, ]{}the proof of [@R18 Theorem 3.3] for more details), thanks to Remark \[trunc\] we deduce that formula extends to the whole $GSBV^2(A)$.
Optimality of the lattice-space scaling
---------------------------------------
We close this section by proving Theorem \[t.representationl\] and the optimality of the lattice-space scaling.
Let ${\mathcal{L}(\omega)}$ be an admissible lattice with admissible edges $\mathcal{E}({\omega})$ and for every ${\varepsilon}>0$ let $F_{{\varepsilon},\kappa_{\varepsilon}}({\omega})$ be as in with $\kappa_{\varepsilon}=\ell{\varepsilon}$ for some $\ell\in(0,+\infty)$. It is convenient to rewrite the energy as $$\begin{aligned}
F_{{\varepsilon},\kappa_{\varepsilon}}({\omega})(u,v)=F_{\kappa_{\varepsilon}}^b({\omega})(u,v)+F_{{\varepsilon},\ell}^s({\omega})(v),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
F_{{\varepsilon},\ell}^s({\omega})(v):=\frac{\beta}{2}\Big(\ell\sum_{\kappa_{\varepsilon}x\in\kappa_{\varepsilon}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap D}\hspace*{-1em}\kappa_{\varepsilon}^{d-1}(v(\kappa_{\varepsilon}x))^2+\frac{1}{\ell}\sum_{\substack{(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})\\\kappa_{\varepsilon}x,\kappa_{\varepsilon}y\in D}}\hspace*{-0.5em}\kappa_{\varepsilon}^{d-1}\left|v(\kappa_{\varepsilon}x)-v(\kappa_{\varepsilon}y)\right|^2\Big).\end{aligned}$$ It is then easy to see that Lemmata \[local\]–\[almostmeasure\] are satisfied also for the functionals $F_{{\varepsilon},\kappa_{\varepsilon}}$ with the constant $c$ in Lemma \[compact\] and Lemma \[bounds\] depending on $\ell$. As a consequence, Proposition \[limitsbvp\] holds for $F_{{\varepsilon},\kappa_{\varepsilon}}$ and yields a limit functional $F_{\ell}({\omega})$. Moreover, Proposition \[p.gradientpartsequal\] remains unchanged if $F_{{\varepsilon}}$ is replaced by $F_{{\varepsilon},\kappa_{\varepsilon}}$. Finally, Lemma \[approxminprob\] and Proposition \[separationofscales1\] are still valid for $m_{\ell}^{{\omega}},m_{{\varepsilon},\ell,\delta}^{\omega}$ and $\varphi_{{\varepsilon},\ell,\delta}^{\omega}$, where for every $\delta>0$,$m_{\ell}^{{\omega}}$ and $m_{{\varepsilon},\ell,\delta}^{\omega}$ are as in with $F_{\ell}({\omega})$ instead of $F({\omega})$ and $F_{{\varepsilon},\kappa_{\varepsilon}}$ instead of $F_{{\varepsilon}}$, and $\varphi_{{\varepsilon},\ell,\delta}^{\omega}$ is as in with $F_{\varepsilon}^b({\omega})$ and $F_{{\varepsilon},s}({\omega})$ replaced by $F_{\kappa_{\varepsilon}}^b({\omega})$ and $F_{{\varepsilon},\ell}^s({\omega})$, respectively. Moreover, $\mathcal{S}_{{\varepsilon},\delta}^{\omega}$ and $\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon},\delta}^{\omega}$ are replaced by $\mathcal{S}_{\kappa_{\varepsilon},\delta}^{\omega}$ and $\mathcal{PC}_{\kappa_{\varepsilon},\delta}^{\omega}$. Thus, arguing as in the proof of Theorem \[mainrep\] we obtain the required integral representation of $F_{\ell}({\omega})$ on $GSBV^2(D)$, where now the surface integrand $\varphi_\ell({\omega},\cdot,\cdot)$ can be equivalently characterized by the formulas $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_\ell({\omega},x_0,\nu) &=\limsup_{\varrho\to 0}\varrho^{1-d}\lim_{\delta\to 0}\limsup_{n\to+\infty}m_{{\varepsilon}_n,\ell,\delta}^w(u_{x_0,\nu}^{1,0},v_{x_0,\nu}^{\kappa_{{\varepsilon}_n}}, Q_\nu(x_0,\varrho))\\
&=\limsup_{\varrho\to 0}\varrho^{1-d}\lim_{\delta\to 0}\limsup_{n\to+\infty}\varphi_{{\varepsilon}_n,\ell,\delta}^{\omega}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{1,0},Q_\nu(x_0,\varrho)).\end{aligned}$$ Notice that thanks to the separation of scales only the surface integrand $\varphi_\ell({\omega},\cdot,\cdot)$ may depend on the ratio $\ell$, while the volume integrand $f({\omega},\cdot,\cdot)$ is independent of $\ell$.
In order to verify the estimate in we use again the connection to weak-membrane energies. To this end let ${\varepsilon}_n$ be a subsequence such that $F_{{\varepsilon}_n,\kappa_{{\varepsilon}_n}}({\omega})$ $\Gamma$-converges to $F_\ell({\omega})$ and set $\kappa_n:=\kappa_{{\varepsilon}_n}=\ell{\varepsilon}_n$. Upon passing to a further subsequence we can assume that also $G_{\kappa_n,\alpha}({\omega})$ $\Gamma$-converges for every $\alpha>0$. Let $(x_0,\nu)\in{\mathbb{R}}^d\times S^{d-1}$ and for $\delta>0$, $\varrho>0$ arbitrary let $(u,v)$ be admissible for $m_{{\varepsilon}_n,\ell,\delta}^{\omega}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{1,0},v_{x_0,\nu}^{\kappa_n},Q_\nu(x_0,\varrho))$. Clearly, $u$ is admissible for the minimization problem $$\begin{aligned}
\inf\{G_{\kappa_n,\beta\ell}({\omega})(u,Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho)):\,u\in\mathcal{S}_{\kappa_n,\delta}^{{\omega}}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{1,0},Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho))\}.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, due to Proposition \[prop:ATandWeak\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
F_{{\varepsilon}_n,\kappa_n}({\omega})(u,v,Q_\nu(x_0,\varrho))\geq G_{\kappa_n,\beta\ell}(u,Q_\nu(x_0,\varrho)).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, passing to the infimum and taking the appropriate limits in $n$, $\delta$ and $\varrho$, thanks to Theorem \[t.weakmembrane\] we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_\ell({\omega},x_0,\nu)\geq s_{\beta\ell}({\omega},x_0,\nu)=\beta\ell s_1({\omega},x_0,\nu).\end{aligned}$$ We continue proving the upper estimate in . For $\delta>0$, $\varrho>0$ fixed we choose $w:\kappa_n{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\to\{\pm 1\}$ admissible for the minimization problem $$\begin{aligned}
\inf\{I_{\kappa_n,\beta(\ell+\tfrac{M}{\ell})}({\omega})(w,Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho)):\,w\in\mathcal{S}_{\kappa_n,\delta}^{{\omega}}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{1,-1},Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho))\},\end{aligned}$$ and we observe that the $u$-component of the pair $(u,v)\in\mathcal{PC}_{\kappa_n}^{\omega}\times\mathcal{PC}_{\kappa_n}^{\omega}$ defined as $$\begin{aligned}
u(\kappa_n x) &:=
\begin{cases}
1 &\text{if $w(\kappa_n x)=1$,}\\
0 &\text{if $w(\kappa_n x)=-1$,}
\end{cases}
\\
v(\kappa_n x) &:=
\begin{cases}
0 &\text{if $\max\{|w(\kappa_n x)-w(\kappa_n y)|\colon \kappa_n y\in\kappa_n\mathcal{E}({\omega})(x)\cap Q_\nu(x_0,\varrho)\}=2$,}\\
1 &\text{otherwise}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ belongs to $\mathcal{S}_{\kappa_n,\delta}^{{\omega}}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{1,0},Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho))$. Moreover, arguing as in the proof of Lemma \[bounds\] we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\kappa_n,\ell}^s({\omega})(v,Q_\nu(x_0,\varrho)) &\leq\frac{\beta}{2}\left(\ell+\frac{M}{\ell}\right)\sum_{\kappa_n x\in\kappa_n{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap Q_\nu(x_0,\varrho)}\hspace*{-2em}\kappa_n^{d-1}(v(\kappa_n x)-1)^2
=I_{\kappa_n,\beta(\ell+\tfrac{M}{\ell})}({\omega})(w,Q_\nu(x_0,\varrho)).\end{aligned}$$ However, in general $v$ is not admissible for $\varphi_{{\varepsilon}_n,\ell,\delta}^{\omega}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{1,0},Q_\nu(x_0,\varrho))$ due to the boundary conditions. Nevertheless, $F_{\kappa_n}^b({\omega})(u,v)=0$, hence using only the boundary conditions of $u$ we can argue as in the first part of the proof of Lemma \[approxminprob\] to show that $$m_{\ell}^{{\omega}}(u_{x_0,\nu}^{1,0},Q_{\nu}(x_0,\varrho))\leq \liminf_{n\to +\infty}F_{\kappa_n,\ell}^s({\omega})(v,Q_\nu(x_0,\varrho)).$$ Since $w$ was arbitrarily chosen, passing to the infimum and taking again the appropriate limits in $n$, $\delta$, $\varrho$ finally yields $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_\ell({\omega},x_0,\nu)\leq s_{\beta(\ell+\tfrac{M}{\ell})}(w,x_0,\nu)=\beta\left(\ell+\frac{M}{\ell}\right)s_1({\omega},x_0,\nu).\end{aligned}$$
Eventually we prove Corollary \[c.optimal\].
Let ${\mathcal{L}(\omega)}$ be an admissible lattice with admissible edges $\mathcal{E}({\omega})$ and suppose now that $\kappa_{\varepsilon}$ is such that $\kappa_{\varepsilon}/{\varepsilon}\to+\infty$ as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$. Note that by Proposition \[prop:ATandWeak\], for every $\ell>0$ there exists ${\varepsilon}_\ell>0$ such that for every ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}_\ell)$ we have $$C\geq F_{\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}}^b({\omega})(u_{{\varepsilon}},v_{{\varepsilon}})+\frac{\ell}{2}\sum_{\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}x\in\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap D}\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^{d-1}(v_{{\varepsilon}}(\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}x)-1)^2 \geq G_{\kappa_{\varepsilon},\ell}({\omega})(u_{\varepsilon}).$$ Since $u_{{\varepsilon}}$ is bounded in $L^{2}(D)$, the compactness result for weak-membrane energies (cf. [@R18 Lemma 5.6]) yields that up to a subsequence, $u_{{\varepsilon}}\to u$ in $L^1(D)$ for some $u\in GSBV^2(D)\cap L^2(D)$. It remains to show that $u\in W^{1,2}(D)$. To do so, we prove that the sequence $(T_ku)$ is bounded in $W^{1,2}(D)$ uniformly with respect to $k$, then we may conclude by letting $k\to+\infty$. Thanks to Theorem \[t.weakmembrane\], up to passing to a further subsequence (not relabeled), we can assume that $G_{\kappa_{\varepsilon},\ell}({\omega})$ $\Gamma$-converges to $G_{\ell}({\omega})$. Thus, the growth conditions for the integrands in Theorem \[t.weakmembrane\] imply that $$C\geq \int_D q({\omega},x,\nabla u)\,\mathrm{d}x+\int_{S_{u}} s_{\ell}({\omega},x,\nu_{u})\,\mathrm{d}\mathcal{H}^{d-1}\geq\frac{1}{C}\int_D|\nabla u|^2{\,\mathrm{d}x}+\frac{\ell}{C}{\mathcal{H}^{d-1}}(S_{u}),$$ for every $\ell>0$, so that $\mathcal{H}^{d-1}(S_{u})=0$. In particular, for every $k>0$ we have ${\mathcal{H}^{d-1}}(S_{T_ku})=0$ and $\sup_{k}\|\nabla T_ku\|_{L^2}\leq\|\nabla u\|_{L^2}\leq C$. Since $T_ku\in SBV(D)\cap L^{\infty}(D)$ and $u\in L^2(D)$ this implies that $(T_ku)$ is bounded in $W^{1,2}(D)$ uniformly with respect to $k$ and we conclude.
Stochastic homogenization: Proof of Theorems \[mainthm1\] and \[MSapprox\] {#s.stochhom}
==========================================================================
In this section we prove Theorem \[mainthm1\]. In particular we establish the existence of the limit defining $\varphi_{\rm hom}$ in . Similar arguments have already been used by the second and third author in [@ACR Theorem 5.5], [@BCR Theorem 5.8] (see also [@CDMSZ17a Sections 5 and 6]). The main step consists in defining a suitable subadditive stochastic process (see Definition \[d.subadprocess\] below), which then allows us to apply the subadditive ergodic theorem which we recall in Theorem \[t.subadergodic\] below. To this end, we first need to introduce some notation.
For every $a,b\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{d-1}$ with $a_i<b_i$ for $i=1,\ldots,d-1$ we define the $(d-1)$-dimensional interval $[a,b):=\{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d-1}\colon a_i\leq x_i <b_i\text{ for }i=1\ldots,d-1\}$ and we set $\mathcal{I}:=\{[a,b)\colon a,b\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{d-1},\, a_i<b_i\text{ for }i=1,\ldots,d-1\}$.
\[d.subadprocess\] A discrete subadditive stochastic process is a function $\mu:\mathcal{I}\to L^1(\Omega)$ satisfying the following properties:
1. (subadditivity) for every $I\in\mathcal{I}$ and every finite partition $(I_k)_{k\in K}\subset\mathcal{I}$ of $I$ a.s. we have $$\mu(I,{\omega})\leq\sum_{k\in K}\mu(I_k,{\omega});$$
2. (boundedness from below) there holds $$\inf\left\{\frac{1}{|I|}\int_\Omega \mu(I,{\omega}){\,\mathrm{d}\mathbb{P}}({\omega}):\,I\in\mathcal{I}\right\}>-\infty.$$
We make use of the following pointwise subadditive ergodic theorem (see [@AkKr Theorem 2.4]).
\[t.subadergodic\] Let $\mu:\mathcal{I}\to L^1(\Omega)$ be a discrete subadditive stochastic process and let $I_k:=[-k,k)^{d-1}$. Suppose that there exists a measure preserving group action $\{\tau_z\}_{z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{d-1}}$ such that $\mu$ is stationary with respect to $\{\tau_z\}_{z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{d-1}}$,[[*i.e.*]{}, ]{}$$\forall\, I\in\mathcal{I},\ \forall\, z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{d-1}:\ \mu(I+z,{\omega})=\mu(I,\tau_z{\omega})\ \text{a.s.}$$ Then there exists a function $\Phi:\Omega\to{\mathbb{R}}$ such that, for $\mathbb{P}$-a.e. ${\omega}$, $$\lim_{k\to+\infty}\frac{\mu(I_k,{\omega})}{{\mathcal{H}^{d-1}}(I_k)}=\Phi({\omega}).$$
As a first step towards the proof of Theorem \[mainthm1\] we prove the following proposition.
\[prop:ex:limit0\] Let $\mathcal{L}$ be an admissible stochastic lattice that is stationary with respect to a measure-preserving additive group action $\{\tau_z\}_{z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d}$ with admissible, stationary edges in the sense of Definitions \[defadmissible\] & \[defgoodedges\]. Then there exist $\widetilde{\Omega}\subset\Omega$ with $\mathbb{P}(\widetilde{\Omega})=1$ and a function $\varphi_{\rm hom}:\Omega\times S^{d-1}\to[0,+\infty)$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{\rm hom}({\omega},\nu) &=\lim_{t\to+\infty}t^{1-d}\varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{0,\nu}^{1,0},Q_{\nu}(0,t)),\end{aligned}$$ for every ${\omega}\in\widetilde{\Omega}$ and every $\nu\in S^{d-1}$. Moreover, we have $\tau_z(\widetilde{\Omega})=\widetilde{\Omega}$ for every $z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:shiftinv}
\varphi_{\rm hom}(\tau_z{\omega},\nu)=\varphi_{\rm hom}({\omega},\nu)\end{aligned}$$ for every $z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$, ${\omega}\in\widetilde{\Omega}$, and $\nu\in S^{d-1}$.
In order to prove Proposition \[prop:ex:limit0\] above we will use several times the following lemma.
\[l.extension\] Let $z,z'\in {\mathbb{R}}^d$, $t,t'>0$ and $\nu\in S^{d-1}$ be such that the cubes $Q_\nu(z,t)$ and $Q_\nu(z',t')$ satisfy the following conditions $${\rm (i)}\ Q_\nu(z,t)\subset Q_\nu(z',t'),\qquad {\rm (ii)}\ {{\rm{dist}}}(\partial Q_\nu(z,t),\partial Q_\nu(z',t'))>2M,\qquad {\rm (iii)}\ {{\rm{dist}}}(z',H_\nu(z))\leq\frac{t}{4}.$$ Then there exists a constant $c>0$ such that $$\varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{z',\nu}^{1,0},Q_\nu(z',t'))\leq \varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{z,\nu}^{1,0},Q_\nu(z,t))+c(|z-z'|+|t-t'|)(t')^{d-2}.$$
To shorten notation let us set $Q=Q_\nu(z,t)$ and $Q'=Q_\nu(z',t')$. Let us choose a pair $(u,v)\in\mathcal{S}_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{z,\nu}^{1,0},Q)\times\mathcal{PC}_{1,M}^{\omega}(v_{z,\nu}^1,Q)$ satisfying $F_{1}^{b}({\omega})(u,v,Q)=0$ and $F_{1}^{s}(v,Q)=\varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{z,\nu}^{1,0},Q)$. Thanks to (ii) we can extend $u$ to a function $\tilde{u}\in\mathcal{S}_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{z',\nu}^{1,0},Q')$ by setting $\tilde{u}(x):=u_{z',\nu}^{1,0}(x)$ on ${\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap Q'\setminus Q$. We now construct a function $\tilde{v}\in\mathcal{PC}_{1,M}^{\omega}(v_{z',\nu}^1,Q')$ satisfying $F_{1}^{b}({\omega})(\tilde{u},\tilde{v},Q')=0$. To this end we introduce some notation. We denote by $$\begin{aligned}
S_\nu(z,z'):=\{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^d\colon \min\{\langle z,\nu\rangle,\langle z',\nu\rangle\}\leq\langle x,\nu\rangle\leq\max\{\langle z,\nu\rangle\langle z',\nu\rangle\}\}\end{aligned}$$ the stripe enclosed by the two hyperplanes $H_\nu(z)$ and $H_\nu(z')$. Moreover, the sets $$\begin{aligned}
L_\nu(z):=\{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^d\colon|\langle x-z,\nu\rangle|\leq M\},\qquad L_\nu(z'):=\{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^d\colon|\langle x-z',\nu\rangle|\leq M\}\end{aligned}$$ are the layers of thickness $2M$ around $H_\nu(z)$ and $H_\nu(z')$. Finally, we set $$\begin{aligned}
U_\nu(z,z'):=S_\nu(z,z')\cup L_\nu(z)\cup L_\nu(z').\end{aligned}$$ Notice that for any pair $(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})$ with at least one point not contained in $Q$ and $\tilde{u}(x)\neq\tilde{u}(y)$ one of the following conditions is satisfied:
1. if $x\in Q$ and $y\in Q'\setminus Q$, since $|x-y|\leq M$ we have $x,y\in U_\nu(z,z')\cap\partial_M Q$;
2. if $x,y\in Q'\setminus Q$ then $\tilde{u}(x)\neq \tilde{u}(y)$ implies that $x$ and $y$ lie on two different sides of the hyperplane $H_\nu(z')$, hence $x,y\in L_\nu(z')$.
This motivates to define $\tilde{v}$ on ${\mathcal{L}(\omega)}$ by setting $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{v}(x):=
\begin{cases}
v(x) &\text{if $x\in Q\setminus\left(U_\nu(z,z')\cap \partial_M Q\right)$},\\
0 &\text{if $x\in\left(U_\nu(z,z')\cap \partial_M Q\right)\cup\left(L_\nu(z')\setminus Q\right)$},\\
1 &\text{otherwise,}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ (see Figure \[fig:constructionvtilde\]).
Observe that thanks to (ii) we have $\tilde{v}\in\mathcal{PC}_{1,M}^{\omega}(v_{z',\nu}^1,Q')$. Moreover, by construction $F_{1}^{b}({\omega})(\tilde{u},\tilde{v},Q')=0$, thus $\tilde{v}$ is admissible for $\varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{z',\nu}^{1,0},Q')$ and it remains to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est:ext-final}
F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(\tilde{v},Q')\leq F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(v,Q)+c(|z-z'|+|t-t'|)(t')^{d-2},\end{aligned}$$ then the result follows from the choice of the test pair $(u,v)$.
In order to prove we first notice that for any $x\in \mathcal{L}({\omega})\cap Q$ by definition we have $\tilde{v}(x)\neq v(x)$ only if $x\in U_{\nu}(z,z')\cap \partial_M Q$. Similarly, for $(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})$ with $x,y\in Q$ we have $|\tilde{v}(x)-\tilde{v}(y)|\neq|v(x)-v(y)|$ only if at least one point belongs to $\left(U_\nu(z,z')\right)\cap \partial_M Q$. Thus, thanks to we immediately deduce $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est:ext-Q}
F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(\tilde{v},Q)\leq F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(v,Q)+C\#\left({\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap U_\nu(z,z')\cap \partial_M Q\right).\end{aligned}$$ The remaining contributions can be estimated in the same way. In fact, for any $x\in\mathcal{L}({\omega})\cap(Q'\setminus Q)$ we have $(\tilde{v}(x)-1)\neq 0$ only if $x\in U_\nu(z,z')\cap \partial_M Q$ or $x\in L_\nu(z')\setminus Q$. Finally, any pair $(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})$ with at least one point belonging to $Q'\setminus Q$ only gives a contribution if at least one point belongs to $U_\nu(z,z')\cap \partial_M Q$ or to $L_\nu(z')\setminus Q$. In combination with this yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est:ext-Qprime}
F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(\tilde{v},Q') &\leq F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(v,Q)+C\#\left({\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap U_\nu(z,z')\cap \partial_M Q\right)\nonumber\\
&\hphantom{\leq F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(v,Q)\;}+C\#\left({\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap L_\nu(z')\cap Q'\setminus Q \right)\nonumber\\
&\leq F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(v,Q)+C{\mathcal{H}^{d-1}}\left(U_\nu(z,z')\cap\partial Q\right)+C{\mathcal{H}^{d-1}}\left(H_\nu(z')\cap Q'\setminus Q\right),\end{aligned}$$ where to obtain the second inequality we have used Remark \[voronoi\] and (iii). Eventually, since $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathcal{H}^{d-1}}\left(U_\nu(z,z')\cap\partial Q\right)\leq c|z-z'|t^{d-2},\\
&{\mathcal{H}^{d-1}}\left(H_\nu(z')\cap Q'\setminus Q\right)\leq c(|z-z'|+|t-t'|)(t')^{d-2},\end{aligned}$$ we obtain from upon noticing that by hypotheses $t<t'$.
Having at hand Lemma \[l.extension\] we now prove Proposition \[prop:ex:limit0\].
For definiteness we specify the orientation of the cube $Q_{\nu}$. Given $\nu\in S^{d-1}$, we choose the orthonormal basis as the columns of the orthogonal matrix $O_{\nu}$ induced by the linear mapping $$x\mapsto \begin{cases}
\displaystyle{2\frac{\langle x,\nu+e_d\rangle}{\|\nu+e_d\|^2}(\nu+e_d)-x} &\mbox{if $\nu\in S^{d-1}\setminus\{-e_d\}$,}
\\
-x &\mbox{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$The proof is divided into several steps.
**Step 1** Existence of $\varphi_{\rm hom}({\omega},\nu)$ for rational directions $\nu\in S^{d-1}\cap\mathbb{Q}^d$.\
Let $\nu\in S^{d-1}\cap\mathbb{Q}^d$; then $O_\nu\in\mathbb{Q}^{d\times d}$ is such that $O_\nu e_d=\nu$ and the set $\{O_\nu e_j\colon j=1,\ldots d-1\}$ is an orthonormal basis for $H_{\nu}$. Moreover, there exists an integer $m=m(\nu)>4M$ such that $mO_\nu(z,0)\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$ for every $z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{d-1}$. We show that there exists a set $\Omega^\nu\subset\Omega$ of probability one such that the limit defining $\varphi_{\rm hom}({\omega},\nu)$ exists for all ${\omega}\in\Omega^\nu$. To this end, we define a suitable discrete stochastic process (depending on $\nu$) that satisfies all the conditions of Theorem \[t.subadergodic\]. We start with some notation. For every $I=[a_1,b_1)\times\cdots\times[a_{d-1},b_{d-1})\in\mathcal{I}$ we define the set $I_d\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ as $$\begin{aligned}
I_d:=mO_\nu({\rm int}\, I\times (-s_{\rm max},s_{\rm max})),\quad\text{where}\ s_{\rm max}:=\max_{i=1,\ldots d-1}\frac{|b_i-a_i|}{2},\end{aligned}$$ and we define a stochastic process $\mu:\mathcal{I}\to L^1(\Omega)$ by setting $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(I,{\omega}):=&\inf\Big\{F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(v,I_d)\colon v\in\mathcal{PC}_{1,M}^{\omega}(v_{0,\nu}^1,I_d):\,
\exists\, u\in \mathcal{S}_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{0,\nu}^{1,0},I_d),\ F_{1}^{b}({\omega})(u,v,I_d)=0\Big\}
\\
&+C_\mu{\mathcal{H}^{d-2}}(\partial I),\end{aligned}$$ where $C_\mu>0$ is a constant to be chosen later. Note that here we have chosen the same width for the boundary condition imposed on $u$ and $v$. Let us prove that $\mu(I,\cdot)\in L^1(\Omega)$. Using the measurability of $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal E$ (cf. Definition \[defgoodedges\]), one can show that for fixed $u,v\in\mathcal{PC}_{{\varepsilon}}^{{\omega}}$ (interpreted as deterministic vectors $(u,v)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{\mathbb{N}}\times [0,1]^{\mathbb{N}}$) and $\lambda>0$ the function $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{\lambda,u,v}(I,{\omega})=&F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(v)+C_{\mu}\mathcal{H}^{d-2}(\partial I)+\lambda F_{1}^{b}({\omega})(u,v)
\\
&+\lambda\sum_{\substack{x\in{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap I_d\\ {{\rm{dist}}}(x,\partial I_d)\leq M}}\left(|u(x)-u_{0,\nu}^{0,1}(x)|^2+|v(x)-v_{0,\nu}^1(x)|^2\right)+\lambda\sum_{x\in{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap I_d}{{\rm{dist}}}^2(u(x),\{0,1\})\end{aligned}$$ is $\mathcal{F}$-measurable. Minimizing over the first $k$ components of the vectors $u$ and $v$ (while fixing the others to zero) preserves measurability and when $k\to +\infty$ we infer that ${\omega}\mapsto \inf_{u,v}\mu_{\lambda,u,v}(I,{\omega})$ is measurable. Sending then $\lambda\to +\infty$ we finally conclude that also ${\omega}\mapsto\mu(I,{\omega})$ is measurable as the pointwise limit of measurable functions. In order to show integrability, note that the function $v_{0,\nu}^1$ is admissible in the minimization problem defining $\mu(I,{\omega})$ (see also ) and, similar to the counting argument used to derive , one can show that $$\label{eq:l_inftybound}
\mu(I,{\omega})\leq F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(v_{0,\nu}^1,I_d)+C_{\mu}(\partial I)\leq C \mathcal{H}^{d-1}(I_d\cap H_{\nu})+C_{\mu}(\partial I)$$ uniformly in ${\omega}$, so that $\mu(I,\cdot)\in L^{\infty}(\Omega)$.
We next prove the stationarity of the process. To this end, for every $z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{d-1}$ we set $z_m^\nu:=mO_\nu(z,0)$ and we define a measure-preserving group action $\{\tilde{\tau}_z\}_{z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{d-1}}$ by setting $\tilde{\tau}_z:=\tau_{-z_m^\nu}$, where $\{\tau_z\}_{z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d}$ is as in the statement. Note that for every $I\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}$ and every $z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{d-1}$ we have $(I-z)_d=I_d-z_{m}^\nu$. Moreover, since $z_{m}^{\nu}\in H_{\nu}\cap{\mathbb{Z}}^d$ and $\mathcal{L}$ is stationary with respect to $\{\tau_z\}_{z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d}$, we have $$\begin{split}
v\in\mathcal{PC}_{1,M}^{\omega}(v_{0,\nu}^1,(I-z)_d)&\iff v_z(\cdot)=v(\cdot-z^{\nu}_m)\in\mathcal{PC}_{1,M}^{\tilde{\tau}_z{\omega}}(v_{0,\nu}^1,I_d)
\\
u\in\mathcal{S}_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{0,\nu}^{1,0},(I-z)_d)&\iff u_z(\cdot)=u(\cdot-z^{\nu}_m))\in\mathcal{S}_{1,M}^{\tilde{\tau}_z{\omega}}(u_{0,\nu}^{1,0},I_d)
\end{split}$$ Applying once more the stationarity of $\mathcal{L}$ and the edges $\mathcal{E}$ we also obtain the identities $F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(v,(I-z)_d)=F_{1}^{s}(\tilde{\tau}_z{\omega})(v_z,I_d)$ and $F_{1}^{b}({\omega})(u,(I-z)_d)=F_{1}^{b}(\tilde{\tau}_z{\omega})(u_z,I_d)$, which yields $\mu(I-z,{\omega})=\mu(I,\tilde{\tau}_z{\omega})$, and hence the stationarity of the process.
Since $\mu(I,{\omega})\geq 0$, it remains to prove the subadditivity of the process. To this end, let $I\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}$ and let $(I^i)_{i=1}^k$ be a finite family of pairwise disjoint $(d-1)$-dimensional intervals with $I=\bigcup_{i=1}^k I^i$. For fixed $i\in\{1,\ldots, k\}$ we choose $(u^i,v^i)\in\mathcal{S}_{1,M}^{{\omega}}(u_{0,\nu}^{1,0},I_d^i)\times\mathcal{PC}_{1,M}^{\omega}(v_{0,\nu}^1,I_d^i)$ such that $F_{1}^{b}({\omega})(u^i,v^i,I_d^i)=0$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(I^i,{\omega})=F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(v^i,I_d^i)+C_\mu{\mathcal{H}^{d-2}}(\partial I^i).\end{aligned}$$ Note that also the $d$-dimensional intervals $I_d^i$ are pairwise disjoint. This allows us to define a pair $(u,v)\in\mathcal{S}_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{0,\nu}^{1,0},I_d)\times\mathcal{PC}_{1,M}^{\omega}(v_{0,\nu}^1,I_d)$ by setting $$\begin{aligned}
u(x):=
\begin{cases}
u^i(x) &\text{if}\ x\in I_d^i\ \text{for some}\ 1\leq i\leq k,\\
u_{0,\nu}^{1,0}(x) &\text{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\quad v(x):=
\begin{cases}
v^i(x) &\text{if}\ x\in I_d^i\ \text{for some}\ 1\leq i\leq k,\\
v_{0,\nu}^1(x) &\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Since $mO_\nu({\rm int}\, I\times(-1/2,1/2))\subset{\rm int}\,\bigcup_{i=1}^k\overline{I_d^i}$ and $m>4M$, thanks to the boundary conditions satisfied by $(u,v)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
F_{1}^{b}({\omega})(u,v,I_d)=F_{1}^{b}({\omega})(u,v,{\rm int}\,\bigcup_{i=1 }^k\overline{I_d^i}),\qquad F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(v,I_d)=F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(v,{\rm int}\,\bigcup_{i=1 }^k\overline{I_d^i}).\end{aligned}$$ Let us show that $F_{1}^{b}({\omega})(u,v,{\rm int}\,\bigcup_{i=1 }^k\overline{I_d^i})=0$, so that $v$ is admissible for $\mu(I,{\omega})$. Since by construction $F_{1}^{b}({\omega})(u,v,I_d^i)=0$ for every $i\in\{1,\ldots,k\}$, it suffices to show that for any $(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})$ with $x\in \overline{I_d^i}$ and $y\in \overline{I_d^j}$ for some $i\neq j$ we have $v(x)^2|u(x)-u(y)|^2=0$. To this end, we notice that for such a pair $(x,y)$ we have ${{\rm{dist}}}(x,\partial I_i)\leq |x-y|\leq M$, so that $u({\varepsilon}x)=u_{0,\nu}^{1,0}(x)$ and $v(x)=v_{0,\nu}^1$. Similarly $u(y)=u_{0,\nu}^{1,0}(y)$ and $v(y)=v_{0,\nu}^1(y)$. In particular, $|u(x)-u(y)|\neq 0$ if and only if $x$ and $y$ lie on different sides of the hyperplane $H_{\nu}$. Since $|x-y|\leq M$ this implies $|\langle x,\nu\rangle|\leq M$, so that $v(x)=0$. We conclude that indeed $F_{1}^{b}({\omega})(u,v,I_d)=0$. Moreover, by the definition of $v$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(v,{\rm int}\,\bigcup_{i=1 }^k\overline{I_d^i})\leq\sum_{i=1}^kF_{1}^{s}({\omega})(v^i,I_d^i)+\frac{\beta}{2}\sum_{1\leq i\neq j\leq k}\Big(\sum_{x\in\overline{I_d^i}\cap\overline{I_d^j}}\hspace*{-0.5em}(v(x)-1)^2+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\substack{(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})\\x\in\overline{I_d^i},y\in\overline{I_d^j}}}\hspace*{-0.5em}|v(x)-v(y)|^2\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Fix $i,j\in\{1,\ldots,k\}$, $i\neq j$ and let $x\in\overline{I_d^i}\cap\overline{I_d^j}$. Then $(v(x)-1)^2=(v_{0,\nu}^1(x)-1)^2\neq 0$ only if $|\langle x,\nu\rangle|\leq M$, so that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est:dist1}
{{\rm{dist}}}(x,\overline{mO_\nu I^i}\cap\overline{mO_\nu I^j})\leq M.\end{aligned}$$ Further, at the points $x\in\overline{I_d^i}$, $y\in\overline{I_d^j}$ such that $(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})$ $v$ satisfies the boundary conditions, so that $|v(x)-v(y)|=|v_{0,\nu}^1(x)-v_{0,\nu}^1(y)|\neq 0$ only if $|\langle x,\nu\rangle |\leq M<|\langle y,\nu\rangle|$ or $|\langle y,\nu\rangle|\leq M<|\langle x,\nu\rangle|$. Since $|x-y|\leq M$, in both cases we have $|\langle x,\nu\rangle|,|\langle y,\nu\rangle|\leq 2M$. Thus, denoting by $p_\nu$ the orthogonal projection onto the hyperplane $H_{\nu}$, we obtain $|p_\nu(x)-x|,|p_\nu(y)-y|\leq 2M$. Moreover the segment $[p_\nu(x),p_\nu(y)]$ intersects the $(d-2)$-dimensional set $\overline{mO_\nu I^i}\cap\overline{mO_\nu I^j}$ and we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est:dist2}
{{\rm{dist}}}(x,\overline{mO_\nu I^i}\cap\overline{mO_\nu I^j})\leq 3M,\quad {{\rm{dist}}}(y,\overline{mO_\nu I^i}\cap\overline{mO_\nu I^j})\leq 3M.\end{aligned}$$ Gathering and yields the existence of a constant $C=C(R/r,M,m)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est:FsId}
F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(v,I_d)\leq\sum_{i=1}^k F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(v^i,I_d^i)+ C\sum_{1\leq i\neq j\leq k} {\mathcal{H}^{d-2}}(\overline{I^i}\cap\overline{I^j}).\end{aligned}$$ Since $v$ is admissible for $\mu(I,{\omega})$, keeping in mind that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{H}^{d-2}}(\partial I)=\sum_{i=1}^k{\mathcal{H}^{d-2}}(\partial I^i)-\sum_{1\leq i\neq j\leq k}{\mathcal{H}^{d-2}}(\overline{I^i}\cap\overline{I^j}),\end{aligned}$$ from we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(I,{\omega}) &\leq F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(v,I_d)+C_\mu{\mathcal{H}^{d-2}}(\partial I)\leq\sum_{i=1}^k\mu(I^i,{\omega})+(C-C_\mu)\sum_{1\leq i\neq j\leq k}{\mathcal{H}^{d-2}}(\overline{I^i}\cap\overline{I^j}),\end{aligned}$$ hence the subadditivity follows provided we choose $C_\mu >C$.
Since the contribution $C_{\mu}\mathcal{H}^{d-2}(\partial I)$ is of lower order, applying Theorem \[t.subadergodic\] yields the existence of a set $\Omega^\nu$ of full probability and a function $\varphi_{\rm hom}({\omega},\nu)$ such that for every ${\omega}\in\Omega^\nu$ there holds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ex:limit:int}
\varphi_{\rm hom}({\omega},\nu)=\lim_{k\to +\infty}\frac{1}{(2mk)^{d-1}}\,\varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}\left(u_{0,\nu}^{1,0},Q_\nu(0,2mk)\right).\end{aligned}$$ Thanks to Lemma \[l.extension\] the passage from integer sequences to non-integer sequences is now straightforward. Indeed, let $t_k\to+\infty$ be arbitrary and set $t^-_{k}:=2m\lfloor t_k\rfloor$, $t^+_{k}:=2m(\lfloor t_k\rfloor+1)$. Applying Lemma \[l.extension\] with the cubes $Q_\nu(0,t_k)$ and $Q_\nu(0,t^+_k)$ then yields $$\label{est:nonint1}
\varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{0,\nu}^{1,0},Q_\nu(0,t^+_k))\leq \varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}(0,t_k)+c(t^+_k)^{d-2}.$$ Again applying Lemma \[l.extension\] with cubes $Q_\nu(0,t^-_k)$ and $Q_\nu(0,t_k)$ gives $$\label{est:nonint2}
\varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}(0,t_k)\leq \varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{0,\nu}^{1,0},Q_\nu(0,t^-_k))+c(t_k)^{d-2}.$$ Dividing by $(t_k)^{d-1}$ and gathering , and we get $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{k\to+\infty}\frac{1}{t_k^{d-1}}\varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}(0,t_k)\leq\varphi_{\rm hom}({\omega},\nu)\leq\liminf_{k\to+\infty}\frac{1}{t_k^{d-1}}\varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}(0,t_k).\end{aligned}$$ Since the sequence $(t_k)$ was arbitrarily chosen we deduce that for all ${\omega}$ belonging to the set of full measure $\widehat{\Omega}:=\bigcap_{\nu\in S^{d-1}\cap {\mathbb{Q}}^d}\Omega^\nu$, for every $\nu\in S^{d-1}\cap{\mathbb{Q}}^d$ there exists the limit $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ex:limit:rational}
\varphi_{\rm hom}({\omega},\nu)=\lim_{t\to+\infty}\frac{1}{t^{d-1}}\varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}\left(u_{0,\nu}^{1,0},Q_\nu(0,t)\right).\end{aligned}$$ **Step 2** From rational to irrational directions.\
We continue by proving that holds for every ${\omega}\in\widehat{\Omega}$ and every $\nu\in S^{d-1}$. To this end, for every ${\omega}\in\Omega$ and $\nu\in S^{d-1}$ we introduce the auxiliary functions $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{\varphi}({\omega},\nu):=\limsup_{t\to +\infty}\frac{1}{t^{d-1}}\varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}\left(u_{0,\nu}^{1,0},Q_\nu(0,t)\right),\qquad \underline{\varphi}({\omega},\nu):=\liminf_{t\to +\infty}\frac{1}{t^{d-1}}\varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}\left(u_{0,\nu}^{1,0},Q_\nu(0,t)\right),\end{aligned}$$ and we observe that for every ${\omega}\in\widehat{\Omega}$ and $\nu\in S^{d-1}\cap{\mathbb{Q}}^d$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ls-li}
\overline{\varphi}({\omega},\nu)=\underline{\varphi}({\omega},\nu)=\varphi_{\rm hom}({\omega},\nu).\end{aligned}$$ We now aim to extend this equality for every ${\omega}\in\widehat{\Omega}$ by density of $S^{d-1}\cap{\mathbb{Q}}^d$ in $S^{d-1}$.
Let ${\omega}\in\widehat{\Omega}$ and $\nu\in S^{d-1}\setminus\mathbb{Q}^{d}$. As the inverse of the stereographic projection maps rational points to rational directions, we find a sequence $(\nu_j)\subset S^{d-1}\cap\mathbb{Q}^{d}$ converging to $\nu$. In particular, since $\nu\neq -e_d$, it follows by the continuity of $\nu\mapsto O_{\nu}$ that for fixed $\eta>0$ there exists an index $j_0=j_0(\eta)$ such that for all $j\geq j_0$ we have
- $Q_{\nu_j}(0,1-\eta){\subset\subset}Q_\nu(0,1){\subset\subset}Q_{\nu_j}(0,1+\eta)$;
- ${{\rm{dist}}}_{\mathcal{H}}\left(H_{\nu}\cap B_2,H_{\nu_j}\cap B_2\right)\leq \eta$,
where ${{\rm{dist}}}_{\mathcal{H}}$ denotes the Hausdorff distance. Using similar arguments as in the proof of Lemma \[l.extension\] we aim to compare the two quantities $\varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{0,\nu}^{1,0},Q_\nu(0,t))$ and $\varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{0,\nu_j}^{1,0},Q_{\nu_j}(0,(1-\eta)t))$. To simplify notation we set $$\begin{aligned}
Q(t):=Q_\nu(0,t),\qquad Q_j^\eta(t):=Q_{\nu_j}(0,(1-\eta)t).\end{aligned}$$ For $j\geq j_0$ and $t>0$ we choose a pair $(u_j^t,v_j^t)\in\mathcal{S}_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{0,\nu_j}^{1,0},Q_j^\eta(t))\times \mathcal{PC}_{1,M}^{\omega}(v_{0,\nu_j}^{1},Q_j^\eta(t))$ satisfying $F_{1}^{b}({\omega})(u_j^t,v_j^t,Q_{j}^\eta(t))=0$ and $F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(v_j^t,Q_{j}^\eta(t))=\varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{0,\nu_j}^{1,0},Q_{j}^\eta(t))$. Moreover, we observe that thanks to (i) for t sufficiently large we have ${{\rm{dist}}}(Q_j^\eta(t),\partial Q(t))>2M$. This allows us to extend $u_j^t$ to a function $\tilde{u}_j^t\in\mathcal{S}_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{0,\nu}^{1,0},Q(t))$ by setting $\tilde{u}_j^t(x):=u_{0,\nu}^{1,0}(x)$ on ${\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap Q(t)\setminus Q_j^\eta(t)$. We now construct a function $\tilde{v}_j^t\in\mathcal{PC}_{1,M}^{\omega}((v_{0,\nu}^{1},Q(t))$ satisfying $F_{1}^{b}({\omega})(\tilde{u}_j^t,\tilde{v}_j^t,Q(t))=0$ and which has almost the same energy as $v_j^t$. To this end, we consider the cone $$\begin{aligned}
K(\nu,\nu_j):=\{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^d\colon\langle x,\nu\rangle\langle x,\nu_j\rangle\leq 0\},\end{aligned}$$ and we set $$\begin{aligned}
L(\nu):=\{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^d\colon |\langle x,\nu\rangle|\leq M\},\qquad L(\nu_j):=\{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^d\colon |\langle x,\nu_j\rangle|\leq M\}.\end{aligned}$$ We denote by $U(\nu,\nu_j):=K(\nu,\nu_j)\cup L(\nu)\cup L(\nu_j)$ the union of the three sets above. We then define $\tilde{v}_j^t$ by its values on ${\mathcal{L}(\omega)}$ via $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{v}_j^t(x):=
\begin{cases}
v_j^t(x) &\text{if $x\in Q_{j}^\eta(t)\setminus (U(\nu,\nu_j)\cap \partial_M Q_j^\eta(t))$},\\
0 &\text{if $x\in\left(U(\nu,\nu_j)\cap \partial_M Q_j^\eta(t)\right)\cup\left( L(\nu)\setminus Q_j^\eta(t)\right)$}.\\
1 &\text{otherwise},
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ (see Figure \[fig:rotated\]).
Let us now verify that $F_{1}^{b}({\omega})(\tilde{u}_j^t,\tilde{v}_j^t,Q(t))=0$. First observe that for all $x\in{\mathcal{L}(\omega)}\cap Q_j^\eta(t)$ we have $\tilde{v}_j^t(x)\in\{0,v_j^t(x)\}$ and hence $F_{1}^b({\omega})(\tilde{u}_j^t,\tilde{v}_j^t,Q_j^\eta(t))=0$ by hypotheses. Suppose now that $(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}({\omega})\cap (Q(t)\times Q(t))$ with at least one point belonging to $Q(t)\setminus Q_j^\eta(t)$ and $\tilde{u}_j^t(x)\neq \tilde{u}_j^t(y)$. Then we can distinguish the following two cases:
1. $x\in Q_j^\eta(t)$ and $y\in Q(t)\setminus Q_j^\eta(t)$: since $|x-y|\leq M$ we have $\tilde{u}_j^t(x)=u_j^t(x)=u_{0,\nu_j}^{1,0}(x)$. Moreover, by definition it holds that $\tilde{u}_j^t(y)=u_{0,\nu}^{1,0}(y)$. In particular, $u_{0,\nu_j}^{1,0}(x)\neq u_{0,\nu}^{1,0}(y)$. The latter implies that $x,y\in U(\nu,\nu_j)$, so that $\tilde{v}_j^t(x)=\tilde{v}_j^t(y)=0$, which yields $\tilde{v}_j^t(x)^2|\tilde{u}_j^t(x)-\tilde{u}_j^t(y)|^2=0$;
2. $x,y\in Q(t)\setminus Q_j^\eta(t)$: then necessarily $x,y\in L(\nu)$, so that $\tilde{v}_j^t(x)=\tilde{v}_j^t(y)=0$ and we conclude again.
The above discussion shows that $\tilde{v}_j^t$ is admissible for $\varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{0,\nu}^{1,0},Q(t))$ (note that $\tilde{v}_j^t$ also satisfies the correct boundary conditions). Moreover, the same reasoning as in Lemma \[l.extension\] leads to the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(\tilde{v}_j^t,Q(t)) &\leq F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(v_j^t,Q_j^\eta(t))+C\left({\mathcal{H}^{d-1}}(K(\nu,\nu_j)\cap \partial Q_j^\eta(t))+{\mathcal{H}^{d-1}}(H_\nu\cap Q(t)\setminus Q_j^\eta(t)\right)\\
&\leq F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(v_j^t, Q_j^\eta(t))+C\eta\,t^{d-1},\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality follows thanks to (ii). Dividing the above inequality by $t^{d-1}$ and passing to the upper limit as $t\to +\infty$, in view of the choice of $v_j^t$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{\varphi}({\omega},\nu)\leq\limsup_{t\to+\infty}\frac{1}{t^{d-1}} F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(\tilde{v}_j^t, Q(t))\leq \varphi_{\rm hom}({\omega},\nu_j)+C\eta.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, letting first $j\to+\infty$ and then $\eta\to 0$ gives $\overline{\varphi}({\omega},\nu)\leq\liminf_j\varphi_{\rm hom}({\omega},\nu_j)$. A similar argument, now using the second inclusion in (i), leads to the inequality $\limsup_j\varphi_{\rm hom}({\omega},\nu_j)\leq\underline{\varphi}({\omega},\nu)$. Hence the equality extends to all $\nu\in S^{d-1}$ and the limit in exists for all directions.
[**Step 3**]{} Shift invariance in the probability space\
Next we find a set $\widetilde{\Omega}\subset\widehat{\Omega}$ on which $\varphi(\cdot,\nu)$ is invariant under the group action $\{\tau_z\}_{z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d}$ for every $\nu\in S^{d-1}$. Namely, we define the set $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\Omega}:=\bigcap_{z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d}\tau_z(\widehat{\Omega}),\end{aligned}$$ which has full measure since $\tau_z$ is measure preserving. Moreover, for every $z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$ we have $\tau_z(\widetilde{\Omega})=\widetilde{\Omega}\subset\widehat{\Omega}$, hence the limit defining $\varphi_{\rm hom}(\tau_z{\omega},\nu)$ exists for every $z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$ and every $\nu\in S^{d-1}$. Thus, it remains to prove that $\varphi_{\rm hom}(\tau_z{\omega},\nu)$ and $\varphi_{\rm hom}({\omega},\nu)$ coincide. To this end it suffices to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est:phitauz-phi}
\varphi_{\rm hom}(\tau_z{\omega},\nu)\leq\varphi_{\rm hom}({\omega},\nu)\end{aligned}$$ holds for every $z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$, ${\omega}\in\widetilde{\Omega}$, and $\nu\in S^{d-1}$, then the opposite inequality follows by applying with $z$ replaced by $-z$ and ${\omega}$ replaced by $\tau_z{\omega}$.
Let $z,{\omega},\nu$ be as above. There exists $N=N(z)>0$ such that for all $t>0$ it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cond:Qnz}
Q_\nu(0,t)\subset Q_\nu(-z,N+t),\quad 2M<{{\rm{dist}}}(\partial Q_\nu(0,t),\partial Q_\nu(-z,N+t)).\end{aligned}$$ An argument similar to the one used to prove the stationarity of the stochastic process shows that $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{\rm hom}(\tau_z{\omega},\nu)&=\lim_{t\to+\infty}\frac{1}{(N+t)^{d-1}}\varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{-z,\nu}^{1,0},Q_{\nu}(-z,N+t))\nonumber\\
&=\lim_{t\to+\infty}\frac{1}{t^{d-1}}\varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{-z,\nu}^{1,0},Q_{\nu}(-z,N+t)).\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, in view of for $t$ sufficiently large the cubes $Q_\nu(0,t)$ and $Q_\nu(-z,N+t)$ satisfy all the conditions of Lemma \[l.extension\]. Hence we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{-z,\nu}^{1,0},Q_\nu(-z,N+t))\leq\varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{0,\nu}^{1,0},Q_\nu(0,t))+c(|z|+N)(t+N)^{d-2},\end{aligned}$$ and we obtain by dividing the above inequality by $t^{d-1}$ and passing to the limit as $t\to+\infty$.
It is by now standard to show that in the limit defining $\varphi_{\rm hom}$ the cubes $Q_\nu(0,t)$ can be replaced by $Q_\nu(tx,t\varrho)$ with $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$, $\rho>0$ arbitrary. In fact, the following proposition can be proved by repeating the arguments in the proof of [@BCR Theorem 5.8] (see also [@ACR Theorem 5.5]) and applying Lemma \[l.extension\] and Proposition \[prop:ex:limit0\] above. We thus omit its proof here.
\[prop:ex:limit:x\] Let $\mathcal{L}$ be an admissible stationary stochastic lattice with admissible stationary edges in the sense of Definitions \[defadmissible\] & \[defgoodedges\]. Then there exists $\Omega'\subset\Omega$ with $\mathbb{P}(\Omega')=1$ such that for every ${\omega}\in\Omega'$ and every $x\in D$, $\nu\in S^{d-1}$, $\varrho>0$ there holds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ex:limit:x}
\varphi_{\rm hom}({\omega},\nu)=\lim_{t\to+\infty}(t\varrho)^{1-d}\varphi_{1,M}^{\omega}\left(u_{tx,\nu}^{1,0},Q_\nu(tx,t\rho)\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\varphi_{\rm hom}$ is given by Proposition \[prop:ex:limit0\]. In particular, the limit in exists and is independent of $x$ and $\varrho$.
We finally prove Theorem \[mainthm1\].
Combining [@ACG2 Theorem 2] and Proposition \[prop:ex:limit0\] above yields the existence of a set $\Omega'\subset\Omega$ with $\mathbb{P}(\Omega')=1$ such that for all ${\omega}\in\Omega'$ the limits in and exist for every $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$ and every $\nu\in S^{d-1}$ and holds true. Moreover, since $\mathcal{L}$ is an admissible stochastic lattice with admissible edges $\mathcal{E}$, for every ${\omega}\in\Omega'$ and every ${\varepsilon}\to 0$ Theorem \[mainrep\] provides us with a subsequence ${\varepsilon}_n$ and a functional $F({\omega}):L^1(D)\times L^1(D)\to[0,+\infty]$ of the form $$\begin{aligned}
F({\omega})(u,1)=\int_D f({\omega},x,\nabla u){\,\mathrm{d}x}+\int_{S_u}\varphi({\omega},x,\nu_u){\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{d}{\mathcal{H}^{d-1}}}},\quad u\in GSBV^2(D),\end{aligned}$$ such that $F_{{\varepsilon}_n}({\omega})$ $\Gamma$-converges to $F({\omega})$ in the strong $L^1(D)\times L^1(D)$-topology. Thanks to Proposition \[p.gradientpartsequal\] and [@ACG2 Theorem 2] we know that $$\begin{aligned}
f({\omega},x_0,\xi)=f_{\rm hom}({\omega},\xi)\quad\text{for a.e. $x_0\in D$ and every $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$}\end{aligned}$$ with $f_{\rm hom}({\omega},\xi)$ given by . Moreover, combining the asymptotic formula for $\varphi$ in Proposition \[limitsbvp\] with Lemma \[approxminprob\], Proposition \[separationofscales1\], and a change of variables yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{as:form-resc}
\varphi({\omega},x,\nu)=\limsup_{\varrho\to 0}\lim_{\delta\to 0}\limsup_{n\to+\infty}\frac{1}{(t_n\varrho)^{d-1}}\varphi_{1,t_n\delta}^{\omega}(u_{t_n x,\nu}^{1,0},Q_\nu(t_nx,t_n\varrho)),\end{aligned}$$ where $t_n={\varepsilon}_n^{-1}$. Since for every fixed $\delta>0$ we have $\delta t_n>M$ for $t_n$ sufficiently large, from and Proposition \[prop:ex:limit:x\] we immediately deduce that $\varphi({\omega},x,\nu)\geq\varphi_{\rm hom}({\omega},\nu)$ for every $x\in D$, $\nu\in S^{d-1}$.
To prove the opposite inequality we fix $\varrho>0$ and $\delta\in (0,\varrho)$. Then a procedure similar to the one used in the proof of Lemma \[l.extension\] allows to extend any pair $$(u_n,v_n)\in\mathcal{S}_{1,M}^{\omega}(u_{t_nx,\nu}^{1,0},Q_\nu(t_n x,t_n(\varrho-\delta)))\times\mathcal{PC}_{1,M}^{\omega}(v_{t_nx,\nu}^1,Q_\nu(t_nx,t_n(\varrho-\delta)))$$ to $Q_\nu(t_n x,t_n\varrho)$ in such a way that $v_n$ is admissible for $\varphi_{1,t_n\delta}^{\omega}(u_{t_nx,\nu}^{1,0},Q_\nu(t_nx,t_n\varrho))$ and $$\begin{aligned}
F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(v_n,Q_\nu(t_nx,t_n\varrho))\leq F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(v_n,Q_\nu(t_nx,t_n(\varrho-\delta)))+Ct_n^{d-1}\delta.\end{aligned}$$ Passing to the infimum and dividing the above inequality by $(t_n\varrho)^{d-1}$ we obtain $\varphi({\omega},x,\nu)\leq\varphi_{\rm hom}({\omega},\nu)$ by letting first $n\to +\infty$ and then $\delta\to 0$. Hence the limit is determined uniquely independent of the subsequence. The claim then follows from the Urysohn-property of $\Gamma$-convergence and the fact that the ergodicity of the group action makes the functions $\varphi_{\rm hom}$ and $f_{\rm hom}$ deterministic due to [@ACG2 Theorem 2] and .
Finally, we prove the approximation of the Mumford-Shah functional in the isotropic case.
Due Theorem \[mainthm1\] it only remains to show that $f_{\rm hom}(\xi)=c_1|\xi|^2$ and $\varphi(\nu)=c_2$ for some constants $c_1,c_2>0$. By Theorem \[mainrep\] the function $f$ is a non-negative quadratic form. Reasoning exactly as for the vectorial case treated in [@ACG2 Theorem 9] one can show that ergodicity and isotropy imply $f(R\xi)=f(\xi)$ for all $\xi\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and all $R\in SO(d)$. Hence $f$ is constant on $S^{d-1}$ and has to be of the form $f(\xi)=c_1|\xi|^2$ for some $c_1>0$.
We next show that $\varphi_{\rm hom}(R\nu)=\varphi_{\rm hom}(\nu)$ for all $R\in SO(d)$. To this end, we first observe that by the isotropy of $\mathcal{L}$ we have the equivalences $$\begin{aligned}
u\in \mathcal{S}_{1,M}^{{\omega}}(u^{a,0}_{0,R\nu},Q_{R\nu}(0,t))&\iff u\circ R\in \mathcal{S}_{1,M}^{\tau'_{R^T}{\omega}}(u^{a,0}_{0,\nu},Q_{\nu}(0,t)),
\\
v\in\mathcal{PC}^{{\omega}}_{1,M}(v_{0,R\nu}^{1},Q_{R\nu}(0,t))&\iff v\circ R\in \mathcal{PC}_{1,M}^{\tau'_{R^T}{\omega}}(v_{0,\nu}^{1},Q_{\nu}(0,t)).\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, by the joint isotropy of $\mathcal{L}$ and of the edges $\mathcal{E}$, it holds that $$F_{1}^{b}({\omega})(u,v,Q_{R\nu}(0,t))=F^{b}_{1}(\tau'_{R^T}{\omega})(u\circ R,v\circ R,Q_{\nu}(0,t)),\;\; F_{1}^{s}({\omega})(v,Q_{R\nu}(0,t))=F^{s}_{1}(\tau'_{R^T}{\omega})(v\circ R,Q_{\nu}(0,t)).$$ Hence, from definition we conclude that $$\varphi_{1,M}^{{\omega}}(u_{0,R\nu}^{a,0},Q_{R\nu}(0,t))=\varphi_{1,M}^{\tau'_{R^T}{\omega}}(u_{0,\nu}^{a,0},Q_{\nu}(0,t)).$$ Since $\varphi_{\rm hom}$ is deterministic by ergodicity, we can take expectations in the asymptotic formula given by and due to the fact that $\tau^{\prime}_{R}$ is measure preserving, by dominated convergence and a change of variables we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{\rm hom}(R\nu)&=\lim_{t\to +\infty}\frac{1}{t^{d-1}}\int_{\Omega}\varphi^{{\omega}}_{1,M}(u_{0,R\nu}^{a,0},Q_{R\nu}(0,t))\,\mathrm{d}\mathbb{P}({\omega})=\lim_{t\to +\infty}\frac{1}{t^{d-1}}\int_{\Omega}\varphi_{1,M}^{\tau'_{R^T}{\omega}}(u_{0,\nu}^{a,0},Q_{\nu}(0,t))\,\mathrm{d}\mathbb{P}({\omega})
\\
&=\lim_{t\to +\infty}\frac{1}{t^{d-1}}\int_{\Omega}\varphi_{1,M}^{{\omega}'}(u_{0,\nu}^{a,0},Q_{\nu}(0,t))\,\mathrm{d}\mathbb{P}({\omega}')=\varphi_{\rm hom}(\nu).\end{aligned}$$ We finish the proof setting $c_2=\varphi_{\rm hom}(e_1)>0$.
{#section .unnumbered}
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
--------------
The work of A.B. and M.C. was supported by the DFG Collaborative Research Center TRR 109, “Discretization in Geometry and Dynamics”. M.R. acknowledges financial support from the European Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2014-2019 Grant Agreement QUANTHOM 335410).
Conflict of interest {#conflict-of-interest .unnumbered}
--------------------
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
M. A. Akcoglu and U. Krengel, Ergodic theorems for superadditive processes, , [*323*]{} (1981), 53–67.
R. Alicandro, M. Cicalese and A. Gloria, Integral representation results for energies defined on stochastic lattices and application to nonlinear elasticity, , [**200**]{} (2011), 881–943.
R. Alicandro, M. Cicalese and M. Ruf, Domain formation in magnetic polymer composites: an approach via stochastic homogenization, , [**218**]{} (2015), 945–984.
L. Ambrosio, Existence theory for a new class of variational problems, , [**111**]{} (1990), 291–322.
L. Ambrosio and E. De Giorgi, New functionals in the calculus of variations, (Italian) , [**82**]{} (1988), 199–210.
L. Ambrosio, N. Fusco and D. Pallara, , Oxford Mathematical Monographs, The Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, New York, 2000.
L. Ambrosio and V. M. Tortorelli, Approximation of functionals depending on jumps by elliptic functionals via $\Gamma$-convergence, , [**43**]{} (1990), 999-1036.
L. Ambrosio and V. M. Tortorelli, On the approximation of free discontinuity problems, , [**6**]{}–B (1992), 105–123.
G. Aubert and P. Kornprobst, [*Mathematical problems in image processing: partial differential equations and the calculus of variations*]{}, 2nd edition, Springer, New York, 2006.
A. Bach, A. Braides and C. I. Zeppieri, Quantitative analysis of finite-difference approximations of free-discontinuity problems, Preprint arXiv 1807.05346 (2018).
L. Bar, T. F. Chan, G. Chung, M. Jung, N. Kiryati, R. Mohieddine, N. Sochen and L. A. Vese, Mumford and Shah model and its applications to image segmentation and image restoration, in O. Scherzer, ed., [*Handbook of Mathematical Methods in Imaging*]{}, Springer, New York, 2011, 1095–1157.
G. Bellettini and A. Coscia, Discrete approximation of a free discontinuity problem, , [**15**]{} (1994), 201–224.
A. Blake and A. Zissermann, , MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1987.
G. Bouchitté, I. Fonseca, G. Leoni and L. Mascarenhas, A global method for relaxation in ${\MakeUppercase w}^{1,p}$ and in ${\MakeUppercase {sbv}}_p$, , [**165**]{} (2002), 187–242.
B. Bourdin, Image segmentation with a finite element method, , [**33**]{} (1999), 229–244.
B. Bourdin, G. Francfort, and J.-J. Marigo The variational approach to fracture, , [**91**]{} (2008), 5–148.
A. Braides, , Oxford Lecture Series in Mathematics and its Applications, vol.22, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002.
A. Braides, M. Cicalese and M. Ruf, Continuum limit and stochastic homogenization of discrete ferromagnetic thin films, , [**11**]{} (2018), 499–553.
A. Braides and G. Dal Maso, Non-local approximation of the Mumford-Shah functional, , [**5**]{} (1997), 293–322.
A. Braides and N. K. Yip, A quantitative description of mesh dependence for the discretization of singularly perturbed nonconvex problems, , [**50**]{} (2012), 1883–1898.
F. Cagnetti, G. Dal Maso, L. Scardia and C. I. Zeppieri, Stochastic homogenisation of free discontinuity problems, Preprint arXiv 1712.07272 (2017).
A. Chambolle, Image segmentation by variational methods: Mumford and Shah functional and the discrete approximations, , [**55**]{} (1995), 827–863.
A. Chambolle, Finite-differences discretizations of the Mumford-Shah functional, , [**33**]{} (1999), 261–288.
G. Dal Maso, , Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications, vol. 8, Birkh[ä]{}user Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 1993.
M. Focardi, , in Free Discontinuity Problems, N. Fusco, A. Pratelli, eds, volume 19 of PSNS, Pisa, 2016.
S. Geman and D. Geman, Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs distributions, and the bayesian restoration of images, , [**6**]{} (1984), 721–741.
A. Gloria and M. D. Penrose, Random parking, Euclidean functionals, and rubber elasticity, , [**321**]{} (2013), 1–31.
M. Gobbino, Finite difference approximation of the Mumford-Shah functional, , [**51**]{} (1998), 197–228.
J. Marroquin, Surface reconstruction preserving discontinuities, (1984), MIT.
J. M. Morel, S. Solimini, , .
D. Mumford and J. Shah, Optimal approximations by piecewise smooth functions and associated variational problems, , [**42**]{} (1989), 577–685.
M. D. Penrose, Random parking, sequential adsorption, and the jamming limit, , [**218**]{} (2001), 153–176.
T. Pock, D. Cremers, H. Bischof and A. Chambolle, An algorithm for minimizing the Mumford-Shah functional, , (2009), 1133–1140.
M. Ruf, Discrete stochastic approximations of the Mumford-Shah functional, , (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anihpc.2018.10.004 .
L. A. Vese and T. F. Chan, A multiphase level set framework for image segmentation using the Mumford and Shah model, , [**50**]{} (2002), 271–293.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have found numerous applications and are expected to bring fertile business opportunities in the next decade. Among various enabling technologies for UAVs, wireless communication is essential and has drawn significantly growing attention in recent years. Compared to the conventional terrestrial communications, UAVs’ communications face new challenges due to their high altitude above the ground and great flexibility of movement in the three-dimensional (3D) space. Several critical issues arise, including the line-of-sight (LoS) dominant UAV-ground channels and resultant strong aerial-terrestrial network interference, the distinct communication quality of service (QoS) requirements for UAV control messages versus payload data, the stringent constraints imposed by the size, weight and power (SWAP) limitations of UAVs, as well as the exploitation of the new design degree of freedom (DoF) brought by the highly controllable 3D UAV mobility. In this paper, we give a tutorial overview of the recent advances in UAV communications to address the above issues, with an emphasis on how to integrate UAVs into the forthcoming fifth-generation (5G) and future cellular networks. In particular, we partition our discussions into two promising research and application frameworks of UAV communications, namely [ *UAV-assisted wireless communications*]{} and [*cellular-connected UAVs*]{}, where UAVs serve as aerial communication platforms and users, respectively. Furthermore, we point out promising directions for future research and investigation.'
author:
- '[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'IEEEfull.bib'
- 'mybib.bib'
title: 'Accessing From The Sky: A Tutorial on UAV Communications for 5G and Beyond'
---
[Shell : Bare Demo of IEEEtran.cls for IEEE Journals]{}
**Keywords**
[ ]{}
Introduction
============
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), also commonly known as drones, are aircrafts piloted by remote control or embedded computer programs without human onboard. Historically, UAVs were mainly used in military applications deployed in hostile territory for remote surveillance and armed attack, to reduce the pilot losses. In recent years, the enthusiasm for using UAVs in civilian and commercial applications has skyrocketed, thanks to the advancement of UAVs’ manufacturing technologies and their reducing cost, making them more easily accessible to the public. Nowadays, UAVs have found numerous applications in a proliferation of fields, such as aerial inspection, photography, precision agriculture, traffic control, search and rescue, package delivery, telecommunications, etc. In June 2016, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released the operational rules for routine civilian use of small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) with aircraft weight less than 55 pounds (25 Kg) [@936]. In November 2017, FAA further launched a national program in Washington, namely “Drone Integration Pilot Program”, to explore the expanded use of drones, including beyond-visual-line-of-sight (BVLoS) flights, night-time operations, flights above people, etc. [@USprogramm_UAV]. It is anticipated that these new guidelines and programs will spur the further growth of global UAV industry in the coming years. The scale of the industry of UAVs is potentially enormous with realistic predictions in the realm of 80 billion dollars for the U.S. economy alone, expected to create tens of thousands of new jobs within the next decade [@1011]. Therefore, UAVs have emerged as a promising technology to offer fertile business opportunities in the next decade.
In practice, there are many types of UAVs due to their numerous and diversified applications. While there is no single standard for UAV classification, UAVs can be practically assorted into different categories according to different criteria such as functionality, weight/payload, size, endurance, wing configuration, control methods, cruising range, flying altitude, maximum speed, energy supplying methods, etc. For example, in terms of wing configuration, fixed-wing and rotary-wing UAVs are the two main types of UAVs that have been widely used in practice. Typically, fixed-wing UAVs have higher maximum flying speed and can carry greater payloads for traveling longer distances as compared to rotary-wing UAVs, while their disadvantages lie in that a runway or launcher is needed for takeoff/landing as well as that hovering at a fixed position is impossible. In contrast, rotary-wing UAVs are able to takeoff/land vertically and remain static at a hovering location. The above different characteristics of these two types of UAVs thus have a great impact on their respectively suitable use cases. A detailed classification for different types of UAVs has been provided in [@616]. In general, selecting a suitable type of UAVs is crucial for accomplishing their mission efficiently, which needs to take into account their specifications as well as the requirements of practical applications.
Wireless Communication with UAVs: Basic Requirements
----------------------------------------------------
[|l|l|l|l|l|]{} & [**Data Type**]{} & [**Data Rate**]{} & [**Reliability**]{} & [**Latency**]{}\
------------------
[*DL*]{} (Ground
station to UAV)
------------------
& Command and control & 60-100 Kbps & $10^{-3}$ packet error rate & 50 ms\
& Command and control & 60-100 Kbps & $10^{-3}$ packet error rate & –\
& Application data & Up to 50 Mbps & – &
------------------
Similar to
terrestrial user
------------------
\
[|l|l|l|l|]{} &
-------------------------
[**Height coverage**]{}
[**in meter (m)**]{}
-------------------------
&
---------------------------------
[**Payload traffic latency**]{}
[**in millisecond (ms)**]{}
---------------------------------
&
---------------------------
[**Payload data rate**]{}
[**(DL/UL)**]{}
---------------------------
\
*Drone delivery & 100 m & 500 ms & 300 Kbps/200 Kbps\
*Drone filming & 100 m & 500 ms & 300 Kbps/30 Mbps\
*Access point & 500 m & 500 ms & 50 Mbps/50 Mbps\
*Surveillance & 100 m & 3000 ms & 300 Kbps/10 Mbps\
****
------------------
*Infrastructure\
*inspection**
------------------
& 100 m & 3000 ms & 300 Kbps/10 Mbps\
*Drone fleet show & 200 m & 100 ms & 200 Kbps/200 Kbps\
*
----------------
*Precision\
*agriculture**
----------------
& 300 m & 500 ms & 300 Kbps/200 Kbps\
*Search and rescue & 100 m & 500 ms & 300 Kbps/6 Mbps\
*
An essential enabling technology of UAS is wireless communication. On one hand, UAVs need to exchange safety-critical information with various parties such as remote pilots, nearby aerial vehicles, and air traffic controller, to ensure the safe, reliable, and efficient flight operation. This is commonly known as the [*control and non-payload communication (CNPC)*]{} [@942]. On the other hand, depending on their missions, UAVs may need to timely transmit and/or receive mission-related data such as aerial image, high-speed video, and data packets for relaying, to/from various ground entities such as UAV operators, end users, or ground gateways. This is known as [*payload communication*]{}.
Enabling reliable and secure CNPC links is a necessity for the large-scale deployment and wide usage of UAVs. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has classified the required CNPC to ensure safe UAV operations into three categories [@942], including:
- [*Communication for UAV command and control*]{}: This includes the telemetry report (e.g., flight status) from the UAV to the ground pilot, the real-time telecommand signaling from ground to UAVs for non-autonomous UAVs, and regular flight command update (such as waypoint update) for (semi-) autonomous UAVs.
- [*Communication for air traffic control (ATC) relay*]{}: It is critical to ensure that UAVs do not cause any safety threat to traditional manned aircraft, especially for operations approaching areas with high density of aircraft. To this end, a link between air traffic controller and the ground control station via the UAV, called ATC relay, is required.
- [*Communication supporting “sense and avoid”*]{}: The ability to support “sense and avoid” ensures that the UAV maintains sufficient safety distance with nearby aerial vehicles, terrain and obstacles.
The specific communication and spectrum requirements in general differ for CNPC and payload communications. Recently, the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) has specified the communication requirements for these two types of links [@1012], which is summarized in Table \[table:trafficRequirements3GPP\]. CNPC is usually of low data rate, say, in the order of Kbps (Kilobits per second), but has rather stringent requirement on high reliability and low latency. For example, as shown in Table \[table:trafficRequirements3GPP\], the data rate requirement for UAV command and control is only in the range of 60-100 Kbps for both downlink (DL) and uplink (UL) directions, but a reliability of less than $10^{-3}$ packet error rate and a latency less than 50 milliseconds (ms) are required. While the communication requirements of CNPC links are similar for different types of UAVs due to their common safety consideration, those for payload data are highly application-dependent. In Table \[table1\], we list several typical UAV applications and their corresponding data communication requirements based on [@China_mobile_UAV]. Since the lost of CNPC link may cause catastrophic consequences, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has determined that CNPC links for UAVs must operate over protected aviation spectrum [@943], [@991]. Furthermore, ITU studies have revealed that to support CNPC for the forecasted number of UAVs in the coming years, 34 MHz (Mega Hertz) terrestrial spectrum and 56 MHz satellite spectrum are needed for supporting both line-of-sight (LoS) and beyond-LoS UAV operations[@942]. To meet such requirement, the C-band spectrum at 5030-5091 MHz has been made available for UAV CNPC at WRC (World Radiocommunication Conference)-12. More recently, the WRC-15 has decided that geostationary Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) networks may be used for UAS CNPC links. Compared to CNPC, UAV payload communication usually has much higher data rate requirement. For instance, to support the transmission of full high-definition (FHD) video from the UAV to the ground user, the transmission rate is about several Mbps, while for 4K video, it is higher than 30 Mbps. The rate requirement for UAV serving as aerial communication platform can be even higher, e.g., up to dozens of Gbps for data forwarding/backhauling applications.
-- -- -- --
-- -- -- --
Wireless Technologies for UAV Communication
-------------------------------------------
To meet both the CNPC and payload communication requirements in multifarious UAV applications, proper wireless technologies are needed for achieving seamless connectivity and high reliability/throughput for both air-to-air and air-to-ground wireless communications in the three-dimensional (3D) space. Towards this end, four candidate communication technologies are listed and compared in Table \[table:networking:architectures\], including i) direct link; ii) satellite; iii) ad-hoc network; and iv) cellular network. In the following, we discuss the advantages as well as limitations of each of these technologies in detail.
### Direct Link
Due to its simplicity and low cost, the direct-link communication between UAV and its associated ground node over the unlicensed band (e.g., the Industrial Scientific Medical (ISM) 2.4 GHz band) was most commonly used for commercial UAVs in the past, where the ground node can be a joystick, remote controller, or ground station. However, it is usually limited to LoS communication, which significantly constrains its operation range and hinders its applications in complex propagation environment. For example, in urban areas, the communication can be easily blocked by e.g., trees and high-rise buildings, which results in low reliability and low rate. Furthermore, the ground node needs to connect to a gateway for enabling Internet access of the UAV, which may cause long delay in case of wireless data backhaul. In addition, such a simple solution is usually insecure and vulnerable to interference and jamming. Due to the above limitations, the simple direct-link communication cannot be a scalable solution for supporting large-scale deployment of UAVs in the future.
### Satellite
Enabling UAV communications by leveraging satellites is a viable option due to their global coverage. Specifically, satellites can help relay data communicated between widely separated UAVs and ground gateways, which is particularly useful for UAVs above ocean and in remote areas where the terrestrial network (WiFi or cellular) coverage is unavailable. Furthermore, satellite signals can also be used for navigation and localization of UAVs. In WRC 2015, the conditional use of satellite communication frequencies in the Ku/Ka band has been approved to connect drones to satellites, and some satellite companies such as Inmarsat have launched satellite communication service for UAVs [@Inmarsat]. However, there are also several disadvantages of satellite-enabled UAV communications. Firstly, the propagation loss and delay are quite significant due to the long distances between satellite and low-altitude UAVs/ground stations. This thus poses great challenges for meeting ultra-reliable and delay-sensitive CNPC for UAVs. Secondly, UAVs usually have stringent size, weight and power (SWAP) constraints, and thus may not be able to carry the heavy, bulky and energy-consuming satellite communication equipment (e.g., dish antenna). Thirdly, the high operational cost of satellite communication also hinders its wide use for densely deployed UAVs in consumer-grade applications.
### Ad Hoc Network
Mobile ad-hoc network (MANET) is an infrastructure-free and dynamically self-organizing network for enabling peer-to-peer communications among mobile devices such as laptops, cellphones, walkie-talkies, etc. Such devices usually communicate over bandwidth-constrained wireless links using e.g. IEEE 802.11 a/b/g/n. Each device in a MANET can move randomly over time; as a result, its link conditions with other devices may change frequently. Furthermore, for supporting communications between two far-apart nodes, some other nodes in between need to help forward the data via multi-hop relaying, thus incurring more energy consumption, low spectrum efficiency, and long end-to-end delay. Vehicular ad hoc network (VANET) and flying ad hoc network (FANET) are two applications of MANET, for supporting communications among high-mobility ground vehicles and UAVs in 2D and 3D networks, respectively [@bekmezci2013flying]. The topology or configuration of an FANET for UAVs may take different forms, such as a mesh, ring, star, or even a straight line, depending on the application scenario. For example, a star network topology is suitable for UAV swarm applications, where UAVs in a swam all communicate through a central hub UAV, which may also be responsible for communicating with the ground stations. Although FANET is a robust and flexible architecture for supporting UAV communications in a small network, it is generally unable to provide a scalable solution for serving massive UAVs deployed in a wide area, due to the complexities and difficulties for realizing a reliable routing protocol over the whole network with dynamic and intermittent link connectivities among the flying UAVs.
### Cellular Network
It is evident that the above technologies generally cannot support large-scale UAV communications in a cost-effective manner. On the other hand, it is also economically nonviable to build new and dedicated ground networks for achieving this goal. As such, there has been significantly growing interest recently in leveraging the existing as well as future-generation cellular networks for enabling UAV-ground communications [@952]. Thanks to the almost ubiquitous coverage of the cellular network worldwide as well as its high-speed optical backhaul and advanced communication technologies, both CNPC and payload communication requirements for UAVs can be potentially met, regardless of the density of UAVs as well as their distances with the corresponding ground nodes. For example, the forthcoming fifth-generation (5G) cellular network is expected to support the peak data rate of 10 Gbits/s with only 1 ms round-trip latency, which in principle is adequate for high-rate and delay-sensitive UAV communication applications such as real-time video streaming and data relaying.
Despite the promising advantages of cellular-enabled UAV communications, there are still scenarios where the cellular services are unavailable, such as in remote areas like sea, desert, forest, etc. In such scenarios, other technologies such as the direct link, satellite and FANET, can be used to support UAV communications beyond the terrestrial coverage of cellular network. Therefore, it is envisioned that the future wireless network for supporting large-scale UAV communications will have an integrated 3D architecture consisting of UAV-to-UAV, UAV-to-satellite and UAV-to-ground communications, as shown in Fig. \[SecI:APP\], where each UAV may be enabled with one or more communication technologies to exploit the rich connectivity diversity in such a hybrid network.
{width="100.00000%"}
\[SecI:APP\]
The New Paradigm: Integrating UAVs into Cellular Network
--------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we further discuss the aforementioned new paradigm of integrating UAVs into the cellular network, to provide their full horizon of applications and benefits. In particular, we partition our discussion into two main categories. On one hand, UAVs are considered as new aerial users that access the cellular network from the sky for communications, which we refer to as [*cellular-connected UAVs*]{}. On the other hand, UAVs are used as new aerial communication platforms such as base stations (BSs) and relays, to assist in terrestrial wireless communications by providing data access from the sky, thus called [*UAV-assisted wireless communications*]{}.
### Cellular-Connected UAVs
By incorporating UAVs as new user equipments (UEs) in the cellular network, the following benefits can be achieved [@952]. Firstly, thanks to the almost worldwide accessibility of cellular networks, cellular-connected UAV makes it possible for the ground pilot to remotely command and control the UAV with virtually unlimited operation range. Besides, it also provides an effective solution to maintain wireless connectivity between UAVs and various other stakeholders, such as the end users and the air traffic controllers, regardless of their locations. This thus opens up many new UAV applications in the future. Secondly, with the advanced cellular technologies and authentication mechanisms, cellular-connected UAV is expected to achieve significant performance improvement over the other technologies introduced in the previous subsection, in terms of reliability, security, and data throughput. For instance, the current fourth-generation (4G) long term evolution (LTE) cellular network employs scheduling-based channel access mechanism, where multiple users can be served simultaneously by assigning them orthogonal resource blocks (RBs). In contrast, WiFi (e.g., 802.11g employed in FANET) adopts contention-based channel access with a random backoff mechanism, where users are allowed to only access channels that are sensed to be idle. Thus, multiuser transmission with centralized scheduling/control enables the cellular network to make a more efficient use of the spectrum than WiFi, especially when the user density is high. In addition, UAV-to-UAV communication can also be realized by leveraging the available device-to-device (D2D) communications in LTE and 5G systems. Thirdly, cellular-based localization service can provide UAVs a new and complementary means in addition to the conventional satellite-based global positioning system (GPS) for achieving more robust or enhanced UAV navigation performance. Last but not least, cellular-connected UAV is a cost-effective solution since it reuses the millions of cellular BSs worldwide without the need of building new infrastructure dedicated for UAS only. Thus, cellular-connected UAV is expected to be a win-win technology for both UAV and cellular industries, with rich business opportunities to explore in the future.
### UAV-Assisted Wireless Communications
Thanks to the continuous cost reduction in UAV manufacturing and device miniaturization in communication equipment, it becomes more feasible to mount compact and small-size BSs or relays on UAVs to enable flying aerial platforms to assist in terrestrial wireless communications. For instance, commercial LTE BSs with light weight (e.g., less than 4 Kg) are already available in the market, which are suitable to be mounted on UAVs with moderate payload. Compared to conventional terrestrial communications with typically static BSs/relays deployed at fixed locations, UAV-assisted communications bring the following main advantages [@649]. Firstly, UAV-mounted BSs/relays can be swiftly deployed on demand. This is especially appealing for application scenarios such as temporary or unexpected events, emergency response, search and rescue, etc. Secondly, thanks to their high altitude above the ground, UAV-BSs/relays are more likely to have LoS connection with their ground users as compared to their terrestrial counterparts, thus providing more reliable links for communication as well as multiuser scheduling and resource allocation. Thirdly, thanks to the controllable high-mobility of UAVs, UAV-BSs/relays possess an additional degree of freedom (DoF) for communication performance enhancement, by dynamically adjusting their locations in 3D to cater for the terrestrial communication demands.
The above benefits make UAV-assisted communication a promising new technology to support the ever-increasing and highly dynamic wireless data traffic in future 5G-and-beyond cellular systems. There are abundant new applications in anticipation, such as for cellular data offloading in hot-spot areas (e.g., stadium during a sport event), information dissemination and data collection in wireless sensor and Internet of Things (IoT) networks, big data transfer between geographically separated data centers, fast service recovery after infrastructure failure, mobile data relaying in emergency situations or customized communications, etc.
UAV Communications: What’s New?
-------------------------------
The integration of UAVs into cellular networks, either as aerial users or communication platforms, brings new design opportunities as well as challenges. Both cellular-connected UAV communication and UAV-assisted wireless communication are significantly different from their terrestrial counterparts, due to the high altitude and high mobility of UAVs, the high probability of UAV-ground LoS channels, the distinct communication quality of service (QoS) requirements for CNPC versus mission-related payload data, the stringent SWAP constraints of UAVs, as well as the new design DoF by jointly exploiting the UAV mobility control and communication scheduling/resource allocation. Table \[Table:OppurAndChallenge\] summarizes the main design opportunities and challenges of cellular communications with UAVs, which are further elaborated as follows.
### High Altitude
Compared with conventional terrestrial BSs/users, UAV BSs/users usually have much higher altitude. For instance, a typical height of a terrestrial BS is around 10 m for Urban Micro (UMi) deployment and 25 m for Urban Macro (UMa) deployment [@1012], whereas the current regulation already allows the UAVs to fly up to 122 m [@936]. For cellular-connected UAVs, the high UAV altitude requires cellular BSs to offer 3D aerial coverage for UAV users, in contrast to the conventional 2D coverage for terrestrial users. However, existing BS antennas are usually tilted downwards, either mechanically or electronically, to cater for the ground coverage as well as suppressing the inter-cell interference. Nevertheless, preliminary field measurement results have demonstrated satisfactory aerial coverage to meet the basic communication requirements by the antenna side lobes of BSs for UAVs below 400 feet (122 m) [@3gpp_UAV]. However, as the altitude further increases, weak signal coverage is observed, which thus calls for new BS antenna designs and cellular communication techniques to achieve satisfactory UAV coverage up to the maximum altitude of 300 m as currently specified by 3GPP [@1012]. On the other hand, for UAV-assisted wireless communications, the high UAV altitude enables the UAV-BS/relay to achieve wider ground coverage as compared to their terrestrial counterparts.
### High LoS Probability
The high UAV altitude leads to unique air-ground channel characteristics as compared to terrestrial communication channels. Specifically, compared to the terrestrial channels that generally suffer more severe path loss due to shadowing and multi-path fading effects, the UAV-ground channels, including both the UAV-BS and UAV-user channels, typically experience limited scattering and thus have a dominant LoS link with high probability. The LoS-dominant air-ground channel brings both opportunities and challenges to the design of UAV communications as compared to the traditional terrestrial communications. On one hand, it offers more reliable link performance between the UAV and its serving/served ground BSs/users, as well as a pronounced macro-diversity in terms of more flexible UAV-BS/user associations. Moreover, as LoS-dominant links have less channel variations in time and frequency, communication scheduling and resource allocation can be more efficiently implemented in a much slower pace as compared to that over terrestrial fading channels. On the other hand, however, it also causes strong air-ground interference, which is a critical issue that may severely limit the cellular network capacity with coexisting aerial and terrestrial BSs/users. For example, in the UL communication of a UAV user, it may pose severe interference to many adjacent cells at the same frequency band due to its high-probability LoS channels with their BSs; while in the DL communication, the UAV user also suffers strong interference from these co-channel BSs. Interference mitigation is crucial for both frameworks of cellular-connected UAVs and UAV-assisted terrestrial communications. Furthermore, the LoS-dominant air-ground links also make UAV communications more susceptible to the jamming/eavesdropping attacks by malicious ground nodes as compared to the terrestrial communications over fading channels, thus imposing a new security threat at the physical layer [@wu2019safeguarding].
### High 3D Mobility
Different from the terrestrial networks where the BSs/relays are usually at fixed locations and the users move sporadically and randomly, UAVs can move at high speed in 3D space with partially or fully controllable mobility. On one hand, the high mobility of UAVs generally results in more frequent handovers and time-varying wireless backhaul links with ground BSs/users. On the other hand, it also leads to an important new design approach of communication-aware UAV mobility control, such that the UAV’s position, altitude, speed, heading direction, etc., can be dynamically changed to better meet its communication objectives with the ground BSs/users. For example, in UAV-assisted wireless communication, UAV-BSs/relays can design their trajectories (i.e., locations and speeds over time) either off-line or in real time to adapt to the locations and communication channels of their served ground users. Similarly, for cellular-connected UAVs, they can also adjust their trajectories based on the locations of the ground BSs to find the best route to fulfill their mission requirements and in the meanwhile ensure a set of BSs along its trajectory to satisfy its communication needs. Furthermore, UAV 3D placement/trajectory design can be jointly considered with communication scheduling and resource allocation for further performance improvement.
### SWAP Constraints
Different from terrestrial communication systems where the ground BSs/users usually have a stable power supply from the grid or rechargeable battery, the SWAP constraints of UAVs pose critical limits on their endurance and communication capabilities. For example, in the case of UAV-assisted wireless communications, customized BSs/relays, generally of smaller size and lighter weight as well as with more compact antenna and power-efficient hardware as compared to their terrestrial counterparts, need to be designed to cater for the limited payload and size of UAVs. Furthermore, besides the conventional communication transceiver energy consumption, UAVs need to spend the additional propulsion energy to remain aloft and move freely over the air [@904], [@980], which is usually much more significant than the communication energy (e.g. in the order of kilowatt versus watt) for commercial UAVs. Thus, the energy-efficient design of UAV communication is more involved than that for the conventional terrestrial systems considering the communication energy only [@800], [@801].
[|l|l|l|]{} **Characteristic & **Opportunities & **Challenges\
*High altitude &*******
--------------------------------
Wide ground coverage as aerial
BS/relay
--------------------------------
&
----------------------------------
Require 3D cellular coverage for
aerial user
----------------------------------
\
-------------------
*High LoS proba-\
*bility**
-------------------
&
-----------------------------------
Strong and reliable communication
link; high macro-diversity; slow
communication scheduling and
resource allocation
-----------------------------------
&
-----------------------------------------
Severe aerial-terrestrial interference;
susceptible to terrestrial
jamming/eavesdropping
-----------------------------------------
\
*High 3D mobility &*
-----------------------------
Traffic-adaptive movement;
QoS-aware trajectory design
-----------------------------
&
-------------------------------
Handover management; wireless
backhaul
-------------------------------
\
*SWAP constraint & – &*
--------------------------------------
Limited payload and endurance;
energy-efficient design; compact and
lightweight BS/relay and antenna
design
--------------------------------------
\
Prior Work and Our Contribution
-------------------------------
The exciting new opportunities in a broad range of UAV applications have spawned extensive research recently. In particular, several magazine [@649; @949; @913; @967; @952; @950] and survey [@khawaja2018survey; @621; @khuwaja2018survey; @bekmezci2013flying; @618; @gupta2016survey; @hayat2016survey; @shakhatreh2018unmanned; @motlagh2016low; @shakeri2018design; @mozaffari2018tutorial; @fotouhi2018survey] papers on wireless communications and networks with UAVs have appeared. Among them, the survey papers [@khawaja2018survey; @621; @khuwaja2018survey] focus on air-ground channel models and experimental measurement results of UAV communications. The survey papers [@bekmezci2013flying], [@618] and [@gupta2016survey] mainly address ad hoc networks for UAV communications by focusing on UAV-UAV communications. Prior work [@hayat2016survey] gives a survey on UAV-aided civil applications, while the survey paper [@shakhatreh2018unmanned] discusses other applications of UAVs and some promising technologies for them. In [@motlagh2016low], the UAV-enabled IoT services are overviewed with a particular focus on data collection, delivery, and processing, while in [@shakeri2018design] the challenges in designing and implementing multi-UAV networks for a wide range of cyber-physical applications are reviewed. The recent works [@mozaffari2018tutorial] and [@fotouhi2018survey] provide contemporary surveys of UAV applications in cellular networks, focusing on academic literatures and industry activities, respectively.
Compared with the above survey papers, this paper aims to provide a more comprehensive survey and tutorial on UAV communications, with an emphasis on the two promising paradigms of cellular-connected UAVs and UAV-assisted wireless communications. Besides providing a state-of-the-art literature survey from both academic and industrial research perspectives, this paper provides more technically in-depth results and discussions to facilitate and inspire future research in this area. In particular, this tutorial features a unified and general mathematical framework for UAV trajectory and communication co-design as well as a comprehensive overview on the various techniques to deal with the crucial air-ground interference issue in cellular communications with UAVs.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:basics\] introduces the fundamentals of UAV communications, including channel model, antenna model, UAV energy consumption model, and the mathematical framework for designing UAV trajectory and communication jointly. Section \[sec:UAVAssisted\] considers UAV-assisted wireless communications, where the basic system models, performance analysis, UAV placement/trajectory and communication co-design, as well as energy-efficient UAV communications are discussed. We also highlight the promising new direction of learning-based UAV trajectory and communication design at the end of this section. In Section \[sec:cellularConnected\], we address the other paradigm of cellular-connected UAVs. We start with a historical feasibility study on supporting aerial users in cellular networks by introducing some major field trials from 2G to 4G, as well as the latest standardization efforts by 3GPP. We then give an overview on some representative works evaluating the performance of the cellular network with newly added UAV users to draw useful insights. Last, we present promising techniques to efficiently embrace aerial users in the cellular network including air-ground interference mitigation and QoS-aware UAV trajectory planning. In Section \[sec:otherTopic\], we discuss other related topics to provide promising directions for future research and investigation. Finally, we conclude this paper in Section \[sec:conclusions\].
[*Notations:* ]{} In this paper, scalars and vectors are denoted by italic letters and boldface lower-case letters, respectively. $\mathbb{R}^{M\times 1 }$ and $\mathbb{C}^{M\times 1}$ denote the space of $M$-dimensional real- and complex-valued vectors, respectively. For a real number $a$, $\lceil a \rceil$ denotes the smallest integer greater than or equal to $a$. $j$ is the imaginary unit with $j^2=-1$. For a vector $\mathbf a$, $\mathbf a^T$, $\mathbf a^H$, $\|\mathbf a\|$, and $[\mathbf a]_n$ denote its transpose, complex conjugate transpose, Euclidean norm, and the $n$th component, respectively. The notation $\exp(\cdot)$ denotes the exponential function. For a twice differentiable time-dependent vector-function $\mathbf x(t)$, $\dot{\mathbf x}(t)$ and $\ddot{\mathbf x}(t)$ denote the first- and second-order derivatives with respect to time $t$, respectively. For a real-valued function $f(\mathbf q)$ with respect to a vector $\mathbf q$, $\nabla f(\mathbf q)$ denotes its gradient. For a random variable $X$, $\mathbb{E}[X]$ represents its statistical expectation, while $\Pr(E)$ denotes the probability of an event $E$. Furthermore, $\mathcal {N}(\mu, \sigma^2)$ represents the Gaussian distribution with mean $\mu$ and variance $\sigma^2$.
UAV Communication Fundamentals {#sec:basics}
==============================
In this section, we present some basic mathematical models pertinent to UAV communications, which are useful for research in both frameworks of UAVs serving as aerial users or communication platforms. They include the channel model, antenna model, UAV energy consumption model, performance metrics, as well as mathematic formulation for performance optimization via joint UAV communication and trajectory design.
Channel Model {#sec:channelModel}
-------------
UAV communications mainly involve three types of links, namely the ground BS (GBS)-UAV link, the UAV-ground terminal (GT) link, and the UAV-UAV link. As the communication between UAVs with moderate distance typically occurs in clear airspace when the earth curvature is irrelevant, the UAV-UAV channel is usually characterized by the simple free-space path loss model [@617], [@1023].[^2] Therefore, we focus on the channel models for GBS-UAV and UAV-GT links in this subsection, for cellular-connected UAVs and UAV-assisted terrestrial communications, respectively. In principle, the existing channel models for the extensively studied terrestrial communication systems can be applied to UAV communications. However, as UAV systems involve transmitters and/or receivers with altitude much higher than those in conventional terrestrial systems, customized mathematical models have been developed to more accurately characterize the unique propagation environment for UAV communications at different altitude. Significant efforts have been devoted to the channel measurements and modelling for UAV communications, where some recent surveys on them can be found in e.g., [@khawaja2018survey; @621; @khuwaja2018survey]. Different from these existing surveys focusing on channel measurement campaigns with detailed description of the measurement setup and data processing methods, we provide here a tutorial overview on the mathematical UAV channel models to facilitate performance analysis and evaluation for UAV communication systems, as will be further illustrated in more details in Section \[sec:UAVAssisted\] and Section \[sec:cellularConnected\].
We start with the general wireless channel model for baseband communication in a frequency non-selective channel, where the complex-valued channel coefficient between a transmitter and a receiver can be expressed as [@56] $$\begin{aligned}
g=\sqrt{\beta (d)}\tilde{g}, \label{eq:g}\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta(d)$ accounts for the large-scale channel attenuation including distance-dependent path loss and shadowing, with $d$ denoting the distance between the transmitter and the receiver, and $\tilde{g}$ is generally a complex random variable with $\mathbb{E}[|\tilde g|^2]=1$ accounting for the small-scale fading due to multi-path propagation. One classical model for $\beta(d)$ is the log-distance path loss (PL) model, where $\beta(d) [dB]= -{\mathrm{PL}}(d)[dB]$ with $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{PL}}(d) [dB] = 10 \alpha \log_{10}(d)+ X_0 [dB] +X_{\sigma} [dB], \label{eq:PL}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ is the path loss exponent that usually has the value between $2$ and $6$, $X_0$ is the path loss at a reference distance of 1 m, $X_{\sigma}\sim \mathcal {N}(0, \sigma^2_X)$ accounts for the shadowing effect which is modelled as a normal (Gaussian) random variable with zero mean and a certain variance $\sigma^2_X$.
For UAV communications, the choice of appropriate models for the large-scale and small-scale channel parameters needs to take into account their unique propagation conditions. Firstly, different from terrestrial communication systems where Rayleigh fading is commonly used for small-scale fading, the more general Rician or Nakagami-m small-scale fading model is more appropriate for UAV-ground communications since the LoS channel component is usually present. While the above small-scale fading channel models have been well understood in existing literature, the modelling for the large-scale channel component in UAV-ground communications is generally more sophisticated due to the high altitude of UAVs and resultant 3D propagation space. Various customized models have been proposed, which can be generally classified into three categories, namely [*free-space channel model*]{}, [*models based on altitude/angle-dependent parameters*]{}, and [*probabilistic LoS channel model*]{}.
### Free-Space Channel Model
For the ideal scenario in the absence of signal obstruction or reflection, we have the free-space propagation channel model where the effects of shadowing and small-scale fading vanish. In this case, we have $|\tilde g|=1$ and the channel power in can be simplified as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:freeSpace}
\beta(d)=\left(\frac{\lambda}{4\pi d} \right)^2 = \tilde{\beta}_0d^{-2},\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda$ is the carrier wavelength, $\tilde{\beta}_0\triangleq \left(\frac{\lambda}{4\pi}\right)^2$ is the channel power at the reference distance of $1$ m. With the above free-space path loss model, the channel power is completely determined by the transmitter-receiver distance (or locations of the UAV and its communicating GBS/GT), which is easily predictable if their locations are known. As a result, free-space channel model has been widely assumed in early works on offline UAV trajectory optimization in communication systems [@641; @904; @919].
In practice, free-space path loss model gives a reasonable approximation in rural area where there is little blockage or scattering, and/or when the altitude of UAV is sufficiently high so that a clear LoS link between the UAV and the ground node is almost surely guaranteed. However, for low-altitude UAV operating in urban environment where the building height is non-negligible as compared to UAV altitude, free-space propagation model is oversimplified. In this case, more refined channel models are needed to reflect the change of propagation environment as the UAV altitude varies. Two approaches have been widely adopted to achieve this goal: using channel modelling parameters that are dependent on UAV altitude or elevation angle, or using a probabilistic LoS channel model by modelling the LoS and NLoS scenarios randomly but governed by a certain probability distribution, as discussed in the following.
{width="0.7\linewidth"}
### Altitude/Angle-Dependent Channel Parameters
As illustrated in Fig. \[F:Propagation\], in urban environment, as UAV moves higher, the effect of signal obstruction and scattering reduces. To explicitly model this, one approach is to use altitude- or angle-dependent channel parameters for the generic channel model in . Such parameters may include the path loss exponent $\alpha$ [@996], [@954], the Rician $K$ factor [@954], the variance of the random shadowing $\sigma^2_X$ [@996], or the excessive path loss relative to conventional terrestrial channels [@997].
[**Altitude-dependent channel parameters:**]{} In [@996], the path loss exponent $\alpha$ for GBS-UAV link is modelled as a monotonically decreasing function of the UAV altitude $H_U$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha(H_U)= \max\left(p_1 -p_2 \log_{10}(H_U), 2\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $p_1, p_2>0$ are modelling parameters that can be obtained via curve fitting based on channel measurement results. The above model explicitly reflects the fact that as the UAV moves higher, there are in general less obstacles and scattering, and hence smaller path loss exponent holds. As $H_U$ gets sufficiently large, we have the free space propagation model with $\alpha=2$. Similar altitude-dependent expressions have been suggested for $X_0$ and $\sigma_X^2$ in . Note that while the above models were proposed in [@996] for GBS-UAV links with UAVs being aerial users of cellular BSs, it can be in principle applied to UAV-GT channels, but with different parameters to reflect the fact that GBS-UAV links are usually subject to less obstacles than UAV-GT links, due to the elevated GBS site.
[**Elevation angle-dependent channel parameters:**]{} While the altitude-dependent channel model reveals the varying propagation environment for different UAV altitudes, it fails to model the fact that even with the same UAV altitude, the propagation environment may change if the UAV moves closer/further to/from the ground node [@997]. To address this issue, another approach is to model the channel modelling parameters as functions of the elevation angle $\theta$ (shown in Fig. \[F:Propagation\]), which depends on both the UAV altitude and the horizontal (or 2D) distance with the corresponding ground node. For instance, in [@954], by considering the UAV-GT communications and assuming Rician fading channels, the Rician factor and the path loss exponent are respectively modelled as non-decreasing and non-increasing functions of $\theta$, which implies that as $\theta$ increases, i.e., either the UAV flies higher or closer to the ground node, the LoS component becomes more dominating.
[**Depression angle-dependent excess path loss model:**]{} For GBS-UAV communication, the elevation angle (termed as depression angle in [@997]) can be both positive (when UAV is higher than GBS) or negative (when UAV is lower than GBS). Under this setup, the authors in [@997] conducted both terrestrial and aerial experimental measurements in a typical suburban environment, by mounting the same handset on a car and on a UAV, respectively. By comparing the received signal power for these two measurement scenarios with roughly the same horizontal distance with the GBS, the authors proposed a path loss model for GBS-UAV channels by adding an [*excess path loss*]{}[^3] on top of the conventional terrestrial path loss, where the excess path loss component is a function of the depression angle $\theta$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{PL}_{U}(d,\theta)={\mathrm{PL}}_{\mathrm{ter}}(d)+\eta(\theta) + X_U(\theta),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathrm{PL}}_{\mathrm{ter}}(d)$ is the conventional terrestrial path loss between the GBS and the point beneath the UAV that can be obtained based on , $\eta(\theta)$ is the excess aerial path loss, and $X_U(\theta)\sim \mathcal{N}\big(0, \sigma_U^2(\theta)\big)$ represents the excess shadowing component. Furthermore, both $\eta(\theta)$ and $\sigma_U^2(\theta)$ are modelled as functions of $\theta$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\eta(\theta)&=A(\theta-\theta_0)\exp\left(-\frac{\theta-\theta_0}{B}\right)+\eta_0,\\
\sigma^2_U(\theta)&=a\theta +\sigma_0,\end{aligned}$$ where $A,B,\theta_0, a, \sigma_0$ are modelling parameters that can be obtained based on curve fitting using measurement data. It was suggested in [@997] that $A<0$ and thus $\eta(\theta)$ firstly decreases and then increases with $\theta$. This is due to the following two effects as $\theta$ increases: on one hand, the obstruction and scattering are reduced as the UAV moves higher, while on the other hand, increased link distance and reduced GBS antenna gain are incurred.
### Probabilistic LoS Channel Model {#sec:ProbLoSModel}
In urban environment, the LoS link between UAV and ground nodes may be occasionally blocked by ground obstacles such as buildings. To distinguish the different propagation environment between LoS and NLoS scenarios, another common approach is to separately model the LoS and NLoS propagations by taking into account their occurrence probabilities [@657; @1043; @971; @642], referred to as the [*probabilistic LoS channel model*]{}. Such probabilities are based on the statistical modelling of the urban environment, such as the density and height of buildings. For given transmitter and receiver positions, the probability that there is an LoS link between them is given by that of no buildings being above the ray joining the transmitter and receiver [@1010]. Different expressions for LoS probability and the corresponding channel models have been proposed for UAV-ground communications. In the following, we discuss two well-known models, namely [*elevation angle-dependent probabilistic LoS model*]{} and the [*3GPP GBS-UAV channel model*]{}.
[**Elevation angle-dependent probabilistic LoS model:**]{} With this model, the large-scale channel coefficient $\beta(d)$ in is modelled as [@642; @916; @980] $$\begin{aligned}
\beta(d)=\begin{cases}
\beta_0d^{-\alpha}, & \text{LoS environment} \\
\kappa \beta_0 d^{-\alpha}, & \text{NLoS environment},
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta_0$ is the path loss at the reference distance of 1 m under LoS condition, and $\kappa<1$ is the additional attenuation factor due to the NLoS propagation[^4]. Furthermore, the probability of having LoS environment is modelled as a logistic function of the elevation angle $\theta$ as [@642] $$\begin{aligned}
P_{{\mathrm{LoS}}}(\theta)=\frac{1}{1+a \exp(-b(\theta-a))}, \label{eq:PrLoS}\end{aligned}$$ where $a$ and $b$ are modelling parameters. The probability of NLoS environment is thus given by $P_{{\mathrm{NLoS}}}(\theta)=1-P_{{\mathrm{LoS}}}(\theta)$. Equation shows that the probability of having a LoS link increases as the elevation angle increases, and it approaches to $1$ as $\theta$ gets sufficiently large.
With such a model, the expected channel power, with the expectation taken over both the randomness of the surrounding buildings and small-scale fading, can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\bar g (d_{\mathrm{2D}}, H_U)&\triangleq \mathbb E[|g|^2]\\
&=P_{{\mathrm{LoS}}}(\theta) \beta_0d^{-\alpha}+(1-P_{{\mathrm{LoS}}}(\theta) )\kappa\beta_0d^{-\alpha}\\
& =\hat P_{{\mathrm{LoS}}}(\theta)\beta_0d^{-\alpha}, \label{eq:gbar}\end{aligned}$$ where $d_{\mathrm{2D}}$ and $H_U$ are respectively the 2D distance and UAV altitude as illustrated in Fig. \[F:Propagation\], $\hat P_{{\mathrm{LoS}}}(\theta)\triangleq P_{{\mathrm{LoS}}}(\theta) + (1-P_{{\mathrm{LoS}}}(\theta))\kappa$ can be interpreted as a regularized LoS probability by taking into account the effect of NLoS occurrence with the additional attenuation factor $\kappa$ [@980]. A typical plot of $\bar g (d_{\mathrm{2D}}, H_U)$ versus $H_U$ for different $d_{\mathrm {2D}}$ values is shown in Fig. \[F:ChannelVsAltitude\]. It is observed that with given $d_{\mathrm{2D}}$, the expected channel power firstly increases with $H_U$, due to the enhanced chance of LoS connection, and then decreases as $H_U$ exceeds a certain threshold, at which the benefit of the increased LoS probability cannot compensate the increased path loss resulting from the longer link distance. Such a tradeoff on the UAV altitude has been extensively exploited for the UAV-mounted BS/relay placement optimization, as will be discussed in Section \[sec:UAVPlacement\].
![Expected channel power versus UAV altitude in the elevation-angle dependent probabilistic LoS channel model.[]{data-label="F:ChannelVsAltitude"}](ChannelVsAltitude.eps){width="1\linewidth"}
[**3GPP GBS-UAV channel model:**]{} In early 2017, the 3GPP technical specification group (TSG) approved a new study item on enhanced support for aerial vehicles via LTE networks. Detailed channel modelling between GBSs and aerial vehicles with altitude varying from 1.5 m to 300 m has been suggested [@1012], which includes the comprehensive modelling of LoS probability, path loss, shadowing, and small-scale fading. The suggested channel models are presented for three typical 3GPP deployment scenarios, namely Rural Macro (RMa), UMa, and UMi.
For all the three deployment scenarios, the LoS probability is specified by two parameters: the 2D distance $d_{{\mathrm{2D}}}$ between the GBS and the UAV, as well as the UAV altitude $H_U$. If $H_U$ is below a certain threshold $H_1$, the model of LoS probability for conventional terrestrial users can be directly used for GBS-UAV channels. On the other hand, if $H_U$ is greater than a threshold $H_2$, 3GPP suggested a $100\%$ LoS probability. Of particular interest is the regime of $H_1\leq H_U \leq H_2$, where LoS probability is suggested as a function of $d_{{\mathrm{2D}}}$ and $H_U$. For all the three scenarios, the LoS probability specified in [@1012] can be uniformly written as $$\begin{aligned}
P_{{\mathrm{LoS}}}=
\begin{cases}
P_{{\mathrm{LoS}}, \mathrm{ter}}, & 1.5~ \text{m} \leq H_U \leq H_1, \\
P_{{\mathrm{LoS}},\mathrm{U}}(d_{{\mathrm{2D}}}, H_U), & H_1\leq H_U \leq H_2, \\
1, & H_2 \leq H_U \leq 300~ \text{m},
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where $P_{{\mathrm{LoS}}, \mathrm{ter}}$ is the LoS probability for conventional terrestrial GBS-UE channels specified in Table 7.4.2 of [@1017], and $P_{{\mathrm{LoS}},\mathrm{U}}(d_{{\mathrm{2D}}}, H_U)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
P_{{\mathrm{LoS}},\mathrm{U}}(d_{{\mathrm{2D}}}, H_U)=
\begin{cases}
1, & d_{{\mathrm{2D}}} \leq d_1, \\
\frac{d_1}{d_{{\mathrm{2D}}}} + \exp\left(\frac{-d_{{\mathrm{2D}}}}{p_1}\right)\left(1-\frac{d_1}{d_{{\mathrm{2D}}}}\right), & d_{2D}>d_1,
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ with $p_1$ and $d_1$ given by logarithmic increasing functions of $H_U$ as specified in [@1012]. Note that for the three typical deployment scenarios, different values for $H_1$, $H_2$, $p_1$ and $d_1$ have been suggested. For example, $H_2=40$ m is suggested for RMa whereas $H_2=100$ m for UMa.
Based on the LoS and NLoS environment for the three deployment scenarios, the detailed path loss model and shadowing standard deviation are respectively specified in Table B-2 and Table B-3 of [@1012]. For moderate UAV altitude with $H_1\leq H_U\leq H_2$, the path loss exponent and shadowing standard deviation are given as decreasing functions of $H_U$, reflecting the fact of reduced obstruction and scattering as UAV moves higher. On the other hand, three different methods are suggested to model the small-scale fading, with modified values for multi-path angular spread, Rician factor, delay spread, etc [@1012]. Therefore, different from the other models discussed above, 3GPP model is in fact a combination of both approaches of altitude-dependent channel parameters and the probabilistic LoS channel model to characterize the different propagation environment with varying UAV altitude.
### Comparison of Different Models
The choice of channel models for the study of UAV communications depends on the communication scenarios and the purpose of the study, since they offer different tradeoffs between analytical tractability and modelling accuracy. For instance, the free-space channel model has been extensively used for the offline communication-oriented UAV trajectory design due to its simplicity and good approximation in rural environment or when the UAV altitude is sufficiently high. For urban environment, the models based on altitude/angle-dependent channel parameters and LoS probabilities have been extensively used for theoretical analysis for UAV BS/relay placement and coverage performance optimization. On the other hand, the 3GPP model gives a very comprehensive modelling for various aspects of GBS-UAV channels, but it is more suitable for numerical simulations rather than theoretical analysis due to its complicated expressions. A qualitative comparison of the above different UAV channel models is summarized in Table \[Table:ChannelModel\].
[|l|l|l|l|]{} **Channel model & **Description &****
-------------------------
**Proposed application\
**scenarios****
-------------------------
& **Pros and Cons\
**
-----------------------
*Free-space channel\
*model [@641; @904]**
-----------------------
&
--------------------------------------
Channel power inversely proportional
to distance square, no shadowing or
small-scale fading
--------------------------------------
&
-------------------------------
GBS-UAV and UAV-GT
channels in rural area and/or
with very high UAV altitude
-------------------------------
&
-----------------------------------
Simple, useful for offline UAV
trajectory design; oversimplified
in urban environment
-----------------------------------
\
----------------------
*Altitude-dependent\
*channel parameters\
*[@996]***
----------------------
&
-------------------------------------
Channel modelling parameters such
as path loss exponent and shadowing
variance are functions of UAV
altitude
-------------------------------------
&
---------------------------
GBS-UAV in urban/suburban
environment
---------------------------
&
----------------------------------
Useful for theoretical analysis;
fails to model the change of
propagation environment when
UAV moves horizontally
----------------------------------
\
-----------------------
*Elevation angle-\
*dependent channel\
*parameters [@954]***
-----------------------
&
--------------------------------------
Rician factor and path loss exponent
are functions of elevation angle
--------------------------------------
&
--------------------------
UAV-GT in urban/suburban
environment
--------------------------
&
-----------------------------------
Useful for theoretical analysis;
further experimental verification
required
-----------------------------------
\
----------------------------
*Depression angle-\
*dependent excess\
*path loss model [@997]***
----------------------------
&
--------------------------------
Excessive path loss depends on
depression (elevation) angle
--------------------------------
&
-----------------------------
GBS-UAV channel in suburban
environment
-----------------------------
&
------------------------------
Small-scale fading model not
specified
------------------------------
\
---------------------
*Elevation angle-\
*dependent\
*probabilistic LoS\
*model [@642]****
---------------------
&
--------------------------------
Separately model LoS and NLoS
propagations; LoS probability
increases with elevation angle
--------------------------------
&
------------------------------
UAV-GT channel in urban
environment with statistical
information of building
height/distribution
------------------------------
&
------------------------------------
Useful for theoretical analysis;
simplified shadowing; further
experimental verification required
------------------------------------
\
--------------------------
*3GPP GBS-UAV\
*channel model [@1012]**
--------------------------
&
-------------------------------------
Separately model LoS and NLoS
propagations; LoS probability and
channel modelling parameters are
both functions of UAV altitude and
horizontal distance between GBS and
UAV
-------------------------------------
&
--------------------------
GBS-UAV channel for UMa,
UMi and RMa scenarios
--------------------------
&
-------------------------------------
Comprehensive models for path
loss, shadowing and small-scale
fading; useful for numerical
simulations but too complicated
for theoretical analysis or offline
UAV trajectory optimization
-------------------------------------
\
### Other Models and Directions of Future Work
Besides the channel models discussed above, there are other models also proposed for UAV communications. For example, 3D geometry-based stochastic model for multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) UAV channels has been proposed in [@962]. For UAV communications above water, the classic two-ray model has been suggested [@1014; @1016]. Furthermore, extensive channel measurements have been conducted [@621; @1014; @1015; @1016] on the air-ground channels in the L-band (around 970 MHz) and C-band (around 5 GHz) at rather high UAV altitude, long-range (up to dozens of kilometers), and high aircraft speed (e.g. more than 70 m/s). The measurements were conducted over different environments, including above-water environment [@1014], mountainous/hilly environment [@1015], and suburban and near-urban environments [@1016]. Based on the measurement results, a modified log-distance path loss model was proposed to account for the flight direction [@1015; @1016] $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{PL}}(d)={\mathrm{PL}}_{\mathrm{ter}}(d)+\xi F,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathrm{PL}}_{\mathrm{ter}}(d)$ is the classic log-distance path loss model as given in , $\xi=-1$ if the aircraft travels towards the ground station and $\xi=1$ for travelling away from it, and $F$ is a small positive adjustment factor for direction of travel. It was explained in [@1015; @1016] that such a correction factor is to account for the slightly different orientations of the aircraft in the two travel directions. For wide-band frequency-selective channel models, a tapped delay line (TDL) model has been developed in [@1015], which includes the LoS component, a potential ground reflection and other intermittent taps.
It is worth mentioning that channel measurements and modelling for UAV communications are still active and ongoing research. The incorporation of various other issues would be very useful for the accurate performance analysis and practical design of UAV communication systems in the future, such as the MIMO and massive MIMO channel modelling, the channel variations induced by UAV mobility and/or blade rotation, the millimeter wave (mmWave) UAV channel modelling [@1089], and the wideband channel modelling in scattering environment.
Another important issue is channel estimation for UAV-ground communications. While the problem of acquiring the instantaneous channel state information (CSI) has been extensively studied for terrestrial communications, it deserves new investigations for UAV communications by exploiting the unique UAV-ground channel characteristics. For example, efficient channel estimation scheme could be designed when it is known a priori that the deterministic LoS component dominates, as typically the case for GBS-UAV channels in rurual/subrural environment, by tracking the Doppler frequency offset induced by the UAV movement. As the performance of channel estimation schemes typically depends on the underlying channel models, more research endeavor is needed for devising efficient channel estimation schemes for the specific UAV channel models discussed above, especially for MIMO or massive MIMO based UAV communications.
Antenna Model {#sec:AntModel}
-------------
Besides channel modelling, antenna modelling at the transmitter/receiver is also crucial to the wireless communication link performance. Conventional terrestrial communication systems mostly assume that the transmitter-receiver distance is much larger than their antennas’ height difference. As a result, signals are assumed to mainly propagate horizontally and antenna modelling mostly concerns the 2D antenna gain along the horizontal direction. However, 2D antenna modelling is generally insufficient for UAV communications, which involve aerial users or BSs with large-varying altitude. Instead, 3D antenna modelling is often needed to take into account both the azimuth and elevation angles for UAV-ground communications.
The simplest antenna modelling leads to the isotropic model, where the antenna radiates (or receives) equal power in all directions and the corresponding radiation pattern is a sphere in 3D. Isotropic antenna is a hypothetical antenna modelling that is mainly used for theoretical analysis as a baseline case. In practice, equal radiation in 2D only (say, in the horizontal dimension) can be easily realized (by e.g., dipole antennas), leading to the omnidirectional antenna. Isotropic or omnidirectional antenna modelling gives a reasonable approximation for scenarios when the antenna gains are approximately equal for the directions of interest. However, in modern wireless communication systems, [*directional antennas with fixed radiation pattern*]{} and advanced active antenna arrays for [*MIMO communications*]{} are widely used.
### Directional Antenna with Fixed Radiation Pattern {#sec:fixedPattern}
For directional antenna with fixed radiation pattern, the antenna gain is completely specified by the deterministic function $G(\theta, \phi)$ with respect to the elevation and azimuth angles $\theta$ and $\phi$, respectively. There are two common approaches to realize directional antenna with fixed pattern. The first one is via carefully designing the antenna shape, such as the parabolic antennas and horn antennas. The other approach, as more commonly seen in modern wireless communications, uses antenna arrays consisting of multiple antenna elements, whose relative phase shifts are designed to achieve constructive signal superposition in desired directions. With the phase shift pre-determined and fixed, the array antenna works like a single antenna with pre-determined antenna gain in terms of $G(\theta, \phi)$.
[**Cellular BS 3D directional antenna model:**]{} Most existing cellular BSs are equipped with directional antennas with fixed radiation pattern, where sectorization technique is applied horizontally with e.g. three sectors for each BS site. Along the vertical dimension, the signal is usually downtilted towards the ground to cover the ground users and suppress the inter-cell interference. For cellular BSs with fixed radiation pattern, i.e., without the full-dimensional MIMO (FD-MIMO) configuration, 3GPP suggested the array configuration with $M$-element uniform linear array (ULA) placed vertically [@1012], [@1024]. Each array element itself is directional, which is specified by its half-power beamwidths $\Theta_{\text{3dB}}$ and $\Phi_{\text{3dB}}$ along the vertical and horizontal dimensions, respectively. It is usually set that $\Theta_{\text{3dB}}=\Phi_{\text{3dB}}=65^{\circ}$. It is also possible that the antenna element is only directional along the vertical dimension but omni-directional horizontally (Table 7.1-1 of [@1024]). To achieve antenna downtilt radiation pattern with downtilt angle $\theta_{\text{tilt}}$, where $\theta_{\text{tilt}}$ is defined relative to the horizontal plane of the BS site, a [*fixed*]{} phase shift is applied for each vertical antenna element, where the complex coefficient of the $m$th element is given by $w_m=\frac{1}{\sqrt M}\exp\left( -j \frac{2\pi}{\lambda}(m-1)d_V \sin \theta_{\text{tilt}}\right)$, where $d_V$ is the separation of adjacent antenna elements. It can be shown that with such phase shifts, the maximum antenna gain is achieved along the vertical direction $\theta_{\text{tilt}}$. As an illustration, Fig. \[F:BSAntPattern\] shows the 3D and 2D synthesized radiation pattern for an $8$-element ULA with adjacent elements separated by half-wavelength, i.e., $d_V=\lambda/2$, and $\theta_{\text{tilt}}=-10^\circ$. It can be observed that the main lobe is directing towards the elevation angle of $-10^\circ$, as desired. In addition, there are several side lobes with generally decreasing lobe gains as elevation angle increases. As will be discussed in Section \[sec:cellularConnected\], these side-lobes make it possible to support UAV communications even using existing BSs with downtilt antennas.
[0.45]{} {width="80mm"}
[0.45]{} {width="50mm"}
The synthesized BS antenna gain based on the specified array configuration is quite useful for numerical simulations that require 3D BS antenna modelling, as will be illustrated in Section \[sec:performanceEvalu\]. However, it is difficult to be used for theoretical analysis due to the lack of closed-form expressions. To overcome this issue, one approach is to adopt the approximated two-lobe antenna model consisting of one main lobe and one side lobe only, and all directions in each lobe have an identical antenna gain [@1025]. For cellular BSs serving aerial users where the vertical antenna gain is of particular interest, the two-lobe model can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:twoLobe}
G(\theta, \phi)=\begin{cases}
G, \ \theta \in [\theta_{\text{tilt}}-\frac{\Theta}{2}, \theta_{\text{tilt}}+\frac{\Theta}{2}], \\
g, \ \text{ otherwise},
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Theta$ is the beamwidth of the main lobe, $G$ and $g$ are the antenna gains of the main lobe and side lobe, respectively. Note that in the above model, omnidirectional radiation is assumed in the horizontal domain [@983]. Such a simplified two-lobe antenna model gives a reasonable approximation for the performance analysis in conventional terrestrial systems [@1025]. However, it may not be sufficient for cellular UAV communications. The reason is that unlike terrestrial users which are usually served by the antenna main lobe of its closet BS, aerial users with altitude far exceeding the BS antenna height are typically served by the side lobe of a more distant BS. As a result, it is necessary to distinguish the strongest side lobe with other side lobes, since they will contribute to either desired signal or interference. Thus, more accurate antenna gain approximation than the two-lobe model is needed for improved performance analysis for cellular UAV communications [@1085].
[**UAV directional antenna model:**]{} In principle, similar techniques discussed above can be applied to model or synthesize the 3D directional antenna gains for UAVs. However, as the UAV orientation and its antenna boresight (i.e., the axis of maximum gain) may continuously change as it flies, additional care must be taken to define the signal direction with respect to the antenna boresight. On the other hand, for the convenience of mathematical representation and theoretical analysis, the directional antenna at UAVs is usually modelled with the main beam illuminating directly beneath the UAV and it is symmetric around the boresight [@940]. With the simple two-lobe approximation, the UAV directional antenna gain can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:twoLobeUAV}
G(r)=\begin{cases}
G, \ r\leq H_U \tan(\Psi), \\
g, \ \text{otherwise},
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where $r$ is the distance between the ground location of interest and the UAV’s horizontal projection on the ground, and $\Psi$ is the half-beamwidth in radians (rad). In particular, the antenna gain of the main lobe can be approximated as $G\approx \frac{2.285}{\Psi^2}$ [@940]. Such antenna modelling has been used for both scenarios when UAV is used as aerial BS [@940; @803; @galkin2018stochastic] or aerial user [@983].
### UAV MIMO Communications
Different from directional antennas with fixed gain patterns, the antenna array for MIMO communications consists of elements each with a dynamically controllable complex weight coefficient. In this case, the antenna array can no longer be treated as a single antenna with fixed gain pattern as a function of the direction. Instead, the channel coefficients between different pairs of transmitting and receiving antennas are represented as a matrix, based on which transmit and receive spatial precoding/combining (also generally known as beamforming) can be applied. This leads to the advanced MIMO communications, which have been extensively studied for terrestrial communications during the past two decades.
For UAV communications, the MIMO antenna modelling in general needs to take into account both the azimuth and elevation angles. With $M$ transmitting and $N$ receiving antennas, the MIMO channel can be modelled as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf H = \sqrt{\beta(d)} \sum_{l=1}^L \mathbf a(\theta_l^R, \phi_l^R) \mathbf b^H(\theta_l^T,\phi_l^T),\end{aligned}$$ where $L$ is the total number of multi-path, $\beta(d)$ is the large-scale channel coefficient as discussed in Section \[sec:channelModel\], $\mathbf a(\cdot)\in \mathbb{C}^{N\times 1}$ and $\mathbf b(\cdot)\in \mathbb{C}^{M\times 1}$ are the array response vectors at the receiver and transmitter, respectively, $\theta_l^R$ and $\phi_l^R$ are respectively the elevation and azimuth angles of arrival (AoAs) of the $l$th path, $\theta_l^T$ and $\phi_l^T$ are respectively the elevation and azimuth angles of departure (AoDs) of the $l$th path.
To support MIMO UAV communications (as well as that of conventional users in high buildings), 3GPP has suggested the use of uniform rectangular arrays (URAs) at the cellular BSs [@1012], [@1024], with antenna elements placed along both the vertical and horizontal dimensions. For instance, for UMa deployment scenario, one suggested BS antenna configuration is $(M_1,M_2,P)=(8,4,2)$ [@1012], where $M_1$ is the number of antenna elements with the same polarization in each vertical column, $M_2$ is the number of columns, and $P$ specifies the number of polarization dimensions, with $P=2$ for cross polarization and $P=1$ for co-polarization [@1088]. As 2D active arrays are used, signals in both azimuth and elevation angles can be resolved, thus enabling 3D beamforming or FD-MIMO. As will be discussed in Section \[sec:InterfMitigation\], 3D beamforming is a promising technique for dealing with the strong air-ground interference in cellular-connected UAV communications.
Conventional antenna array for MIMO communications requires one radio frequency (RF) chain for each antenna element. As the number of antennas increases as in massive MIMO and mmWave communications, the required cost and complexity become prohibitive, in terms of hardware implementation, signal processing, and energy consumption [@851]. To overcome this issue, there have been significant research efforts on developing cost-aware MIMO transceiver architectures, such as analog beamforming [@573], hybrid anlog/digital precoding [@576; @578], and lens antenna array communications [@823; @1026]. In particular, for communication environment with limited channel paths, lens MIMO communication is able to achieve comparable performance with the fully digital MIMO communication, but with significantly reduced RF chain cost and signal processing complexity [@851]. This is particularly appealing for UAV communications with the inherent multi-path sparsity due to the high UAV altitude, as well as the imperative needs for energy saving and cost/complexity reduction for UAVs. Therefore, UAV MIMO communication with low-cost as well as compact and energy-efficient transceivers is an importation problem that deserves further investigation.
[0.42]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[0.42]{} {width="\linewidth"}
UAV Energy Consumption Model {#sec:energyModel}
----------------------------
One critical issue of UAV communications is the limited onboard energy of UAVs, which renders energy-efficient UAV communication particularly important. To this end, proper modelling for UAV energy consumption is crucial. Notice that besides the conventional communication-related energy consumption due to e.g., signal processing, circuits, and power amplification, UAVs are subject to the additional propulsion energy consumption to remain aloft and move freely. Depending on the size and payload of UAVs, the propulsion power consumption may be much more significant than communication-related power expenditure. For scenarios where the communication-related energy is non-negligible, the existing models for communication energy consumption in the extensively studied terrestrial communication systems can be used for UAV communications. In contrast, the UAV propulsion energy consumption is unique for UAV communication, whereas its mathematical modelling had received very little attention in the past.
Early works considering UAV energy consumption mainly targeted for various other applications rather than wireless communication, where empirical or heuristic energy consumption models were usually used. For example, in [@791], an empirical energy consumption model was applied for the energy-aware UAV path planning for aerial imaging. To that end, experimental measurements were conducted to study the energy consumption of a specific quadrotor UAV with different speeds. However, there is no mathematical model on UAV energy consumption suggested in [@791], which makes the result difficult to be generalized for other UAVs. In [@790] and [@998], the UAV energy (fuel) cost was modelled as the L$_1$ norm of the control force or acceleration vector, whereas in [@792], it was modelled to be proportional to the square of the UAV speed. However, no rigorous mathematical derivation was provided for such heuristic models. In fact, although the power consumption of mobile robots moving on the ground can be modelled as a polynomial and monotonically increasing function with respect to its moving speed [@969], such results are not applicable for UAVs due to their fundamentally different maneuvering mechanisms.
To fill such gap, rigorous mathematical derivations were performed recently in [@904] and [@980] to obtain the theoretical closed-form propulsion energy consumption models for fixed-wing and rotary-wing UAVs, respectively, which are elaborated as follows.
[**Fixed-wing UAV energy model:**]{} For a fixed-wing UAV in straight-and-level flight with constant speed $V$ in m/s, the propulsion power consumption can be expressed in a closed-form as [@904] $$\begin{aligned}
P(V)= \underbrace{c_1 V^3}_{\text{parasite}}+\underbrace{\frac{c_2}{V}}_{\text{induced}},\label{eq:PVFixedWing}\end{aligned}$$ where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are two parameters related to the aircraft’s weight, wing area, air density, etc.
[**Rotary-wing UAV energy model:**]{} On the other hand, for a rotary-wing UAV in straight-and-level flight with speed $V$, the propulsion power consumption can be expressed as [@980] $$\begin{aligned}
P(V)=& \underbrace{P_0 \left(1 + \frac{3 V^2}{U_{\mathrm{tip}}^2} \right)}_{\text{blade profile}}+ \underbrace{P_i \left( \sqrt{1 + \frac{V^4}{4 v_0^4}}-\frac{V^2}{2v_0^2}\right)^{1/2}}_{\text{induced}} \nonumber\\
&+ \underbrace{\frac{1}{2} d_0 \rho s A V^3}_{\text{parasite}},\label{eq:PVRotaryWing}
$$ where $P_0$ and $P_i$ represent the [*blade profile power*]{} and [*induced power*]{} in hovering status that depend on the aircraft weight, air density $\rho$, rotor disc area $A$, etc., $U_{\mathrm{tip}}$ denotes the tip speed of the rotor blade, $v_0$ is known as the mean rotor induced velocity in hovering, $d_0$ and $s$ are the fuselage drag ratio and rotor solidity, respectively.
The typical power versus speed curves according to and are plotted in Fig. \[F:PowervsSpeed\](a) and Fig. \[F:PowervsSpeed\](b), respectively. Several observations can be made:
- First, for the extreme case with $V=0$, the required power consumption for fixed-wing UAV is infinity, whereas that for rotary-wing UAVs is given by a finite value $P_0+P_i$. This corroborates the well-known facts that fixed-wing UAVs must maintain a minimum forward speed to remain airborne, while rotary-wing UAVs can hover with zero speed at fixed locations.
- Secondly, for both types of UAVs, the power consumption consists of at least two components: the [*parasite power*]{} that is needed to overcome the parasite drag caused by the moving of the aircraft in the air, and the [*induced power*]{} for overcoming the induced drag resulted from the lift force to maintain the aircraft airborne. For both UAV types, the parasite power increases in cubic with the aircraft speed $V$, while the induced power decreases as $V$ increases, with a more complicated expression for rotary-wing UAVs than fixed-wing UAVs.
- Thirdly, compared to that for fixed-wing UAVs, the power consumption of rotary-wing UAVs has one additional term: the [*blade profile power*]{}, which is needed to overcome the profile drag due to the rotation of blades.
A comparison of the energy consumption models for fixed-wing versus rotary-wing UAVs is summarized in Table \[Table:EnergyComparison\].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
**& **Fixed-Wing & **Rotary-Wing\
*Convexity with respect to speed $V$ & Convex & Non-convex\
*Components & Induced and parasite & Induced, parasite, and blade profile\
*Power at $V=0$ & Infinity & Finite\
*********
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
For both UAV types, two particular UAV speeds that are of high practical interest are the [*maximum-endurance (ME) speed*]{} and the [*maximum-range (MR) speed*]{}, which are denoted as $V_{\mathrm{me}}$ and $V_{\mathrm{mr}}$, respectively.
[**ME speed:**]{} By definition, the ME speed $V_{\mathrm{me}}$ is the optimal UAV speed that maximizes the UAV endurance for any given onboard energy, which can be obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
V_{{\mathrm{me}}}&=\mathrm{arg}~\underset{V\geq 0}{\min}\ P(V).
\end{aligned}$$ For fixed-wing UAV, $V_{{\mathrm{me}}}$ can be obtained based on to be $V_{{\mathrm{me}}}=\left(\frac{c_2}{3c_1}\right)^{1/4}$, whereas it can be obtained numerically for rotary-wing UAVs. Note that even for rotary-wing UAVs, hovering is not the most power-conserving status since $V_{{\mathrm{me}}}\neq 0$ in general. This may seem counter-intuitive at the first glance, but it is fundamentally due to the fact that the induced power, which is the dominant power consumption component at low UAV speed, reduces as $V$ increases.
[**MR speed:**]{} On the other hand, the MR speed $V_{{\mathrm{mr}}}$ is the optimal UAV speed that maximizes the total traveling distance with any given onboard energy, which can be obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
V_{{\mathrm{mr}}}&=\mathrm{arg}~\underset{V\geq 0}{\min}\ E_0(V)\triangleq \frac{P(V)}{V}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $E_0(V)$ in Joule/meter (J/m) represents the UAV energy consumption per unit travelling distance. For fixed-wing UAVs, $V_{{\mathrm{mr}}}$ can be obtained in closed-form as $V_{{\mathrm{mr}}}=\left(\frac{c_2}{c_1}\right)^{1/4}=3^{1/4}V_{{\mathrm{me}}}$, while it can be obtained numerically for rotary-wing UAVs. Alternatively, for both UAV types, $V_{{\mathrm{mr}}}$ can be obtained graphically based on the power-speed curve $P(V)$, by drawing a tangential line from the origin to the power curve that corresponds to the minimum slope (and hence power/speed ratio), as illustrated in Fig. \[F:PowervsSpeed\](b). Last, it can be shown that $V_{{\mathrm{mr}}}>V_{{\mathrm{me}}}$ for both UAV types.
[**Extensions and directions of future Work:**]{} Note that and only give the instantaneous power consumption for UAVs in straight-and-level flight with constant speed $V$. For UAVs flying in 3D airspace with arbitrary trajectory $\mathbf q(t) \in \mathbb{R}^{3\times 1}$, $0\leq t \leq T$, with $T$ denoting the time horizon of interest, the energy consumption in general depends on both the 3D velocity vector $\mathbf v(t)=\dot {\mathbf q}(t)$ and acceleration vector $\mathbf a(t)=\ddot {\mathbf q}(t)$. In [@904], for arbitrary 2D trajectory with level flight (i.e., constant altitude), a closed-form expression of energy consumption was derived for fixed-wing UAVs. The result has a nice interpretation based on the work-energy principle. Based on , similar expression can be derived for rotary-wing UAVs given arbitrary 2D trajectory with level flight. However, for arbitrary 3D UAV trajectory $\mathbf q(t)$ with UAV climbing or descending over time, to the authors’ best knowledge, no closed-form expression has been rigorously derived for the UAV energy consumption as a function of $\mathbf q(t)$. One heuristic closed-form approximation might be $$\begin{aligned}
E(\mathbf q(t))&\approx \int_0^T P\left(\|\mathbf v(t)\|\right)dt + \underbrace{\frac{1}{2}m\left(\|\mathbf v(T)-\mathbf v(0)\|^2\right)}_{\Delta_K} \nonumber\\
&+ \underbrace{mg\left([\mathbf q(T)]_3 - [\mathbf q(0)]_3 \right)}_{\Delta_P}, \label{eq:Eqt}\end{aligned}$$ where $P(\cdot)$ is given by or with $\|\mathbf v(t)\|$ being the instantaneous UAV speed, $m$ is the aircraft mass, and $g$ is the gravatational acceleration. Note that the second and third terms in represent the change of kinetic energy and potential energy, respectively. It is worth remarking that proper care should be taken while using , since it ignores the effect of UAV acceleration/deceleration on the additional external forces (or work) that must be provided by the engine. More research endeavors are thus needed to rigorously derive the UAV energy consumption with arbitrary 3D trajectory and evaluate the accuracy of the approximation in . In addition, the derivations in [@904] and [@980] assumed a zero wind speed. The energy consumption model by taking into account the effect of wind is a challenging problem that deserves further investigation. Furthermore, it will be worthwhile to practically validate the theoretical energy consumption models by flight experiment and measurement.
UAV Communication Performance Metric {#sec:PerformanceMetrics}
------------------------------------
For UAV communications, similar performance metrics as for conventional terrestrial communications can be used, such as link signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR), outage/coverage probability, communication throughput, delay, spectral efficiency, energy efficiency, etc. In addition, in certain scenarios, new performance metrics such as UAV mission completion time [@957; @953; @1082] and energy consumption [@904; @980] are of practical interest. In the following, we model the above performance metrics in the context of UAV-ground communications.
### SINR
Consider a generic UAV communication system with $K$ co-channel UAVs communicating with their respective ground nodes (GBSs or GTs). Each UAV can be either a transmitter or a receiver. Let $\mathcal Q=\{\mathbf q_k\}_{k=1}^K$ denote the 3D locations of all the $K$ UAVs at a given time instant, and $\mathcal Q_k^-$ denote all other UAV locations excluding that of UAV $k$. For the communication link between each UAV $k$ and its associated ground node, the interference scenarios are shown in Fig \[F:interference\], for the cases that UAV $k$ is a transmitter or a receiver. When UAV $k$ is transmitting information, the SINR at its corresponding ground receiver can be expressed as (see Fig. \[F:interference\](a)) $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_k(\mathcal Q)=\frac{S(\mathbf q_k)}{I_{\mathrm{ter}}+I_{\mathrm{aer}}(\mathcal Q_k^-)+\sigma^2}, \label{eq:gammak1}\end{aligned}$$ where $S(\mathbf q_k)$ is the desired received signal power that changes with the location of UAV $k$, $I_{\mathrm{ter}}$ is the aggregate interference from other transmitting ground nodes, and $I_{\mathrm{aer}}(\mathcal Q_k^-)$ is the aggregate interference from other transmitting UAVs which changes with their locations, and $\sigma^2$ is the receiver noise power. On the other hand, when UAV $k$ is receiving information, its SINR can be similarly written as $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_k(\mathcal Q)=\frac{S(\mathbf q_k)}{I_{\mathrm{ter}}(\mathbf q_k)+I_{\mathrm{aer}}(\mathcal Q)+\sigma^2},\label{eq:gammak2}\end{aligned}$$ where the difference with lies in that for this case both the terrestrial and aerial interference powers change with $\mathbf q_k$. Such a difference has the following important implication: For the air-ground link with a UAV transmitter, changing the UAV location has an effect on its own link SINR only through the desired signal power; while in the case with a UAV receiver, it affects the link SINR in a more complicated manner, through both the desired signal and undesired interference powers. This observation is useful for the design of interference-aware UAV trajectory in practice.
{width="0.9\linewidth"}
In both and , the desired signal power $S(\mathbf q_k)$ can be further written as $$\begin{aligned}
S (\mathbf q_k) = P_tG_t(\mathbf q_k)G_r(\mathbf q_k)\beta(\mathbf q_k)|\tilde g|^2, \label{eq:Sqk}\end{aligned}$$ where $P_t$ is the transmission power, $G_t$ and $G_r$ are the transmit and receive antenna gains, respectively, $\beta$ is the large-scale channel power including path loss and shadowing, and $\tilde g$ is a random variable accounting for the small-scale fading. Note that in , $S(\mathbf q_k)$ explicitly depends on the UAV location $\mathbf q_k$ via the following three aspects: the transmit antenna gain, the receive antenna gain, and the large-scale channel power. Specifically, for directional transmission with either fixed antenna pattern or flexible beamforming, the relative position between UAV $k$ and its associated GBS/GT determines the AoDs and AoAs of the signal propagation, which thus affects the transmit and receive antenna gains. On the other hand, the dependence of the large-scale channel power $\beta(\mathbf q_k)$ on the UAV location $\mathbf q_k$ is evident based on our discussions in Section \[sec:channelModel\]. Similarly, the dependence of the interference from the terrestrial and other aerial users on the UAVs’ locations can be drawn for the above two cases, respectively.
### Outage Probability
The SINR in and generally varies in both space and time and thus can be modelled as a random variable. For a target SINR threshold $\Gamma$, the outage probability for the link of an arbitrary UAV $k$ can be expressed as[^5] $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{P}}_{{\mathrm{out}},k}(\mathcal Q)&=\Pr\left(\gamma_k (\mathcal Q)< \Gamma \right).\label{eq:Prbout1}\end{aligned}$$ Note that for the given UAV locations $\mathcal Q$, the above outage probability needs to take into account the randomness in both time (e.g., due to small-scale fading) as well as space (say, due to the LoS/NLoS probabilities).
### Communication Throughput
Assuming the capacity-achieving Gaussian signaling and Gaussian distributed interference and noise, the achievable rate for the link of UAV $k$ is given by $R_k(\mathcal Q)=\log_2\left(1+\gamma_k(\mathcal Q)\right)$ in bits per second per Hertz (bps/Hz) with each given channel realization. The average achievable communication throughput over the random channel realizations is thus given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat R_k(\mathcal Q) &= \mathbb E \left[ \log_2\left(1+\gamma_k(\mathcal Q)\right)\right].\label{eq:firstLine}
$$ For the case of flying UAVs with the $K$ UAVs following certain trajectories $\mathcal Q(t)=\{\mathbf q_k(t)\}_{k=1}^K$, $0\leq t \leq T$, the average communication throughput of UAV $k$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\bar R_k \left(\mathcal Q(t)\right)&=\mathbb E \left[ \int_0^T R_k(\mathcal Q(t))dt \right] =\int_0^T \hat R_k(\mathcal Q(t)) dt. \label{eq:barRsum}
$$
### Energy Efficiency {#sec:EnergyEfficiency}
Energy efficiency is measured by the number of information bits that can be reliably communicated per unit energy consumed, thus measured in bits/Joule [@800; @zhang2016fundamental; @wu2016overview; @qing15_wpcn_twc]. Of particular interest for UAV communications is the energy efficiency taking into account the unique UAV’s propulsion energy consumption. For UAV $k$, the link energy efficiency can be defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:EE}
{\mathrm{EE}}_k \big(\mathcal Q(t) \big) = \frac{\bar R_k\left(\mathcal Q(t)\right)}{E\big(\mathbf q_k(t)\big)+E_{{\mathrm{com}}}},\end{aligned}$$ where the numerator is the average communication throughput of UAV $k$ given in that in general depends on its own trajectory as well as those of all other co-channel UAVs due to their interference, while the denominator includes both its propulsion energy consumption $E\big(\mathbf q_k(t)\big)$ given in e.g. that depends only on its own trajectory, as well as communication energy consumption, denoted by $E_{{\mathrm{com}}}$. Besides the above per-link energy efficiency, there are also other definitions of energy efficiency, such as the network energy efficiency, which is given by the sum communication throughput of all UAVs’ links normalized by their total (propulsion and communication) energy consumption.
### Special Case (Orthogonal Communication with Isotropic Antennas)
For the purpose of illustration, we consider the special case with orthogonal communications over all the UAV and terrestrial links, and where all UAVs and ground nodes are equipped with isotropic antennas, under which the performance metrics discussed above can be greatly simplified. Specifically, with orthogonal communications, all UAV links are interference-free and therefore they can be considered separately. Furthermore, with isotropic transmit and receive antennas, we have $G_t(\mathbf q_k)=G_r(\mathbf q_k)=1$, $\forall \mathbf q_k$. Then the communication throughput of each UAV $k$’s link in can be simplified as $$\begin{aligned}
\bar R_k\left(\{\mathbf q_k(t)\} \right)& =\mathbb{E} \left[\int_0^T \log_2\left(1+ \frac{P|g_k(t)|^2}{\sigma^2} \right) dt \right], \label{eq:barRk}\end{aligned}$$ where $P$ is the transmit power and $g_k(t)=\sqrt{\beta_k(t)}\tilde{g}_k(t)$ is the instantaneous channel between UAV $k$ and its associated ground node as in . The expression in is difficult to be directly used for the performance analysis and UAV trajectory design, because obtaining its closed-form expression as an explicit function of UAV trajectory $\mathbf q_k(t)$ is challenging. If the probabilistic LoS channel model is adopted, by applying Jensen’s inequality and a homogeneous approximation of the LoS probability, we have [@980] $$\begin{aligned}
\bar R_k\left(\{\mathbf q_k(t)\} \right)& \leq \int_0^{T} \log_2\left(1+ \frac{P\mathbb{E}\left[|g_k(t)|^2\right]}{\sigma^2 }\right)dt\\
& =\int_0^{T} \log_2\left(1+ \frac{\tilde {\gamma}_0\hat P_{k,{\mathrm{LoS}}}(t)}{\|\mathbf q_k(t)-\mathbf w_k\|^\alpha}\right)dt \label{eq:RkApprox1}\\
& \approx \int_0^{T} \log_2\left(1+ \frac{\gamma_{k}}{\|\mathbf q_k(t)-\mathbf w_k\|^\alpha}\right)dt, \label{eq:RkApprox2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf w_k\in \mathbb{R}^{3\times 1}$ denotes the location of the ground node associated with UAV $k$, $\tilde{\gamma}_0\triangleq P\beta_0/\sigma^2$, and $\hat P_{k,{\mathrm{LoS}}}(t)=P_{k,{\mathrm{LoS}}}(t) + (1-P_{k,{\mathrm{LoS}}}(t))\kappa$ is the regularized LoS probability as defined in . Note that in , a homogeneous approximation of the LoS probability is made by letting $\hat P_{k,\text{LoS}}(t)\approx \bar P_{k,\text{LoS}}$, $\forall t$, and $\gamma_k\triangleq \tilde{\gamma}_0\bar P_{k,\text{LoS}}$. This provides a simple closed-form approximation of the expected communication throughput as a function of trajectory $\mathbf q_k(t)$ in , which can be readily used for performance analysis or trajectory optimization. As revealed in [@980], such approximation gives rather satisfactory accuracy for suburban or rural environment with sufficiently large modelling parameter $b$ in , and it becomes exact for the case with LoS link only, as commonly assumed in prior work on UAV trajectory optimization [@641; @904; @919; @wu2017GCjoint]. The more accurate approximation of the expected throughput over general UAV-ground channels and the corresponding UAV trajectory optimization is nontrivial, which requires further investigation (see, e.g. [@1086]).
Mathematical Formulation for UAV Communication and Trajectory Co-Design {#sec:ConstrUAVTraj}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For performance optimization of UAV communication systems, besides the traditional communication design such as multi-user transmission scheduling and resource allocation, we also need to consider the new design DoF by exploiting the UAV’s high mobility. Without loss of generality, let $\mathcal R(t)$ represent all relevant variables related to communication design over time $t$, such as transmit power, bandwidth, time allocation, beamforming, etc., and $\mathcal Q(t)$ denote the trajectories of all UAVs over time $t$. Then a generic mathematical problem for UAV performance optimization can be formulated as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{(P1):} \quad \underset{\mathcal Q(t), \mathcal R(t)}{\max} \ & U\left(\mathcal Q(t), \mathcal R(t) \right)\notag \\
\text{s.t.}\ & f_i\left(\mathcal Q(t) \right)\geq 0, \ i=1,\cdots, I_1,\\
& g_i \left( \mathcal R(t)\right) \geq 0, \ i=1,\cdots, I_2,\\
& h_i \left(\mathcal Q(t), \mathcal R(t)\right) \geq 0,\ i=1,\cdots, I_3.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $ U\left(\cdot, \cdot \right)$ represents the utility function to be maximized, which could correspond to any of the performance metrics exemplified in the previous subsection, $f_i\left(\cdot \right)$’s represent the constraints solely on the UAV trajectories, $g_i\left(\cdot\right)$’s denote the constraints solely on the communication design variables, and finally, $h_i(\cdot, \cdot)$’s specify the coupled constraints (if any) involving both UAV trajectories and communication variables. One typical example of such coupled constraints is the interference constraint [@1087], which limits the transmit power and trajectory of each UAV such that its interference power at any of the other UAV links’ receivers needs to be below a certain threshold. Note that even without any coupled constraints on $h_i(\cdot, \cdot)$’s, the objective utility function of the above generic optimization problem $\mathrm{(P1)}$ in general has coupled trajectory and communication variables as shown in the previous subsection, which thus calls for a new UAV trajectory and communication co-design approach. Also note that while $\mathrm{(P1)}$ is given in the general form in terms of UAV trajectory optimization, it includes the UAV placement optimization as a special case, for which we have $\mathcal Q(t)=\mathcal Q$, $\forall t$.
While the constraints on communication design have been extensively studied in wireless communication, those on UAV mobility are relatively new. In practice, the UAV trajectory constraints could be due to the aircraft mechanical limits, mission requirements, and/or flying regulations imposed by government authorities. For the purpose of illustration, we list down some typical UAV trajectory constraints for a single UAV with trajectory denoted by $\mathbf q(t)$ as follows.
- Minimum/maximum altitude: In the operational rules released by FAA for small UAVs [@936], it is required that the aircraft should not fly more than 400 feet (122 m) above the ground level. Thus, we generally express the maximum and minimum UAV altitude constraints as $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\min}\leq [\mathbf q(t)]_3\leq H_{\max}, \forall t.\label{eq:HeightContr}
\end{aligned}$$
- Initial/final locations: In many scenarios, the UAV’s initial and/or final locations for the time horizon of interest $[0, T]$ are predetermined when e.g., the UAV can only be launched or landed at certain given locations, or its mission specifies the initial and final locations (e.g., for package delivery). Mathematically, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf q(0)=\mathbf q_I, \ \mathbf q(T)=\mathbf q_F,\label{eq:StuatusConstr}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf q_I, \mathbf q_F\in \mathbb{R}^{3\times 1}$ are the given initial/final locations.
- Maximum/minimum UAV speed: $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\min}\leq \|\mathbf v(t)\|\leq V_{\max}, \forall t, \label{eq:speedConstr}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf v(t)\triangleq \dot{\mathbf q}(t)$ denotes the the UAV velocity. Note that we usually have $V_{\min}=0$ for rotary-wing UAVs, whereas $V_{\min}>0$ for fixed-wing UAVs.
- Maximum acceleration constraint: $$\begin{aligned}
\|\mathbf a(t)\|\leq a_{\max}, \forall t, \label{eq:accConstr}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf a(t)\triangleq \ddot{\mathbf q}(t)$ denotes the UAV acceleration. Note that as shown in [@904], for fixed-wing UAVs with banked level turn, the maximum acceleration constraint implies a constraint on the UAV’s maximum turning angle.
- Obstacle avoidance: To ensure that the UAV avoids a given obstacle with known location $\mathbf r\in \mathbb R^{3\times 1}$, we could impose the constraint $$\begin{aligned}
\|\mathbf q(t)-\mathbf r\|\geq D_{1}, \forall t, \label{eq:obstacleAvoidance}\end{aligned}$$ where $D_1$ is the safety distance with the obstacle.
- Collision avoidance: For a multi-UAV system, the collision avoidance constraint among the UAVs can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\|\mathbf q_k(t)-\mathbf q_{k'}(t)\| \geq D_2, \forall k>k', \ \forall t,\end{aligned}$$ where $k$ and $k'$ represent the UAV indices.
- No-fly zone: The mathematical constraints of a given no-fly zone depend on its shape. For example, if the no-fly zone is of a ball shape, constraints in the form of can be imposed. On the other hand, if it is a cubic volume, the following constraints need to be satisfied $$\begin{aligned}
\bigcup_{i=1}^6 \mathbf a_i^T\mathbf q(t)\geq b_i,\ \forall t,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\{\mathbf a_i, b_i\}_{i=1}^6$ specifies the 6 hyperplanes corresponding to the faces of the cubic volume, and for two conditions $C_1$ and $C_2$, $C_1 \bigcup C_2$ denotes that either $C_1$ or $C_2$ needs to be satisfied.
The optimization problem $\mathrm{(P1)}$ for UAV trajectory and communication co-design is in general difficult to be solved for two main reasons. Firstly, the formulated problem is usually non-convex with respect to communication and trajectory variables. In fact, even by fixing one of the two types of variables, the problem may be still non-convex over the other. Secondly, the optimization problem involves continuous time $t$, which results in infinite variables and thus is difficult to be directly optimized. In the following two sections, several useful techniques will be introduced to address such challenges under different UAV communication setups.
UAV-Assisted Wireless Communications {#sec:UAVAssisted}
====================================
Section Overview and Organization
---------------------------------
In this section, we focus on the first framework of UAV-assisted wireless communications, where UAVs are employed as aerial communication platforms to provide wireless access for terrestrial users from the sky. Under this framework, three typical use cases have been envisioned [@649]:
[*UAV-aided ubiquitous coverage*]{}, where UAVs are used as aerial BSs to achieve seamless coverage for a given geographical area. In this case, UAVs possess the essential functionalities of traditional terrestrial BSs, but operate from a much higher altitude and with more flexible 3D deployment and movement. Applications of this use case include UAV-enabled wireless coverage in remote areas, temporary traffic offloading in cellular hot spots [@795], fast communication service recovery for disaster relief [@sharma2016intelligent].
[*UAV-aided relaying*]{}, where UAVs are employed as aerial relays to establish or strengthen the wireless connectivity between far-apart terrestrial users or user groups. Typical applications include UAV-enabled cellular coverage extension, wireless backhaul, big data transfer, emergency response, and military operations [@1027].
[*UAV-aided information dissemination and data collection*]{}, where UAVs are employed as aerial access points (APs) to disseminate (or collect) information to (from) ground nodes. Typical applications include UAV-aided wireless sensor network and IoT communications.
Similar to the conventional terrestrial communications, UAV-assisted communications may have various basic models as illustrated in Fig. \[F:CommunicationModes\]. These include: (i) [*UAV-enabled relaying*]{}, where the UAV assists the communication from source node to destination node; (ii) [*UAV-enabled downlink*]{}, where the UAV sends independent information to multiple ground nodes; (iii) [*UAV-enabled uplink*]{}, where the UAV receives independent information from multiple ground nodes; (iv) [*UAV-enabled multicasting*]{}, where the UAV transmits common information to multiple ground nodes; (v) [*Multi-UAV interference channel*]{}, where there are multiple UAVs each communicating with its respective ground node subjected to the co-channel interference from the others. In general, a UAV-assisted communication system may involve one or more of the above communication models [@1056], possibly under the co-existence with other terrestrial BSs/APs/relays.
{width="0.765\linewidth"}
Depending on the UAV mobility, research on UAV-assisted wireless communications in the literature can be loosely classified into two categories. In the first category, UAVs are used as (quasi-)stationary aerial communication platforms which remain static for a very long period of time once deployed. Under such a setup, extensive research effort has been devoted to UAV placement optimization and performance analysis by taking into account the unique characteristics of UAV-ground channels. In the second category, UAVs are employed as flying platforms to serve the terrestrial users. In this case, the high UAV mobility offers further performance enhancement over stationary UAV platforms by exploiting the new DoF of UAV trajectory design. In general, UAV trajectory optimization needs to be jointly considered with multiuser communication scheduling and resource allocation, as formulated in (P1). Note that while (quasi-)static UAVs may be easier for practical implementation as they can be tethered with ground vehicles for stability control and reliable energy supply, flying UAVs are more flexible for deployment and dynamic movement to best suite the communication needs. Therefore, the practical choice of static or flying UAVs depends on the application requirement.
The remaining part of this section is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:performanceAnalysis\], we review the state-of-the-art results on performance analysis of UAV-assisted communications, for static and flying UAV platforms, respectively. Section \[sec:UAVPlacement\] focuses on (quasi-)static UAV platforms, where the important problems of 2D/3D UAV placement are discussed. By exploiting the highly controllable UAV mobility, Section \[sec:coDesign\] introduces another important line of research for trajectory and communication co-design for flying UAVs. Considering its importance and unique characterization in UAV communications, energy-efficient UAV communication is addressed dedicatedly in Section \[sec:EnergyEfficientCommun\], which is an extension of the UAV trajectory and communication co-design discussed Section \[sec:coDesign\]. In Section \[sec:learning\], we discuss some recent results on designing UAV trajectory and communication by leveraging machine learning techniques.
Performance Analysis {#sec:performanceAnalysis}
--------------------
For any UAV-assisted communication system deployed or to be deployed, one important issue is to validate/evaluate its performance after/before the deployment. This can be achieved by conducting experimental field test [@1032], and computer-based simulations [@1028; @1029; @974] or theoretical analysis [@1031; @1030; @954; @916; @1038; @1036; @966; @1035; @1033; @955; @1002], respectively. In particular, theoretical performance analysis not only predicts the expected performance of the UAV system to be deployed, but also helps reduce the extensive simulations time. Furthermore, it can also offer useful insights and guidelines to design the UAV system and optimize its performance. Therefore, performance analysis for UAV-assisted wireless communications has received significant research attention recently. While most works on performance analysis considered similar performance metrics such as the coverage/outage probability given in or the expected communication throughput given in , they differ in terms of the spatial modelling of the aerial/ground nodes involved, the considered system setup, as well as the UAV channel and antenna models assumed. In the following, we present some representative works on performance analysis for static and flying UAV platforms, respectively, by further addressing the two different scenarios where the locations/trajectories of UAVs are modelled deterministically or stochastically.
### Static UAV Platform
[**Deterministic modelling of UAV location:**]{} In this case, the number as well as locations of UAVs are deterministic and known a priori [@1031; @1030; @954; @916; @1038], whereas their associated ground nodes could be modelled either deterministically or stochastically. For example, in [@954], the authors considered one single UAV communicating with a ground node either directly or through a terrestrial relay. The relaying nodes are randomly distributed following a Poisson Point Process (PPP). By using Rician channel model for the small-scale fading, with elevation angle-dependent Rician $K$ factor and path loss exponent as discussed in Section \[sec:channelModel\], the authors derived the outage probability as a function of the UAV altitude with three communication modes between the UAV and the associated ground node: direct air-to-ground communication, decode-and-forward (DF) relaying by a selected ground relay, and cooperative communication. It was found that the outage probability first decreases and then increases with the UAV altitude $H_U$. This is expected since at relatively small $H_U$, as $H_U$ increases, the benefits of reduced path loss exponent and increased Rician $K$ factor dominates the loss caused by the increased link distance. However, the reverse is true if $H_U$ exceeds a certain threshold. In [@916], a UAV-enabled communication system with underlaid D2D links was studied. The UAV was assumed to hover at a given altitude serving multiple ground users in a given area, and the D2D users are spatially distributed following a PPP. With elevation-angle dependent probabilistic LoS channel model for the UAV-ground links as discussed in Section \[sec:ProbLoSModel\], the outage probabilities of the downlink user served by the UAV and the D2D users were respectively derived. It was revealed that as the UAV altitude increases, the outage probability of D2D users firstly increases and then decreases, while the reverse is true for that of the downlink UAV user. This is expected due to the different roles that the UAV plays for the D2D users and the UAV user, namely as an interference source versus the desired information source.
[**Stochastic modelling of UAV location:**]{} When multiple UAV BSs are used, one effective method is to model their 3D locations stochastically according to a random point process, by which the powerful analytical tool of stochastic geometry can be applied to attain the network-level performance analysis. Different from the deterministic UAV modelling which was typically applied for one UAV BS at a given location, the stochastic analysis of UAV network involving multiple UAV BSs needs to consider the UAV-to-ground interference, by analyzing the distance distributions of the desired and interfering links. While stochastic geometry has been extensively used for the tractable performance analysis of terrestrial communication systems, its application to UAV networks is usually more challenging. Apart from the more sophisticated UAV channel model as reviewed in Section \[sec:channelModel\], the following factors also complicate the stochastic analysis of UAV networks. Firstly, as the UAV BSs can be freely deployed in 3D space, their stochastic spatial modelling in general requires 3D point process, as opposed to 2D point process for terrestrial BSs. Some initial attempts have been made along this direction with 3D PPP modelling for UAV BSs with given altitude range [@955; @1002]. However, for analytical simplicity, most of the existing works are still based on 2D point process by assuming given UAV altitude [@1036; @966; @1035; @1033]. Secondly, while conventional terrestrial BSs are usually modelled as an infinite-size homogeneous PPP (HPPP), it is not quite suitable for UAV-enabled communications [@966], especially for the current deployment applications with typically small number of UAV BSs. To reflect this fact, Binomial point process (BPP) has been applied for the performance analysis of finite-size UAV network [@1036; @966], where the number of UAV BSs is finite and known a priori.
For example, in [@966], the authors derived the downlink coverage performance for a given finite number of UAV BSs deployed in a plane of fixed altitude, which are modelled as a uniform 2D BPP. By assuming that each ground user is always associated with its closest UAV BS and suffers co-channel interference from other UAVs, the closed-form expression for the coverage probability of a typical ground user was derived. It was revealed that the coverage probability degrades as the UAVs’ altitude increases. The reason is that as the altitude increases, the distance differences between the communication link and the interfering links diminish, and hence the average signal-to-interference ratio (SIR) degrades. Note that such results were obtained based on the classic log-distance path loss model with the Nakagami-m small-scale fading, without taking into account the change of propagation environment as the UAV altitude varies. The impact of the UAV altitude was observed to be different, depending on the assumed UAV channel and/or directional antenna models, as reported in [@1035; @1033].
Specifically, in [@1033], the UAV BSs were modelled as a 2D PPP with directional UAV antennas, which were assumed to have one main lobe and negligible side lobes as in . The maximum-power association rule was applied, where the user is associated to the UAV that provides the maximum power. Different from [@966] as discussed above, [@1033] demonstrated that as the UAV altitude increases, the coverage probability firstly increases and then decreases. Similar observations have been obtained in [@1035].
[|l|l|l|l|l|l|]{} **Reference &**
-------------
**Number\
**of UAV\
**BSs******
-------------
&
--------------
**Static or\
**Flying****
--------------
& **Setup &**
----------------
**UAV channel\
**Model****
----------------
& **Main Findings\
& One & Static &**
--------------------------------
UAV BS serving ground
users with a terrestrial relay
--------------------------------
&
--------------------
Elevation-angle
dependent channel
parameters, Rician
fading
--------------------
&
------------------------------
Outage probability first
decreases and then increases
with UAV altitude
------------------------------
\
& One & Static &
-----------------------
UAV BS with underlaid
terrestrial D2D links
-----------------------
&
--------------------
Elevation-angle
dependent
probabilistic LoS,
Rayleigh fading
--------------------
&
-----------------------------
UAV altitude has different
effects on the D2D user and
downlink UAV user
performances
-----------------------------
\
& Multiple & Static &
-------------------------------
UAV BSs at the same
altitude modelled as a BPP;
each user associates with the
closest UAV BS
-------------------------------
&
-------------------
Log-distance path
loss, Nakagami-m
fading
-------------------
&
-------------------------------
Coverage probability degrades
as UAV altitude increases
-------------------------------
\
& Multiple & Static &
-------------------------------
UAV BSs modelled as a PPP
with the same altitude;
directional UAV antenna;
each user associates with the
closest UAV BS
-------------------------------
&
--------------------
Elevation-angle
dependent
probabilistic LoS
and shadowing, no
small-scale fading
--------------------
&
------------------------------
Coverage probability firstly
increases and then decreases
with UAV altitude
------------------------------
\
& Multiple & Static &
---------------------------
UAV BSs modelled as a PPP
with a given altitude,
directional UAV antenna;
maximum-power based
association
---------------------------
&
--------------------
Probabilistic LoS,
Nakagami-m
fading
--------------------
&
------------------------------
Coverage probability firstly
increases and then decreases
with UAV altitude
------------------------------
\
& One & Flying &
----------------------------------
UAV relay following a
circular trajectory periodically
----------------------------------
&
--------------------
Log-distance path
loss model, Rician
fading
--------------------
&
------------------------------
With a periodic circular UAV
trajectory, variable-rate
communication outperforms
fixed-rate communication
------------------------------
\
& One & Flying &
-------------------------
UAV BS following a line
trajectory periodically
-------------------------
&
-----------------
Free space path
loss
-----------------
&
-------------------------------
A tradeoff between throughput
and access delay
-------------------------------
\
& Multiple & Flying &
------------------------------
UAV BSs at the same
altitude with stochastically
modelled movement
------------------------------
&
-------------------
Log-distance path
loss model,
Nakagami-m
fading
-------------------
&
--------------------------------
Stochastically flying UAV BSs
achieve similar coverage
performance as static BSs, but
with significantly reduced AFD
--------------------------------
\
### Flying UAV Platform
For the performance evaluation of flying UAV platforms, some early results on field experiments [@1037; @1021] or computer simulations [@1001] were reported. Recently, the theoretical performance analysis of flying UAV platforms in various setups has received growing interest. Most of such works were based on the deterministic modelling of UAV trajectories [@916; @1020; @887; @1007], whereas there was also an initial attempt to consider stochastically modelled random UAV trajectories [@1022].
[**Deterministic modelling of UAV trajectory:**]{} In [@1020], a UAV-assisted relaying system was studied, where a fixed-wing UAV is employed to assist the communication between two ground nodes without the direct communication link. As fixed-wing UAV must maintain a forward speed to remain airborne, the UAV was assumed to fly along a circle at a constant height and thus its location changes periodically. By considering DF relaying and delay-sensitive applications such that the UAV forwards the information as soon as it receives and decodes it, the authors in [@1020] derived the link outage probability by assuming Rician fading channel models. It was found that with the periodic circular UAV trajectory, the variable-rate communication outperforms the fixed-rate communication.
In [@887], the authors studied the UAV-assisted communication system with the UAV flying cyclically among the ground users, thus resulting in a cyclical variation pattern of each UAV-user channel strength. By considering the basic setup where all ground users are located in a line and served by the UAV alternately, a tradeoff between the average access delay and the network common throughput was revealed. This study was further extended in [@1007] for a hybrid wireless network consisting of a flying UAV BS and a conventional terrestrial BS, where the UAV flies cyclically along the cell edge to help offload the data traffic from the terrestrial BS.
[**Stochastic modelling of UAV trajectory:**]{} Different from the above works with deterministic UAV flying trajectories, the performance of flying UAV BSs was analyzed in [@1022] with stochastic UAV flying trajectories. To this end, the stochastic geometry analysis of [@966] was extended to the case of flying UAV BSs, where the UAVs are assumed to fly following stochastic trajectory processes, i.e., at any snapshot, the UAV BSs can be modelled as a BPP. Two types of stochastic trajectory processes were considered, namely spiral and oval processes. The results demonstrated that compared to the static UAV BSs, the stochastically moving UAV BSs achieve comparable coverage performance but with significantly reduced channel average fade duration (AFD).
Table \[Table:performanceAnalysis\] summarizes the above representative works on performance analysis for both static and flying UAV-assisted wireless communication systems.
UAV Placement {#sec:UAVPlacement}
-------------
In this subsection, we focus on (quasi-)static UAV communication platforms, where the locations of UAVs remain unchanged for the duration of interest. For such setups, one important design problem is to determine the UAV locations to achieve the best communication performance, which has received extensive research attention recently [@642; @803; @793; @922; @937; @999; @940; @914; @917; @886; @1083]. Different from the conventional 2D cell planning with terrestrial BSs of typically pre-determined BS heights, the altitude of UAV BS can be flexibly determined, thus leading to the new 3D BS placement problems. Besides, the unique characteristics of UAV-ground channels as discussed in Section \[sec:channelModel\] also need to be considered for the UAV placement.
The optimal altitude of UAV communication platforms depends on the propagation environment and the antenna models. For the simple isotropic antennas with the free-space path loss model, it is not difficult to see that the UAV placed at the minimum possible altitude $H_{\min}$ leads to the smallest path loss and thus the best communication channel with the GTs. On the other hand, for urban environment with signal blockage and multipath scattering, the optimization of UAV BS altitude becomes non-trivial. Specifically, as the UAV altitude increases, there are less obstacles and therefore the communication link is more likely to be dominated by the strong LoS component, e.g., with larger Rician $K$ factor and/or higher LoS probability. However, as the altitude further increases, the benefit of having stronger LoS link cannot compensate for the higher path loss incurred due to the increased link distance, as illustrated in Fig. \[F:ChannelVsAltitude\]. Depending on how much information pertaining the user locations is available at the UAV BS, we consider the following different scenarios for UAV placement optimization assuming: (i) No user location information (ULI); (ii) Perfect ULI; and (iii) Partial ULI.
### No ULI
When there is completely no ULI available, the UAV placement is usually optimized to maximize the geographic area covered by the UAV.
One representative work along this line is [@642], which focused on the 1D altitude optimization. By assuming the elevation angle-dependent probabilistic LoS channel model, the coverage radius $R_{{\mathrm{cov}}}$ of a UAV BS is defined as the maximum horizontal distance from the UAV projected location on the ground so that the expected path loss is below a given threshold, where the expectation is taken with respect to the LoS and NLoS occurrence probabilities. An implicit expression was derived between $R_{{\mathrm{cov}}}$ and the UAV altitude $H_U$ in [@642], and it numerically showed that $R_{{\mathrm{cov}}}$ firstly increases and then decreases with $H_U$. Thus, an optimal UAV altitude exists that is in general between the minimum and maximum allowable altitude.
In [@643], by assuming that two UAV BSs are employed to serve a target rectangular area on the ground, the 3D locations of both UAVs were determined to maximize the fraction of the area covered by the UAV BSs. For the interference-free scenario, the two UAVs were placed so that they are separated as much as possible, while ensuring that neither UAV covers outside the target area. The above work was then extended to [@803], where by using directional UAV antenna model similar as , the 3D locations of a given number of UAV BSs were obtained to maximize the total coverage area by leveraging the circle packing problem.
### Perfect ULI
On the other hand, when the ULI or even the instantaneous CSI of the served GTs is known, the UAV placement can be designed for various objectives, such as maximizing the number of covered users [@793; @922; @937], maximizing the communication throughput [@999; @940; @914], or minimizing the number of required UAVs [@917; @886].
UAV placement optimization for maximizing the number of covered users can be usually formulated as mixed integer nonlinear programming [@793; @922; @937], with the binary variables indicating whether the users are served by each UAV or not. Such formulations were extended in [@999], which took into account the limited backhaul capacity of the UAV BSs and the rate requirement for different users.
The UAV placement may also be designed to directly maximize the system throughput [@999; @940; @914]. By assuming the free-space path loss channel model and the directional UAV antenna with dynamically adjustable beamwidth , the authors in [@940] investigated the joint UAV altitude and beamwidth optimization problems for throughput maximization in three basic multiuser communication models, namely [*downlink multicasting*]{} (MC) where UAV sends common information to all ground users, [*downlink broadcasting*]{} (BC) where UAV sends independent information to different users, and [*uplink multiple access*]{} (MAC) where each user sends independent information to the UAV. It was revealed that for the considered UAV directional antenna model, the UAV altitude should be set as the maximum possible value for downlink MC, but the minimum possible value for downlink BC, while it has no effect to the throughput performance of uplink MAC.
Another sensible design objective for UAV placement is to minimize the number of required UAVs while satisfying the communication requirement of ground users [@917; @886]. In [@917], by assuming that the user rate requirements are known, a heuristic algorithm based on particle swarm optimization was proposed to find the 3D locations of UAV BSs to minimize the number of UAV BSs. In [@886], by assuming that the UAVs hover at a fixed altitude, an efficient spiral UAV placement algorithm was proposed to find the minimum number of UAV BSs and their 2D horizontal locations to ensure that all GTs are covered by at least one UAV. The main idea is to place the UAV BSs successively, starting from the area perimeter of those uncovered GTs and moving inwards along a spiral path toward the center of the area. Compared to the benchmark strip-based placement, the proposed spiral based algorithm better utilizes the location information of GTs and thus generally leads to less number of required UAV BSs.
### Partial ULI
In many practical scenarios, instead of perfect ULI, it is more feasible to gain the partial information regarding the user locations, such as the statistic distribution of the users or some side information at each locations realization. In [@1075], a traffic-aware adaptive UAV deployment scheme was proposed, where starting from the current location, the displacement direction and distance of the UAV was optimized. The proposed scheme requires very limited knowledge of the GT locations at each realization, namely only the number of GTs for each given sub-area, rather than their exact ULI. Based on the simple majority-vote rule, the UAV adjusts its location towards the sub-area that has the largest number of GTs, with the displacement distance optimized to maximize the average throughput or the successful transmission probability for all GTs in the network.
A summary of the above representative works on UAV placement is given in Table \[Table:UAVPlacement\].
[|l|l|l|l|l|]{} **Reference &**
-------------
**Number\
**of UAV\
**BSs******
-------------
& **Design variable & **Design Objective & **Main techniques\
& Single UAV & 1D altitude & Maximize coverage area &******
-----------------------------
Implicit expression between
coverage radius and UAV
altitude
-----------------------------
\
& Two UAVs & 3D location &
----------------------------------------
Given a target rectangular area,
maximize the fraction of coverage area
using two UAV BSs
----------------------------------------
&
---------------------------
Maximum separation of the
two UAV BSs subject to
coverage area constraint
---------------------------
\
& Single UAV & 3D location &
------------------------------------
Given user locations, maximize the
number of served users
------------------------------------
&
-------------------------
Mixed-integer nonlinear
programming
-------------------------
\
&
----------
Multiple
UAVs
----------
& 3D location & Maximize the total coverage area & Circle packing\
& Single UAV & 3D location &
----------------------------------------
With UAV backhaul capacity constraint,
maximize the number of served users
or sum-rate
----------------------------------------
& Branch-and-bound method\
& Single UAV & 2D location &
-------------------------------------
With UAV serving as relay, maximize
the throughput or minimize
communication power
-------------------------------------
&
----------------------------
Smart local search for LoS
propagation
----------------------------
\
& Single UAV & 3D location &
----------------------------------------
Joint altitude and beamwidth
optimization for three basic multiuser
communication models
----------------------------------------
&
-----------------------------
Closed-form throughput
expressions in terms of UAV
altitude and beamwidth
-----------------------------
\
&
----------
Multiple
UAVs
----------
& 3D location &
----------------------------------------
Minimize the number of UAVs to satisfy
the user rate requirement
----------------------------------------
& Particle swarm optimization\
&
----------
Multiple
UAVs
----------
& 2D location &
---------------------------------------
Minimize the number of UAVs to ensure
that all GTs are covered
---------------------------------------
& Spiral BS placement\
& Single UAV & 2D location &
-------------------------------------
Optimize UAV displacement direction
and distance for maximizing average
throughput or success transmission
probability
-------------------------------------
&
------------------------------
UAV displacement to the
sub-area with the most users
------------------------------
\
Trajectory and Communication Co-Design {#sec:coDesign}
--------------------------------------
Compared to conventional terrestrial BSs or quasi-stationary UAV BSs, flying UAV communication platforms offer an additional DoF via UAV trajectory optimization. Note that the concept of exploiting node mobility for boosting communication performance is not new, which has been studied in MANET [@651] or ground mobile robotics [@969], [@970]. However, there are some important differences between such systems and the UAV communication system. Firstly, nodes moving on the ground are usually subject to many obstacles, which greatly limits their flexibility for path adaption. Therefore, most existing works on exploiting ground node mobility assumed either the random mobility model [@651] or deterministic mobility along pre-determined path [@970]. In contrast, UAVs moving in 3D airspace offers more design DoF in path/trajectory optimization for communication performance improvement. Secondly, due to the generally rich scattering environment, the wireless channels for ground robotic communications usually suffer from severe fading, which is difficult to be efficiently predicted at any location. In contrast, the UAV-ground communications often contain strong LoS link, making it easier for channel prediction and thus facilitating the offline trajectory optimization. Last but not least, robots and UAVs differ significantly in terms of energy consumption model, as discussed in Section \[sec:energyModel\]. The above differences are summarized in Table \[Table:mobility\], which render the communication-aware UAV trajectory optimization significantly different from that for the traditional terrestrial communications.
[|l|l|l|]{} & **Terrestrial System & **UAV System\
*Mobility &*****
----------------------------------------------
[$\bullet$]{} Nodes usually move randomly
(e.g., in a MANET)
[$\bullet$]{} Nodes move with predetermined
path (e.g., mobile robotics)
[$\bullet$]{} Very restrictive path planning
----------------------------------------------
&
---------------------------------------------------
[$\bullet$]{} UAV mobility highly controllable/
predictable
[$\bullet$]{} More flexible path adaptation in 3D
space
---------------------------------------------------
\
-----------------
*Communication\
*channel**
-----------------
&
----------------------------------------------
[$\bullet$]{} Severe shadowing and multipath
fading
[$\bullet$]{} Difficult to predict offline
----------------------------------------------
&
-----------------------------------------
[$\bullet$]{} Less shadowing and fading
[$\bullet$]{} More predictable
-----------------------------------------
\
*Energy consumption &*
-----------------------------------------
[$\bullet$]{} Polynomial and increasing
function of speed
-----------------------------------------
& [$\bullet$]{} More complicated (see Section II-C)\
For UAV-assisted communications, the UAV trajectory optimization is in general closely coupled with communication scheduling and resource allocation, for which a generic optimization problem has been formulated in Section \[sec:ConstrUAVTraj\]. Note that problem $\mathrm{(P1)}$ is difficult to be efficiently and optimally solved due to its non-convexity in general. In the following, we present several useful techniques to address problem $\mathrm{(P1)}$ for UAV-assisted communications. In particular, we first present the classic travelling salesman problem (TSP) and pickup-and-deliver problem (PDP) as two useful techniques for initial UAV path planning, and then introduce the more general optimization framework with block coordinate descent (BCD) and successive convex approximation (SCA) techniques.
### TSP and PDP for Initial Path Planning
In general, UAV trajectory optimization involves two aspects: [*path planning*]{} to determine the flying route, and [*speed optimization*]{} that essentially determines how much time should be spent on each location along the route. While path planning has been extensively studied for UAV systems, early works mainly focused on UAV navigation applications, rather than targeting for optimizing the communication performance [@620; @790; @920; @921]. For such scenarios, mixed-integer linear program (MILP) has been shown to be an effective approach [@790; @1006; @998; @1004]. Recently, there have been a handful of works on UAV path planning for communication purposes by partially optimizing some of the trajectory parameters. For example, in [@658] and [@659], by assuming that the UAV flies with a constant speed, the UAV’s heading (or flying direction) was optimized for UAV-based wireless relaying and uplink communications, respectively. In [@788], a UAV-based mobile relay node was considered for forwarding independent data to different user groups. The data downloading volume as well as the relay trajectory in terms of the visiting sequence to the different user groups were optimized by a genetic algorithm. In [@619] and [@785], the deployment/movement of UAVs was optimized to improve the network connectivity of a UAV-assisted ad-hoc network. More recently, the use of more powerful optimization techniques for communication-aware UAV trajectory design has received growing interest, discussed as follows.
![A point-to-point link with the UAV flying towards the GT.[]{data-label="F:StraightPath"}](StraightPath.pdf){width="0.85\linewidth"}
Intuitively, for enhancing the communication link quality, the UAV should move closer to its communicating GT. This not only reduces the link distance, but also increases the likelihood of establishing a LoS communication link with it, especially in dense urban environment. As a toy example to illustrate this fact, we consider a basic point-to-point communication setup with a UAV at fixed altitude $H_U$ communicating with a static ground node, with their initial horizontal distance denoted by $D$, as shown in Fig. \[F:StraightPath\]. Fig. \[F:ChannelQualityVsTime\] plots the channel path loss, the LoS probability, and the [*average*]{} channel power versus time as the UAV flies towards the ground node with a constant speed $V$. Note that the channel path loss in Fig. \[F:ChannelQualityVsTime\](a) is based on the classical log-distance path loss model in by averaging over the shadowing, whereas the average channel power is obtained by averaging over the occurrence of LoS and NLoS realizations, with the elevation angle-dependent LoS probability model given in . The following parameters are used: $D=1000$ m, $H_U=100$ m, $V=20$ m/s, $\alpha=2.3$, $X_0[dB]=50$ dB, $a=10$, $b=0.6$, and $\kappa=0.01$. It is observed that as the UAV moves closer to the ground node, the channel path loss in Fig. \[F:ChannelQualityVsTime\](a) is significantly improved by about 23 dB for both LoS and NLoS cases, and there is an overall gain of about 40 dB shown in Fig. \[F:ChannelQualityVsTime\](c) for the average channel power, due to the additional benefit of enhanced LoS probability as shown in Fig. \[F:ChannelQualityVsTime\](b). This demonstrates the promising benefit of UAV trajectory design to enhance the channel quality, especially for delay-tolerant applications so that there is sufficient time for the UAV to move towards its served GTs. Motivated by this, in the following, we discuss two useful techniques for UAV path planning, following the principle of bringing the UAV to each of its served GTs as closer as possible. Such techniques are useful to find an initial UAV flying path, which can be used for trajectory initialization for the more refined UAV trajectory and communication joint optimization to be discussed in Section \[sec:jointOptimization\].
[0.3]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[0.3]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[0.3]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[0.32]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[0.3]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[0.3]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[**Travelling salesman problem (TSP):**]{} To best exploit the UAV mobility for multiuser communications, the UAV in general needs to fly sequentially towards multiple GTs served by it. Intuitively, the sooner the UAV reaches each of the GTs, the more time will be left for the UAV to enjoy the best communication links with them. In this regard, a closely related problem is the celebrated [*TSP*]{} [@909; @TSP; @908; @907], which can be applied to determine the UAV flying path as well as the serving order of the GTs, as illustrated in Fig. \[F:TSPAndPDP\](a). The standard TSP is described as follows: given a set of cities and the distances between each pair of the cities, a traveler wishes to start and end at the same city and visit each city exactly once. The problem then aims to find the route (or the sequence of visited cities) such that the total traveling distance is minimized. TSP is known to be NP-hard, but various efficient algorithms have been proposed to find high-quality solutions [@TSP; @908; @907], e.g., via solving binary integer problems. Note that the standard TSP algorithms deal with the scenario that the traveller/UAV needs to return to the initial city/location where it starts the tour. However, for UAV communications, the UAV needs not necessarily return to the initial location, and its initial/final location might be pre-specified, as in [@641; @904]. In this case, variations of TSP algorithms can be applied by adding dummy cities/GTs whose distances with the existing cities/GTs are properly set [@957].
TSP is feasible only when the given UAV operation duration $T$ is sufficiently large so that the UAV can reach all GTs. Besides, in certain scenarios, it is simply unnecessary for the UAV to reach exactly on top of each GT (e.g., when only few data needs to be collected from some GTs). In this case, another closely related problem is the TSP with neighborhood (TSPN), as illustrated in Fig. \[F:TSPAndPDP\](b). TSPN is a generalization of TSP in the sense that the traveller does not have to visit each city/GT exactly, but needs to reach a given neighborhood region around the city/GT. TSPN is also NP hard, with various algorithms proposed to obtain approximate solutions [@927; @928; @957]. In fact, in the context of UAV communications, the resultant problem is even more general than TSPN, as the size (radius) of each neighborhood area can also be a design variable depending on the communication requirement. One useful method for addressing such problems is as follows: Firstly, solve the TSP based on the $K$ cities/GTs to obtain the visiting order, by ignoring the neighborhood regions. Then with the obtained order, use convex optimization techniques to obtain the optimal visiting locations inside the neighborhood regions. This method was firstly proposed in [@957], and was later applied in various other setups [@1056; @980]. In fact, the above process for alternately updating the visiting order and the visiting locations can be repeated until convergence is reached. Another variation of TSP is the selective TSP [@1070], also known as the orienteering problem [@1071], where instead of visiting all nodes (or neighborhood regions), the goal is to determine a path and a subset of the nodes (or neighborhood regions) for visiting to maximize a certain utility, such as the number of nodes (or neighborhood regions) visited within a finite duration. This technique was applied in [@1069] for trajectory design for UAV-enabled distributed estimation via maximizing the number of sensors visited by the UAV within a given time horizon.
[**Pickup-and-delivery problem (PDP):**]{} For UAV-enabled mobile relaying, we usually have the additional [*information-causality constraint*]{} [@641; @1056], i.e., the UAV needs to firstly receive data from a source node before forwarding to its corresponding destination node. In this case, a useful approach for determining the UAV flying path is by solving the [*PDP*]{}. PDP can be regarded as another generalization of TSP, with the additional precedence constraints, i.e., for each pair of source-destination nodes, the UAV needs to firstly visit the source node before the destination node to meet the above information-causality constraint. PDP is also NP hard, but various algorithms have been proposed to yield high-quality approximate solutions. Furthermore, in the general scenario where the given UAV operation duration $T$ is insufficient to visit all the GTs, the extended PDP with neighborhood (PDPN) can be applied to obtain the visiting order of the GTs, as illustrated in Fig. \[F:TSPAndPDP\](c).
### Joint Trajectory and Communication Optimization {#sec:jointOptimization}
While TSP and PDP are useful techniques to determine the initial UAV flying path or serving order of the GTs, they are in general suboptimal for the generic problem $\mathrm{(P1)}$. On one hand, the UAV flying trajectory needs to take into account the communication performance more explicitly, which also depends on the communication user scheduling and resource allocation with any given UAV trajectory. On the other hand, in practical scenarios where UAVs are subject to various mobility constraints such as those exemplified in Section \[sec:ConstrUAVTraj\], the simple TSP and PDP solutions, which ignore such constraints, may lead to infeasible UAV path. To tackle such issues, it is inevitable to address the trajectory and communication joint optimization problem $\mathrm{(P1)}$. However, $\mathrm{(P1)}$ is difficult to be directly solved for two reasons. Firstly, it involves objective/constraint functions with essentially an infinite number of variables due to the continuous time. Secondly, it is generally non-convex with respect to communication and UAV trajectory design variables. In fact, even by fixing one of these two types of variables, the problem is usually still non-convex with respect to the other. In the following, we first introduce two trajectory discretization techniques to convert $\mathrm{(P1)}$ into more tractable forms with a finite number of optimization variables, and then elaborate the BCD and SCA techniques to deal with the non-convexity.
[**Trajectory discretization:**]{} To transform the optimization problem $\mathrm{(P1)}$ into a more tractable form with a finite number of variables, it is necessary to discretize the UAV trajectory as well as other related variables. The basic idea of trajectory discretization is to approximate the continuous UAV trajectory by a piece-wise linear trajectory, which is represented by a finite number of line segments and the duration that the UAV needs to spend on each line segment. In order to ensure sufficient discretization accuracy, the length of each line segment should not exceed a certain threshold, say $\Delta_{\max}$, whose value could be pre-specified based on practical requirements. For example, within each line segment, the distance between the UAV and all ground nodes of interest should be approximately unchanged in order to maintain constant average channel gains to facilitate the communication design and performance characterization. In this case, one may choose $\Delta_{\max}$ such that $\Delta_{\max}\ll H_{\min}$, with $H_{\min}$ denoting the minimum UAV altitude. For any given $\Delta_{\max}$, two trajectory discretization approaches have been proposed in the literature, namely [*time discretization*]{} [@641], [@904] and [*path discretization*]{} [@980].
![Time versus path discretization.[]{data-label="F:discretization"}](TimeVSPathDiscretization.jpg)
[*Time Discretization:*]{} As illustrated in Fig. \[F:discretization\](a), with time discretization, the given time horizon $[0, T]$ is divided into $N$ equal time slots with sufficiently small slot length $\delta_t$ [@641], [@904], where $T=N\delta_t$. Let $V_{\max}$ denote the UAV’s maximum flying speed. Then it is necessary to ensure that each segment length does not exceed $\Delta_{\max}$ even with the maximum flying speed, for which $\delta_t$ should be chosen as $\delta_t\leq \Delta_{\max}/V_{\max}$. Thus, the minimum number of segments required with time discretization is $N=\lceil TV_{\max}/\Delta_{\max} \rceil$. As a result, the continuous UAV trajectory $\mathbf q(t)$, $0\leq t \leq T$, can be approximated by the $N$-length sequence $\{\mathbf q[n]\}_{n=1}^N$, which need to satisfy the maximum UAV speed and acceleration constraints. With time discretization, the UAV movement can be approximated in a linear state-space model with respect to the UAV location, velocity, and acceleration (note that $\delta_t$ is chosen and fixed), which is given by [@904] $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf v}[n+1]&= {\mathbf v}[n]+\mathbf a[n] \delta_t, \forall n, \label{eq:vn} \\
{\mathbf q}[n+1]&= {\mathbf q}[n]+{\mathbf v}[n] \delta_t+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf a[n]\delta_t^2, \forall n, \label{eq:qn}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf v[n]$ and $\mathbf a[n]$ are respectively the velocity and acceleration vectors in 3D, which are assumed to be constant within each time slot $n$. As such, the UAV trajectory constraints given in Section \[sec:ConstrUAVTraj\] can be approximated in discrete forms accordingly.
[|l|l|l|]{} & **Time discretization & **Path discretization\
*Pros &*****
-------------------------------------------------
[$\bullet$]{} Equal time slot length
[$\bullet$]{} Linear state-space representation
[$\bullet$]{} Incorporate the maximum
acceleration constraint easily
-------------------------------------------------
&
--------------------------------------------------
[$\bullet$]{} Fewer variables if UAV hovers or
flies slowly most of the time
[$\bullet$]{} No need to know mission completion
time $T$ a priori
--------------------------------------------------
\
*Cons &*
------------------------------------------------
[$\bullet$]{} Excessively large number of time
slots when UAV hovers or moves
slowly
[$\bullet$]{} Need to know mission completion
time $T$ a priori
------------------------------------------------
&
----------------------------------------------------
[$\bullet$]{} Difficult to incorporate the maximum
acceleration constraint
[$\bullet$]{} More variables if UAV flies with
high/maximum speed most of the
time
----------------------------------------------------
\
[*Path Discretization [@980]:*]{} Another approach for discretized representation of UAV trajectory is to divide the UAV path (instead of time) into $M$ consecutive line segments of generally unequal lengths as shown in Fig. \[F:discretization\](b), which are represented by a sequence of segment start/end locations $\{\mathbf q_m\}$ along the path, together with the time sequence $\{T_m\}$ representing the duration that the UAV spends on each line segment. Path discretization can be interpreted as the more general form of time discretization, with flexibly chosen unequal time slot lengths for different line segments. Specifically, instead of fixing the slot length to $\delta_t=\Delta_{\max}/V_{\max}$ that is bottlenecked by the maximum flying speed, with path discretization, the time slot length $T_m$ is dynamically determined by the actual flying speed $V_m$ that is assumed to be constant over each line segment. In this case, we have $T_mV_m\leq \Delta_{\max}$, $\forall m$. Note that since $V_m\leq V_{\max}$, we have $T_m\geq \delta_t$, $\forall m$. In other words, given the same value for the maximum segment length $\Delta_{\max}$, path discretization entails longer time slot length in general. As a result, given the same trajectory to be discretized with the total operation duration $T=N\delta_t=\sum_{m=1}^M T_m$, we have $M\leq N$ in general, i.e., fewer line segments are needed by path discretization than time discretization, especially when the UAV flies with a speed lower than the maximum speed for a significant portion of the operation duration.
To further illustrate the above fact, we consider the scenario that the UAV needs to hover at a particular location for 1000 s. If time discretization approach is used (say with time interval of 1 s), then we need 1000 variables $\mathbf q[1],\cdots \mathbf q[1000]$ (all are equal) to represent this status, even though the UAV remains stationary. In contrast, with path discretization, only three variables are sufficient, namely $\mathbf q_1$ and $\mathbf q_2$ (with $\mathbf q_1=\mathbf q_2$) representing the hovering location and $T_1=1000$ s representing the hovering duration. Another advantage of path discretization is that it does not require to specify the mission completion time $T$ a priori. Instead, a coarse estimation of the total flying distance $\hat D$ is sufficient to determine the required number of segments $M$, for which $M$ is chosen to be sufficiently large so that $M\Delta_{\max}\geq \hat{D}$. This is appealing since in many practical trajectory design problems such as that for UAV energy consumption minimization [@980], the UAV operation time itself is a variable and there is no monotonic relationship for efficiently searching its optimal value (e.g., by the bisection method), thus only the time-consuming exhaustive search is applicable. If time discretization is used, it would require solving prohibitively large number of optimization problems, each for a pre-assumed and fixed $N$, which is impractical.
On the other hand, note that time discretization also has its own merit. First, as the time interval $\delta_t$ is fixed, time discretization leads to the simple linear state-space model as given in and , which can easily handle the UAV maximum acceleration constraint. In contrast, such linear relationship is not preserved for path discretization with $\{T_m\}$ also being the optimization variables. Second, if ignoring the acceleration variable, time discretization requires only one variable for each line segment, namely the UAV locations $\{\mathbf q[n]\}$, as the UAV velocity for each line segment $n$ can be directly obtained as $\mathbf v[n]=(\mathbf q[n+1]-\mathbf q[n])/\delta_t$ with $\delta_t$ given. By contrast, path discretization needs two variables for each line segment (namely both the UAV end location and time duration). Thus, if given the same number of line segments, i.e., $N=M$ (e.g., when the UAV always flies at its maximum speed during the operation), then path discretization needs to double the number of variables as compared to time discretization. The comparison of these two UAV trajectory discretization techniques is summarized in Table \[Table:discretization\].
By applying the above trajectory discretization techniques, the optimization problem $\mathrm{(P1)}$ can be transformed into the following generic form with a finite number of variables: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{(P2):} ~ \underset{\{\mathcal Q[n]\}, \{\mathcal R[n]\}}{\max} \ & U\left(\{\mathcal Q[n]\}, \{\mathcal R[n]\} \right)\notag \\
\text{s.t.}~~~~~\ & f_i\left(\{\mathcal Q[n]\} \right)\geq 0, \ i=1,\cdots, I_1, \label{eq:trajConstr1}\\
& g_i \left( \{\mathcal R[n]\}\right) \geq 0, \ i=1,\cdots, I_2,\\
& h_i \left(\{\mathcal Q[n]\}, \{\mathcal R[n]\}\right) \geq 0,\ i=1,\cdots, I_3\label{eq:trajConstr3}.\end{aligned}$$ In the above, $\{\mathcal Q[n]\}$ and $\{\mathcal R[n]\}$ denote the discretized UAV trajectories and communication design variables, respectively.
[**BCD and SCA for resource and trajectory optimization:**]{} Problem $\mathrm{(P2)}$ involves the joint optimization of UAV trajectory and communication resource allocation, which is usually non-convex and difficult to be solved optimally. To tackle this problem efficiently, one useful approach to obtain a generally locally optimal solution for it is by alternately updating one block of variables with the other block fixed, which is known as the BCD method [@1090; @hong2016unified]. Note that for any given feasible UAV trajectory, problem $\mathrm{(P2)}$ reduces to the extensively studied communication resource allocation problem, for which the existing techniques developed under the terrestrial communication setup can be directly applied. However, for any fixed communication resource allocation, the UAV trajectory optimization problem is relatively new, which is thus discussed in detail as follows. In particular, we introduce an effective technique, namely SCA, which is useful for solving non-convex UAV trajectory optimization problems. For the purpose of easy illustration, we consider the case of one UAV with discretized trajectory denoted as $\{\mathbf q[n]\}$. The corresponding sub-problem of $\mathrm{(P2)}$ for trajectory optimization with given communication resource allocation can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{(P3):} \quad \underset{\{\mathbf q[n]\}}{\max} \ & f_0\left(\{\mathbf q[n]\} \right)\notag \\
\text{s.t.} \ & f_i\left(\{\mathbf q[n]\} \right)\geq 0, \ i=1,\cdots, I,\end{aligned}$$ where $f_0\left(\cdot \right)$ represents the utility to be maximized, and $f_i\left(\cdot \right)$’s are the corresponding constraints in and of $\mathrm{(P2)}$ which involve the UAV trajectory with $I=I_1+I_3$. Note that problem $\mathrm{(P3)}$ is non-convex if at least one of the functions $f_i(\cdot)$ is non-concave with respect to $\{\mathbf q[n]\}$, $i=0,1,\cdots, I$. This is usually the case, since most utility and constraint functions given in Section \[sec:PerformanceMetrics\] and Section \[sec:ConstrUAVTraj\] are non-concave over $\{\mathbf q[n]\}$, due to which standard convex optimization techniques cannot be directly applied to solve $\mathrm{(P3)}$. Fortunately, recent work has shown that SCA is a useful technique for transforming the non-convex optimization problem into solving a series of convex optimization problems, with guaranteed monotonic convergence to at least a Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) solution under some mild conditions [@1092; @768]. Thus, we apply SCA to solve the UAV trajectory optimization problem $\mathrm{(P3)}$ in the following.
{width="0.6\linewidth"}
{width="0.5\linewidth"}
SCA is an iterative optimization technique. Specifically, at each iteration $l$, we need to firstly find a global [*concave*]{} lower bound for those non-concave functions $f_i\left(\{\mathbf q[n]\} \right)$ in $\mathrm{(P3)}$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
f_i\left(\{\mathbf q[n]\} \right)\geq f_{i,{\mathrm{lb}}}^{(l)}\left(\{\mathbf q[n]\} \right), \forall \mathbf q[n]. \label{eq:LB2}\end{aligned}$$ Then by replacing those non-concave functions $f_i\left(\{\mathbf q[n]\}\right)$ in $\mathrm{(P3)}$ with their corresponding concave lower bounds $f_{i,{\mathrm{lb}}}^{(l)}\left(\{\mathbf q[n]\} \right)$, we have the following convex optimization problem $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{(P4):} \quad \underset{\{\mathbf q[n]\}}{\max} \ & f_{0,{\mathrm{lb}}}^{(l)}\left(\{\mathbf q[n]\} \right)\notag \\
\text{s.t.}\ & f_{i,{\mathrm{lb}}}^{(l)}\left(\{\mathbf q[n]\} \right)\geq 0, \ i=1,\cdots, I. \label{eq:convexLB}\end{aligned}$$ As $\mathrm{(P4)}$ is convex, its optimal solution, denoted as $\{\mathbf q^{(l)}[n]\}$, can be efficiently obtained based on standard convex optimization techniques or readily available software toolbox such as CVX [@227]. In addition, due to the global lower bound of , it can be verified that $\{\mathbf q^{(l)}[n]\}$ is also feasible to the non-convex problem $\mathrm{(P3)}$, and the corresponding optimal value provides at least a lower bound to that of problem $\mathrm{(P3)}$. Furthermore, if the lower bound is tight at the local point $\{\mathbf q^{(l-1)}[n]\}$ at the $l$th iteration, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
f_{i,{\mathrm{lb}}}^{(l)} \left( \{\mathbf q^{(l-1)}[n]\} \right) = f_i \left( \{\mathbf q^{(l-1)}[n]\} \right), \label{eq:eqValue}\end{aligned}$$ then the sequence $f_0\left(\{\mathbf q^{(l)}[n]\}\right)$ monotonically increases and converges to a finite limit [@768]. With the additional condition that the gradient at the local point is also tight, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla f_{i,{\mathrm{lb}}}^{(l)} \left( \{\mathbf q^{(l-1)}[n]\} \right) = \nabla f_i \left( \{\mathbf q^{(l-1)}[n]\} \right), \label{eq:eqGrad}\end{aligned}$$ then under some mild constraint qualifications, $\{\mathbf q^{(l)}[n]\}$ converges to a solution fulfilling the KKT conditions of problem $\mathrm{(P3)}$ [@768]. Thus, by iteratively updating the local point $\{\mathbf q^{(l)}[n]\}$ and solving a sequence of convex optimization problems $\mathrm{(P4)}$, a KKT solution of the non-convex trajectory optimization problem $\mathrm{(P3)}$ can be obtained. The main idea of SCA for trajectory optimization is shown in Fig. \[F:SCA\].
The remaining task is then to find the concave lower bounds for the involved UAV utility and constraint functions satisfying the above properties. Fortunately, such bounds can be found for the typical utility/constraints functions specified in Section \[sec:PerformanceMetrics\] and Section \[sec:ConstrUAVTraj\] [@641; @904; @919], by using the fact that for convex differentiable functions, the first-order Taylor approximation provides a global lower bound [@202]. For example, at the $l$th iteration with the given local point $\{\mathbf q^{(l)}[n]\}$ and $\mathbf v^{(l)}[n]$, the following bounds are useful for the non-convex minimum speed constraint [@904] $$\begin{aligned}
\|\mathbf v[n]\|^2 \geq \|\mathbf v^{(l)}[n]\|^2 + 2 \mathbf v^{(l)T}[n]\left(\mathbf v[n]- \mathbf v^{(l)}[n]\right), \ \forall \mathbf v[n].\end{aligned}$$ Similar bounds can be obtained for most of other constraints. Besides, for the average communication rate in , by defining the convex function $h(z)=\log_2\left(1+\frac{\gamma_k}{z^\alpha}\right), z\geq 0$ and letting $z=\|\mathbf q[n]-\mathbf w_k\|$, the following concave lower bound can be obtained $$\begin{aligned}
&\log_2\left( 1+ \frac{\gamma_k}{\|\mathbf q[n] - \mathbf w_k\|^\alpha}\right)
\geq A_k[n] \nonumber\\
&~~~~~~~~~-B_k[n] \left(\|\mathbf q[n] -\mathbf w_k \| -\|{\mathbf q}^{(l)}[n]-\mathbf w_k\| \right), \label{eq:RateLB1}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
A_k[n]&=\log_2\left( 1+ \frac{\gamma_k}{\|\mathbf {q}^{(l)}[n] - \mathbf w_k\|^\alpha}\right),\\
B_k[n]&=\frac{\gamma_k\alpha(\log_2 e)}{\|\mathbf q^{(l)}[n]-\mathbf w_k\|\left(\|\mathbf q^{(l)}[n]-\mathbf w_k\|^{\alpha} +\gamma_k\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that for the given local point ${\mathbf q}^{(l)}[n]$, all terms on the right hand side of are constants, except the term $\|\mathbf q[n]-\mathbf w_k\|$, which is the distance between the UAV and GT. Thus, we refer as [*lower bound by distance*]{}. In fact, depending on the chosen convex function for which the first-order Taylor approximation is applied, there may exist more than one global concave lower bounds satisfying and . For example, for the average communication rate function , by defining another convex function $h(z)=\log_2\left(1+\frac{\gamma_k}{z^{\alpha/2}}\right), z\geq 0$ and letting $z=\|\mathbf q[n]-\mathbf w_k\|^2$, an alternative lower bound in terms of $\|\mathbf q[n]-\mathbf w_k\|^2$ can be obtained, which we term as [*lower bound by distance square*]{} and has been extensively used in prior work on UAV trajectory optimization [@641; @904; @918; @919].
Fig. \[F:RateLowerBound\] gives a 1D illustration for the above concave lower bounds, where $\mathbf w_k=\mathbf 0$ and $\mathbf q[n]=[0, y[n], H]^T$. In other words, the UAV is assumed to fly along the $y$-axis with a constant altitude $H$ communicating with a GT located at the origin. The following parameters are used: $\alpha=2.3$, $H=100$ m, and $\gamma_k=60$ dB. The average rate (i.e., the left hand side of ) versus $y[n]$ is plotted in Fig. \[F:RateLowerBound\], together with the two lower bounds discussed above obtained at the local point $y^{(l)}[n]=400$ m. It is observed that the [*lower bound by distance*]{} is in fact tighter than that by distance square, though the latter has been extensively used in the literature. It is thus interesting to investigate whether this new tighter bound would lead to better performance of the converged trajectory in future work.
To summarize, UAV communications usually involve the joint optimization of UAV trajectory and communication resource allocation, as represented by the generic problem formulation $\mathrm{(P1)}$. For multiuser systems, the classic TSP and PDP algorithms can be used to find the initial UAV path planning. On the other hand, time- and path-discretization techniques can be applied to convert the continuous-time optimization problem approximately into more tractable forms with a finite number of discrete variables. To deal with the problem non-convexity, BCD can be used to alternately update the communication resource allocation and UAV trajectory. In particular, for the non-convex trajectory optimization subproblem, SCA is found to be effective to obtain a KKT suboptimal solution in general. Note that as the SCA-based UAV trajectory optimization requires iterative procedures, a feasible initial UAV trajectory needs to be specified. The TSP/PDP based path planning offers a good starting point to obtain the initial UAV trajectory for SCA. However, when the UAV trajectories are subject to various constraints shown in Section \[sec:ConstrUAVTraj\], more general methods need to be developed to determine a sound feasible initial path satisfying such constraints, which deserve further investigation.
The use of BCD and SCA for joint UAV trajectory and communication resource allocation was firstly proposed in [@641] in the context of UAV-enabled mobile relaying. It was later successfully applied in various other setups, such as energy-efficient UAV communications [@904; @980], multi-UAV enabled downlink communication [@919; @Yuxu2018], UAV-enabled data collection [@918], physical-layer security for UAV communications [@zhang2018securing; @1073; @Xiaobo18uav], UAV-enabled mobile edge computing [@jeong2016mobile; @cao2018mobile], and UAV-enabled wireless power transfer [@956] and wireless powered communications [@1072]. Note that one drawback of alternately updating UAV trajectory and communication resource allocation is the likelihood of trapping into undesirable local optimums, if the initialisation is not properly designed. Therefore, there have been recent efforts on investigating the simultaneous update of these two blocks of variables for certain setups via developing new concave lower bound functions [@980; @1041]. The use of alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) technique to reduce the computation complexity for multi-UAV trajectory design has also been reported in [@1041]. UAV placement and movement optimization has been studied in [@975] for multi-UAV uplink coordinated multipoint (CoMP) communications, where each UAV forwards its received signals from all ground users to a central processor for joint decoding. While the above works mostly assumed either orthogonal multiuser communications or treating interference as noise, the capacity region of the UAV-enabled two-user broadcast channel has been characterized in [@wu2018uavRegion] and [@JR:wu2017_capacity], which requires superposition coding and interference cancellation in general. Under this setup, it was revealed that the capacity-achieving UAV trajectory follows the simple hover-fly-hover (HFH) pattern, where the UAV successively hovers at a pair of initial and final locations. It is worth remarking that due to the practically finite UAV flying speed, exploiting UAV mobility for communication performance enhancement is most appropriate for delay-tolerant applications. In fact, for UAV platforms serving multiple users, there exists a new tradeoff between communication throughput and access delay, which was firstly studied in [@887] for a UAV flying with fixed trajectory, and was later extended in [@wu2018common; @wu2017delayAPCC] via joint design of UAV trajectory and communication resource allocation in orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA) systems.
While the above works on communication-trajectory co-design mostly focused on 2D trajectory with fixed UAV altitude, more research efforts are needed for 3D trajectory-communication co-design to fully exploit the 3D UAV mobility, especially in dense urban environment [@1086]. To this end, more sophisticated channel models and performance metrics as discussed in Section \[sec:channelModel\] and Section \[sec:PerformanceMetrics\] need to be used. Besides, the consideration of more practical antenna models, such as the directional antenna with fixed pattern or more advanced MIMO beamforming as discussed in Section \[sec:AntModel\], is expected to have a significant impact on the joint optimization of communication resource and UAV trajectory, which is worthwhile for further investigation. Furthermore, for UAV-assisted communication in real-time applications, high-capacity wireless backhauling needs to be established between UAV and the core network on the ground. This brings a new design consideration to achieve the optimal balance between the wireless backhaul and radio access, via joint UAV position/movement and resource optimization, which deserves further studies.
Energy-Efficient UAV Communication {#sec:EnergyEfficientCommun}
----------------------------------
Energy-efficient wireless communication has been an active research avenue during the past decade. It was driven not only by the need to reduce the operation cost and green gas emission of the information and communications technology (ICT) industry, but also due to the importance to prolong the battery usage or lifespan of various types of communication devices. For UAV communications, the need for energy saving is even more imperative, due to the highly limited onboard energy and the additional propulsion energy consumption, besides the conventional communication energy expenditure.
Energy-efficient UAV communications were initially focused only on the saving of the communication-related energy consumption of either the ground nodes [@796; @918; @1040] or the UAV [@797; @798]. For example, in [@796], adaptive link selection and transmission schemes were studied to minimize the energy consumption of ground nodes for a hybrid communication system with both aerial relay and direct terrestrial communications. In [@918], the authors studied the UAV-enabled data collection to minimize the maximum energy consumption of all sensor nodes via jointly optimizing the UAV trajectory and the wake-up schedule of the sensor nodes. In [@797], the UAV-enabled downlink communication was studied, where the locations of the UAVs and the cell boundaries are optimized to minimize the required transmit power of UAVs, while satisfying the user rate requirement.
Note that for UAV communication systems, the UAV propulsion energy consumption is usually much more significant as compared to the communication counterpart and thus poses the fundamental limit on the UAV endurance and communication performance. Therefore, there have been growing research efforts on energy-efficient UAV communications by rigorously taking into account the UAV’s propulsion energy consumption [@904; @980; @972; @eom2018uav]. This usually leads to significantly different design problems as compared to those for the conventional terrestrial systems considering the communication energy only, due to the new tradeoff between minimizing the UAV propulsion energy consumption versus maximizing the communication throughput, both dependent on the UAV trajectory, as discussed in Section \[sec:energyModel\] and Section \[sec:PerformanceMetrics\]. To illustrate such a tradeoff, consider the basic setup where a UAV needs to communicate with a ground node. From the throughput maximization perspective, the UAV should stay stationary at the nearest possible location from the ground node so as to maintain the best channel for communication. However, as shown in Fig. \[F:PowervsSpeed\], hovering is power-inefficient for rotary-wing UAVs and even impossible for fixed-wing UAVs. Therefore, energy-efficient UAV communication in general requires a non-trivial UAV trajectory design, jointly with the communication resource allocation, to achieve an optimal balance between energy saving and throughput enhancement. One commonly used design objective is the energy efficiency as defined in Section \[sec:EnergyEfficiency\].
![A point-to-point link where a fixed-wing UAV flies following a circular path with radius $r$.[]{data-label="F:CircularPath"}](CircularPath.pdf){width="0.85\linewidth"}
As a simple illustration for energy-efficient UAV communications, let’s consider the scenario that a fixed-wing UAV flies at a constant altitude $H_U$ while communicating with a ground node. Assume that the UAV follows the simple circular path on the horizontal plane with radius $r$ and the projection of the circle center on the ground coincides with the ground node, as shown in Fig. \[F:CircularPath\]. The elevation angle is a function of $r$ given by $\theta(r)=\tan^{-1}(H_U/r)$. By using the elevation-angle dependent probabilistic LoS channel model and extending the result presented in [@904] based on the Jensen’s inequality approximation of the expected communication throughput, the energy efficiency can be expressed as a closed-form expression of the radius $r$ as $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{EE}}(r) = \frac{\log_2 \left(1+ \frac{\hat P_{{\mathrm{LoS}}}(r)\gamma_0}{(H_U^2+r^2)^{\alpha/2}} \right) }{A\left(c_1+\frac{c_2}{g^2r^2}\right)^{1/4}+P_{{\mathrm{com}}}}, \label{eq:EEr}\end{aligned}$$ where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are the constants for the fixed-wing UAV energy consumption model as in , $A=\left(3^{-3/4}+3^{1/4} \right)c_2^{3/4}$, $\gamma_0=P_t\beta_0/\sigma^2$ is the received signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at the reference distance of $1$ m with $P_t$ denoting the transmit power, $P_{{\mathrm{com}}}$ is the communication-related power consumption of the UAV, and $\hat P_{{\mathrm{LoS}}}(r)=P_{{\mathrm{LoS}}}\left( \theta(r)\right)+(1-P_{{\mathrm{LoS}}}\left( \theta(r)\right))\kappa$, which decreases with $r$ and can be interpreted as the regularized LoS probability, with $P_{{\mathrm{LoS}}}(\theta)$ given in . It is observed that as $r$ increases, both the terms involving $r$ in the denominator and numerator in decrease. Thus, there must exist an optimal value $r^\star$ that maximizes ${\mathrm{EE}}(r)$, which is validated by Fig. \[F:EEVsRadius\] showing one typical plot of ${\mathrm{EE}}(r)$ against $r$. The same parameters as for Fig. \[F:ChannelQualityVsTime\] are used for the channel modelling, and the UAV energy consumption parameters are set as $c_1=9.26 \times 10^{-4}$, $c_2=2250$ [@904], ${\gamma}_0=52.5$ dB and $P_{{\mathrm{com}}}=5$ W.
![A typical plot of energy efficiency versus circle radius $r$.[]{data-label="F:EEVsRadius"}](EEVsRadius2.eps)
Motivated by the above, energy-efficient UAV communications have been studied for different setups with a variety of practical constraints as given in Section \[sec:ConstrUAVTraj\]. In particular, [@904] firstly derived a rigorous mathematical model for the propulsion energy consumption of fixed-wing UAVs in terms of the UAV velocity and acceleration, and based on the derived model, optimized the energy efficiency in bits/Joule for the point-to-point UAV-ground communication over a given finite time horizon. With time discretization approach presented in Section \[sec:jointOptimization\], the SCA technique discussed above was extended to solve the non-convex energy efficiency maximization problem. By numerical simulations, it was revealed that the energy-efficient UAV trajectory has an interesting “8” shape around its communicating ground node. For fixed-wing UAV following a circular trajectory, both the spectrum efficiency and energy efficiency were derived in [@961] by optimizing the circle radius and time allocation. However, the above results for fixed-wing UAVs cannot be directly applied for energy-efficient communication with rotary-wing UAVs, due to their fundamentally different mechanical designs and hence drastically different energy consumption models, as discussed in Section \[sec:energyModel\]. This thus motivated the recent work [@980], where the energy consumption model of rotary-wing UAVs was derived and used to design the UAV trajectory for minimizing its energy consumption, subject to the given communication rate requirements in a multiuser system. Apart from the more complicated energy consumption model as compared to [@904], another major challenge addressed in [@980] is to optimize the mission completion time that is also a design variable. This thus renders the time discretization approach inapplicable. To address this issue, the path discretization approach has been proposed in [@980], as discussed in Section \[sec:jointOptimization\].
While the aforementioned works focused on the energy consumption of either the ground nodes or the UAV, an interesting tradeoff between them was revealed in [@960] for UAV-enabled data collection. Intuitively, the closer the UAV flies to each GT, the less energy is needed for the GT to transmit its data with given package size. However, this usually comes at the cost of more UAV energy consumption. Such a tradeoff has been rigorously characterized in [@960] for fixed-wing UAV via jointly optimizing the transmit power of ground nodes, the mission completion time, and the UAV flying speed. Note that while the energy consumptions for UAV and GTs are usually in different magnitude orders, the changes in terms of the percentage of energy consumption along the tradeoff curve are similar for them. This thus validates the practical value of such a tradeoff to save the energy of one while compromising that of the other, depending on their energy provisions and priorities in practical applications. Besides, the more general tradeoff between UAV energy consumption and other performance metrics, such as throughput and delay, has been studied in [@1074].
UAV-Assisted Communication via Intelligent Learning {#sec:learning}
---------------------------------------------------
The aforementioned works heavily rely on the assumed channel models for UAV communications and/or the knowledge on CSI and locations of the GTs. In practice, the channel models discussed in Section \[sec:channelModel\] are mostly statistical, rendering them suitable only for average performance analysis and offline trajectory optimization rather than providing guaranteed performance in real time, which is affected by many practical factors such as mismatched model, imperfect knowledge, and realistic channel variations in space and time. For practical implementation of UAV-assisted communications, one promising approach to deal with the above issue is by letting the UAV learn the environment by intelligent sensing and data analytics and adapt its trajectory and communication resource allocation accordingly in real time. One useful information that could be learned for efficient UAV communication in urban environment is the [*3D city map*]{}. In fact, once the accurate information of 3D city map is available, for any pair of UAV-user locations, the LoS/NLoS condition can be inferred directly by e.g., ray tracing, instead of being modelled as a random event as in Section \[sec:channelModel\]. Exploiting 3D city map for UAV placement has been studied in [@1065; @1064; @1063; @1066; @1061]. For example, by using the 3D map of the environment together with the estimated channel parameters, an autonomous UAV placement algorithm was proposed and demonstrated experimentally in [@1061] for a flying UAV relay connecting an LTE BS to a user terminal.
For scenarios where 3D city map is unavailable, the UAV can be deployed to learn the [*radio map*]{} by measuring the signal powers from GTs at known locations [@1067; @914; @1062]. In [@1062], the authors developed an approach to construct the radio map for UAV-enabled relaying based on the signal strength measurements from a limited number of locations. The main idea is to firstly partition the domain of all possible UAV-user position pairs into a finite number of disjoint segments, each of which may have different propagation environment in terms of the channel modelling parameters such as path loss exponent, average channel power at the reference distance and shadowing variance. By using the set of measurement samples available, the corresponding parameters are then estimated based on the principle of maximum likelihood (ML). The radio map is then constructed by classifying each UAV position into one of the segments, based on which the average channel strength can be obtained. The radio map thus offers useful information for various UAV placement or path planning designs. While the samples of power measurement in [@1062] for radio map construction were assumed to be given, they actually depend on the selected UAV trajectory during the learning phase. Therefore, the authors in [@1063] extended the work [@1062] by studying firstly the [*learning*]{} trajectory optimization problem to minimize the estimation error of channel model parameters, and then the [*communication*]{} trajectory design to maximize the communication throughput based on the learned channels.
While the main purpose of utilizing city map or radio map is to learn the channel indirectly or directly, another useful technique is to learn and adapt to the environment by directly interacting with it, for which [*reinforcement learning*]{} emerges as a powerful tool [@1084]. Reinforcement learning has been used in UAV networks for various purposes, e.g., navigation [@1058], anti-jamming [@1059], and communication rate maximization [@1057]. Specifically, the authors in [@1058] applied the deep reinforcement learning (DRL) technique for autonomous UAV navigation in complex environment to guide the UAV flying from a given initial location to the destination, using only sensory information, such as the UAV’s orientation angle and the distances to obstacles and the destination. While the main objective of [@1058] was to find a feasible path without explicitly considering the communication performance, the authors in [@1057] studied the trajectory of a UAV BS serving multiple users to maximize the communication sum rate. By applying Q-learning, which is a model-free reinforcement learning method, the UAV acts as an autonomous agent to learn the trajectory to maximize the sum rate with multiple ground users, without assuming any explicit information about the environment (such as user locations and channels with them). By dividing the possible flying area into 15 by 15 grids, it was shown that the UAV is able to interact with the environment to reach the location achieving the maximum sum rate, and yet avoid flying through the shadowed area with obstacles and thus experiencing poor channel quality. However, as pointed out in [@1057], one major limitation of the proposed Q-learning approach for trajectory optimization is the heavy learning time, which makes it infeasible even for moderate state spaces, e.g., 30 by 30 grids. Therefore, one promising future research direction is to reduce the complexity and learning time for machine learning based UAV trajectory and communication co-design. One possible approach is to combine the offline UAV trajectory designs as described in Section \[sec:coDesign\] for coarse initial trajectory planning and the online learning techniques to further refine the trajectory and optimize communication resource allocation in real time. Machine learning for UAV-assisted wireless communications is still in its infancy but anticipated to be a promising avenue for future research and investigation.
Cellular-Connected UAV {#sec:cellularConnected}
======================
In this section, we focus on the other framework of cellular-connected UAV communications, where the UAVs are supported by cellular BSs as new aerial users. We first give a historical overview of the past efforts on supporting aerial users in cellular networks, by highlighting the major field trials from 2G to 4G, including the latest standardization efforts by 3GPP. We then present some representative works on performance evaluation of cellular-connected UAVs by numerical simulations as well as theoretical analysis. Last, we discuss some promising techniques to embrace the new aerial users in future cellular networks, for air-ground interference mitigation and QoS-aware UAV trajectory planning.
Supporting Aerial Users: Field Trials From 2G to 4G {#sec:FieldTrials}
---------------------------------------------------
The attempt to support aerial users with cellular networks can be traced back to 2000’s via 2G cellular networks, namely Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) [@976; @1044; @1045]. A prototype system was developed in [@976] to test the remote UAV operation using General Packet Radio Service (GPRS), which is a transmission technology for GSM. Based on the flight test, it was concluded that GSM network infrastructures can provide a useful means as a complementary communication channel for UAV. In [@1044], the aerial RSSI (Received Signal Strength Indicator) measurements were conducted over GSM networks to show the change of cellular coverage versus altitude. The results showed that RSSI increases with the altitude in urban environment, due to the reduced blockage, whereas it decreases with altitude in rural environment due to the increased link distance. The authors claimed that the experiment results provided the evidence of available RF coverage in altitude up to 500 m.
Later, UAV flight tests were conducted over 3G UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System) network [@1042]. The measurement results showed good connections for the UAV altitude up to about 8000 feet (2438 m), beyond which the connection was lost. In addition, it was also shown that although the BS antenna orientations are optimized for ground users, the average received power levels of the aerial users are 21% stronger than those on the ground, with latency in the order of 500 ms. Based on such results, the authors concluded that the 3G UMTS network could provide a possible solution for non-safety-critical communications for aerial users with moderate speed and altitude (below 4000 feet or 1220 m).
While the research work on 2G/3G-supported UAVs was limited, the enthusiasm for supporting UAVs via the 4G LTE network has skyrocketed during the past few years, in both academia (see, e.g., [@981; @949; @950; @952; @945; @978; @984; @1080]) and industry. This could be attributed to the significantly enhanced performance of LTE network over its predecessors, making it more promising to support aerial users, as well as the tremendous increase of UAV applications over the recent years.
In [@981], flight tests with UAV altitude varying from 10 m to 100 m were conducted to compare the latency performance of cellular-supported UAVs with three different technologies: EDGE (Enhanced Data rates for GSM Evolution, regarded as pre-3G technology), HSPA+ (Evolved High Speed Packet Access), and 4G LTE. It was revealed that LTE achieved the best performance in terms of latency and jitter, with round-trip time (RTT) of 127 ms and standard deviation of 48 ms for the worst case scenario, and EDGE had the worst performance. Such results demonstrated the feasibility of (semi-)autonomous UAV operations over LTE network with low altitude (say, up to 100 m). In [@987], the possibility of using LTE for controlling multicopter was studied based on field measurement. The RSRP (Reference Signal Received Power) and RSRQ (Reference Signal Received Quality) were measured for an LTE-connected UAV moving vertically with a maximum altitude at 74 m, and with a building between the initial UAV location and the BS. It was shown that the RSRP firstly increases and then decreases with altitude, with the maximum value achieved at around 34 m. In contrast, the RSRQ has the trend of decreasing with the increase of altitude. This is due to that the increase of interference is more dominant than the increase of RSRP. In [@949], measurements were taken with the main goal to quantify the interference experienced by aerial users at different altitude. It was found that the number of detectable BSs increases as the UAV moves higher. However, the SINR of the best cell for the aerial user at the measured altitude of 150 m or 300 m is much lower than that of ground user. This is due to the dramatic increase of downlink interference at higher altitude. Such observations have been corroborated by the extensive field trials for UAVs over commercial LTE networks by Qualcom, based on which a trial report on LTE UAS was released in May 2017 [@941]. It was found that although the BS antennas are downltilted towards the ground, satisfactory signal coverage can still be achieved for altitude up to 400 feet (122 m) in the studied test. In fact, the experiment showed that at 400 feet, the UAV is able to detect 18 BSs with the furthest one up to 11.5 miles (18.5 km) away. Such observations have been corroborated by other field measurement campaigns in various setups [@978; @984; @990; @1051; @1054].
Recent Results by 3GPP Study {#sec:3GPP}
----------------------------
Realizing the great business opportunities for cellular operators with the fast growth of UAV industry, 3GPP approved the study item on enhanced LTE support for aerial vehicles in March 2017 [@1081]. The main objective of the study item is to investigate the feasibility and ability of serving aerial vehicles using LTE network with BS antennas downtilted mainly for terrestrial coverage. The study item was completed in December 2017 with the main results and findings reported in the Technical Report TR36.777 in Release 15 [@1012]. It was then followed by a new work item aiming to further improve the efficiency and robustness of terrestrial LTE network for serving UAVs.
In the Technical Report [@1012] resulted from the study item [@1081], 3GPP has specified that the maximum height and the maximum horizontal speed for aerial vehicles are 300 m and 160 km/h, respectively. Among others, one of the main outputs from the study item is the comprehensive GBS-UAV channel model for three typical deployment scenarios, as presented in Section \[sec:channelModel\]. The developed channel model extends the conventional terrestrial channel model for altitude up to 300 m, with detailed specifications on the path loss, LoS probability, shadowing, and small-scale fading. Such a channel model is very useful for detailed system level simulations for cellular networks with coexisting terrestrial and aerial suers. Furthermore, based on the extensive field measurements and system level simulations, 3GPP has identified some main technical challenges in supporting aerial vehicles with cellular networks. While the detailed findings can be found in [@1012], we provide a summary of them as follows to motivate future research.
[**Interference detection**]{}: Detecting the interference levels to/from aerial UEs is necessary for identifying the strong interference scenarios and thereby implementing effective countermeasures for them, especially when the UEs are potentially not certified for aerial usage. Interference detection can be achieved in practice via UE-based solutions and/or network-based solutions. For UE-based solutions, the interference can be detected based on measurement report by UE, on e.g., RSRP and RSRQ. Furthermore, other UE-side information such as mobility history report and speed estimation can be utilized to facilitate the interference detection. On the other hand, for network-based solutions, interference detection can be performed by exchanging information among BSs, such as their uplink scheduling information, and received measurement reports from UEs on their RSRP, RSRQ, and CSI.
[**Uplink interference mitigation**]{}: To mitigate the uplink interference caused by the transmission of aerial UEs to their non-associated BSs, 3GPP has suggested the following three techniques:
\(i) Uplink power control: To deal with the heterogeneous network with both terrestrial and aerial users, the existing uplink power control mechanism could be improved by e.g., introducing UE specific power control parameters. For example, in open loop power control for which the path loss of UEs is partially compensated, the UE’s transmit power can be written as [@941] $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\mathrm{tx}}=\min\{P_{\max}, 10\log_{10}(M_{\mathrm{RB}})+P_0+\alpha_{\mathrm{UE}}\cdot \mathrm{TPL}\},
\end{aligned}$$ where $P_{\max}$ is the maximum transmit power, $M_{\mathrm{RB}}$ is the number of RBs assigned, $P_0$ is a nominal value, $\alpha_{\mathrm{UE}}$ is the fractional path loss compensation factor, and $\mathrm{TPL}$ is the estimated total path loss. The simulation results in [@1012] showed that compared to the case where the same $\alpha_{\mathrm{UE}}$ is used for all UEs, significant performance gain can be attained by using height-dependent compensation factors, e.g., $\alpha_{\mathrm{UE}}=0.8$ for terrestrial UEs and aerial UEs below 100 m, and $\alpha_{\mathrm{UE}}=0.7$ for aerial UEs above 100 m.
\(ii) FD-MIMO: With FD-MIMO (or 3D beamforming), BSs are equipped with full dimensional antenna arrays with active elements to achieve flexible beamforming in both azimuth and elevation dimensions. FD-MIMO has been supported in LTE since Release 13, and is particularly promising to support aerial UEs for interference mitigation, as will be further elaborated in Section \[sec:performanceEvalu\].
\(iii) Directional antenna at UE: Directional antennas can be used at aerial UEs to focus the signal downward to their associated cells while reducing the interference to other cells. Apparently, the performance of this technique critically depends on the ability to align the antenna main lobe with the direction of the serving BS. Depending on the directional antenna type as discussed in Section \[sec:AntModel\], direction alignment can be achieved either mechanically or electrically (via phased array or digital beamforming).
[**Downlink interference mitigation**]{}: For the mitigation of downlink interference from co-channel BSs to aerial UEs, the FD-MIMO and directional antenna at UE can be similarly applied. In addition, 3GPP has suggested three other techniques: (i) intra-site joint transmission CoMP (JT CoMP), where multiple cells/sectors belonging to the same site jointly transmit to their served UEs; (ii) coverage extension techniques to enhance synchronization and initial access for aerial UEs. This technique mainly aims to address the extremely severe interference scenario when even the minimum required SINR for the normal LTE control channels cannot be satisfied. The coverage extension introduced in Release 13 is achieved mainly via signal repetitions, which gives higher signal energy to mitigate interference through a processing gain [@1093]; and (iii) coordinated data and control transmission, where data and control signals are jointly transmitted to the UEs.
[**Mobility:**]{} 3GPP has also briefly discussed the potential enhancement for mobility performance, by e.g., refining handover procedure and related parameters for aerial UEs based on their airborne status, location information, and flying path information, so as to avoid frequent handovers due to high UAV mobility and BS antenna side-lobe gain variation.
As a summary, the extensive field measurement campaigns and 3GPP investigation have provided strong evidence that the existing LTE networks should be able to support the initial UAV deployment with low density and low altitude, without the need of major changes. On the other hand, they also revealed the more severe air-ground interference issue than that in the traditional terrestrial network. As the number of UAVs grow rapidly due to their more appealing applications, it is necessary to develop new techniques to enable cellular-connected UAVs for their larger-scale deployment, in terms of ubiquitous 3D aerial coverage, effective air-ground interference mitigation, as well as enhanced requirements for both CNPC and payload data communications in anticipation. In the following, we present some representative studies on the performance evaluation of cellular-connected UAVs to gain a deeper understanding of this new cellular system model, followed by some promising and advanced techniques for performance enhancement.
Performance Evaluation {#sec:performanceEvalu}
----------------------
While field tests are very useful for feasibility studies, they are generally quite expensive and time-consuming to implement. Besides, the obtained results are typically dependent on the particular scenarios being tested. In parallel to the field tests discussed above, there have been research efforts on the performance evaluation of cellular-connected UAVs via numerical simulations [@989; @986; @950; @985; @952] or theoretical analysis [@982; @983; @1046; @1047].
{width="0.7\linewidth"}
First, based on the simulation results reported in [@952], we illustrate some new considerations that deserve particular attention in designing and implementing cellular-connected UAV communications. A simplified cellular system with 19 sites is considered, each constituting 3 sectors/cells, with their cell IDs labelled in Fig. \[F:setup\]. Two different BS array configurations discussed in Section \[sec:AntModel\] are considered: [*fixed pattern*]{} versus [*3D beamforming*]{}. For fixed pattern, a ULA of size $(M_1,M_2)=(8,1)$ is employed at each sector, where $M_1$ and $M_2$ denote the number of antenna elements along the vertical and horizontal dimensions, respectively. For this configuration, the steering magnitude and phase of each antenna element are predetermined to achieve a $-10^\circ$ electrical downtilt. The synthesised array radiation pattern of this configuration is shown in Fig. \[F:BSAntPattern\]. On the other hand, with 3D beamforming, each sector is equipped with a UPA of size $(M_1,M_2)=(8,4)$, and the signal magnitude and phase by each antenna element can be flexibly designed to enable 3D beamforming.
Fig. \[F:AssoProb\] shows the empirical cell association probability for a user with three different altitudes, while its horizontal location is fixed at (250 m, 100 m), as marked in red triangle in Fig. \[F:setup\]. The maximum RSRP-based association rule is used. It is observed from Fig. \[F:AssoProb\](a) that with the fixed BS pattern, the UAV is most likely associated with the nearby cells when the altitude is low (e.g., cells 1, 5 and 9 for $H_{\mathrm{ue}}=$ 1.5 m and 90 m). However, as the altitude increases, it is more likely that the associated cell is far away from the UAV, e.g., cells 13, 30 and 56 for $H_{\mathrm{ue}}=$ 200 m. This is expected due to the downtilted antenna pattern as shown in Fig. \[F:BSAntPattern\]. Specifically, as the UAV moves higher, it is likely that it falls into the antenna nulls or weak side lobes of the nearby BSs. As a result, the UAV may need to associate with more distant cells via their stronger side lobes. In contrast, with 3D beamforming, Fig. \[F:AssoProb\](b) shows that the UAV is almost surely associated with the nearby cells even for high altitude at $H_{\mathrm{ue}}=$ 200 m, thanks to the flexible beam adjustment to focus signals to the UAV with 3D beamforming.
For a cellular network with a total of 15 aerial and ground users, Fig. \[F:SumRateCDF\] plots the empirical cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the users’ achievable sum rate in the downlink as the number of UAVs changes. It is observed that for both array configurations, the overall system spectral efficiency degrades as the number of aerial users/UAVs increases. This is mainly due to the stronger interference suffered by the aerial users as compared to ground users. On the other hand, Fig. \[F:SumRateCDF\] shows that by employing 3D beamforming, the system spectral efficiency can be significantly improved. This demonstrates the great potential of 3D beamforming for interference mitigation in cellular systems with coexisting aerial and ground users. Similar results and observations can be obtained for the uplink communication with the strong UAV interference to co-channel BSs.
[0.48]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[0.48]{} {width="\linewidth"}\
{width="0.48\linewidth"}
Besides numerical simulations, there were also works on theoretical performance analysis for cellular-connected UAVs. For example, in [@982], based on stochastic geometry with the ground BSs modelled by a HPPP, the authors analyzed the downlink coverage probability for an aerial user coexisting with conventional ground users. For simplicity, the BS antenna was modelled as the two-lobe model given in , while the UAV was assumed to be associated with the nearest BS. Based on the derived coverage probability expression and numerical examples, it was concluded that lowering BS antenna height and increasing downtilt angle is beneficial. However, this result may not hold if the RSRP-based association is considered in practice as it has been shown in Fig. \[F:AssoProb\] that in general a UAV may not be associated with its nearest BS. Therefore, the analysis in [@982] was extended in [@983] by associating the UAV with the BS with the maximum power, instead of the nearest one. The authors further extended the analysis to the scenario that the UAV is also equipped with a directional antenna [@1046], with the two-lobe antenna model shown in . It was found that compared to the case of omnidirectional antennas at the UAV, the use of directional antennas with the optimum choice of antenna tilt can significantly improve the coverage probability and achievable throughput. The impact of using directional antenna at UAV for cellular UAV communications has also been studied in [@1047], where the coverage performance was analyzed by assuming that the UAV can intelligently tilt its main lobe direction. A more comprehensive analysis for cellular-connected UAVs for both uplink and downlink communications with general directional BS and/or UAV antenna models has been given in [@1085].
Advanced Techniques for Air-Ground Interference Mitigation {#sec:InterfMitigation}
----------------------------------------------------------
Existing studies based on field measurements, numerical simulations, and theoretical analysis all showed that cellular networks supporting aerial users will face the more severe interference issue. In the uplink transmission from UAV to BS, UAV could cause strong interference to a large number of co-channel BSs due to the high-probability LoS propagation at high altitude. On the other hand, in the downlink transmission, UAV is the victim that may suffer severe interference from many non-associated BSs. Thus, how to combat against the severe air-ground interference is of paramount importance for enhanced cellular support for aerial users. As summarized in Section \[sec:3GPP\], 3GPP has suggested several practical interference mitigation techniques that are readily for use without radically changing the network infrastructure or specifications. In the following, we further elaborate several advanced interference mitigation techniques by highlighting their unique opportunities and challenges in cellular systems supporting both terrestrial and aerial users.
[**3D beamforming:**]{} Beamforming is an effective multi-antenna technique that dynamically adjusts the antenna radiation pattern based on user location or even instantaneous CSI. Furthermore, compared to conventional 2D beamforming, 3D beamforming (or FD-MIMO) offers the enhanced capability of more refined angle resolutions in both azimuth and elevation dimensions. This thus significantly improves the interference mitigation capability by exploiting the elevation angle separation of users. 3D beamforming can only be achieved with full dimensional (FD) antenna array with active array elements, such as UPA/URA. Note that 3D beamforming is not new, which has received notable interest in conventional cellular networks [@946] and has been supported in LTE since Release 13. However, the integration of aerial users with dominant LoS BS-UAV channels offers a new [*elevation angular diversity*]{} that renders 3D beamforming particularly appealing in cellular-connected UAV systems. Specifically, compared to conventional cellular networks with terrestrial users only, it is more likely to find two users with sufficiently separated elevation angles in a hybrid aerial-terrestrial cellular system, where 3D beamforming is more effective. Note that similar angular diversity exists from the UAV perspective to sufficiently separate the ground BSs. Thus, 3D beamforming can also be quite effective at the UAV side. The preliminary studies in [@952] have demonstrated the promising gains of 3D beamforming over the conventional BS antenna configuration with fixed radiation pattern.
Of particular interest is the use of 3D beamforming under the massive MIMO paradigm [@373; @374; @497], i.e., the number of BS antennas is much larger than the number of served users. There are some initial research efforts towards this direction for massive MIMO cellular UAV communications [@951; @988; @992]. For instance, in [@992], via extensive numerical simulations based on the latest 3GPP channel models as discussed in Section \[sec:channelModel\] [@1012], the authors provided a rather comprehensive and insightful performance comparison of the downlink UAV communication supported by the traditional cellular network versus the future massive MIMO network. The results showed that massive MIMO can dramatically enhance the reliability of the downlink UAV C&C channel due to the better interference mitigation.
To practically enable 3D beamforming for cellular UAV communications, efficient channel/beam training and tracking techniques need to be developed to cope with the high UAV mobility, which may induce significant Doppler effect and channel phase variations. One possible approach is to exploit the LoS-dominant BS-UAV channel and the knowledge on the UAV trajectory/velocity, which can be acquired a priori or estimated in real time, to reduce the pilot overhead. However, for 3D beamforming in cellular-connected UAV systems, both the azimuth and elevation beam directions need to be estimated and tracked, which thus calls for new and efficient designs.
[**Coordinated resource allocation:**]{} Coordinated resource allocation, or inter-cell interference coordination (ICIC) is the mechanism used in practice to mitigate inter-cell interference by jointly optimising the communication resources across different cells, which may include channel assignment, power allocation, beamforming, BS association, etc. To this end, the cooperating BSs usually need to exchange the CSI of their served users via cellular backhaul links. While ICIC has been extensively studied and standardized for LTE networks with terrestrial users, its performance for the new UAV users deserves a further study. In particular, due to the LoS-dominant propagation between UAV and BSs, the number of potential coordinating BSs is typically much larger than that for serving terrestrial users only. This brings new issues on the implementation complexity and latency.
There has been some initial research effort on coordinated resource allocation for cellular-connected UAVs. In [@weidong2018GC] and [@1053], the authors studied the ICIC designs for uplink UAV communications via jointly optimizing the UAV’s uplink cell association and power allocation over multiple RBs. To reduce the implementation complexity, a decentralized ICIC scheme was proposed by dividing the cellular BSs into small-size clusters, where the information exchange is only needed between the UAV and cluster-head BSs by exploiting the LoS macro-diversity.
[**CoMP:**]{} Compared with coordinated resource allocation, one more effective technique for multi-cell cooperation is CoMP transmission/reception. In this case, the signals for each user are jointly transmitted/received by multiple cooperating BSs, which form a virtual distributed antenna array or network MIMO system [@211]. Different from coordinated resource allocation aiming to suppress the interfering links, CoMP essentially exploits the strong cross links for desired signal transmission by simultaneously associating each user with multiple BSs. This is especially appealing for cellular-connected UAVs, due to the larger macro-diversity gain available for aerial users as compared to terrestrial users. However, this also incurs more complexity and backhaul transmission delay as more cooperating BSs need to be involved. For low-complexity implementation, it is necessary to optimize the set of cooperating BSs so as to achieve a tradeoff between performance and complexity/delay, by taking into account the flying status such as UAV speed and altitude, as well as the BS-UAV channel models. For example, one possible approach is the [*UAV-oriented*]{} cell cooperation, where large-scale multi-cell cooperation is applied for those UAVs with low speed that induces slower channel variations, and/or at high altitude with potentially large macro-diversity gains. In addition, the impact of the additional delay due to CoMP on the performance of CNPC transmissions needs to be critically evaluated.
There have been some recent research efforts on investigating low-complexity multi-cell cooperation for cellular-connected UAVs. For example, to reduce the backhaul delay of CoMP, the authors in [@1048] proposed a [*cooperative interference cancellation*]{} strategy for uplink cellular UAV MIMO communications. In this scheme, it is assumed that each UAV uses a RB that is occupied by ground users only at some (not all) of the BSs, termed as [*occupied BSs*]{}, which is valid in practical cellular networks with fractional frequency reuse. Then those unoccupied BSs could be utilized to decode the UAV signals, and forward them to adjacent occupied BSs for interference cancellation. The proposed scheme achieves better performance than the conventional transmit beamforming without the cooperative interference cancellation, and on the other hand requires less complexity than CoMP since cooperation is limited only to adjacent BSs.
The above idea was further extended in [@1049], leading to the novel scheme termed [*cooperative NOMA (non-orthogonal multiple access)*]{}. Different from the cooperative interference cancellation between only non-occupied and occupied BSs as in [@1048], the UAV signal might be also decoded at some of the occupied BSs, as long as their received UAV signal strengths are sufficiently strong as compared to that of the terrestrial users. Then the decoded UAV signal is forwarded to adjacent occupied BSs for interference cancellation, even without using the non-occupied BSs. Compared to the conventional non-cooperative NOMA scheme with only local interference cancellation at occupied BSs, the proposed cooperative NOMA achieves significant performance gains. The extension of the above works for UAV downlink communication is more involved, which deserves further studies.
QoS-Aware UAV Trajectory Optimization
-------------------------------------
Different from the conventional terrestrial users that usually move sporadically and randomly, the mobility of UAV users is fully or at least partially controllable. This offers an additional DoF for cellular-connected UAVs, via their communication QoS-aware trajectory design. For example, for areas where ubiquitous aerial coverage by cellular network has not been achieved yet, the UAV path can be deliberately planned to circumvent entering any coverage holes. However, it should be noted that the trajectory design for cellular-connected UAVs is different from that for UAV-assisted communications in the following aspects. Firstly, for cellular-connected UAVs, UAVs usually have their own missions such as inspection, delivery, photography, etc., which to a certain extent limit their flexibility in trajectory adaptation to enhance communication performance as compared to UAV-assisted communications, in which UAVs are dedicated BSs/relays/APs with fully controllably trajectories. Secondly, different from UAV-assisted communications where the trajectories of UAV BSs/relays/APs in general need to be designed to ensure the coverage of all their served users, for cellular-connected UAVs, they are users and only need efficient trajectories to fulfill their communication requirements with some BSs along the trajectories. As a result, the UAV trajectory designs for the above two cases are generally different.
As an illustrating example, let’s consider the scenario that a UAV aims to deliver a package from an initial location $A$ to a destination $B$ with minimum time, while ensuring that it maintains good connection with at least one BS at any time along its trajectory. In practice, a good connection may be defined as follows: the outage probability that the SNR is below a target threshold $\gamma$ is less than some tolerable value $\epsilon$. Intuitively, for any given $\epsilon$, the coverage region of each BS depends on $\gamma$, which in turn affects the UAV’s optimal flying path. For simplicity, assuming that the UAV maintains a constant altitude $H_U$, the coverage areas of the BSs in the UAV’s flying plane for two different $\gamma$ values are illustrated in Fig. \[F:QoSAwarePath\]. Note that the coverage area is in general of irregular shape that depends on the BS antenna radiation pattern and the random shadowing. When $\gamma$ is small (i.e., $\gamma=\gamma_1$), it is possible that there exists a straight path from $A$ to $B$ satisfying the connectivity constraint with the flying distance minimized, as shown by the red path in Fig. \[F:QoSAwarePath\]. However, as $\gamma$ increases (i.e., $\gamma=\gamma_2$), the UAV may have to detour its flying path to maintain the connection with BSs, as illustrated by the blue path in Fig. \[F:QoSAwarePath\], and as a result, more traveling time is needed.
There have been some recent works along the above direction. For example, in [@1080], the authors formulated the UAV trajectory optimization problem to minimize the UAV flying time, subject to the stringent zero-outage constraint for the UAV at any time along its trajectory. By assuming the free-space LoS channel model and isotropic antennas so that the coverage areas in Fig. \[F:QoSAwarePath\] reduce to circles, effective UAV trajectory solutions were obtained by utilizing the graph theory and convex optimization techniques. A similar problem was investigated in [@1008] and [@1091], but with certain tolerance on the loss of cellular connection, provided that such disconnected duration does not exceed a given threshold. Based on the field measurement of the uplink interference by UAVs, the authors in [@1051] suggested a possible solution to reduce uplink interference caused by aerial users by controlling their cruise height, though this usually compromises the UAV’s link quality. A more general trajectory optimization problem for UAV uplink communication subject to their interference power constraints at the terrestrial users has been studied in [@1087].
Note that one practical challenge for optimal QoS-aware UAV path planning lies in how to obtain the accurate 3D coverage maps of the BSs. Toward this end, the use of reinforcement learning for path planning of cellular-connected UAVs has been studied in [@1060], where the UAV trajectory, cell association, and power control were jointly optimized based on a noncooperative game formulation. Note that the research on machine learning empowered cellular-connected UAV communication and trajectory optimization is still at an early stage. Similar to UAV-assisted communications, in order to reduce the learning time and complexity, trajectory planning for cellular-connected UAVs may also require a combined offline and online design approach, which deserves further investigation.
Extensions {#sec:otherTopic}
==========
Some other relevant topics to UAV communication that are worthy of further investigation are discussed as follows.
Security
--------
Future wireless networks are expected to support massive user and device communications, which makes information security a more challenging task. The network security issue can be tackled either at higher communication protocol layers by using e.g. cryptographic methods or at the physical layer by exploiting the intrinsic characteristics of wireless channels. With the integration of UAVs into wireless networks, the LoS-dominant air-ground channel and high mobility of UAVs bring new opportunities as well as challenges for physical-layer secure communications, depending on whether the UAVs are legitimate or malicious nodes in the network [@wu2019safeguarding; @1073; @zhang2018securing; @wang2017improving; @zhang2017securing; @cui2018robust; @xiao2018secrecy; @ye2018secure; @cai2018dual; @lee2018uav]. For example, thanks to the high mobility, legitimate UAV transmitters or receivers can move far away from ground eavesdroppers to reduce information leakage to them [@zhang2018securing; @zhang2017securing; @cui2018robust; @xiao2018secrecy]. Besides, their high altitude also helps detect the ground eavesdroppers’ locations effectively via UAV-mounted cameras/radars. More pro-actively, artificial noise can be sent by dedicated UAV jammers deployed above ground eavesdroppers to interfere with them and thus prevent against their wiretapping [@1073]. In practice, using multiple cooperative UAVs with different roles can further improve the wireless communication security [@cai2018dual; @lee2018uav]. On the other hand, if the UAVs are malicious nodes in the network, their aforementioned advantages turn out to be new threats to the terrestrial secure communications as they can be more easily eavesdropped and/or jammed by UAVs. Therefore, effective techniques to combat such airborne eavesdropping and jamming are crucial [@wu2019safeguarding] and worth investigating in future work.
Besides information security, there are also other security issues for UAVs, such as how to detect and track malicious UAVs [@guvencc2017detection], how to prevent the GPS spoofing attacks to the legitimate UAVs [@kerns2014unmanned], etc., which are also crucial and deserve further investigation. For example, while active UAVs such as UAV jammers can be detected/localized by using conventional signal sensing and ranging techniques, passive UAVs such as UAV eavesdroppers generally require more sophisticated detection techniques such as radar and/or computer vision based methods.
Caching
-------
Wireless caching is regarded as a promising solution to support the explosive growth of the mobile multimedia traffic arising from e.g., video streaming and mobile TV [@liu2016caching]. By leveraging the storage device at BS/mobile terminal, the popular contents can be proactively cached during off-peak period so as to reduce the real-time transmission delay and alleviate the network backhaul burden. However, as each BS only has a finite storage space, only a certain amount of the contents can be cached at it. This makes it difficult to provide mobility support for users such as vehicles in 5G applications that may move across different small cells rapidly. To resolve this issue, UAV-enabled caching is a potential solution thanks to the UAV’s high mobility [@wang2018power; @zhao2018caching]. Specifically, UAVs can dynamically cache the popular contents and track the mobility pattern of the corresponding users so as to effectively serve them. As compared to caching at fixed terrestrial BSs, the UAV-enabled caching avoids the need of caching the same requested content at different BSs for serving a moving user and thus greatly saves the storage resource. The results in [@chen2017caching] have shown that such a scheme achieves significant performance gains in terms of both the average transmit power and the percentage of the users with satisfied quality-of-experience (QoE) compared with the benchmark case without the use of UAV caching.
However, the performance of the UAV-aided caching system is practically limited by the endurance of UAVs. To overcome this issue, [@xu2018overcoming] proposed a promising solution by jointly exploiting the D2D communications among the ground users and their proactive caching. Specifically, a UAV is dispatched to serve a group of ground users with random and asynchronous file requests and each service period is divided into two phases, i.e., the file caching phase and the file retrieval phase. In the first phase, the UAV proactively transmits each file to a subset of selected users that cooperatively cache all the files of interest during that period, while in the second phase, a requested file by a ground user can be retrieved either from its own local cache directly or from its nearest neighbor via D2D communication. As such, the UAV is only needed in the first phase and the saved time can be used for its battery charging or conducting other missions.
MmWave Communication
--------------------
By exploiting the enormous chunks of new spectrum available at 30-300 GHz, mmWave communications are expected to push the mobile data rates to tens of Gbps for supporting emerging rate-demanding applications such as ultra-high definition video (UHDV) streaming and virtual/augmented reality (VR/AR)-based gaming. Although mmWave communication in general suffers high propagation loss and is vulnerable to blockage, such issues are less severe when mmWave is applied for UAV communications, thanks to the flexible UAV mobility and favorable air-ground channel characteristics. For example, by exploiting the controllable UAV mobility, the communication distance can be significantly shortened, which not only reduces signal attenuation loss, but also enables high probability of LoS channels [@gapeyenko2018effects; @yu2018capacity]. Furthermore, via smart positioning e.g., adjusting the altitude, the UAV is able to bypass the obstacles such as high-rise buildings and trees that may induce blockage in the mmWave UAV communications. Unfortunately, the high UAV mobility and the high operating carrier frequency make the Doppler frequency compensation a critical issue for mmWave UAV communications. Furthermore, although more antennas can be equipped at the UAV and/or ground node given the same size thanks to the smaller mmWave signal wavelength, the large-array beamforming gain is achievable only when efficient channel estimation and tracking can be implemented. The beam training with hierarchical beamforming codebooks has been shown to be an effective technique to achieve this goal [@948], especially for LoS-dominant air-ground channels. However, the existing beam training algorithms are mostly designed for estimating the beam direction in azimuth domain only. Recently, a channel tracking method for the flight control system (FCS) was proposed in [@zhao2018channel] for UAV communications with mmWave MIMO. Specifically, a 3D geometry-based channel model was constructed by combining the UAV movement state information and the channel gain information, where the former can be obtained by the sensor fusion of the FCS, while the latter can be estimated through the pilot signal. The proposed method has been shown to have a much lower training overhead compared to the existing method without utilizing the UAV movement information. Nevertheless, more research efforts are still needed to design the efficient channel/beam training and tracking techniques catering for 3D mmWave air-ground channels.
Mobile Edge Computing
---------------------
The concept of mobile edge computing (MEC) was mainly motivated by the emerging new applications such as the VR/AR and autonomous driving, which usually demand ultra-low-latency communication, computation, and control among a large number of wireless devices. While the real-time computation tasks to be executed can be quite intensive, wireless devices are generally of small size and only have limited computation and data storage resources. As such, MEC has been considered as a key technology for enhancing the computational capabilities of small devices by allowing them to offload the computation tasks to nearby MEC servers (e.g., APs and BSs). However, for users located at cell edge, such an offloading strategy may even cause more transmission energy and/or longer delay than local computation due to the limited communication rate with the AP/BS. To address this problem, UAVs with highly controllable mobility can be used as the flying cloudlets to achieve more efficient computation offloading for the users by moving significantly closer to them [@jeong2016mobile; @1052; @zhou2018uav; @hua2018energy; @zhou2018computation; @hu2018uav; @zhang2018energy]. On the other hand, in practice, small UAVs may also have the need to offload the computation tasks to ground BSs in cellular-connected UAVs. By exploiting its LoS dominant links with many ground BSs, a UAV user can simultaneously connect with multiple GBSs to exploit their distributed computing resources to improve the computation offloading performance [@cao2018mobile]. In [@cao2018mobile], it has been shown that when the number of task-input bits is sufficiently large, the UAV should hover above its associated GBSs in order to achieve the most efficient computation offloading. However, if the UAV’s propulsion energy consumption is taken into account, this result may not hold, which thus requires further investigation.
Wireless Power Transfer
-----------------------
RF transmission enabled wireless power transfer (WPT) is envisioned as a promising solution to provide perpetual energy supplies for massive low-power devices in the forthcoming IoT networks [@clerckx2019fundamentals; @888]. To compensate the significant signal attenuation over distance, a variety of techniques have been proposed to enhance the WPT efficiency, including transmit beamforming/precoding, waveform optimization, energy scheduling, etc. However, the efficiency of WPT is still fundamentally limited by the distances between energy transmitters (ETs) and energy receivers (ERs) [@wu2016overview; @qing15_wpcn_twc].
To solve this problem, UAV-mounted ETs can be employed to dramatically reduce the link distance by exploiting their highly controllable mobility in 3D space [@956; @wu2018uav; @yin2018uav; @park2018minimum]. By moving close to the ERs with clear LoS links, the UAV-ET can significantly improve the efficiency of WPT to ERs, similarly like in wireless communication. As the energy signals from the ET are broadcast to all ERs, the energy harvested at each ER critically depends on the UAV location/trajectory. In [@956], it was shown that to maximize the total harvested energy at all ERs, the UAV-ET with one single omnidirectional antenna should hover at one fixed location during the whole charging period. However, this may lead to unfair harvested energy among ERs due to their different distances from the UAV. To tackle this issue, the problem of maximizing the minimum energy harvested among all ERs was also considered in [@956], where a successive hover-and-fly trajectory was shown to be optimal. However, how to extend the work [@956] to the more general setup with multiple and/or multi-antenna UAV-ETs is still not addressed yet. To enable energy as well as information transfer, single-antenna UAV-enabled wireless powered communication network (WPCN) and simultaneous wireless information and power transfer (SWIPT) system were studied in [@1072; @yin2018uav] and [@park2018minimum], respectively, all of which have shown that a joint design of the UAV trajectory and energy/communication scheduling can achieve significant performance gains as compared to the case with fixed UAV locations.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
In this paper, we provide a tutorial on UAV communication in 5G-and-beyond wireless systems, by addressing its main challenges due to the unique communication requirements and channel characteristics, as well as the new considerations such as UAV energy limitation, high altitude and high 3D mobility. We first present the fundamental mathematical models useful for the performance analysis, evaluation and optimization of UAV communication, including the channel and antenna models, UAV energy consumption models, as well as the mathematical optimization framework for UAV communication and trajectory co-design. The state-of-the-art results are then reviewed for the two main research and application paradigms of UAV communication, namely UAV-assisted terrestrial communications and cellular-connected UAVs. We also highlight the promising directions in UAV communication and other related areas worthy of further investigation in future work. It is hoped that this paper will be a useful and inspiring resource for researchers working in this promising area to unlock the full potential of wireless communication meeting UAVs.
[Yong Zeng ]{} (S’12-M’14) is a Lecturer at the School of Electrical and Information Engineering, The University of Sydney, Australia. He received the Bachelor of Engineering (First-Class Honours) and Ph.D. degrees from the Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, in 2009 and 2014, respectively. From 2013 to 2018, he was a Research Fellow and Senior Research Fellow at the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore. His research interests include UAV communications, wireless power transfer, massive MIMO and millimeter wave communications.
Dr. Zeng is the recipient of the Australia Research Council (ARC) Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DECRA), the 2018 IEEE Communications Society Asia-Pacific Outstanding Young Researcher Award, 2017 IEEE Communications Society Heinrich Hertz Prize Paper Award, 2017 IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications Best Reviewer, 2015 and 2017 IEEE Wireless Communications Letters Exemplary Reviewer, and the Best Paper Award for the 10th International Conference on Information, Communications and Signal Processing. He serves as an Associate Editor of IEEE Access, Leading Guest Editor of IEEE Wireless Communications on “Integrating UAVs into 5G and Beyond” and China Communications on “Network-Connected UAV Communications”. He is the workshop co-chair for ICC 2018, ICC2019 workshop on UAV communications.
[Qingqing Wu]{} (S’13-M’16) received the B.Eng. and the Ph.D. degrees in Electronic Engineering from South China University of Technology and Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU) in 2012 and 2016, respectively. He is currently a Research Fellow in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at National University of Singapore. He was the recipient of the Outstanding Ph.D. Thesis Funding in SJTU in 2016 and the Outstanding Ph.D. Thesis Award of China Institute of Communications in 2017. He received the IEEE WCSP Best Paper Award in 2015, the Exemplary Reviewer of IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, IEEE Communications Letters, IEEE Transactions on Communications and IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications. His research interests include intelligent reflecting surface (IRS), unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) communications, energy-efficient wireless communications, and convex and nonconvex optimization.
[Rui Zhang]{} (S’00-M’07-SM’15-F’17) received the B.Eng. (first-class Hons.) and M.Eng. degrees from the National University of Singapore, Singapore, and the Ph.D. degree from the Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, all in electrical engineering.
From 2007 to 2010, he worked as a Research Scientist with the Institute for Infocomm Research, ASTAR, Singapore. Since 2010, he has joined the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore, where he is now a Dean’s Chair Associate Professor in the Faculty of Engineering. He has authored over 300 papers. He has been listed as a Highly Cited Researcher (also known as the World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds), by Thomson Reuters since 2015. His research interests include wireless information and power transfer, drone communication, wireless eavesdropping and spoofing, energy-efficient and energy-harvesting-enabled wireless communication, multiuser MIMO, cognitive radio, and optimization methods.
He was the recipient of the 6th IEEE Communications Society Asia-Pacific Region Best Young Researcher Award in 2011, and the Young Researcher Award of National University of Singapore in 2015. He was the co-recipient of the IEEE Marconi Prize Paper Award in Wireless Communications in 2015, the IEEE Communications Society Asia-Pacific Region Best Paper Award in 2016, the IEEE Signal Processing Society Best Paper Award in 2016, the IEEE Communications Society Heinrich Hertz Prize Paper Award in 2017, the IEEE Signal Processing Society Donald G. Fink Overview Paper Award in 2017, and the IEEE Technical Committee on Green Communications & Computing (TCGCC) Best Journal Paper Award in 2017. His coauthored paper received the IEEE Signal Processing Society Young Author Best Paper Award in 2017. He served for over 30 international conferences as TPC Co-Chair or Organizing Committee Member, and as the guest editor for 3 special issues in IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing and IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications. He was an elected member of the IEEE Signal Processing Society SPCOM (2012-2017) and SAM (2013-2015) Technical Committees, and served as the Vice Chair of the IEEE Communications Society Asia-Pacific Board Technical Affairs Committee (2014-2015). He served as an Editor for the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS (2012-2016), the IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS: Green Communications and Networking Series (2015-2016), and the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING (2013-2017). He is now an Editor for the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS and the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GREEN COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKING. He serves as a member of the Steering Committee of the IEEE Wireless Communications Letters.
[^1]: Y. Zeng is with the School of Electrical and Information Engineering, The University of Sydney, Australia 2006 (e-mail: [email protected]). Q. Wu and R. Zhang are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117583 (e-mail:{elewuqq, elezhang}@nus.edu.sg). (Corresponding author: Q. Wu.)
[^2]: For the special case of UAV-UAV links in a UAV swarm consisting of many UAVs in short-distances with each other, there may exist multipath due to the signal reflection/scattering among the UAVs.
[^3]: Note that we follow the terminology used in [@997], though the term “excess” could be misleading as it is possible that $\eta(\theta)$ is a negative value for small $\theta$.
[^4]: A simplification has been made here by assuming that the shadowing parameter $\kappa$ is homogeneous in NLoS conditions, whereas in practice $\kappa$ is random and has a log-normal distribution.
[^5]: Note that $1-{\mathrm{P}}_{{\mathrm{out}},k}(\mathcal Q)$ is usually referred to as the non-outage or coverage probability.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A brief review is given on the astrophysics of cosmic rays in the PeV primary energy range, i.e. the region of the knee.'
address: |
$^1$Institut für Kernphysik, Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany\
$^2$Institut für Experimentelle Kernphysik, Univ Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany\
$^3$National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, 7690 Bucharest, Romania\
$^4$Cosmic Ray Division, Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan 36, Armenia\
$^5$Soltan Institute for Nuclear Studies, 90950 Lodz, Poland
author:
- |
A. Haungs$^1$,\
T. Antoni$^2$, W.D. Apel$^1$, F. Badea$^1$, K. Bekk$^1$, A. Bercuci $^1$, H. Blümer$^{1,2}$, H. Bozdog$^1$, I.M. Brancus$^3$, C. Büttner$^2$, A. Chilingarian$^4$, K. Daumiller$^2$, P. Doll$^1$, R. Engel$^1$, J. Engler$^1$, F. Fe[ß]{}ler$^1$, H.J. Gils$^1$, R. Glasstetter$^1$,[^1], D. Heck$^1$, J.R. Hörandel$^2$, K.-H. Kampert$^{1,2,\dag}$, H.O. Klages$^1$, G. Maier$^1$, H.J. Mathes$^1$, H.J. Mayer$^1$, J. Milke$^1$, M. Müller$^1$, R. Obenland$^1$, J. Oehlschläger$^1$, S. Ostapchenko$^2$, M. Petcu$^3$, S. Plewnia$^1$, H. Rebel$^1$, A. Risse$^5$, M. Risse$^1$, M. Roth$^2$, G. Schatz$^1$, H. Schieler$^1$, J. Scholz$^1$, T. Thouw$^1$, H. Ulrich$^1$, J. van Buren$^1$, A. Vardanyan$^4$, A. Weindl$^1$, J. Wochele$^1$, J. Zabierowski$^5$, S. Zagromski$^1$
title: 'Astrophysics of the Knee in the Cosmic Ray Energy Spectrum[^2]'
---
Introduction
============
The all-particle energy spectrum of cosmic rays shows a distinctive feature at a few PeV, known as the knee, where the spectral index of a power-law dependence changes from $-2.7$ to approximately $-3.1$. At that energy direct measurements via balloon or satellite borne experiments are presently hardly possible due to the low flux. But indirect measurements via the observation of extensive air showers (EAS) have been performed. Despite of more than 50 years of EAS measurements the origin of the knee is still unclarified, due to the difficult but inevitable disentanglement of the reconstruction of the energy and mass of the incoming primary particle with the necessary understanding of the air-shower development in the Earth’s atmosphere. This disentanglement remains an important experimental and theoretical challenge. A general introduction to the subject can be found in a recent review [@rpp].\
To solve the puzzle of the knee the experimental access is the reconstruction of energy spectra for individual elements (or mass groups), with an accompanying careful investigation of the hadronic interaction mechanisms governing the air-shower development.\
In the present contribution a short overview on theoretical ideas of explaining the knee is given. Additionally recent results from the advanced air-shower experiment KASCADE are discussed and compared to astrophysical model predictions. Furthermore the connection of the source of charged cosmic rays with measurements of TeV gamma-rays is outlined. Hadronic interaction models used for the simulation of the air-shower development are needed in all analyses of the data of air-shower experiments. Hence, tests of their validity is a crucial item of the data reconstruction. Details of such investigations are described in the contributions of R.Engel et al. [@ismd:ralph] and J.Milke et al. [@ismd:jens] at this symposium.
Theoretical attempts for explaining the origin of the knee
==========================================================
Theories on market about the origin of the knee can be grouped in three classes:
1. By acceleration: The knee energy is the maximum energy reached by acceleration of cosmic rays in our galaxy. This maximum energy is defined by the size and magnetic field strength of the acceleration region and depends on the charge Z of the primary particles ($E_{max} \propto Z \times (L \times B)$). For example, Biermann et al. [@biermann] proposed a scenario with a two component supernova acceleration, where ’normal’ supernovae explode into the interstellar medium and accelerate mainly protons up to approximately 100 TeV and where more massive supernovae exploding into their own stellar wind accelerate also heavier particles up to $Z \cdot 10^{15}\,$eV.
2. By diffusion: The idea is that the magnetic field retains the particles within the Galaxy up to energies at the knee ($E_{max} \approx Z \cdot 3 \cdot 10^{15}\,$eV). Particles of higher energy would start to escape from our galaxy. A detailed calculation has been performed by Candia et al. [@candia] starting with a constant source spectrum at 1 TeV (from results of direct measurements) and taking into account a regular plus an overlaying turbulent component of the galactic magnetic field. Fig. \[candia:fig\]
shows predictions for the all-particle energy spectrum of cosmic rays for different assumptions of average distances of the sources. Predictions for large scale anisotropies by the diffusion are also given in [@candia].
3. By hadronic interaction features: Such models assume that a new channel of interaction is opening, either in the interstellar medium or inside our atmosphere. In this new channel a part of the primary energy is dissociated, and therefore unseen in the air-shower. This leads to the reconstruction of too small primary energies. Such a mechanism should start at energies proportional to the mass of the primaries, i.e. the knee position should shift in proportion to the atomic number and not to the charge of the primary particles. Possible scenarios are here the production of gravitons in pp collisions [@kazanas] or interactions of the primaries with heavy relic neutrinos [@wigmans]. Most probably such models will be confirmed or excluded by data from the LHC.
To distinguish between these mentioned theories, several burning questions have to be answered by experiments measuring air-showers in the PeV energy range:
- The all-particle energy spectrum and possible fine structures: Is the knee sharp or smooth with exact power laws below and above? At which energy is the position of the knee?
- The chemical composition around the knee: Does it change with energy? Does the mean mass become heavier or lighter?
- Energy spectra of single elements or mass groups: Do all primary mass groups show a knee feature? Do the spectra follow power laws above the knee? Do different primaries exhibit a knee at different energies? If yes, do the positions scale with mass or charge of the primary particles?
- The proton spectrum: Where is the knee of the proton spectrum? Is there more than one knee?
- Isotropy: Are the cosmic rays distributed isotropically over the whole energy range of the knee? Or do large scale anisotropies occur? Are any point source visible?
- Primary photons: Are there high-energy gamma rays as primary particles? If yes, is their origin diffuse or do they originate from point sources?
- Air-shower development: Is the air-shower development driven by the hadronic interactions of high-energy particles well understood?
Due to the indirect nature of EAS measurements the latter point hampers a definite conclusion on most of the above mentioned questions. Here a co-operation between the accelerator and cosmic-ray physics communities is highly desired [@needs].
Results of the KASCADE experiment
=================================
KASCADE (KArlsruhe Shower Core and Array DEtector) is an air-shower experiment with a sophisticated detector set up for detailed investigations of primary cosmic rays in the energy range of the knee. For the reconstruction of the energy and mass of the primary particles and for the investigation of high-energy hadronic interactions, KASCADE [@kas] follows the concept of a multi-detector set-up to provide as much as possible redundant information for each single air-shower event. The multidetector system allows to measure the total electron ($E_e>5\,$MeV) and muon numbers ($E_\mu>240\,$MeV) of the shower separately using an array of 252 detector stations in a grid of $200 \times 200\,$m. Additionally muon densities at
three further muon energy thresholds and the hadronic core of the shower by a $300\,$m$^2$ iron sampling calorimeter are measured.\
The basic analysis of KASCADE to obtain the energy and mass of the cosmic rays is a procedure of unfolding the two-dimensional electron-muon number spectrum (Fig. \[fig:1\]) into the energy spectra of five primary mass groups [@kas:ulrich]. The problem can be considered as a system of coupled Fredholm integral equations of the form\
[$\frac{dJ}{d\,\lg N_e d\,\lg N_\mu^{tr}} =
\sum_A \int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{d\,J_A}{d\,\lg E}
\cdot
p_A(\lg N_e\, , \,\lg N_\mu^{tr}\, \mid \, \lg E)
\cdot
d\, \lg E $ ]{}\
where the probability $p_A$ is a further integral with a kernel function factorized into three parts, describing 1) the shower fluctuations, i.e. the distribution of electron and muon numbers for fixed primary energy and mass; 2) the trigger efficiency of the experiment; 3)the reconstruction probabilities, i.e. the distributions of reconstructed $N_e$ and $N_\mu^{\rm tr}$ for given true numbers of electrons and muons. The probabilities $p_A$ are obtained by extensive Monte Carlo simulations partly followed by a detailed detector simulation based on GEANT. The application of the unfolding procedure to the data is performed on basis of two different hadronic interaction models (QGSJet [@qgs] and SIBYLL [@sib]) as options embedded in CORSIKA [@cors] for the reconstruction of the kernel functions. Fig. \[fig:1\] displays the mean distributions of the generated showers in the electron-muon number plane for both interaction models and for proton and iron primaries. Obviously the differences for both model leads to differences of the results of the unfolding procedure, as seen in Fig. \[spectra:fig\].\
It is worthwhile to note that despite of the large differences in the relative abundances of the primary mass groups, the all-particle energy spectrum and the fact that the knee is caused by the decreasing flux of
light primaries, are very similar for both models. Results of further tests using different data sets, different unfolding methods, etc. show the same behavior [@kas-roth].\
None of the present hadronic interaction models can describe our multidimensional data consistently. Nevertheless there is, together with correlation information of the parameters used for model tests, no need to introduce a general new feature of the hadronic interactions, to account for our data.\
The finding of the knee caused by light primaries is corroborated by results of an analysis of muon density measurements at KASCADE [@kas-muon], which were performed independently of the present reconstructions. With a much smaller influence of Monte Carlo simulations it could be shown, that data samples with enhanced light primaries show a knee feature, whereas samples with enhanced heavy primaries do not show so up to 10 PeV.\
The air-shower events registered by KASCADE were additionally analyzed in terms of large scale anisotropies and point source signals. Within the statistical limits no deviation from a global isotropy of the arrival directions could be found [@kas-maier], but the statistical sensitivity of KASCADE is not high enough to confirm or disproof the predictions of Candia et al. [@candia].\
There is also no positive evidence from KASCADE for primary photons in the PeV energy range [@kas-fessler], but the upper limits on the galactic diffuse gamma ray flux could be noticeably improved as compared to other experiments.\
The astrophysical results so far available from KASCADE can be summarized as: The knee in the PeV range is caused by the decrease of the flux of light particles, and heavier (A$>$20) primary particles exhibit no knee up to 10 PeV. This leads to an increase of the mean mass of cosmic rays when passing the knee region in energy. Due to the present uncertainties of the hadronic interactions in the atmosphere (e.g. the high-energy extrapolations, the diffraction cross-section and multiplicity parametrisations of the models) it is presently not possible to give more refined quantitative results.
The position of the proton knee
===============================
The most abundant particles in the TeV range of cosmic rays are protons. Hence there is a high interest in the proton spectrum in the range of the crossover from direct to air-shower measurements, especially in view of various theories predicting different positions of the proton knee, depending on the magnetic field strength and size of the acceleration or diffusion region.\
Some of the direct measurements favor a proton knee at 10 TeV [@zatsepin], recent results from the Tibet air-shower experiment (sensitive to lower energies than KASCADE due to the larger observation height of $4300\,$m) claim the proton knee at around 500 TeV [@tibet], whereas KASCADE observes a change of the spectrum at 3-5 PeV [@kas:ulrich]. Measurements of a more detailed structure of the proton spectrum therefore are of astrophysical importance. But due to different measurement techniques they are difficult to compare. To establish a more comprehensive picture of the proton spectrum from 1 TeV to 100 PeV is one of the main tasks of future cosmic ray experiments.
Charged cosmic rays and TeV gamma ray astronomy
===============================================
Supernova shock acceleration is believed to be the main source of the cosmic rays in our galaxy. But positive evidence for proton acceleration at these kind of objects is still missing.
If protons are accelerated to PeV energies some of them should interact with the surrounding matter producing $\pi^0$ which decay into high-energy gammas in the TeV range.\
In the last decade there has been a lot of progress in TeV-gamma ray astronomy [@ong], and indeed supernova remnants were found as sources of TeV-gammas. But by comparing the spectra with measurements at lower frequency bands, the TeV gamma ray fluxes can be consistently explained by a ’self-synchrotron–inverse-compton’ model, i.e. by electron acceleration without any contribution from pion decays [@cangaroo] (Fig. \[gamma:fig\]). Just recently Berezhko and Völk [@volk] suggested a theoretical picture of a more efficient proton acceleration inside the sources which can explain the measured spectra also with proton acceleration and a smaller contribution of inverse Compton produced gammas.\
Further measurements of this kind provide interesting aspects in understanding the source of charged cosmic rays.
Future prospects
================
The investigations of charged cosmic rays around the knee will be continued and improved by the KASCADE-Grande experiment [@kas:kg; @kas:kg1], which is an extension of KASCADE to measure air-showers up to primary energies of 1 EeV. KASCADE-Grande is also an multi-detector setup, and therefore correlation analyses are able to check the validity of hadronic interaction models. This provides complementary information to the LHC measurements due to the extreme forward physics of the air-shower development.\
Concerning direct measurements new technical issues may allow to fly larger detectors during longer flights, which would increase the statistical accuracy at higher energies. Also new TeV-gamma ray experiments with higher sensitivity presently under construction will contribute to solve the puzzle of source, acceleration, and transport of high energy cosmic rays, and in particular the origin of the knee.
A. Haungs, H. Rebel, M. Roth, [*Rep. Prog. Phys.*]{} **66**, 1145 (2003). R. Engel, H. Rebel, [*Acta Polonica B*]{}, this volume (2003). J. Milke et al. - KASCADE coll., [*Acta Polonica B*]{}, this volume (2003). P.L. Biermann et al., preprint astro-ph/0302201 (2003). J. Candia et al., [*J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.*]{} **05**, 3 (2003). D. Kazanas, A. Nikolaidis, [*Gen. Rel. Grav.*]{} **35**, 1117 (2001). R. Wigmans, [*Astrop. Phys.*]{} **19**, 379 (2003). see url: http://www-ik.fzk.de/\~needs/ T. Antoni et al.-KASCADE coll., [*Nucl. Instr. Meth. A*]{} **513**, 429 (2003). H. Ulrich et al.-KASCADE coll., [*Nucl. Phys. B (Proc.Suppl.)*]{} **122**, 218 (2003). N.N. Kalmykov, S.S. Ostapchenko, [*Yad.Fiz.*]{} **56**, 105 (1993). R. Engel et al., 26$^{th}$ICRC(Salt Lake City) **1**, 415 (1999). D. Heck et al., Report FZKA 6019, Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe (1998). M. Roth, H. Ulrich et al.-KASCADE coll., 28$^{th}$ICRC(Tsukuba) **1**, 131 (2003). T. Antoni et al.-KASCADE coll., [*Astrop. Phys.*]{} **16**, 373 (2002). G. Maier et al.-KASCADE coll., 28$^{th}$ICRC(Tsukuba) **1**, 179 (2003). G. Schatz, F. Fe[ß]{}ler et al.-KASCADE coll., 28$^{th}$ICRC(Tsukuba) **4**, 2293 (2003). V.I. Zatsepin et al., 23$^{rd}$ICRC(Calgary) **2**, 13 (1993). M. Amenomori et al., [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} **62**, 112002 (2000). R. Ong, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} **305**, 93 (1998). T. Tanimori et al., 27$^{th}$ICRC(Hamburg) **6**, 2465 (2001). E.G. Berezhko, L.T. Ksenofontov, H. V[ö]{}lk, [*Astron. Astrop.*]{} **395**, 943 (2002). A. Haungs et al.-KASCADE-Grande coll., 28$^{th}$ICRC(Tsukuba) **2**, 985 (2003). K-H. Kampert et al.-KASCADE-Grande coll., [*Nucl. Phys. B (Proc.Suppl.)*]{} **122**, 422 (2003).
[^1]: now at: Fachbereich Physik, Universität Wuppertal, 42097 Wuppertal, Germany
[^2]: Presented at the ISMD 2003, Krakow, Poland
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A system of self-gravitating massive fermions is studied in the framework of the general-relativistic Thomas-Fermi model. We study the properties of the free energy functional and its relation to Einstein’s field equations. A self-gravitating fermion gas we then describe by a set of Thomas-Fermi type self-consistency equations.'
author:
- |
Neven Bilić$^1$ and Raoul D. Viollier$^2$\
$^1$Rudjer Bošković Institute, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia\
E-mail: [email protected]\
$^2$Department of Physics, University of Cape Town,\
Rondebosch 7701, South Africa, E-mail: [email protected]
title: ' General-Relativistic Thomas-Fermi model '
---
Thermodynamical properties of the self-gravitating fermion gas have been extensively studied in the framework of the Thomas-Fermi model \[1-6\]. The system was investigated in the nonrelativistic Newtonian limit. The canonical and grand-canonical ensembles for such a system have been shown to have a nontrivial thermodynamical limit [@thi; @her1]. Under certain conditions this system will undergo a phase transition that is accompanied by a gravitational collapse [@her1; @mes] which may have important astrophysical and cosmological implications [@bil1; @bil2].
In this paper we formulate the general-relativistic version of the model. The effects of general relativity become important if the total rest-mass of the system is close to the Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit [@opp]. There are three main features that distinguish the relativistic Thomas-Fermi theory from the Newtonian one: [*i*]{}) the equation of state is relativistic [*ii*]{}) the temperature and chemical potential are metric dependent local quantities [*iii*]{}) the gravitational potential satisfies Einstein’s field equations (instead of Poisson’s equation).
Let us first discuss the general properties of a canonical, self-gravitating relativistic fluid. Consider a nonrotating fluid consisting of $N$ particles in a spherical volume of radius $R$ in equilibrium at non-zero temperature. We denote by $u_{\mu}$ , $p$, $\rho$, $n$ and $\sigma$ the velocity, pressure, energy density, particle number density and entropy density of the fluid. A canonical ensemble is subject to the constraint that the number of particles $$\int_{\Sigma} n\, u^{\mu}d\Sigma_{\mu}
=N
\label{eq26}$$ should be fixed. The spacelike hypersurface $\Sigma$ that contains the fluid is orthogonal to the time-translation Killing vector field $k^{\mu}$ which is related to the velocity of the fluid $$k^{\mu}=\xi u^{\mu}\, ; \;\;\;\;\;\;
\xi=(k^{\mu}k_{\mu})^{1/2}.
\label{eq50}$$ The metric generated by the mass distribution is static, spherically symmetric and asymptotically flat, i.e. $$ds^2=\xi^2 dt^2 -\lambda^2 dr^2 -
r^2(d\theta^2+\sin \theta d\phi^2).
\label{eq00}$$ $\xi$ and $\lambda$ may be represented in terms of the gravitational potential and mass $$\xi=e^{\varphi (r)},
\label{eq01}$$ $$\lambda=\left(1-\frac{2{\cal{M}}(r)}{r}\right)^{-1/2}
\label{eq10}$$ with $${\cal{M}}(r)=\int^r_0 dr'\, 4\pi r'^2 \rho(r') \, .
\label{eq11}$$
The temperature $T$ and chemical potential $\mu$ are metric dependent local quantities. Their space-time dependence may be derived from the equation of hydrostatic equilibrium [@lan] $$\partial_{\nu}p=-(p+\rho)\xi^{-1}\partial_{\nu}\xi ,
\label{eq17}$$ and the thermodynamic identity (Gibbs-Duhem relation) $$d\frac{p}{T}=
n d\frac{\mu}{T}-\rho d\frac{1}{T}.
\label{eq18}$$ The condition that the heat flow and diffusion vanish [@isr] $$\frac{\mu}{T}={\rm const}
\label{eq19}$$ together with (\[eq17\]) and (\[eq18\]) implies $$T \xi=T_0\, ; \;\;\;\;\;\;
\mu \xi=\mu_0 \, ,
\label{eq21}$$ where $T_0$ and $\mu_0$ are constants equal to the temperature and chemical potential at infinity. The temperature $T_0$ may be chosen arbitrarily as the temperature of the heat-bath. The quantity $\mu_0$ in a canonical ensemble is an implicit functional of $\xi$ owing to the constraint (\[eq26\]). First equation in (\[eq21\]) is the well known Tolman condition for thermal equilibrium in a gravitational field [@tol].
Following Gibbons and Hawking [@gib] we postulate the free energy of the canonical ensemble as $$F=M-\int_{\Sigma} T\sigma \, k^{\mu}d\Sigma_{\mu} \, ,
\label{eq30}$$ where $M$ is the total mass as measured from infinity. The entropy density of a relativistic fluid may be expressed as $$\sigma=\frac{1}{T}(p+\rho-\mu n).
\label{eq16}$$ Based on equation (\[eq21\]) the free energy may be written in the form analogous to ordinary thermodynamics $$F=M-T_0 S
\label{eq60}$$ with $M={\cal{M}}(R)$ and the total entropy $S$ defined as $$S = \int_0^R dr\,4\pi r^2 \lambda
\frac{1}{T}(p+\rho)-\frac{\mu_0}{T_0} N ,
\label{eq70}$$ where we have employed the spherical symmetry to replace the proper volume integral as $$\int_{\Sigma} u^{\mu}d\Sigma_{\mu}
= \int_0^R dr 4\pi r^2 \lambda .
\label{eq80}$$
The following theorem demonstrates how the extrema of the free energy are related to the solutions of Einstein’s field equation.
Among all momentarily static, spherically symmetric configurations $\{\xi(r),{\cal{M}}(r)\}$ which for a given temperature $T_0$ at infinity contain a specified number of particles $$\int_0^R 4\pi r^2 dr \, \lambda(r) n(r) = N
\label{eq25}$$ within a spherical volume of a given radius $R$, those and only those configurations that extremize the quantity F defined by [(\[eq60\])]{} will satisfy Einstein’s field equation $$\label{eq22}
\frac{d\xi}{dr}=\xi\frac{{\cal{M}}+4\pi r^3 p}{r(r-2{\cal{M}})} \, ,$$ with the boundary condition $$\xi(R)=\left(1-\frac{2 M}{R}\right)^{1/2}.
\label{eq23}$$
[**Proof.**]{} By making use of the identity (\[eq18\]), and the fact that $\delta(\mu/T)=\delta(\mu_0/T_0)$ and that $N$ is fixed by the constraint (\[eq25\]), from equations (\[eq60\]) and (\[eq70\]) we find $$\delta F= \delta M -
\int_0^R dr\, 4\pi r^2 \frac{T_0}{T}(p+\rho)
\delta \lambda
- \int_0^R dr\, 4\pi r^2 \lambda \frac{T_0}{T} \delta\rho \, .
\label{eq90}$$ The variations $\delta\lambda$ and $\delta\rho$ can be expressed in terms of the variation $\delta {\cal{M}}(r)$ and its derivative $$\frac{d\delta {\cal{M}}}{dr} =4\pi r^2 \delta\rho.
\label{eq93}$$ This gives $$\delta F= \delta M -
\int_0^R dr\, 4\pi r^2
\frac{T_0}{T}(p+\rho)
\frac{\partial\lambda}{\partial {\cal{M}}}
\delta {\cal{M}}
-\int_0^R dr\, \lambda\frac{T_0}{T}\frac{d\delta {\cal{M}}}{dr}.
\label{eq91}$$ By partial integration of the last term and replacing $T_0/T$ by $\xi$, we find $$\delta F =
\left[1-\lambda(R)\xi(R)\right]\delta M
- \int_0^R dr\, \left[4\pi r^2 \xi (p+\rho)
\frac{\partial\lambda}{\partial {\cal{M}}}
-\frac{d}{dr}(\lambda\xi)\right]\delta {\cal{M}} \, ,
\label{eq94}$$ where $\delta {\cal{M}}(r)$ is an arbitrary variation on the interval $[0,R]$, except for the constraint $\delta {\cal{M}}(0)=0$. Therefore $\delta F$ will vanish if and only if $$4\pi r^2 \xi (p+\rho)
\frac{\partial\lambda}{\partial {\cal{M}}}
-\frac{d}{dr}(\lambda\xi) =0
\label{eq95}$$ and $$1-\lambda(R)\xi(R) =0.
\label{eq96}$$ Using (\[eq10\]) and (\[eq11\]), we can write equation (\[eq95\]) in the form (\[eq22\]), and equation (\[eq96\]) gives the desired boundary condition (\[eq23\]). Thus, $\delta F=0$ if and only if a configuration $\{\xi,{\cal{M}}\}$ satisfies equation (\[eq22\]) with (\[eq23\]) as was to be shown.\
[*Remark 1.*]{} A solutions to equation (\[eq22\]) is dynamically stable if the free energy assumes a minimum.\
[*Remark 2.*]{} Our Theorem 1 is a finite temperature generalization of the result obtained for cold, catalyzed matter [@har].
We now proceed to the formulation of the general-relativistic Thomas-Fermi model. Consider the case of a self-gravitating gas consisting of $N$ fermions with the mass $m$ contained in a sphere of radius $R$. The equation of state may be represented in a parametric form using the well known momentum integrals over the Fermi distribution function [@ehl] $$n = g \int^{\infty}_{0} \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\frac{1}{1+e^{E/T-\mu/T}} \, ,
\label{eq13}$$ $$\rho = g \int^{\infty}_{0} \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\frac{E}{1+e^{E/T-\mu/T}} \, ,
\label{eq14}$$ $$p = g T \int^{\infty}_{0} \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\ln (1+e^{-E/T+\mu/T}) \, ,
\label{eq15}$$ where $g$ denotes the spin degeneracy factor, $T$ and $\mu$ are local temperature and chemical potential, respectively, as defined in equation (\[eq21\]), and $E=\sqrt{m^2+q^2}$. Introducing a single parameter $$\alpha=
\frac{\mu}{T}
=\frac{\mu_0}{T_0} \, ,
\label{eq100}$$ and the substitution $$\xi=
\frac{\mu_0}{m}\psi \, ,
\label{eq102}$$ equations (\[eq13\])-(\[eq15\]) may be written in the form $$n = g \int^{\infty}_{0} \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\frac{1}{1+e^{(E\psi-m)\alpha}} \, ,
\label{eq104}$$ $$\rho= g \int^{\infty}_{0} \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\frac{E}{1+e^{(E\psi-m)\alpha}} \, ,
\label{eq106}$$ $$p = g \int^{\infty}_{0} \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\frac{q^2}{3E}\frac{1}{1+e^{(E\psi-m)\alpha}} \, ,
\label{eq108}$$ Field equations are given by $$\frac{d\psi}{dr}=\psi\frac{{\cal{M}}+4\pi r^3 p}{r(r-2{\cal{M}})} \, ,
\label{eq42}$$ $$\frac{d{\cal{M}}}{dr}=4\pi r^2 \rho,
\label{eq43}$$ with the boundary conditions $$\psi(R)=\frac{m}{\mu_0}\left(1-\frac{2 {\cal{M}}(R)}{R}\right)^{1/2}
\, ; \;\;\;\;\;
{\cal{M}}(0)=0.
\label{eq44}$$ Finally, the constraint (\[eq26\]) may be written as $$\int_0^Rdr\, 4\pi r^2 (1-2{\cal{M}}/r)^{-1/2}\, n(r)=N .
\label{eq45}$$ Given the ratio $\alpha$, the radius $R$, and the number of fermions $N$, the set of self-consistency equations (\[eq104\])-(\[eq45\]) defines the Thomas-Fermi equation. One additional important requirement is that a solution of the self-consistency equations (\[eq104\])-(\[eq45\]) should minimize the free energy defined by (\[eq60\]).
We now show that a solution of the Thomas-Fermi equation exists provided the number of fermions is smaller than a certain number $N_{\rm max}$ that depends on $\alpha$ and $R$. From (\[eq106\]) and (\[eq108\]) it follows that for any $\alpha>0$, the equation of state $\rho(p)$ is an infinitely smooth function and $d\rho /dp > 0$ for $p > 0$. Then, as shown by Rendall and Schmidt [@ren], there exist for any value of the central density $\rho_0$ a unique static, spherically symmetric solution of field equations with $\rho \rightarrow 0 $ as $r$ tends to infinity. In that limit ${\cal M}(r)\rightarrow\infty$, as may easily be seen by analysing the $r\rightarrow \infty$ limit of equations (\[eq42\]) and (\[eq43\]). However, the enclosed mass $M$ and the number of fermions $N$ within a given radius $R$ will be finite. We can then cut off the matter from $R$ to infinity and join on the empty space Schwarzschild solution by making use of equation (\[eq44\]). This equation together with (\[eq100\]) fixes the chemical potential and the temperature at infinity. Furthermore, it may be shown that our equation of state obeys a $\gamma$-low asymptotically at high densities, i.e., $\rho=$ const $n^{\gamma}$ and $p=(\gamma-1) \rho$, with $\gamma=4/3$. It is well known [@har] that in this case, there exist a limiting configuration $\{ \psi_{\infty}(r),{\cal{M}}(r)_{\infty}\}$ such that $M$ and $N$ approach non-zero values $M_{\infty}$ and $N_{\infty}$, respectively, as the central density $\rho_{0}$ tends to infinity. Thus, the quantity $N$ is a continuous function of $\rho_{0}$ on the interval $0 \leq \rho_0 < \infty$, with $N=0$ for $\rho_{0}=0$, and $N=N_{\infty}$ as $\rho_{0}\rightarrow\infty$. The range of $N$ depends on $\alpha$ and $R$ and its upper bound may be denoted by $N_{\rm max}(R,\alpha)$. Thus, for given $\alpha$, $R$ and $N<N_{\rm max}(R,\alpha)$ the set of self-consistency equations (\[eq104\])-(\[eq45\]) has at least one solution.
Next we show that, in the Newtonian limit, we recover the nonrelativistic Thomas-Fermi equation. Using the nonrelativistic chemical potential $\mu_{NR}=\mu_0-m$ and the approximation $\xi=e^{\varphi}\simeq 1+\varphi$, $E\simeq m+q^2/2m$ and ${\cal{M}}/r \ll 1$ , we find the usual Thomas-Fermi self-consistency equations [@mes; @bil1] $$n=\frac{\rho}{m}
= g \int^{\infty}_{0} \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\left(1+\exp(\frac{q^2}{2mT_0}+\frac{m}{T_0}\varphi
-\frac{\mu_{NR}}{T_0}) \right)^{-1} \, ,
\label{eq49}$$ $$\frac{d\varphi}{dr}=\frac{{\cal{M}}}{r^2} \, ;
\;\;\;\;
\frac{d{\cal{M}}}{dr}=4\pi r^2 \rho \, ,
\label{eq41}$$ $$\varphi(R)=-\frac{m N}{R}
\, ; \;\;\;
{\cal{M}}(0)=0,
\label{eq47}$$ $$\int_0^R dr\,4\pi r^2 n(r)=N.
\label{eq46}$$ The free energy (\[eq60\]) in the Newtonian limit yields $$F=m N +\mu_{NR} N - \frac{1}{2}\int_0^R dr \, 4\pi r^2 n\varphi
-\int_0^R dr \, 4\pi r^2 p
\label{eq40}$$ with $$p= g T_0\int^{\infty}_{0} \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\ln\left(1+\exp(-\frac{q^2}{2mT_0}-\frac{m}{T_0}\varphi
+\frac{\mu_{NR}}{T_0}) \right) \, ,
\label{eq48}$$ which, up to a constant, equals the Thomas-Fermi free energy [@her2].
A straightforward thermodynamic limit $N\rightarrow\infty$ as discussed by Hertel, Thirring and Narnhofer [@her1; @her2] is in our case not directly applicable. First, in contrast to the non-relativistic case, there exists, as we have demonstrated, a limiting configuration with maximal $M$ and $N$. Second, the scaling properties of the relativistic Thomas-Fermi equation are quite distinct from the nonrelativistic one. The following scaling property can be easily shown: If the configuration $\{\psi(r),{\cal{M}}(r)\}$ is a solution of the self consistency equations (\[eq104\])-(\[eq45\]), then the configuration $\{\tilde{\psi}=\psi(A^{-1}r),\tilde{{\cal{M}}}
=A{\cal{M}}(A^{-1}r);A>0\}$ is also a solution with the rescaled fermion number $\tilde{N}=A^{3/2}N$, radius $\tilde{R}=AR$, asymptotic temperature $\tilde{T_0}=A^{-1/2}T_0$, and fermion mass $\tilde{m}=A^{-1/2}m$. The free energy is then rescaled as $\tilde{F}=AF$. Therefore, there exist a thermodynamic limit of $N^{-2/3}F$, with $N^{-2/3}R$, $N^{1/3}T_0$, $N^{1/3}m$ approaching constant values when $N\rightarrow\infty$. In that limit the Thomas-Fermi equation becomes exact.
It is obvious that application of this model to astrophysical systems should work very well if the interactions among individual particles are negligible. This applies, for example, to weakly interacting quasidegenerate heavy neutrino or neutralino matter \[6,7,16-19\]. or perhaps even to collisionless stellar systems [@shu; @chav].
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
--------------
We acknowledge useful discussions with D. Tsiklauri. This work was supported by the Foundation for Fundamental Research (FFR) and the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Croatia under Contract No. 00980102.
[99]{} W. Thirring, Z. Phys. [**235**]{} (1970) 339. P. Hertel and W. Thirring, Comm. Math. Phys. [**24**]{} (1971) 22; P. Hertel and W. Thirring, “Thermodynamic Instability of a System of Gravitating Fermions", in [*Quanten und Felder*]{}, edited by H. P. Dürr (Vieweg, Braunschweig, 1971). P. Hertel, H. Narnhofer and W. Thirring, Comm. Math. Phys. [**28**]{} (1972) 159. B. Baumgartner, Comm. Math. Phys. [**48**]{} (1976) 207. J. Messer, J. Math. Phys. [**22**]{} (1981) 2910. N. Bilić and R.D. Viollier, Phys. Lett. [**B 408**]{} (1997) 75; N. Bilić and R.D. Viollier, Nucl. Phys. [**B**]{} (Proc. Suppl.) [**66**]{} (1998) 256. N. Bilić, D. Tsiklauri, and R.D. Viollier, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**40**]{} (1998) 17. J.R. Oppenheimer and G.M. Volkoff, Phys. Rev. [**55**]{} (1939) 374. L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, [*Fluid Mechanics*]{}, (Pergamon, Oxford, 1959) p. 503. W. Israel, Ann. Phys. [**100**]{} (1976) 310 R.C. Tolman, [*Relativity Thermodynamics and Cosmology*]{}, (Clarendon, Oxford, 1934) p. 312-317. G.W. Gibbons and S.W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. [**D55**]{} (1977) 2752. B.K. Harrison, K.S. Thorne, M. Wakano and J.A. Wheeler, [*Gravitation Theory and Gravitational Collapse*]{}, (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1965). ch. 3-5. J. Ehlers, Survey of General Relativity Theory, in [*Relativity, Astrophysics and Cosmology*]{}, ed W. Israel (D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht/Boston, 1973), sect. 3. A.D. Rendall and B.G. Schmidt, Class. Quantum Grav. [**8**]{} (1991) 985 W.Y. Chau, K. Lake, and J. Stone, Ap. J. [**281**]{} (1984) 560 A. Kull, R.A. Treumann, and H. Böhringer Ap. J. [**466**]{} (1996) L1. D. Tsiklauri and R.D. Viollier, Ap. J. [**500**]{} (1998) 591. N. Bilić, F. Munyaneza, and R.D. Viollier, astro-ph/9801262, Phys. Rev. [**D59**]{} (1999) 024003. F.H Shu, Ap. J. [**225**]{} (1978) 83. P.-H. Chavanis and J. Sommeria, MNRAS [**296**]{} (1998) 569.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We determine generators for the codimension $1$ Chow group of the moduli spaces of genus zero stable maps to flag varieties $G/P$. In the case of $SL$ flags, we find all relations between our generators, showing that they essentially come from $\overline M_{0,n}$. In addition, we analyze the codimension $2$ classes on the moduli spaces of stable maps to Grassmannians and prove a new codimension $2$ relation. This will lead to a partial reconstruction theorem for the Grassmannian of $2$ planes.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics,'
- 'Massachusetts Institute of Technology,'
- '77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139.'
author:
- Dragos Oprea
title: Divisors on the Moduli Spaces of Stable Maps to Flag Varieties and Reconstruction
---
In [@O1] and [@O2] we began the study of the tautological rings of the moduli spaces of stable maps to general flag varieties. We conjectured that the cohomology of these moduli spaces is entirely tautological and proved this conjecture for $SL$ flags. In this note, we bring more evidence in favor of our conjecture, establishing it completely for general flag varieties in codimension one, using a different method.
More precisely, let $X$ be a projective homogeneous space. The (coarse) moduli spaces $\fscheme$ parametrize marked stable maps to $X$ in the cohomology class $\beta \in H^{2}(X, \mathbb Z)$. These moduli spaces are related by a complicated system of natural morphisms which we enumerate below:
- : $\pi:\overline M_{0,S} (X, \beta) \to {\overline M}_{0, T}(X, \beta)$ $T\subset S$.
- , $$gl:{\overline M}_{0, S_1\cup \{\star\}}(X, \beta_1) {\times_{X}} {\overline M}_{0, \{\bullet\} \cup S_2} (X, \beta_2) \rightarrow \overline M_{0, S_1\cup S_2}(X, \beta_1+\beta_2).$$
- [evaluation morphisms to the target space]{}, $ev_i:\fscheme \to X$ for all $1\leq i\leq n$.
The system of tautological classes on $\fscheme$ is defined as the smallest subring of $H^{\star}(\fscheme)$ (or of the Chow ring $A^{\star}(\fscheme)$) with the following properties:
- The system is closed under pushforwards and pullbacks by the natural morphisms.
- All monomials in the evaluation classes $ev_i^{\star} \alpha$ for $\alpha \in H^{\star} (X)$ are in the system.
Typical examples of tautological classes are the following. Let $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_p$ be cohomology classes on $X$. The class $\kappa(\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_p)$ is defined as the pushforward via the forgetful projection $\pi:{\overline M}_{0, n+p}(X, \beta)\to \fscheme$: $$\kappa(\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_p)=\pi_{\star}(ev_{n+1}^{\star} \alpha_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot ev_{n+p}^{\star} \alpha_p).$$
One of the main results of this note is the following:
\[gmodpa\] Let $X$ be any projective homogeneous space. All (rational coefficient) complex codimension $1$ classes on $\fscheme$ are tautological. An explicit system of generators can be written down.
We obtain sharper results for $SL$ flag varieties. These results generalize Pandharipande’s ([@divisors]) who worked out the case of maps to projective spaces. However, Pandharipande’s argument does not extend to this setting, essentially because there is no convenient description of the space of morphisms to flag varieties which is suitable for computations. Instead, we propose a different approach: the previous proposition gives generators for the codimension $1$ rational Chow group. We cut down the number of generators by exhibiting relations between the various $\kappa$ classes on $\fscheme$. We refer the reader to lemma $\ref {relation}$ for the precise equations. We show independence of the remaining classes by a dimension calculation. This calculation involves two ingredients: localization and a computation of the symmetric group invariants on the second cohomology of moduli spaces of marked rational curves. This latter computation is similar to Getzler’s ([@zero]); the exact result is contained in lemma $\ref {dim}$. The argument will enumerate all the $\cs$ fixed loci on $\fscheme$ which have at most one negative weight on their normal bundle.
To explain our result in more detail, we let $X$ be the $SL$ flag variety parameterizing $l$ successive quotients of fixed dimensions of a vector space $V$. We consider the tautological sequence on $X$: $$V\otimes \mathcal O_{X} \to \q_1\to\ldots \to \q_l\to 0.$$ We will prove that:
\[diva\] The following classes span the second cohomology group/codimension $1$ Chow group with rational coefficients of $\fscheme$:
- the boundary divisors,
- the classes $\kappa(c_1(\q_i)^2)$ for all $1\leq i\leq l$ and the [**nonzero**]{} classes $\kappa(c_2(\mathcal K_i))$ for $0\leq i\leq l$. Here $\mathcal K_i$ is the kernel of $\q_i \to \q_{i+1}$, and, by convention, $\q_0=V\otimes \mathcal O_{X}$ and $\q_{l+1}=0$.
- when $n=1$ or $n=2$, we add any one of the evaluation classes $ev_i^{\star} c_1(\q_j)$.
The class $$\sum_{i} \kappa(c_2(\mathcal K_i))+ \sum_{i} \left(\frac{d_{i-1}+d_{i+1}}{2d_i}-1\right) \kappa(c_1(\mathcal Q_i)^2)$$ is sum of boundary classes. All other relations between these generators come from $\overline M_{0,n}$. The dimension of $H^2(\fscheme)$ is given by $$\left [2^{n-1}(d_1+1) \ldots (d_l+1)+\frac{1}{2}\right] - 1 - \binom {n}{2}+h^{4}(X) - \binom {h^2(X)}{2} .$$ Here $h^2(X), h^4(X)$ are the second and fourth Betti numbers of $X$, $d_i=c_1(\q_i)\cdot \beta$, and $\left[\;\right]$ denotes the integer part.
Pandharipande’s arguments ([@divisors]) show that all top intersection numbers of these divisors can be expressed as certain $n$ point genus $0$ primary Gromov-Witten invariants of $X$. For projective spaces, these invariants can be inductively computed from the Kontsevich-Manin reconstruction theorem ([@KM]).
We will consider the next easiest case, that of the Grassmannians of dimension $2$ subspaces. It is well known that the genus $0$ invariants determine all higher genera (descendant) invariants. Moreover, the intersection numbers on the moduli spaces of stable bundles over curves of arbitrary genus, or certain intersection numbers on the Quot scheme can be expressed in terms of the genus $0$ Gromov-Witten invariants of Grassmannians ([@Ma]).
Unfortunately, Kontsevich-Manin reconstruction does not apply in this case. However, as a corollary of our study of the tautological rings, we will obtain a reconstruction result which we now explain. We begin by finding a relation between codimension $2$ evaluation classes, which is identical to the one exhibited in [@LP] in codimension $1$.
\[evala\] For all codimension $2$ classes $\alpha$ on a general Grassmannian $\bg$, the following codimension $2$ class on $\overline M_{0,n}(\bg, d)$: $$ev_i^{\star}\alpha-ev_j^{\star} \alpha - \psi_j \kappa(\alpha)$$ can be written explicitly as a sum of classes supported on the boundary.
The proof of this proposition relies on a dimension computation of the complex codimension $2$ cohomology, which combines localization and the Deligne spectral sequence. As a second step, we enumerate all codimension $2$ classes on the moduli space of maps using the main theorem in [@O1]. We compare the number of generators with the actual dimension of their span to explain the existence of one relation between various evaluation classes. To identify the relation explicitly we will investigate how it restricts to the space of maps to projective spaces. This will require a better understanding of the codimension $2$ classes on the space of maps to $\pr$. We will prove the following:
\[codimensiona\] One can write down an explicit basis for the complex codimension $2$ cohomology of $\overline M_{0,0}(\p^r, d)$. Similar statements can be made for $1$ or $2$ marked points and for general Grassmannians. These bases are described in propositions 3.A-D.
Once proposition $\ref {evala}$ is established, we can derive a reconstruction theorem for the genus $0$ primary Gromov-Witten invariants of the Grassmannian $\bg$ of $2$ dimensional subspaces.
\[reconstructiona\] (i) All genus $0$ Gromov Witten invariants of the Grassmannian of $2$ planes can be reconstructed from the invariants $\langle \alpha_1, \alpha_2, c_2, \ldots, c_2\rangle$ where $c_2$ is the second Chern class of the tautological quotient bundle and $\alpha_1, \alpha_2$ are arbitrary cohomology classes.
\(ii) For any number of marked points $n$ and any degree $d$, there is a constant $c(n,d)$ such that if $\dim V > c$ then all genus $0$, degree $d$, $n$ point Gromov Witten invariants of $\bg$ can be explicitly computed.
We can rephrase the above result in terms of the Gromov-Witten potential as follows. Fix $\Delta_0, \Delta_1, \ldots, \Delta_l$ a basis for the cohomology of $\bg$ which is coupled to the coordinates $x_0, \ldots, x_l$ of the small phase space. We make the convention that $\Delta_0=c_2$ and we write ${\bf X}$ for the coordinates $(x_1, \ldots, x_l)$. The Gromov-Witten potential $\Phi$ is defined as the power series: $$\Phi(x)=\sum_{n}\frac{1}{n!} \langle \Delta_{i_1}, \ldots, \Delta_{i_n}\rangle x_{i_1}\cdot \ldots \cdot x_{i_n}.$$
The genus $0$ Gromov-Witten potential on the small phase space of $\bg$ is determined by the initial conditions: $$\Phi|_{\bf X=0},\; \partial_i\Phi|_{\bf X=0},\;\text { and }\partial_{ij} \Phi|_{\bf X=0}\; \text {for all } 1\leq i,j\leq l.$$
Similar statements can be made for a larger class of smooth projective varieties (see remark $3$).
Of course, the genus $0$ Gromov-Witten potential satisfies complicated differential equations such as the WDVV equations. These differential equations can essentially be derived from the topological recursion relations (TRR). It would be interesting to understand how the above corollary fits in with the constraints on the potential enumerated above. We believe that corollary $1$ and proposition $\ref {evala}$ are again consequences of the TRR. Even more generally, one could perhaps hope that all relations in the tautological rings are obtained as consequences of the TRR. Theorem 1 above provides supporting evidence.
Our paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we will prove proposition $\ref {gmodpa}$ and check our result explicitly in the case of Grassmannians. In the second section we discuss the case of $SL$ flag varieties. There, we prove theorem $1$ stated above. Finally, the last part of the paper is devoted to the proof of theorem $\ref {reconstructiona}$ which will follow quite formally after establishing proposition $\ref {evala}$. The proofs of propositions $\ref {evala}$ and $\ref {codimensiona}$ will be achieved in the third section.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} We would like to thank Alina Marian for helpful conversations. This work would have not been possible without Alina’s constant encouragement. We acknowledge professor Johan de Jong who explained to us an essential aspect of the Deligne spectral sequence, which was instrumental in our computations. We gratefully thank professor Rahul Pandharipande for the interest shown in this work.
The generators for the codimension one Chow group.
==================================================
Preliminaries.
--------------
In this subsection, we review the relevant facts about homogeneous spaces and their Schubert stratification which we will use in this paper.
To set the stage, let $X$ be the algebraic homogeneous space $G/P$ where $G$ is a semisimple group and $P$ is a parabolic subgroup. We pick $T$ a maximal torus, $B$ a Borel subgroup such that $T\subset B \subset P \subset G$. Our convention is that the Lie algebra $\mathfrak b$ contains all the negative roots with respect to some choice of a Weyl chamber. We let $U^{+}$ denote the unipotent subgroup of $G$ whose Lie algebra is the sum of all positive root spaces. We let $W$ be the Weyl group and $W^{\mathfrak p}$ be the Hesse diagram of $\mathfrak p$.
We consider the decomposition of $X$ coming from the maximal torus action on $X$. This action has isolated fixed points indexed by the elements of the Hasse diagram $W^{\mathfrak p}$. The corresponding [*plus*]{} Bialynicki-Birula stratification coincides with the more familiar Schubert decomposition: $$G/P=\cup_{w\in W^{\mathfrak p}} U^+ \cdot (wP).$$ We let $X_w$ be the orbit $U^{+}\cdot (wP)$ and we let $Y_w$ be its closure. $Y_w$ is a subvariety of $X$ whose codimension equals the length $l(w)$ of $w$. $Y_w$ can be written as union of lower dimensional strata (where $\geq$ refers to the Bruhat ordering): $$Y_w=\cup_{w'\in W^{\mathfrak p}, w'\geq w} X_{w'}.$$
The codimension $1$ cells $Y_w$ are important to us. They are in one to one correspondence with the [*simple*]{} roots $\alpha$ of $\mathfrak g$ not contained in $\mathfrak p$, the corresponding $w$ being the reflection $s_{\alpha}$ across the wall $\alpha$. The cycle $X_{\alpha}$ corresponds to the points of $X$ which flow to $q_{\alpha}=s_{\alpha} P$ as $t\to 0$. The $Y_{\alpha}$’s can also be described by the zeros of holomorphic sections of some very ample line bundles $L_{\alpha}$. We can write any class $\beta \in H^{2}(X, \mathbb Z)$ in the form $\beta =\sum_{\alpha} d_{\alpha} \beta_{\alpha},$ where $\beta_{\alpha}$ is the codimension $1$ class $[Y_{\alpha}]=c_1(L_{\alpha})$ for each simple root $\alpha$ not in $\mathfrak p$.
In addition, each simple root $\alpha$ determines a rational curve in $X$ joining $P$ to $q_{\alpha}=s_{\alpha} P$. The class of this rational curve is dual to the class of $Y_{\alpha}$. The rational curve can be parametrized as: $$t\to exp(tv)P, \;\text {where } v \text { is a vector in the root space of } \alpha.$$ Similarly, such $T$ invariant curves in $X$ can be generated for all positive (not necessarily simple) roots $\alpha$ which are not in $\mathfrak p$; all $T$ invariant curves passing through $P$ are obtained this way. More generally, a $T$-invariant rational curve joining two general fixed points $wP$ and $w'P$ exists provided $w'=ws_{\alpha}$ for some root $\alpha$ not in $\mathfrak p$.
Generators for the codimension one Chow group.
----------------------------------------------
The purpose of this subsection is to prove the following result about the generators of the rational codimension $1$ Chow group of $\fscheme$.
\[gmodp\]
The codimension $1$ Chow group with rational coefficients of $\fscheme$ is generated by the following classes:
- boundary divisors of nodal maps, the degrees and marked points being distributed arbitrarily on the two components.
- evaluation classes $ev_{i}^{\star} c_1(L_{\alpha})$ for each $1\leq i \leq n$ and each simple root $\alpha$ which is not contained in $\mathfrak p$,
- kappa classes $\kappa(Y_w)$ where $l(w)=2$ (so that $Y_w$ has complex codimension $2$ in $X$).
[**Proof.**]{} As a corollary of localization and the rationality of the moduli space of stable maps we easily see that the rational Picard group, the rational codimension $1$ Chow group and the complex codimension $1$ rational cohomology all coincide, essentially because the same is true for the fixed loci. This was explained in [@O2] is greater detail. In this paper we will use Chow groups/cohomology interchangeably, but in the proof of this proposition it is more convenient to make use of the Chow group of $\overline M =\fscheme$.
We let $Y$ be the complement in $X$ of all classes $Y_w$ with $l(w)\geq 2$. We also let $U$ be the open dense cell of the Schubert decomposition. It can be defined as follows: $$U=\{x\in X\; \text {such that } \lim_{t\to 0} t\cdot x \to P\}.$$
We consider the following subschemes of $\overline M$:
1. The codimension $1$ boundary divisors.
2. The subscheme of maps intersecting $Y_w$ for all $w$ with $l(w)=2$.
3. The subscheme of maps with markings in $Y_{\alpha}$ for all simple roots $\alpha$.
4. The subscheme of maps which cut $Y_{\alpha}$ with multiplicity higher than $1$.
It is clear that the complement of all these subschemes is the locus $\mathcal X$ of maps $f:(C, x_1, \ldots, x_n) \to X$ with the following properties:
- The domain curve is irreducible,
- the image of the map is contained in $Y$,
- the markings of $f$ map to $U$,
- $f$ intersects $Y_{\alpha}$ transversally.
We claim that the Chow group $A^{1}(\mathcal X)=0$. It follows then that the four types of classes $(a)-(d)$ span the space of divisors. To complete the proof it remains to show that the classes in item $(d)$ are indeed among the generators we enumerated in the proposition.
The subscheme in item $(d)$ can be described as the image of the cycle ${\overline M}_{(0,\ldots, 0, 2)}^{Y_{\alpha}}(X, \beta)$ on $\overline M_{0, n+1}(X, \beta)$ under the map $\pi$ forgetting the last marking. Here, ${\overline M}_{(0,\ldots, 0, 2)}^{Y_{\alpha}}(X, \beta)$ is the Gathmann space of stable maps with contact order at least $2$ with the very ample hypersurface $Y_{\alpha}$ (see [@G] for the relevant definitions). Due to the fact that $Y_{\alpha}$ is a very ample, there is an embedding $\phi: (X, Y_{\alpha})\to (\p^N, \p^{N-1})$. The following equation: $$\pi_{\star}\left[{\overline M}_{\bullet}^{Y_{\alpha}}(X, \beta)\right]=\phi^{\star}\pi_{\star} \left[{\overline M}_{\bullet}^{\p^{N-1}}(\p^{N}, \phi_{\star}\beta)\right]$$ holds in the Chow group of $\overline M_{0, n}(\p^N, \phi_{\star}\beta)$ (see [@G], theorem 2.6). Here ${\overline M}_{\bullet}^{\p^{N-1}}(\p^{N}, \phi_{\star}\beta)$ denotes the corresponding Gathmann space of maps to $\p^N$ with contact order $2$ at the hyperplane $\p^{N-1}$. Therefore, it suffices to show that on $\overline M_{0, n}(\p^N, \phi_{\star}\beta)$ the pushforward class $\pi_{\star} \left[{\overline M}_{\bullet}^{\p^{N-1}}(\p^{N}, \phi_{\star}\beta)\right]$ is in the span of the corresponding classes we claimed as generators. That is, we need to show this class is a sum boundary divisors, $\kappa$ classes and evaluation classes $ev^{\star}{\mathcal O}_{\p^N}(1)$, and then observe that these classes pullback to similar classes under $\phi$. However, this statement is already proved by Pandharipande ([@divisors]) who in fact enumerated all divisor classes for $\overline M_{0, n}(\p^N, \phi_{\star}\beta).$
To prove the vanishing of $A^{1}(\mathcal X)$ we first consider the case when $n+\sum_{\alpha} d_{\alpha}\geq 4$. We let $\mathfrak S=\times_{\alpha} S_{d_{\alpha}}$ and $$\mathcal F= M_{0, n+\sum_{\alpha} d_{\alpha}}/\mathfrak S, \; \overline {\mathcal F}= {\overline M}_{0, n+\sum_{\alpha} d_{\alpha}}/\mathfrak S.$$ In fact $\overline {\mathcal F}$ is the big fixed locus for the $T$ action on $\overline M$. The embedding $\overline {j}:\overline {\mathcal F} \to \overline M$ (and similarly $j:\mathcal F\to \overline M$) is obtained as follows:
- We consider a stable curve with $n+\sum_{\alpha} d_{\alpha}$ marked points. This will be a contracted component of the stable map whose image is the origin $P$ of $X$. We make the first $n$ marked points of the stable curve be the marked points of the stable map to $X$.
- At the $d_\alpha$ marked points we add $\mathbb P^1$’s of degree $1$ mapping to the rational curve joining $P$ to $q_{\alpha}$ constructed in the beginning of this section.
We let $${\mathcal E} =\{f \text { stable map in }\overline M \text { such that } t\cdot f \to F \in {\mathcal F} \text { as } t\to 0\}.$$ Proposition 2 of [@KP] shows that $\mathcal X$ is an open subvariety of $\mathcal E$. It is enough to show $A^{1}(\mathcal E)=0$.
Let $\pi:\widehat M \to \overline M$ be a $T$-equivariant resolution of singularities for $\overline M$. The image of restricted map $j:\mathcal F \to \overline M$ lies in the smooth (automorphism-free) locus of $\overline M$. Since $\pi$ is an isomorphism over the smooth locus, we obtain an inclusion $\hat j: \mathcal F \to \widehat M$.
Let $\widehat {\mathcal E}$ be the subset of $\widehat M$ of points flowing to $\mathcal F$. Since, $\pi$ is an isomorphism on $\mathcal F$, we have $\pi^{-1}\mathcal E = \widehat {\mathcal E}$. Now, $\pi: \widehat {\mathcal E} \to \mathcal E$ can be chosen to be a composition of blowups, so we conclude that $A^{1}(\widehat {\mathcal E})\to A^{1}(\mathcal E)$ is surjective. It is enough to show $A^{1}(\widehat {\mathcal E})=0$. This follows easily, since $\widehat M$ is smooth and for smooth varieties, it is well known that $\widehat {\mathcal E}$ is a bundle over the fixed set $\mathcal F$. Thus the claimed vanishing of $A^{1}(\widehat {\mathcal E})$ follows from the vanishing of $A^{1}(\mathcal F)=A^{1}(M_{0,n+\sum_{\alpha} d_{\alpha}})^{\mathfrak S}$. This is well known, it can be derived, for example from Keel’s result that the boundary classes generate all codimension one classes on $\overline M_{0, n+\sum_{\alpha} d_{\alpha}}$.
To finish the proof we have to analyze each of the remaining cases when $n+\sum_{\alpha} d_{\alpha}\leq 3$ individually. Then $\mathcal F$ is to be interpreted as a point, and as long as this point has no automorphisms in the moduli space $\overline M$ we are done by the same arguments as before. There are four cases to consider. We will briefly show the argument for $n=0, \beta = 3\beta_{\alpha}$. The remaining cases can be obtained as in theorem 3 in [@KP], by adding more marked points to place ourselves in the case we already discussed.
We let $\mathcal Y$ be the open subscheme of $M_{0,3}(X, 3 \beta_{\alpha})$ consisting in maps with image in $Y$ such that all $3$ markings map to $Y_{\alpha}$ with multiplicity $1$. It follows that $\mathcal Y/S_3=\mathcal X$. It is therefore enough to show $A^{1}(\mathcal Y)=0$. Now, let $\widehat {\mathcal Y}$ be an equivariant resolution of singularities for the closure $\overline {\mathcal Y}$ of $\mathcal Y$ in $\overline {M}_{0,3}(X, 3 \beta_{\alpha})$. Since $\mathcal Y$ is smooth we can view it as a subscheme of $\widehat {\mathcal Y}$. The arguments of proposition $2$ in [@KP] show that all $f\in \mathcal Y$ flow to a unique map $\mu \in \overline {\mathcal Y}$. This map $\mu$ has an internal component of degree $0$ mapping to $P$ to which we attach external components of degree $\beta_{\alpha}$, each of them having a marked point mapping to $q_{\alpha}$. Therefore $\mu$ sits in the smooth part of $\overline {\mathcal Y}$ and we can therefore regard it as an element in $\widehat {\mathcal Y}$. Let us look at the subvariety $\mathcal V$ of points of $\widehat {\mathcal Y}$ flowing to $\mu$ under the $\cs$ action. $\mathcal Y$ is contained in $\mathcal V$ by the above discussion. Now since $\widehat {\mathcal Y}$ is smooth, $\mathcal V$ is an affine space. Therefore $A^{1}(\mathcal Y)=0$, as desired. This completes the proof of the proposition.
Divisors on the space of maps to Grassmannians.
-----------------------------------------------
This subsection will contain another way of finding divisor classes on the space of maps to the Grassmannian $X$ parameterizing $k$ dimensional projective subspaces of $\p^r$. The method is quite ad-hoc and it involves decomposing the space of stable maps into pieces we understand better. The author could not make this procedure work for other flag manifolds. We seek to reprove the generation result of the previous subsection.
Let $\s$ and $\q$ denote the tautological and quotient bundles on $X$. We let $W$ be a copy of $\p^{r-k-2}$ (given by the vanishing of the first $k+2$ homogeneous coordinates). Then the subvariety $$\mathcal V=\{\Lambda \in X \text { such that } \Lambda \cap W \neq \emptyset\}$$ has codimension $4$. It is easy to observe that $c_1(\q)^2$ and $\left[\mathcal V\right]$ generate the complex codimension $2$ classes on $X$.
The complement of $\mathcal V$ parametrizes subspaces $\Lambda$ in $\p^r\setminus \p^{r-k-2}$. The key observation is that $\p^r\setminus \p^{r-k-2}$ can be understood as the total space of the bundle $$\pi: \mathcal O_{\p^{k+1}}(1)^{\oplus (r-k-1)}\to \p^{k+1}.$$ Since the fibers of $\pi$ are affine spaces, the $k$ dimensional subspace $\Lambda$ contained in $X\setminus \mathcal V$ projects to a $k$ dimensional subspace $L=\pi(\Lambda)$ in $\p^{k+1}$ i.e. $L$ gives an element of the projective space $\p^{k+1}$ of $k$ dimensional subspaces of $\p^{k+1}$. We conclude that $X\setminus \mathcal V$ can be described as a bundle $\mathcal E$ over $\p^{k+1}$ whose fiber over a subspace $L$ is $H^{0}(L, \mathcal O_{L}(1))^{\oplus (r-k-1)}$.
An easy argument, involving the Euler sequence identifies this bundle with $T\p^{k+1}(-1)$. The long exact sequence in cohomology induced by the Euler sequence shows that this bundle is convex. That is, for any morphism $g:\p^1\to \p^{k+1}$ we have $H^{1}(\p^1, g^{\star}\mathcal E)=0$.
We define $\mathcal X$ to be the subscheme of ${\overline M}_{0,n}(X, d)$ parameterizing stable maps $f$ whose images intersect $\mathcal V$. The open set ${\overline M}_{0,n}(X, d)\setminus \mathcal X$ consists in maps whose images are contained in the total space $X\setminus \mathcal V$ of the bundle $\mathcal E\to \p^{k+1}$. Proposition 2.1 in [@BH] and the convexity of the bundle $\mathcal E$ imply that ${\overline M}_{0,n}(X, d)\setminus \mathcal X$ is in fact a bundle over $\overline M_{0,n}(\p^{k+1}, d)$. Therefore, $A^{1}({\overline M}_{0,n}(X, d) \setminus \mathcal X)=A^{1}(\overline M_{0,n}(\p^{k+1}, d))$. This last group is well known, it has been computed by Pandharipande in [@divisors]. For example, in the case when $n\geq 3$ or $n=0$, the generators are the boundary divisors and the class $\pi_{\star} (ev_{n+1}^{\star} c_1(\mathcal O_{\p^{k+1}}(1))^2)$. This implies that the boundary divisors and the class $\pi_{\star}ev_{n+1}^{\star}c_1(Q)^2$ on $\fscheme$ restrict to generators for $A^{1}({\overline M}_{0,n}(X, d) \setminus \mathcal X)$. To get all divisors classes on $A^{1}(\fscheme)$ we need to add the class $\left[\mathcal X\right]=\pi_{\star}ev_{n+1}^{\star} \left[\mathcal V\right]$. A similar argument works for $n=1$ or $n=2$. We recover the statement of proposition $1$.
The classes on the moduli spaces of maps to SL flags.
=====================================================
In this section we will focus explicitly on the case of divisor classes on the space of maps to $SL$ flag varieties. We will start by restating the results of the previous section for $SL$ flags, then describe relations between the generators we found and finally prove their independence by a dimension computation.
Divisors on the moduli spaces of maps to $SL_n$ flags.
------------------------------------------------------
To set the stage, we let $X$ be the flag variety parameterizing quotients of a vector space $V$ of fixed dimensions $n_1, \ldots, n_l$, or equivalently of subspaces of $V$ of dimensions $m_1, \ldots, m_l$: $$0\to S_1 \to \ldots \to S_l \to V \to Q_1 \to \ldots \to Q_l \to 0.$$ There is a tautological sequence on $X$ given by $$\label {tautflag}0\to \mathcal S_1 \to \ldots \to \mathcal S_l \to V \otimes \mathcal O_{X} \to \mathcal Q_1 \to \ldots \to \mathcal Q_l \to 0.$$ We let $\mathcal K_j$ denote the kernel of the map $\q_j\to \q_{j+1}$ for all $0\leq j\leq l$, where by convention $\q_0=V\otimes \mathcal O_X$ and $\q_{l+1}=0$.
It is well known that the Chern classes $c_1(\q_j)$ form a basis for $H^{2}(X, \mathbb Z)$ for $1\leq j\leq l$. We let $h^{2}(X)$ denote the dimension of this vector space. Each stable map to $X$ will have a multi-degree $(d_1, \ldots, d_l)$ determined by the above generators of $H^{2}(X)$. Similarly, $H^{4}(X, \mathbb Z)$ is generated by the classes $c_1(\q_i)c_1(\q_j)$ together with the [*nonzero*]{} Chern classes $c_2(\mathcal K_j)$. There is only one relation between these generators: $$\label {flagcoh}\sum_{i} c_2(\mathcal K_i) - \sum_{i} c_1(\mathcal Q_i)^2 + \sum_{i} c_1(\mathcal Q_i)c_1(\mathcal Q_{i+1})=0.$$
We enumerate the generators we obtained in proposition $\ref {gmodp}$:
1. boundary classes. We have $[2^{n-1}(d_1+1)\ldots (d_l+1)]^{+}-1 - n$ such boundaries.
2. $\kappa$ classes $\kappa(c_1(\q_i)\cdot c_1(\q_j))$ and all classes $\kappa(c_2(\mathcal K_i))$ when $\mathcal K_i$ has rank at least $2$.
3. evaluation classes $ev_{i}^{\star} c_1(\q_j)$, for each $1\leq i\leq n$ and $1\leq j\leq l$.
Now, these generators turn out not to be independent. We exhibit relations between them. We start with the boundary classes. The obvious way of getting relations is to pull back relations from $\monbar$ under the forgetful map: $$\fscheme \to \monbar.$$ There are $2^{n-1}-1-n$ boundary classes on $\monbar$ but there are $\frac{n(n-3)}{2}$ independent relations between them. This cuts down the number of independent classes in $(a)$ to at most $[2^{n-1}(d_1+1)\ldots (d_l+1)]^{+}-1-\binom{n}{2}$, with equality when all relations come from $\monbar$.
Next, we consider the classes of type $(c)$. When $n\geq 1$, we pick $H$ an ample generator and pick $m$ large enough such that the bundles ${\bf Q_j}=\det \q_j (mH)$ are all very ample. We will replace the bundles $\q_j$ in $(c)$ by their very ample counterparts ${\bf Q_j}$. Note that the span of the classes in $(b)$ and $(c)$ will be not be affected by this change.
When $n\geq 3$ and when $X=\pr$ all divisor classes, including the corresponding evaluation classes of type $(c)$, are spanned by boundaries and the $\kappa$ class $\kappa(c_1(\mathcal O_{\pr}(1))^2)$. This is the contents of lemma 1.1.1 in [@divisors]. Using the linear system $|{\bf Q_j}|$ we get an [*embedding*]{} of $X$ into a projective space. Pulling back under this map, we can therefore conclude that the class $ev_{i}^{\star} c_1({\bf Q_j})$ is in the span of boundaries and of $\kappa$ classes, which will necessarily be on the list $(b)$. When $n\geq 3$ we will henceforth dispense with the classes $(c)$.
When $n=1$ a different discussion is needed. We use Lemma 2.2.2 in [@divisors] quoted as equation $\eqref{strange}$ below. Pull back the relation provided by the lemma under the embedding given by the linear system $|{\bf Q_j}|$. Then, modulo boundary classes the following relation holds for some constants $D_j$: $$\psi_1 = \frac{1}{D_j^2} \kappa(c_1({\bf Q_j})^2) - \frac{2}{D_j} ev_1^{\star} c_1({\bf Q_j})$$ It follows that the span of the evaluation classes $ev^{\star}c_1({\bf Q_j})$ is exactly $1$ dimensional modulo boundaries and the $\kappa$ classes in $(b)$ (for example $\psi_1$ is a generator of the one dimensional span. Intersecting with suitable curves or restricting to a copy of $\p^1\hookrightarrow X$ and invoking the results of [@divisors], it can be shown this class is independent from the boundaries).
For $n=2$, a similar discussion as above shows that the span of the evaluation classes in $(c)$ is at most $2$ dimensional modulo boundaries and the kappa classes in $(b)$. The classes $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ can be chosen as generators for the two dimensional span (alternatively we can pick pairs of evaluation classes). However, corollary 1 in [@LP] rewritten as equation $\eqref {psisum}$ below shows that the sum of these two classes is also in the span of the boundaries. It follows that the span of the evaluation classes $(c)$ is exactly $1$ dimensional modulo boundaries and $\kappa$ classes. We immediately conclude that for all values of $n$, the combined contribution of the classes in $(a)$ and $(c)$ is at most $[2^{n-1}(d_1+1)\ldots (d_l+1)]^{+}-1-\binom{n}{2}$.
Finally, the classes of type $(b)$ are also connected by relations. Lemma $\ref {relation}$ of the next subsection shows that $\kappa(c_1(\q_i) c_1(\q_j))$ can be expressed in terms of $\kappa(c_1(\q_i)^2)$ and $\kappa(c_1(\q_j)^2)$ modulo boundaries. In fact, applying this lemma to each pair $(\mathcal Q_{i}, \mathcal Q_{i+1})$ we derive that the following equation is true modulo boundaries: $$\kappa(c_1(\mathcal Q_i) c_1(\mathcal Q_{i+1}))=\frac{d_{i+1}}{2d_i} \kappa(c_1(\mathcal Q_i)^2)+\frac{d_i}{2d_{i+1}} \kappa (c_1(\mathcal Q_{i+1})^2).$$ Using $\eqref {flagcoh}$, we easily arrive at the following relation: $$\label {flageq} \sum_{i} \kappa(c_2(\mathcal K_i))+ \sum_{i} \left(\frac{d_{i-1}+d_{i+1}}{2d_i}-1\right) \kappa(c_1(\mathcal Q_i)^2) =0 \text { modulo boundaries}.$$ The coefficients of the boundary terms can be written down explicitly, but they
To summarize, we obtain the following upper bound for the dimension of the space of divisors on $\fscheme$: $$\label {upper}
\left [2^{n-1}(d_1+1) \ldots (d_l+1)\right]^{+} - 1 - \binom {n}{2}+h^{4}(X) - \binom {h^2(X)}{2}.$$
In section $2.4$, we will use localization to give a lower bound for the dimension of the space of divisors. In fact, we will prove that the bound obtained above is sharp. This will give the proof of theorem $1$ stated in the introduction.
Relations between the $\kappa$ classes.
---------------------------------------
We will now indicate the statement and proof of the lemma invoked in the previous subsection to find relations between the $\kappa$ classes. We hope this lemma could also be of use to understand divisors on product spaces.
\[relation\] Let $L, M$ be two line bundles on a projective variety $X$. Then the following $\kappa$ class on ${\overline M}_{0,0}(X, \beta)$: $$\kappa\left(\left(\frac{c_1(L)}{\int_{\beta} c_1(L) } - \frac{c_1(M)} {\int_{\beta} c_1(M)} \right)^2\right)$$ is in the span of the boundary divisors.
[**Proof.**]{} We claim that it is enough to prove the statement for $L$ and $M$ very ample. Indeed, assuming we proved the statement in this case, we pick a very ample divisor $H$ on $X$. For $n$ large enough, $L+nH, M+nH$ will both be very ample. We obtain that $$\kappa\left(\left(\frac{c_1(L)+nH}{\int_{\beta} c_1(L) + n H\cdot\beta}-\frac{c_1(M)+nH}{\int_{\beta} c_1(M) + n H\cdot\beta}\right)^2\right)$$ is in the span of boundaries. Clearing denominators, and then looking at the term independent of $n$, we derive that the $\kappa$ class in the statement of the lemma is also in the span of boundaries.
Assume now $L$ and $M$ are very ample. We consider the embedding $i:X \to \mathbb P^n \times \mathbb P^m$ determined by the linear systems $|L|$ and $|M|$. We let $d=\int_{\beta}c_1(L)$ and $e=\int_{\beta} c_1(M)$. We let $\mathcal H_1$ and $\mathcal H_2$ be the two hyperplane bundles on the projective spaces $\mathbb P^n$ and $\mathbb P^m$. Let $D_{i,j}$ denote the boundary divisor of maps with nodal target such that the bidgree of the map on one of the components is $(i,j)$; then the bidgree on the other component is $(d-i, e-j)$.
The lemma will then follow pulling back under $i$ the following relation on $\mpnpmbar$: $$\label {reconstruction}
\kappa \left(\left(\frac{c_1(\mathcal H_1)}{d} - \frac {c_1(\mathcal H_2)}{e}\right)^2\right)
= \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=1}^{d}\sum_{j=1}^{e} D_{i,j} \left(\frac{i}{d}-\frac{j}{e}\right)^2$$ [**Claim.**]{} As a first step in establishing $\eqref {reconstruction}$, we show that the codimension $1$ classes on ${\overline M}_{0,0}(\p^n\times \p^m, (d,e))$ are in the span of the boundaries and of the two kappa classes $\kappa (c_1(\mathcal H_1)^2)$ and $\kappa (c_2(\mathcal H_2)^2)$.
The boundary in $\mpnpmbar$ is a divisor with normal crossings. It follows from the Deligne spectral sequence that the cokernel of the Gysin map $$\oplus H^{0}(\text {boundaries})\to H^{2}(\mpnpmbar)$$ can be identified with the weight $2$ piece of the Hodge structure on the cohomology of the open stratum $W^{2}H^{2}(\mpnpm)$. We will show this is at most two dimensional.
We will write the open stratum $M=\mpnpm$ as a global quotient and make the computation in equivariant cohomology. Let $V$ be a two dimensional space so that $\p^1=\p(V)$ comes with the obvious $PGL(V)$ action. The space of maps $\text {Map}=\text {Map}_{(d,e)}(\p^1, \p^n\times \p^m)$ of bidgree $(d,e)$ is an open set in the product of two projective spaces $$\p\left(\bigoplus_{i=0}^{n} {Sym}^{d} V^{\star} \right)\times \p \left(\bigoplus_{i=0}^{m} {Sym}^{e} V^{\star} \right).$$ We need to factor out the action of $PGL(V)$ on the two factors to obtain $M_{0,0}(\p^n\times \p^m, (d,e))$. Equivalently, we can think of $\mpnpm$ as sitting in a quotient of the affine space $$\mathbb A = \bigoplus_{i=0}^{n} {Sym}^{d} V^{\star} \oplus \bigoplus_{i=0}^{m} {Sym}^{e} V^{\star}$$ by the action of the group $GL (V) \times \cs$. The action of $GL (V)$ is the usual one on the two factors, while $\cs$ acts in the usual way only on the second factor, and trivially on the first. This action is easily seen to have finite stabilizers. It is well known that in such cases we have an isomorphism between the cohomology of the orbit space and equivariant cohomology: $$H^{\star}(\mpnpm)=H^{\star}(\text {Map}\times_{GL_2 \times \cs} (EGL_2 \times E\cs)).$$ Both sides have Hodge structures (for equivariant cohomology, we need to use finite dimensional approximations of the equivariant models) compatible with the above isomorphism. Moreover, $\text {Map}\times_{GL_2 \times \cs} (EGL_2 \times E\cs)$ sits inside the space $$\left(\bigoplus_{i=0}^{n} {Sym}^{d} V^{\star} \oplus \bigoplus_{i=0}^{m} {Sym}^{e} V^{\star} \right)\times_{GL_2 \times \cs} (EGL_2 \times E\cs).$$ This space is the total space of a bundle over the product of two classifying spaces $BGL_2 \times B\cs$. The restriction map $$H^{2}(BGL_2\times B\cs)=H^{2}_{GL_2\times \cs}(\mathbb A)\to W^{2}H^{2}_{GL_2\times \cs}(\text {Map})=W^{2}H^{2}(M)$$ is surjective. Therefore $W^{2}H^{2}(M)$ is at most $2$ dimensional. The surjectivity of the map can be explained by the usual arguments in [@O1], using (Grothendieck’s) remark $3$ of that paper.
Our [**claim**]{} follows if we show that the two classes $\kappa (c_1(\mathcal H_1)^2)$ and $\kappa (c_2(\mathcal H_2)^2)$ are not in the linear span of the boundary divisors. This is done in [@divisors], Lemma 1.2.1(i) by intersecting with curves in the moduli space in the case of $\p^r$, but the argument goes through without change for $\p^n\times \p^m$.
The claim we just proved suffices to establish the results needed in this paper. However for the sake of completeness, we will also prove the precise relation $\eqref {reconstruction}$. It follows from what we proved above that a linear combination of the three classes: $$\label {rec} \kappa (c_1(\mathcal H_1) c_1(\mathcal H_2)) + A \cdot \kappa (c_1(\mathcal H_1)^2) +B \cdot \kappa (c_1(\mathcal H_2)^2)=\text {sum of boundary classes}$$ To identify the coefficients of this relation it is enough to intersect $\eqref {rec}$ with curves in ${\overline M}_{0,0}(\mathbb P^n \times \mathbb P^m, (d,e))$. A moment’s thought shows that it is enough to check $\eqref {reconstruction}$ for all curves of $\overline M$ transversal to the boundary. Indeed, assuming this is the case, we show that $\eqref {rec}$ and an appropriately scaled version of $\eqref {reconstruction}$ coincide. Subtracting the two equations, we get an expression involving only $\kappa (c_1(\mathcal H_1)^2)$, $\kappa (c_1(\mathcal H_2)^2)$ and boundary classes. This expression vanishes on each curve in $\overline M$ transversal to the boundary. We have seen already in the proof of the claim that this implies that the coefficients of the $\kappa$’s must vanish. It is not any harder to conclude the same about the coefficients of the boundary classes. [^1]
It remains to show $\eqref {reconstruction}$ holds after intersecting with the smooth curves intersecting the boundary divisors transversally. Let us now consider such a curve. This is the same as a family of stable maps to $\mathbb P^n \times \mathbb P^m$ parametrized by a one dimensional base $B$:
$\begin {CD}
S @>{F=(f,g)}>>\mathbb P^n \times \mathbb P^m\\
@V{\pi}VV \\
B
\end {CD}$
It can be proved that $S$ is the blow up of a projective bundle $P=\p(V)$ at the points $x_1, \ldots, x_s$ where $B$ meets the boundary divisors.
We let $E_i$ be the exceptional divisors of the blowups and we let $h=c_1(\mathcal O_{\p(V)}(1))$. We assume that the map $F$ has bidegree $(d_i, e_i)$ on each exceptional divisor $E_i$. It is then clear that for some line bundles $\mathcal J_1$ and $\mathcal J_2$ on $B$ we have: $$\label {pull}F^{\star} \mathcal H_1 = \pi^{\star} \mathcal J_1 \otimes \mathcal O_{\p(V)}(d) \otimes \mathcal O(-\sum_{i} d_i E_i)$$ $$\label {pull1}F^{\star} \mathcal H_2 = \pi^{\star} \mathcal J_2 \otimes \mathcal O_{\p(V)}(e) \otimes \mathcal O(-\sum_{i} e_i E_i).$$
It is also obvious that $B\cdot D_{i,j}=n(i,j)+n(d-i, e-j)$ where $n(u,v)$ is the number of points among $x_1, \ldots, x_s$ such that the bidegree of the map $F$ on the corresponding exceptional divisor is $(u,v)$.
We now intersect both sides of the equation ($\ref {reconstruction}$) with the curve $B$. We will need to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_{\star}\left( \left(\frac{1}{d}c_1(F^{\star}\mathcal H_1)-\frac{1}{e}c_1(F^{\star}\mathcal H_2)\right)^2\right) &=&\frac{1}{2} \sum_{i,j} (n(i,j)+n(d-i, e-j))\left(\frac{i}{d}-\frac{j}{e}\right)^2\\&=&\sum_{i,j} n(i,j)\left(\frac{i}{d}-\frac{j}{e}\right)^2=\sum_{i}\left(\frac{d_i}{d}-\frac{e_i}{e}\right)^2\end{aligned}$$
The proof of this equality involves equations ($\ref {pull}$) and ($\ref {pull1}$). Indeed, the right hand side of the expression above equals $$\pi_{\star} \left(\left(\frac{1}{d} (\pi^{\star} c_1(\mathcal J_1)+d h - \sum_{i} d_i E_i) - \frac{1}{e} (\pi^{\star} c_1(\mathcal J_2)+e h - \sum_{i} e_i E_i)\right)^2\right)$$ After a few cancellations, we finally arrive at the desired result. The proof of the lemma is complete.
The computation of the symmetric group invariants.
--------------------------------------------------
Our next digression will be useful in the dimension computation needed to finish the proof of theorem $\ref {diva}$. We will prove a preliminary result about the $S_n$ action on the cohomology of the moduli space of rational pointed curves $\monbar$.
To fix notation, for each permutation $\sigma \in S_n$ we write $n_j(\sigma)$ for the number of cycles of length $j$. We denote by $c(\sigma)$ the total number of cycles of $\sigma$.
\[h2mon\] For each $\sigma \in S_n$, the trace of $\sigma$ on $H^{2}(\monbar)$ is given by $$2^{c(\sigma)-1}-1-n_2(\sigma)-\binom{n_1(\sigma)}{2}+\delta(\sigma)$$ where $$\delta(\sigma)=\begin {cases} 2^{c(\sigma)-1} & \text {if $\sigma$ has only cycles of even length} \\ 0 & \text {otherwise} \end {cases}$$
[**Proof.**]{} The proof of this lemma makes use of the ideas of Getzler’s paper ([@zero]). Getzler works out the Deligne spectral sequence of the mixed Hodge structure on the open manifold $M_{0,n}$. He shows that there is an exact sequence: $$\label {getz} 0\to H^1(\mon)\to \oplus_{\Gamma} H^{0} (D_\Gamma)\to H^2(\monbar)\to 0.$$ Here $D_{\Gamma}$ are the boundary divisors of $\monbar$. They correspond to unordered partitions of the $n$ marked points into two subsets $A$ and $B$ such that $|A|, |B|\geq 2$.
It is clear that the the middle term of the exact sequence $\eqref {getz}$ is a sum of one dimensional spaces, one for each unordered partition of $\{1, \ldots, n\}$ into $2$ subsets as above. If $n$ is odd, the trace of $\sigma$ on the middle term of the exact sequence $\eqref {getz}$ equals the number of partitions $\{A,B\}$ such that $$\sigma(A)=A,\;\sigma(B)=B,\; |A|, |B|\geq 2$$ This number is easily seen to be $2^{c(\sigma)-1}-1-n_1(\sigma)$. Indeed, both $A$ and $B$ have to be unions of full cycles of $\sigma$. The last two terms are the corrections corresponding to the non-stable cases when $A$ or $B$ have $0$ or $1$ elements. In the case when $n$ is even, we also need to consider the partitions $\{A, B\}$ such that $$\sigma(A)=B, \sigma(B)=A, n\geq 4$$ Such partitions exist only if $\sigma$ has all cycles of even length and their number equals $2^{c(\sigma)-1}$.
The proof will be complete using the exact sequence $\eqref {getz}$, the remarks above and if we also show that: $$\label {trace}
\text {Tr}_{\sigma } H^1(\mon)=n_2(\sigma)+\frac{n_1(\sigma)^2-3n_1(\sigma)}{2}$$
To establish $(\ref {trace})$, we will use the following facts collected from [@zero].\
1. First, Getzler shows that as a consequence of the Serre spectral sequence, we have an isomorphism $H^{\bullet}(M_{0,n+1})=H^{\bullet}(M_{0,n}\times \mathbb C\setminus\{1,2\ldots, n\})$. It is then clear that $$\text {Tr}_{\sigma }H^1(M_{0,n+1})=\text {Tr}_{\sigma }H^{1}(\mon)+\text {Tr}_{\sigma}H^{1}(\mathbb C\setminus\{1,2\ldots, n\})=\text {Tr}_{\sigma }H^{1}(\mon) + n_1(\sigma) - 1.$$
2. Getzler also shows that if $F_n$ denotes the configuration space of $n$ pairwise distinct points in $\mathbb C$, then $H^{\bullet}(F_n)=H^{\bullet}(M_{0,n+1}\times S^1)$. Therefore, $$\text {Tr}_{\sigma} H^{1}(M_{0,n+1})=\text {Tr}_{\sigma} H^{1}(F_n)-1.$$
3. Finally, it is a consequence of a formula of Lehrer and Solomon, also discussed in [@Ge2] that $\text {Tr}_{\sigma }H^{1}(F_n)=n_2(\sigma)+\binom{n_1(\sigma)}{2}$. These three items together prove equation $(\ref {trace})$, thus completing the proof of the lemma.
\[dim\] Let $n, a_1, \ldots a_l$ be positive integers. Consider the obvious action of $S_{a_1}\times \ldots \times S_{a_{l}}$ on $H^{2}({\overline M}_{n+a_1+\ldots+a_l})$. The dimension of the invariant subspace is computed by the formula: $$\text {dim } H^{2}({\overline M}_{n+a_1+\ldots+a_l})^{S_{a_1}\times \ldots \times S_{a_{l}}}=\left[2^{n-1}(a_1+1)\ldots (a_l+1)\right]^{+}-1-\binom {n}{2}-ln-\binom {l+1}{2} + \mathfrak a.$$ Here $\mathfrak a$ denotes the number of indices $i$ such that $a_i=1$. We also write $[x]^{+}=x$ if $x$ is an integer and $[x]^{+}=x+\frac{1}{2}$ if $x$ is a half integer.
[**Proof.**]{} To prove this statement, we will average out the trace of each permutation $\sigma \in S_{a_1} \times \ldots \times S_{a_{l}}$ on $H^{2}({\overline M}_{n+a_1+\ldots+a_l})$. For this combinatorial computation we will need the following identities which can be proved by induction on $k$.
$$\label {cy}
\sum_{\sigma\in S_k} 2^{c(\sigma)}=(k+1)!$$
$$\label {even}
\sum_{\sigma\in S_k} \delta(\sigma)=\begin {cases} \frac{k!}{2} & \text {if $k$ is even} \\ 0 &\text {otherwise}\end {cases}$$
$$\label {n1}
\sum_{\sigma \in S_k} n_1(\sigma)=k!$$
$$\label {n2}
\sum_{\sigma \in S_k} \left(n_2(\sigma)+\binom {n_1(\sigma)}{2}\right)=k! \text { for } k\geq 2.$$
Another induction, this time on $l$, making use of equation ($\ref {n1}$) gives the following two identities:
$$\label {n1g}
\sum_{\sigma \in S_{a_1}\times \ldots \times S_{a_l}} n_1(\sigma)=l a_1! \ldots a_l!$$
$$\label {n1n1}
\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq l}\sum_{\sigma_i\in S_{a_i}}\sum_{\sigma_j \in S_{a_j}} n_1(\sigma_i) n_1(\sigma_j) = \binom {l}{2} a_1! \ldots a_l!$$
We can now compute the dimension of the invariant subspace. A permutation $\sigma\in S_{a_1}\times \ldots \times S_{a_l}$ is tantamount to $l$ permutations $\sigma_i\in S_{a_i}$. Lemma $\ref {h2mon}$ shows that $$\begin{aligned}
\text {Tr}_{\sigma } H^2({\overline M}_{n+a_1+\ldots+ a_l})= 2^{\sum_{i}c(\sigma_i)+n-1} - 1- \sum_{i=1}^{l} n_2(\sigma_i) - \binom{n+n_1(\sigma_1) + \ldots + n_1(\sigma_l)}{2} \\
+ \begin {cases} 2^{\sum_i c(\sigma_i) - 1} &\text {if $n=0$ and the $\sigma_i$'s have only even length cycles} \\ 0 &\text {otherwise} \end {cases}.\end{aligned}$$
We average out these traces to compute the dimension of the invariant subspace. First, we assume $n\neq 0$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\text {dim} &H^{2}&({\overline M}_{n+a_1+\ldots+ a_l})^{S_{a_1}\times \ldots \times S_{a_l}}=
\frac{1}{a_1!\ldots a_l!} \sum_{\sigma\in S_{a_1}\times \ldots \times S_{a_l}} \text {Tr}_{\sigma} H^{2}({\overline M}_{n+a_1+\ldots+ a_l})\\&=&\frac{1}{a_1!\ldots a_l!} \left ( \sum_{i=1}^{l}\sum_{\sigma_i\in S_{a_i}} 2^{\sum_{i}c(\sigma_i)+n-1} - 1- \sum_{i=1}^{l} n_2(\sigma_i) - \binom{n+n_1(\sigma_1)+\ldots+n_1(\sigma_l)}{2}\right)\\&=&2^{n-1}\prod_{i=1}^{l} \left(\sum_{\sigma_i \in S_{a_i}} \frac{2^{c(\sigma_i)}}{a_i!}\right) -1 - \sum_{i=1}^{l}\frac{1}{a_i!}\left(n_2(\sigma_i)+\binom{n_1(\sigma_i)}{2}\right) - \binom{n}{2} - \\
&-&\frac{n}{a_1!\ldots a_l!} \sum_{i=1}^{l} \sum_{\sigma_i\in S_{a_i}} n_1(\sigma_i) - \frac{1}{a_1!\ldots a_l!} \sum_{1\leq i<j\leq l} n_1(\sigma_i)n_1(\sigma_j) =\\&=& 2^{n-1} (a_1+1)\ldots(a_l+1) - 1 - (l -\mathfrak a) - \binom {n}{2} - nl - \binom {l}{2}.\end{aligned}$$
where in the last line we used equations ($\ref {cy}$), ($\ref{n2}$), ($\ref{n1g}$) and ($\ref{n1n1}$) respectively.
In the case when $n=0$, we have extra-terms corresponding to the case when all permutations $\sigma_i$ have even cycles. The contribution of these terms is $$\frac{1}{a_1!\ldots a_l!} \sum_{\sigma_i \in S_{a_i} \text {with only even cycles}} 2^{c(\sigma_1)+\ldots +c(\sigma_l)-1}=\frac{1}{2} \prod_i \left(\sum_{\sigma_i \in S_{a_i}}\frac{2}{a_i!}\delta(\sigma_i)\right) =\frac{1}{2},$$ by virtue of equation ($\ref {even}$). This completes the proof of the lemma.
The fixed loci contributions.
-----------------------------
We will exhibit particular fixed point loci for the $\cs$ action on $\fscheme$ which comes from a torus action on $X$. We will argue that the normal bundles of the fixed loci we exhibit have at most $1$ negative weight. We will employ the “homology basis theorem” to give a lower bound for the dimension of the space of codimension $1$ classes (we refer the reader to lemma $1$ in [@O2] for the precise statement of the homology basis theorem in the case of finite quotient singularities). The lower bound will match the upper bound $\eqref {upper}$, completing the proof of theorem $\ref {diva}$. Therefore, the argument will also give [**all**]{} fixed loci which contribute to the computation of $H^{2}(\fscheme)$.
We consider an action of $\cs$ on $V$ with weights $\lambda_1 < \ldots < \lambda_N$ and weight vectors $e_1, \ldots, e_N$. In fact we will need assume that the weight $\lambda_i$ is much bigger than $\lambda_{i-1}$. This assumption will be needed when evaluating the negative weights for the normal bundles to the fixed loci below, especially when dealing with the vertices of valency $2$. We write our flag variety as a quotient $X=SL(V)/P$ where $P$ is the parabolic of upper triangular block matrices of size $m_1$, $m_2-m_1$, …, $m_{l}-m_{l-1}$, $N-m_{l}$. We will frequently use the notation $W(i)$ for the vector subspace of $V$ spanned by $e_1, \ldots, e_i$. We enumerate the following fixed points of the $\cs$ action on $X$:\
(a) the origin $P$. The tangent space $T_{P} X$ has no negative $\cs$ weights. Explicitly, this fixed point is represented by the flag: $$W(m_1)\subset \ldots \subset W(m_l)\subset V.$$ (b) There are $h^{2}(X)$ fixed points $q_1, \ldots, q_l$ corresponding to the simple roots not in the parabolic subalgebra. There is only one negative weight on the tangent spaces $T_{q_i}X$. Each $q_i$ can be joined to $P$ by a rational curve $R_i$ whose Poincare dual is the generator $\beta_i$ of $H^{2}(X, \mathbb Z)$. Explicitly $q_i$ is represented by a flag which differs from the one in the previous item only at the $i$ th step: $$W(m_1) \subset \ldots \subset W(m_i-1) \oplus \text { span } \langle e_{m_i+1}\rangle \subset W(m_{i+1})\subset \ldots \subset W(m_l) \subset V.$$ Additionally, the curve $R_i$ can be parametrized as: $$\label {line}[t:s] \mapsto \text { the flag } W(m_1) \subset \ldots \subset W(m_i-1) \oplus \langle t e_{m_i} + s e_{m_i+1}\rangle \subset W(m_{i+1})\subset \ldots \subset W(m_l)$$ (c) There are $h^{4}(X)$ fixed points with $2$ negative roots on their tangent spaces. There are three types of such points which we now describe. Let $m_0=0$ and $m_{l+1}=n$.
- for each pair $1\leq i< j\leq l$ such that $m_j-m_i\geq 2$ we have a fixed point denoted $q_{ij}$. It is obtained from the reference flag in (a) by modifying its $i$th and $j$th steps: $$W(m_1)\subset \ldots \subset W(m_i-1)\oplus\langle e_{m_i+1}\rangle \subset \ldots \subset W(m_j-1)\oplus\langle e_{m_j+1}\rangle \subset \ldots \subset W(m_l) \subset V$$ It is clear that $q_{ij}$ can be joined to both $q_i$ and $q_j$ by rational curves in the cohomology classes dual to $\beta_j$ and $\beta_i$.
- For each $1\leq i \leq l$ such that $m_{i+1}-m_{i}\geq 2$ we obtain a fixed point $r_i$ which has the property that it can be joined to $P$ by a rational curve in the cohomology class dual to $\beta_i$. The $r_i$’s can be obtained from the reference flag in (a) by modifying its $i$th step : $$W(m_1)\subset \ldots \subset W(m_i-1)\oplus\langle e_{m_i+2}\rangle \subset W(m_{i+1})\subset \ldots \subset W(m_l)\subset V.$$ In addition, for all $1\leq i\leq l$ such that $m_i-m_{i-1}\geq 2$, we get the fixed points $r'_i$ which can be joined to the origin by a curve in the cohomology class dual to $\beta_i$. They can be defined modifying the $i$th step of the reference flag in (a): $$W(m_1)\subset \ldots \subset W(m_i-2)\oplus \langle e_{m_i}, e_{m_i+1} \rangle \subset W(m_{i+1})\subset \ldots W(m_l)\subset V.$$
- For each $m_{i+1}-m_{i}=1$, $1\leq i < l$, we have a fixed point $s_i$ which can be joined to $q_{i+1}$ by a rational curve in the cohomology class dual to $\beta_{i}$. Explicitly it is given by changing the $i$th and $(i+1)$st steps of the standard flag: $$W(m_1)\subset \ldots \subset W(m_i-1)\oplus \langle e_{m_i+2} \rangle \subset W(m_i)\oplus \langle e_{m_i+2}\rangle \subset\ldots W(m_l)\subset V.$$ Similarly, for all $1<l\leq l$ such that $m_i-m_{i-1}=1$, we obtain the fixed point $s_i'$ which can be joined to $q_{i-1}$ by a rational curve in the cohomology class dual to $\beta_i$. Explicitly, this point is obtained by modifying the $(i-1)$st and $i$th steps of the reference flag $$W(m_1)\subset \ldots \subset W(m_{i}-2)\oplus \langle e_{m_{i}}\rangle\subset W(e_{m_{i}-2}) \oplus \langle e_{m_{i}}, e_{m_{i}+1} \rangle \subset \ldots \subset W(m_l)\subset V.$$
Turning to the fixed loci on $\fscheme$, we will employ the usual method of bookkeeping the fixed loci by means of decorated graphs $\Gamma$. The vertices of $\Gamma$ are in one to one correspondence with the components of $f^{-1}(\cs \text { fixed points on $X$})$. The vertices come with labels corresponding to the $\cs$ fixed points on $X$. The edges of the graph correspond to non-contracted components of the map $f$ and are decorated with the degree on that component. The graph $\Gamma$ has legs attached to its vertices. A flag $\mathfrak f$ determines an edge $e(\mathfrak f)$ and thus a non contracted component $C_e$ of the stable map. We let $R_e$ be the image of this component. The flag $\mathfrak f$ also determines a unique vertex $v(\mathfrak f)$ which gives a point on the curve $C_e$ mapping to a fixed point of the $\cs$ action on $X$. We let $\omega_{\mathfrak f}$ denote the $\cs$ weight on the fiber of the bundle $f^{\star} T R_e$ at the point $v(\mathfrak f)$.
The weights on the normal bundles of each fixed locus were computed by Kontsevich-Graber-Pandharipande (see [@GP]). The list of weights on the normal bundle of the fixed locus indexed by $\Gamma$ is generated by the following algorithm:
- flag contributions: for each flag $\mathfrak f$ whose vertex $v(\mathfrak f)$ has total valency $\geq 3$ we include the weight $\omega_{\mathfrak f}$ on our list of weights.
- vertex contributions: for each vertex $v$ corresponding to a fixed point $q$ of the $\cs$ action on $X$, we include the $\cs$ weights on $T_{q}X$.
- vertex contributions: the vertices $v$ with valency $2$ and no legs have two incident flags $\mathfrak f_1$ and $\mathfrak f_2$. We include the weight $\omega_{\mathfrak f_1}+\omega_{\mathfrak f_2}$.
- edge contributions: for each edge $e$, we include the weights of the $\cs$ action on $H^{0}(C_e, f^{\star} TX)$.
- flag contributions: for each flag $\mathfrak f$, the vertex $v(\mathfrak f)$ maps to a fixed point $q$ of the $\cs$ action on $X$. We remove the weights on $T_{q}X$ from the list.
- vertex contributions: for each vertex $v$ with valency $1$ and no legs, i.e. those vertices contained in only one flag $\mathfrak f$, we remove the weight $\omega_{\mathfrak f}$ from the list.
The graph below corresponds to a fixed locus with no negative weights on its normal bundle.
Its [*plus*]{} cell is the big locus of the $\cs$ flow on $\fscheme$. The corresponding fixed locus is isomorphic to the quotient ${\overline M}_{0, n + \sum_{i} d_i}/{S_{d_1}\times \ldots \times S_{d_l}}$. Its contribution to $H^{2}(\fscheme)$, as determined by the “homology basis theorem” in [@O2], equals the second Betti number. By lemma $\ref {dim}$ this contribution is: $$[2^{n-1}(d_1+1)\ldots (d_l+1)]^{+}-1-ln - \binom{l+1}{2}-\binom{n}{2}+\mathfrak a,$$ where $\mathfrak a$ is the number of indices such that $d_j=1$.
There are (at least) five types of graphs which correspond to fixed loci with only one negative weight on their tangent bundle. To compute their contribution to $H^{2}(\fscheme)$, we only have to count all such graphs.
We will analyze each of the five types one by one. In drawing these graphs, we used continuous lines for the edges representing the rational curves $R_i$ in the cohomology class dual to $\beta_i$, which join the origin $P$ to the fixed points $q_i$. We also indicated just below the graph the number of such curves that we use.
The graphs of type $A$ have one leg labeled $i$ attached to a vertex labeled by $q_j$. There are $n \cdot l$ such graphs. The graphs of type $B$ have one thicker edge labeled $2\beta_j$. This edge corresponds to components mapping to $R_j$ with degree $2$ with ramification only over $P$ and $q_j$. These graphs only exist if $d_j\geq 2$, and their number equals $l-\mathfrak a$. For the graphs of type $C$, one of the edges corresponding to the rational curve $R_j$ is replaced by a rational curve, still in the homology class $\beta_j$ which joins the origin to $r_j$ or $r'_j$. This new edge is represented by a dotted line. For each $1\leq i < j \leq l$ we obtain a graph of type $D$. An edge representing the curve $R_j$ has been replaced by a rational curves with cohomology class $\beta_j$ joining $q_i$ to $q_{ij}$. The new edge is attached to one of the edges representing the curve $R_i$. We used dotted lines for the two rational curves in question. Notice the apparent asymmetry between $i,j$. Indeed, the corresponding graph obtained by switching $i$ and $j$ has one more negative weight. This comes from the contribution of the vertex of valency $2$. In our case, that vertex contributes with positive weight as one immediately checks remembering that the weight $\lambda_{j+1}$ is the dominant one among the weights which appear on the rational curves coming into the valency $2$ vertex in question. Finally, the graphs of type $E$ are described in the same manner. We have replaced two rational curves in the cohomology classes $\beta_{i}$ and $\beta_{i+1}$ by two rational curves with the same cohomology classes, which are graphically represented by dotted lines. There are $h^{4}(X)$ such graphs of type $C$, $D$ and $E$.
Adding up all these contributions from the graphs above, we find a lower bound for the dimension of $H^{2}(\fscheme)$. As promised, this coincides with the number given by equation $\eqref {upper}$. This completes the proof of theorem $\ref {diva}$.
It remains to explain why the five types of fixed loci listed above have exactly one negative weight on their normal bundles. Needless to say, the computation involves the Konsevich-Graber-Pandharipande recipe for computing the weights. This is a straightforward argument for the most part. There are two ingredients which are important to the count of the negative weights.
1. For each curve $R=R_i$, the tangent space $T_{P} R$ at the fixed point $P$ has one positive weight, as all weights on $T_P X$ are positive. Therefore the tangent space $T_{q_{i}}R$ has the opposite/negative weight. When $R$ is the curve joining $q_i$ to $q_{ij}$, the tangent space at $q_i$ has one positive weight: there should be only one negative weight on $T_{q_i}X$ which we’ve seen occurs along the curve $R_i$. Therefore the tangent space of $R$ at $q_{ij}$ has the opposite/negative weight. Moreover, an explicit computation of the weights shows that each vertex of valency $2$ in the graphs of type $D, E$ contributes with the positive weight $\omega_{\mathfrak f_1}+\omega_{\mathfrak f_2}$.
2. For each rational curve $R=R_{j}$ joining $P$ to $q_j$ and each map $f: \p^1\to R$ of degree $d$ which is totally ramified over $P$ and $q_{j}$, the number of negative weights on $H^{0}(\p^1, f^{\star}TX)$ equals $d$. The case in hand can be checked rather easily recalling the following “Euler” sequence on $X$: $$\label {eulerflag} 0 \to TX \to \bigoplus_{i} Hom(\mathcal S_i, \mathcal Q_{i})\to \bigoplus_{i} Hom (\mathcal S_i, \mathcal Q_{i+1})\to 0.$$ It is enough to compute the weights on the virtual $\cs$ representation $$\bigoplus_{i} H^0(f^{\star}(\mathcal S_i^{\star}\otimes \mathcal Q_{i}))-\bigoplus_{i}H^{0}(f^{\star}(\mathcal S_i^{\star}\otimes \mathcal Q_{i+1})).$$ We claim that when $i\neq j$, there are no negative weights on $H^{0}(f^{\star}(\s^{\star}_i \otimes \q_i))$. Indeed, we observe that for $i\neq j$, we have the equivariant isomorphism $$f^{\star} \s_i= W(m_i) \otimes \o$$ so the weights on $H^{0}(f^{\star}(\s^{\star}_i \otimes \q_i))$ are the positive numbers $\lambda_{u}-\lambda_{v}$ for $v \leq m_i < u$.
We claim $d$ negative weights on $H^{0}(f^{\star}(\s^{\star}_j \otimes \q_j))$. Equation $\eqref {line}$ shows that we have an equivariant identification: $$\label {neg2} \s_j|_{R_j} = W(m_j-1) \otimes \o \oplus \o(-1).$$ In the above, the $\cs$ action on $\o(-1)$ has the weight $\lambda_{m_j}$ at $[1:0]$ and the weight $\lambda_{{m_j}+1}$ at $[0:1]$.
The exact sequence $\eqref {tautflag}$ tensored with $f^{\star} \s_j^{\star}$ shows that $H^{0}(f^{\star} \s^{\star}_j \otimes f^{\star} \q_j)$ is equivalent to the $\cs$ virtual representation $$\label {neg1} V \otimes H^{0} (f^{\star} \s^{\star}_j) - H^{0} (f^{\star} \s^{\star}_j \otimes f^{\star} \s_j) + H^{1} (f^{\star} \s^{\star}_j \otimes f^{\star} \s_j).$$ We can now consider each of the three terms in $\eqref {neg1}$ individually. Using $\eqref {neg2}$, we rewrite the first term as $$V \otimes W(m_j-1)^{\star} \oplus V \otimes H^{0} (\mathcal O_{\p^1}(d)).$$ The first summand has weights $\lambda_u - \lambda_v$ for $v\leq m_j-1$ and all $u$. In addition, we also have the weights $\lambda_u - \frac{1}{d}(a\lambda_{m_j}+b\lambda_{m_j+1})$ for all nonnegative $a, b$ such that $a+b=d$. The second term in $\eqref {neg1}$ can be rewritten as $$W(m_j-1)^{\star} \otimes W(m_j-1) \oplus H^{0}(\o(d)) \otimes W(m_j-1) \oplus \c$$ with a trivial action on the last term. This has exactly the same non-zero weights as the first term in $\eqref{neg1}$, except that we need to require that $u\leq m_j-1$. Finally, the third term in $\eqref {neg1}$ equals $$W(m_j-1)^{\star}\otimes H^{1}(\o(-d))$$ with positive weights $-\lambda_{u}+ \frac{a\lambda_{m_j}+b\lambda_{m_j+1}}{d}$ for all $u\leq m_j-1$ and $a,b$ are positive integers summing up to $d$. Summarizing, we find that the only negative weights in the list above are the $d$ values $\frac{a}{d} (\lambda_{m_j}- \lambda_{m_j+1})$ for $1\leq a\leq d$.
In the same way we verify that there are no negative weights on $H^{0}(f^{\star}(\s_i^{\star} \otimes \q_{i+1}))$. We leave the details to the reader since they are similar to the computations above. Our initial claim is now proved.
Similarly, one shows that the number of negative weights on $H^{0}(R, TX)$ is exactly $2$ whenever $R$ is a rational curve in the cohomology class dual to $\beta_j$ of one of the following types:
- the rational curve joining $P$ to one of the points $r_j$ or $r'_j$.
- the rational curve joining $q_i$ to $q_{ij}$.
- the rational curve joining $q_{j+1}$ to $s_j$ or the curve joining $q_{j-1}$ to $s'_j$.
The author believes that the arguments of the last few subsections can be repeated for $X=G/P$. The proofs should not be any more difficult. The count of negative $\cs$ weights on various cohomology groups can be done in terms of the roots of $\mathfrak p$. Moreover, the count of the negative weights on the various tangent spaces follows from standard computations. We leave these arguments to the interested reader.
The codimension 2 classes.
==========================
This section contains the proof of proposition $\ref {eval}$ which will be instrumental in the final section of this paper. In this section, [**we will only consider the interesting case $d>1$.**]{}
It is useful to introduce the following piece of [**notation**]{} for a collection of classes which will appear frequently in our computations. First, we make the convention that $a,b$ will always denote indices adding up to $d$. Next, we consider $S_1, S_2$ two disjoint, possibly empty subsets of $\{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$ and we let $C_1, C_2$ be two possibly empty collections of cohomology classes on $X$. We will denote by $\Delta_{a, b}(S_1, S_2 | C_1, C_2)$ the class on $\fscheme$ represented by the subscheme of stable maps with two components of degrees $a$ and $b$ carrying the markings $S_1$ and $S_2$ respectively. Moreover, we require that these components intersect generic subvarieties in the cohomology classes $C_1$ and $C_2$ respectively. The sum of all cohomology classes $\Delta_{a,b}(S_1, S_2|C_1, C_2)$ for all possible degrees is denoted by $\Delta(S_1, S_2 | C_1, C_2)$. We denote by $\bullet$ the empty sets among $S_1, S_2, C_1, C_2$. If $C_1, C_2$ are both empty, we will omit writing both bullets.
\[eval\] For all $1\leq i\neq j\leq n$ and for all codimension $2$ classes $\alpha$ on the Grassmannian $\bg$, the following relation is true: $$\label {re2}
ev_i^{\star}\alpha-ev_j^{\star}\alpha-\psi_j \kappa(\alpha)=- \Delta(\{i\}, \{j\} | \alpha, \bullet).$$
As a first reduction, we observe that the equations $\eqref {re2}$ pull back compatibly under the forgetful maps $\pi:\overline M_{0,n+1}(\bg, d)\to \overline M_{0,n}(\bg, d)$. This is an immediate consequence of the relation $\pi^{\star}\psi_j=\psi_j-\Delta_{0, d}(\{j,n+1\},\{1, \ldots, j-1, j+1, \ldots, n\})$. Henceforth, we will assume $n=2$. Secondly, we observe that it is enough to work on Grassmannians of rank $r\geq 3$ subspaces since the rank $2$ case will follow by restriction to the space of maps to ${\bf G}(2, V)\hookrightarrow \bg$.
As mentioned in the introduction, the strategy of the proof will be to enumerate all codimension $2$ cycles and compare their number with the dimension of the Chow group which will be computed by a combination of localization and Deligne spectral sequence techniques. As a warm up exercise, we will undertake this task in the next subsection for the space of maps to $\pr$.
Maps to Projective Spaces.
--------------------------
To begin with, we consider the case of maps without markings $\overline M_{0,0}(\pr, d)$. There are several cases to consider: $r=1$, $r=2$ and $r\geq 3$.
We will consider $X=\p^1$ first. In [@O1] and [@O2], we saw that the whole cohomology of the moduli space of stable maps to $\p^1$ is generated by the tautological classes. The search for the codimension $2$ tautological classes gives the following results:
1. boundary classes of nodal maps with three irreducible components,
2. classes of nodal stable maps whose node maps to a fixed point in $\p^1$.
It turns out the classes in (1) and (2) are in fact linearly independent. To see this it is enough to match their number with the dimension of $H^{4}(\overline M_{0,0}(\p^1, d))$. This dimension count can be done in several ways - either using Deligne’s spectral sequence or localization.
Let us briefly indicate how the localization argument works, then turning to the computation by Deligne’s spectral sequence. We will use a $\cs$ action on $\p^1$ with two fixed points which we call $0, 1$ such that the tangent bundle at $0$ has a positive weight, while the tangent bundle at $1$ has a negative weight. As before, we index the fixed point loci on $\overline M_{0,0}(\p^1, d)$ by decorated graphs $\Gamma$.
In [@O2], we counted the negative weighs on the normal bundles of the fixed loci (see lemma $3$ in that paper). More precisely, we let $\mathfrak s$ denote the number of vertices of $\Gamma$ labeled by $1$ with at least three incident flags and let $\mathfrak u$ denote the number of vertices of $\Gamma$ labeled by $1$ with one incident flag. The number of negative weights on the normal bundle of the fixed locus indexed by $\Gamma$ is $d - \mathfrak u + \mathfrak s$. An easy argument shows that there are $4$ types of graphs indexing fixed loci with at most $2$ negative weights on their normal bundle. These graphs are shown in the figure below. The number of negative weights is indicated in a box to the left of each graph and the degrees of the edges are written below the graphs.
\[2p1\]
The first graph gives the fixed locus $\overline M_{0,d}/S_d$ with no negative weights on the normal bundle, while the second graph gives the fixed locus $\overline M_{0, d-1}/S_{d-2}$ with one negative weight. There are $2+[d/2]$ graphs with $2$ negative weights. We find that the dimension of $H^4$ equals $$h^{4}({\overline M}_{0,d})^{S_d} + h^{2} (\overline M_{0, d-1})^{S_{d-2}}+ 2 + [d/2] = h^{4}({\overline M}_{0,d})^{S_d} + d-2 + [d/2]$$ where we also used lemma $\ref {dim}$ to evaluate the second term of the sum.
It remains to compute the first term. By a well know theorem of Keel, we already know that the generators of $H^{4}(\overline M_{0,d})^{S_d}$ are the boundary classes of curves with at least $3$ irreducible components. These boundary classes $\mathcal {B}_{ijl}$ are indexed by triples $(i, j, l)$ such that $i+j+l = d, \; j\geq 1,\; 2\leq i\leq l,$ these integers corresponding to the number of marked points on each component.
[**Claim.**]{} The classes $\mathcal B_{ijl}$ form a basis of $H^{4}(\overline M_{0,d})^{S_d}$. .06in
We show these classes are linearly independent by matching their number with the actual dimension of $H^4(\overline M_{0,d})^{S_d}$. The dimension computation is identical to that in lemma $\ref {dim}$ by averaging out the traces of all $\sigma\in S_d$ on $H^{4}(\overline M_{0,d})$. We will omit the details. An alternate proof will be established by the arguments below.
We will now redo the same computation making use of Deligne’s spectral sequence. There are two cases to consider depending on the parity of $d$. Let us show the details for $d=2k$. An identical argument also works for odd $d$’s - the numerical details are slightly different. We make use of the fact that the boundary divisors in the space of stable maps have normal crossings. However, these boundary divisors have self-intersections and writing down the Deligne spectral sequence with the right system of coefficients is delicate, as we have to account for automorphisms and self-intersections; the relevant details were explained in the first section of [@O1].
In our case, the $k$ boundary divisors $D_1, \ldots D_k$ correspond to nodal maps whose degrees on the components are $(1, 2k-1)$, …$(k,k)$. The codimension two strata are denoted by $D_{ijl}$ for $1\leq i\leq l$ and $1\leq j$ with $i+j+l=d$; they correspond to stable maps with three components, the degree on the middle component being $j$. For $1\leq i < k$, the stratum $D_{i, 2k-2i, i}$ is the self intersection of $D_{i, 2k-i}$; there are no anti invariant classes in its zeroth cohomology group because of the $\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z$ symmetry which switches the edges. Therefore, this term does not appear in the Deligne spectral sequence. We obtain the following complex: $$\label {del}\bigoplus_{1\leq i<l, 1\leq j, i+j+l=d} H^{0}(D_{ijl}) \to \bigoplus_{i=1}^{k-1} H^{2}(D_i)\oplus H^{2}(D_k)^{-} \to H^{4}(\overline M_{0,0}(\p^1,d)).$$ Here the minus superscript on $H^{2}(D_k)^{-}$ stands for the anti invariant part of the cohomology under the sign representation of $Aut(\Gamma)$, as explained in [@O1]. Recall that each automorphism has a sign, given by the action it induces on the determinant $\det (\text { Edge }(\Gamma))$. The minus sign refers to cohomology classes which are invariant under this sign representation. Since the edge of the dual graph indexing $D_k$ is preserved under the $\mathbb Z/{2\mathbb Z}$ symmetry of the graph, $H^{2}(D_k)^{-}$ is the same as the $\mathbb Z/{2\mathbb Z}$ invariant part of $H^{2}(\overline M_{0,1}(\p^1, k)\times_{\p^1} \overline M_{0,1}(\p^1, k))$. We use the computation of lemma $\ref {dim}$ to conclude that the dimension of the middle term of the complex $\eqref {del}$ is $2k^{2}-2k+1$. The first term is easily seen to be $k^{2}-2k+1$ dimensional.
We claim the dimension of $H^{4}$ is $k^2$, which also turns out to be the number of generators we have exhibited for $H^{4}$. It suffices to show that the alternating sum of dimensions of the terms in the complex $\eqref{del}$ is $0$. This alternating sum equals the coefficient of $q^{2\text {dim } - 4}$ in the virtual Poincare polynomial of $M=M_{0,0}(\p^1,d)$. By definition, the Poincare polynomial can be computed from the associated graded of the Hodge weight filtration: $$\label {hodge} P(M)=\sum_{i,j} (-1)^{i+j} Gr_j^{W}(H^{i}_c(M)) q^{j}$$ In [@M1], it is proved that $P(M)=q^{4d-4}$. The claim follows from these observations.
The argument above is no more complicated when we deal with general projective spaces. We will pick a $\cs$ action with weights $\lambda_0,\ldots, \ldots, \lambda_r$ such that $\lambda_i$ is much bigger than $\lambda_{i-1}$. We denote by $0, 1, \ldots, r$ the isolated fixed points of this action. To find the dimension of $H^4$ we use localization. In addition to the fixed loci listed above for $\p^1$ we have $4$ more types of graphs when $r=2$ and one additional graph for $r=3$. There are no new graphs added for $r>3$. This is an aspect of the “stabilization of cohomology” theorem proved in [@BH]. Our computation shows that when $r=2$ we gain $d$ dimensions (we will need to invoke lemma $\ref {dim}$ again to compute the contribution of the first graph). For $r\geq 3$ we gain $d+1$ dimensions.
\[2pr\]
We find generators for $H^4$ by enumerating all tautological classes and matching their number with the dimension we just computed. We obtain the following:
\[codimension\] [**A.**]{} The following codimension $2$ classes on $\overline M_{0,0}(\p^r, d)$ form a basis for the codimension $2$ Chow group.
- the boundary classes of maps whose domain has at least three components,
- the nodal classes of maps whose node is mapped to a codimension $1$ subspace,
- (when $r\geq 2$) classes of nodal maps, one component passing through a fixed codimension $2$ subspace,
- (when $r\geq 2$) classes of maps whose images pass through two general codimension two subspaces,
- (when $r\geq 3$) the class of maps intersecting a codimension $3$ subspace.
We will consider now the case of one marked point. Enumeration of the codimension $2$ tautological classes yields the following results:
1. classes of stable maps with at least three irreducible components.
2. classes of stable maps with two components such that the marked point maps to a fixed hyperplane in $\pr$.
3. classes of stable maps with two components, one component intersecting a fixed codimension $2$ subspace in $\pr$ (for $r\geq 2$).
4. classes of maps whose marked point maps to a fixed codimension $2$ subspace of $\pr$ (if $r\geq 2$).
5. classes of maps whose marked point maps to a fixed hyperplane and whose images intersect a codimension $2$ subspace (if $r\geq 2$).
6. classes of maps which intersect two general codimension $2$ subspaces of $\pr$ (if $r\geq 2$).
7. classes of maps which intersect a codimension $3$ subspace of $\pr$ (if $r\geq 3$).
The reader may easily observe that we omitted:
- the classes of stable maps with two irreducible components, whose node maps to a fixed hyperplane in $\pr$.
By equation $\eqref {evsum}$ below, these can be expressed in terms of classes in $(B.1)$, $(B.2.1)$ and $(B.2.2)$.
We invite the reader to compute the actual dimension of the cohomology using Deligne’s spectral sequence and observe that in fact we need to have one relation between the generators above when $r\geq 2$, whereas for $r=1$, the [*nonzero*]{} classes above are in fact independent. The missing relation for $r\geq 2$ was explained in lemma 5 of [@O1]. We proved there that $$\label {marked} ev_1^{\star} H^2 - \frac{1}{d}ev_1^{\star} H\cdot \kappa(H^2)+\frac{1}{d^2} \kappa(H^2)^2 - \frac{1}{d} \kappa(H^3)$$ is a sum of classes of type $(B.1)$ and $(B.2)$.
The case of two markings is entirely similar and we leave the details to the interested reader. We only mention that in this case we need to account for more than one relation. However, all these relations can be explained by lemmas 1.1.1, 1.1.2 in [@divisors], equations $\eqref {diff}$ - $\eqref {evsum}$ below and the relation $\eqref {marked}$ above. We summarize our findings:
[**B.**]{} The classes $(B.1)$, $(B.2.1)$, $(B.2.2)$, $(B.3)$ generate the codimension $2$ Chow group of $\schemea$. The only possible relation between the [**nonzero**]{} classes above is $\eqref {marked}$ (for $r\geq 2$).\
[**C.**]{} The following classes, when nonzero, form a basis for the codimension $2$ Chow group of $\schemeb$:
1. classes of maps with at least three components.
2. classes of maps with two components, the markings $1$ and $2$ being on different components, one of the components intersecting a codimension $2$ subspace in $\pr$ (for $r\geq 2$).
3. classes of maps with two components, the markings $1$ and $2$ being on different components, the node mapping to a fixed hyperplane.
4. the class of maps with two components, one of degree $0$ containing both markings and mapping to a fixed hyperplane.
5. the class of maps with two components, one of these components containing both markings, the other intersecting a fixed codimension $2$ subspace of $\pr$ (if $r\geq 2$).
6. classes of maps such that one marking maps to a codimension $2$ subspace of $\pr$ (if $r\geq 2$).
A useful relation.
------------------
In this subsection we will prove a particular case of $\eqref {re2}$ which will be important in deriving the general result.
\[re2p\] Proposition $\ref {eval}$ holds on the space of maps to $\pr$. That is, the following relation is satisfied: $$\label{2m}ev_1^{\star}H^2-ev_2^{\star}H^2 - \psi_2 \kappa(H^2)=-\Delta(\{1\}, \{2\} | H^2, \bullet).$$
[**Proof.**]{} The proof of this result is a consequence of the divisorial relations below. These are theorem $1$ in [@LP], and lemma 2.2.2 in [@divisors] respectively.
$$\label {diff}
ev_1^{\star} H - ev_2^{\star} H = d\psi_2 - \sum a \Delta_{a,b} (\{1\}, \{2\}).$$
$$\label {psisum}
\psi_1 + \psi_2 = \Delta(\one, \two)$$
$$\label {strange}
\psi_i+\frac{2}{d} ev_i^{\star} H - \frac{1}{d^2} \kappa(H^2) = \sum \frac{b^2}{d^2}\Delta_{a,b}(\{i\}, \b)$$
As a consequence of $\eqref {psisum}$ and $\eqref {strange}$ we obtain the following two equations: $$\label {psi2} \psi_2=\frac{2}{d} ev_1^{\star} H - \frac{1}{d^2}\kappa(H^2) + \text {boundaries }$$ $$\label {evsum} ev_1^{\star} H + ev_2^{\star} H = \frac{1}{d} \kappa(H^2) -\frac{ab}{d} \Delta_{a,b}(\one, \two) + \frac{b^2}{d} \Delta_{a,b}(\{1,2\}, \b)$$ We multiply $\eqref{diff}$ by $\eqref {evsum}$ to obtain the following expression for $ev_1^{\star}H^2-ev_2^{\star} H^2$: $$\label {squares} \left(d\psi_2-\sum a\Delta_{a,b}(\one, \two)\right)\left(\frac{1}{d} \kappa(H^2) - \frac{ab}{d} \Delta_{a,b}(\one, \two) + \frac{b^2}{d}\Delta_{a,b}(\{1,2\}, \b)\right)$$ This product has the form $\psi_2 \cdot \kappa(H^2)+\text {boundary terms }$. We observe that $ev_1^{\star}H^2-ev_2^{\star} H^2-\psi_2 \cdot \kappa(H^2)$ restricts to $0$ on the moduli space of maps to any $\p^1\hookrightarrow\pr$. This observation and the independence result in proposition $\ref {codimension}$.${\bf C}$ allows us to conclude that among the boundary terms in the expansion of $\eqref {squares}$ we cannot have classes of type $(C.1)$, $(C.2.2)$, $(C.2.3)$. We will therefore work modulo such boundary terms when evaluating the product $\eqref {squares}$.
Such codimension $2$ boundary terms are obtained for example by multiplying out two distinct divisors $\Delta_{a,b}$. Thus, we will only need to worry about self intersections of such divisor classes. Similarly, the product $\psi_2 \cdot \Delta_{a,b}(\{1,2\}, \b)$ can be rewritten as sum of classes of type $(C.1)$ since the $\psi$ class on the component with three special points is a boundary class ([@divisors], lemma 1.1.1). We conclude that: $$\begin{aligned}
ev_1^{\star}H^2&-&ev_2^{\star} H^2- \psi_2 \cdot \kappa(H^2)= -ab \psi_2 \cdot \Delta_{a,b}(\one, \two) + \frac{a^2 b}{d}\Delta_{a,b}(\one, \two)^2 -\\&-&\frac{a}{d}\Delta_{a,b}(\one, \two|\b, H^2) - \frac{a}{d}\Delta_{a,b}(\one, \two|H^2, \b).\end{aligned}$$ We will write $\mathcal D_{a,b}$ for the class of nodal maps of degrees $a$ and $b$, with markings $1$ and $2$ on the first and second component respectively, such that the node maps to a fixed hyperplane of $\pr$. Using $\eqref {psi2}$ we obtain that $$\psi_2 \cdot \Delta_{a,b}(\one, \two)=\frac{2}{b}\mathcal D_{a,b} - \frac{1}{b^2} \Delta_{a,b}(\one, \two|\b, H^2)+\text {boundaries }.$$ The divisor $\Delta_{a,b}(\one, \two)$ is dominated by $\overline M_{0,\one\cup\{\star\}}(\pr, a)\times_{\pr}\overline M_{0, \{\bullet\}\cup \two}(\pr, b)$ and its normal bundle has Chern class $-\psi_{\star}-\psi_{\b}$. Using the self-intersection formula and $\eqref {strange}$ we obtain that modulo boundaries the following is true: $$\Delta_{a,b}(\one, \two)^2= \frac{2}{a}\mathcal D_{a,b} - \frac{1}{a^2} \Delta_{a,b}(\one, \two|H^2, \b) + \frac{2}{b} \mathcal D_{ab} - \frac{1}{b^2} \Delta_{a,b}(\one, \two|\b, H^2).$$ The lemma follows easily from the last three equations.
\[red\]As a consequence, we prove proposition $\ref {eval}$ for $\alpha = c_1(\det \q)^2$ by making use of the map $\overline M_{0,2}(\bg, d)\hookrightarrow \overline M_{0,2}(\pr, d)$ induced by the Plucker embedding.
Maps to Grassmannians.
----------------------
We will repeat the reasoning of subsection $3.1$ in the context of the unmarked stable map spaces to Grassmannians. However, there is no result similar to Manin’s computation of the Hodge polynomial of the open part. Instead, we will appeal to localization. There are complications arising in this approach since we do not have a formula counting the number of negative weights on the normal bundles of the fixed loci, as we did for $\pr$. Instead, we will use localization to obtain a lower bound for the dimension of the codimension $2$ Chow group of $\overline M_{0,0}(\bg, d)$. This bound will turn out to be sharp, as an easy enumeration of the codimension $2$ tautological classes will show. We will combine this with a formal computation involving Deligne’s spectral sequence to find the dimension of the cohomology when we increase the number of marked points. By comparing this with the number of generators, we will be able to derive the existence of one relation, which will be explicitly identified next.
We assume $\bg$ is the Grassmannian of quotients of dimension $r$ of some $N$ dimensional vector space $V$ such that $r\geq 3$ and $N - r\geq 3$. We will use a $\cs$ action on $V$ with weights $\lambda_1 < \ldots< \lambda_N$ as in section $2.4$. We label the fixed points of the induced $\cs$ action on $\bg$ by the number of positive weights on their tangent bundle. There will be one fixed point labeled $0$, one fixed point labeled $1$, two fixed points labeled $2$ and (since $r\geq 3$) there will be $3$ fixed points labeled $3$. Moreover, all these fixed points can be joined by a degree $1$ rational curve to the fixed point $0$.
We will consider the induced $\cs$ action on $\overline M_{0,0}(\bg, d)$ and exhibit fixed loci with at most two negative weights on their normal bundles. In fact, we have already done most of the work for projective spaces. We already know [*all*]{} such graphs for $\p^3$ as a result of the previous subsections. These graphs are exhibited in figures $3$ and $4$. They still make sense for $\bg$, but their number will be higher in this case, since there are multiple fixed points on $\bg$ with the same labels. A moment’s though shows that the five graphs we exhibited in figure $4$ contribute at least $h^{2}(\overline M_{0,d})^{S_{d-1}}+ 2 + 1 + 1+ 2 = d+3$ extra dimensions to $h^{4}(\overline M_{0,0}(\bg, d))$ over $h^{4}(\overline M_{0,0}(\p^3, d))$. Presumably, there could be more graphs which contribute, so we can only conclude: $$\label {comp}h^{4}(\overline M_{0,0}(\bg, d))-h^{4}(\overline M_{0,0}(\p^3, d))\geq d+3.$$
We will now argue that the opposite inequality is true. We will invoke the main result of [@O1] which shows all cohomology of $\overline M_{0,0}(\bg, d)$ is tautological. Enumeration of the codimension $2$ cohomology classes yields:
- the classes we exhibited for $\p^3$ in proposition $\ref {codimension}$.[**A**]{}, but replacing the arbitrary hyperplane in $\p^3$, the codimension $2$ subspace and the codimension $3$ subspace used there by smooth subvarieties in the cohomology classes $c_1(\q)$, $c_1(\q)^2$ and $c_1(\q)^3$ respectively.
- boundary classes of nodal maps, one of the components intersecting a fixed subvariety in the class $c_2(\q)$.
- the class of maps which intersect two generic subvarieties both in the cohomology class $c_2(\q)$.
- the class of maps which intersect two generic subvarieties in the cohomology classes $c_1^2(\q)$ and $c_2(\q)$.
- the class of maps which intersect a subvariety in the cohomology class $c_1(\q) c_2(\q)$.
- the class of maps which intersect a subvariety in the cohomology class $c_3(\q)$.
This enumeration is enough to establish that $\eqref {comp}$ is an equality. We find the following result. The independence of the degree seems to be true for all flag varieties; compare to the similar statement for projective spaces proved in [@O1] and to the similar remark in [@M1].
[**D.**]{} The classes listed above, if nonzero, form a basis for the complex codimension $2$ cohomology of $\overline M_{0,0}(\bg, d)$. The lowest piece of the Hodge structure on the open part is generated by the classes $(D.3)$ and $(A.3)$. Its dimension is degree independent.
We now compare the virtual Poincare polynomials $P(M_{0,0}(X, d))$ defined in $\eqref {hodge}$ when $X$ is either $\p^3$ or $\bg$. We use Deligne’s spectral sequence. There are two cases two consider depending on the parity of $d$. Let us only spell out the case when $d=2k$. We borrow the notation of subsection $3.1$ and we write $D_{ijl}^{X}$ for the class of maps to $X$ with three components of degrees $i, j, l$ and $D_i^X$ for the boundary class of maps with two components of degree $i$ and $2k-i$ on the space $\overline M_{0,0}(X, d)$. We write $D(X)$ for the complex dimension of $\overline M_{0,0}(X, d)$. Just as in $\eqref {del}$, we obtain complexes $$\label {ho1}
0\to \bigoplus_{i=1}^{k}H^0(D_i^X)\to H^{2}(\overline M_{0,0}(X, d))\to 0$$
$$\label {ho2}
0\to \bigoplus_{1\leq i<l, j\geq 1, i+j+l=d} H^{0}(D_{ijl}^X)\to \bigoplus_{i=1}^{k-1} H^{2}(D_i^X)\oplus H^{2}(D_k^X)^{-}\to H^{4}(\overline M_{0,0}(X, d))\to 0.$$
The alternating sums of the dimensions of the terms in $\eqref {ho1}$ is the coefficient $a_2(X)$ of $q^{2D(X)-2}$ in the virtual Poincare polynomial $P(M_{0,0}(X,d))$, while for the complex $\eqref {ho2}$ the alternating sums of dimensions is the coefficient $a_4(X)$ of $q^{2D(X)-4}$ in the same polynomial. Comparing the complexes $\eqref {ho1}$ for $X=\p^3$ and for $X=\bg$ using the dimension formula $\eqref {upper}$ we obtain $$\label {2ndcoeff} a_2(\bg)=a_2(\p^3)+1.$$ Now, we can use $\eqref {comp}$ to compare the last term of the complex $\eqref {ho2}$. The dimension formula $\eqref {upper}$ shows that the dimensions of the middle terms differ by $2$ when $1\leq i\leq k-1$ and by $1$ for $i=k$. We conclude that: $$\label {4thcoeff}a_4(\bg)=a_4(\p^3)+(d+3)-(2(k-1)+1)=a_4(\p^3)+4.$$ The map $\pi: M_{0,1}(X, d)\to M_{0,0}(X, d)$ is a locally trivial fibration with fibers isomorphic to $\p^1$, therefore: $$P(M_{0,1}(X, d))=(q^2+1) P(M_{0,0}(X, d)).$$ Writing ${\overline a}_4(X)$ for the coefficient of $q^{2(D(X)+1)-4}$ in $P(M_{0,1}(X, d))$, and using the above equation together with $\eqref {2ndcoeff}$, $\eqref {4thcoeff}$ we obtain that: $$\label {coeff}{\overline a}_4(\bg)={\overline a}_4(\p^3)+5.$$ The same conclusion is valid when $d$ is odd.
We now repeat this argument “backwards” for the moduli spaces $\overline M_{0,1}(X, d)$. Using the complex $\eqref {ho2}$, equation $\eqref {upper}$ to compare the middle terms, and equation $\eqref {coeff}$ to compare the alternating sums of dimensions we find: $$h^{4}(\overline M_{0,1}(\bg,d))=h^{4}(\overline M_{0,1}(\p^3, d))+ 2d+3.$$ We again list the possible tautological generators for the codimension $2$ Chow group:
- All classes we exhibited for $\p^3$ in proposition $\ref {codimension}$.[**B**]{}, but replacing the arbitrary hyperplane in $\p^3$, the codimension $2$ subspace and the codimension $3$ subspace there by smooth subvarieties in the cohomology classes $c_1(\q)$, $c_1(\q)^2$ and $c_1(\q)^3$.
- boundary classes of nodal maps, one of the components intersecting a fixed subvariety in the class $c_2(\q)$.
- the class of maps whose marked point maps to a subvariety in the cohomology class $c_2(\q)$.
- the class of maps whose marked point maps to a subvariety in the cohomology class $c_1(\q)$ and whose images intersect a subvariety in the cohomology class $c_2(\q)$.
- the class of maps which intersect two generic subvarieties both in the cohomology class $c_2(\q)$.
- the class of maps which intersect two generic subvarieties in the cohomology classes $c_1^2(\q)$ and $c_2(\q)$.
- the class of maps which intersect a subvariety in the cohomology class $c_1(\q) c_2(\q)$.
- the class of maps which intersect a subvariety in the cohomology class $c_3(\q)$.
We now observe that the span of the classes in $(E.1)$ is exactly $h^{4}(\overline M_{0,1}(\p^3, d)))$ dimensional. Indeed, we only need to account for a relation analogous to $\eqref {marked}$, replacing $H$ by $c_1(\q)$. Such a relation is obtained from the one for $\pr$ by making use of the Plucker embedding. Restricting to a generic $\p^3\hookrightarrow\bg$ and using proposition $\ref {codimension}$.[**B.**]{} we see that there cannot be any more relations.
This observation and formula $\eqref {coeff}$ shows that there should be [*exactly*]{} one more relation involving classes in $(E.2)$ and $(E.3)$. Write $c_i$ for the Chern classes $c_i(\q)$. For constants $\gamma_i^{(d)}$, not all zero, we conclude that $$\label{1m} \gamma_1^{(d)} \cdot ev_1^{\star} c_2+ \gamma_2 ^{(d)}\cdot ev_1^{\star} c_1 \cdot \kappa(c_2)+\gamma_3^{(d)} \cdot \kappa (c_2)^2 + \gamma_4^{(d)} \cdot \kappa(c_1^2, c_2) +\gamma_5^{(d)} \cdot \kappa(c_1c_2)+ \gamma_6^{(d)} \cdot \kappa(c_3) +$$ $$+\gamma_7^{(d)} \cdot ev_1^{\star}c_1^2+\gamma_8^{(d)} \cdot ev_{1}^{\star} c_1 \cdot\kappa(c_1^2)+\gamma_9^{(d)}\cdot \kappa(c_1^2)^2+\gamma_{10}^{(d)} \cdot \kappa(c_1^3)$$ is sum of boundary classes in $(E.2)$ and [*boundary*]{} classes in $(E.1)$.
Next, we will identify the constants $\gamma_i^{(d)}$. The first observation is that the $\gamma_i^{(d)}$’s do not depend on the dimension of $V$. Indeed, assume that for two vector spaces $V\hookrightarrow W$ we had different coefficients for the relations $\eqref {1m}$. Restricting the equation for ${\bf G}(r, W)$ to ${\bf G} (r, V)$ we obtain two distinct relations, which is impossible. Therefore, to find the constants $\gamma_i^{(d)}$ we can assume that the dimension of $V$ is as large as we want.
Our strategy will be to pull back equation $\eqref {1m}$ to moduli spaces of maps to $\p^3$. The vector bundle $$\mathcal O_{\p^3}(m)\oplus \mathcal O_{\p^3}(n)\oplus \mathcal O_{\p^3}(p)\oplus \mathcal O_{\p^3}^{r-3}$$ is globally generated, hence it can be written as a quotient of $\mathcal O_{\p^3}\otimes W$ for some large vector space $W$. We obtain an immersion $i: \p^3\to {\bf G}(r, W)$ which has the property that $i^{\star} c_1(\q)=aH$, $i^{\star} c_2(\q)=bH$ and $i^{\star} c_3(\q)=cH$. Here $a, b, c$ are the elementary symmetric functions in $m, n, p$.
Pulling back $\eqref {1m}$ from $\overline M_{0,1}(\bg, da)$ under $i$, we obtain that on $\overline M_{0,1}(\p^3, d)$: $$\begin{aligned}
(b\gamma_1^{(da)}&+&a^2 \gamma_7^{(da)}) ev_{1}^{\star} H^2+ (ab \gamma_2^{(da)}+ a^3\gamma_8^{(da)}) ev_1^{\star}H\cdot \kappa(H^2) + \\+(b^2\gamma_3^{(da)}&+&a^2b\gamma_4^{(da)}+a^4\gamma_9^{(da)})\cdot \kappa(H^2)^2 +(ab\gamma_5^{(da)}+c\gamma_6^{(da)}+a^3\gamma_{10}^{(da)})\cdot \kappa (H^3)\end{aligned}$$ is sum of boundaries $\Delta_{u,v}$ and boundary classes of maps with two nodes.
The independence result proved in proposition $\ref {codimension}$. [**B**]{} shows that the above expression should be a multiple of $\eqref {marked}$. For example, this implies $$-\frac{1}{d}(b\gamma_1^{(da)}+a^2\gamma_7^{(da)})=ab\gamma_2^{(da)}+a^3\gamma_8^{(da)}$$ Regarding this identity as a polynomial in $a, b, c$, we immediately conclude that $$\gamma_2^{(d)}=-\frac{1}{d}\gamma^{(d)}_1, \; \gamma_{8}^{(d)}=-\frac{1}{d}\gamma_7^{(d)}.$$ The other constants can also be determined by this method: $$\gamma_3^{(d)}=\gamma_6^{(d)}=0, \gamma_5^{(d)}=-\frac{1}{d}\gamma_1^{(d)}, \gamma_4^{(d)}=\frac{1}{d^2}\gamma_1^{(d)}, \gamma_9^{(d)}=\frac{1}{d^2}\gamma_7^{(d)}, \gamma_{10}^{(d)}=-\frac{1}{d}\gamma_7^{(d)}$$ Subtracting multiple of $\eqref {marked}$ we may assume $\gamma_7^{(d)}=\gamma_8^{(d)}=\gamma_9^{(d)}=\gamma_{10}^{(d)}=0$. Moreover, the same argument will show that the only boundary terms which can appear in $\eqref {1m}$ are the classes in $(E.2)$. Therefore $$\label{1mb} ev_1^{\star} c_2-\frac{1}{d} ev_1^{\star} c_1 \cdot \kappa(c_2)+\frac{1}{d^2}\kappa(c_1^2, c_2) -\frac{1}{d} \kappa(c_1c_2)+ (E.2) = 0$$ Incidentally, this equation is enough to establish the analogous statement of proposition $\ref {codimensiona}$.[**B**]{} in the case of Grassmannians. The classes in $(E)$ are generators with only two possible relations $\eqref {marked}$ and $\eqref{1mb}$. Again the description of the codimension $2$ classes on the open stratum is degree independent.
We will now move our computation on $\overline M_{0,2}(\bg, d)$. We write equation $\eqref {1mb}$ for each of the two markings and take the difference. Using equation $\eqref {diff}$ we obtain that the following is true: $$ev_1^{\star}c_2-ev_2^{\star}c_2-\psi_2 \cdot \kappa(c_2)=\sum \delta'_{a,b}\Delta_{a,b}(\one, \two|c_2, \b) +\sum \delta''_{a,b} \Delta_{a,b}(\one, \two | \b, c_2).$$ We claim $\delta'_{a,b}=\delta''_{a,b}=-1$. This follows using the same technique as before, by restricting to $\overline M_{0,2}(\pr, d)\hookrightarrow \overline M_{0,2}(\bg, d)$. This time, we need to use equation $\eqref{2m}$ and the fact that the classes $\Delta_{a,b}(\one, \two|H^2, \b)$ and $\Delta_{a,b}(\one, \two |\b, H^2)$ are independent as proved in proposition $\ref {codimensiona}$. [**C**]{}.
We observe that the last equation we obtained is in fact equation $\eqref {re2}$ for $\alpha = c_2(\q)$. The proof of proposition $\ref {eval}$ is now completed, in the light of remark $\ref {red}$.
The reconstruction theorem.
===========================
In this final section, we prove the reconstruction theorem $\ref{reconstructiona}$. We let $\bg$ denote the Grassmannian of dimension $2$ subspaces of a vector space $V$. We let $\langle \alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_n\rangle_{n,d}$ denote any $n$ point degree $d$ Gromov-Witten invariant on $\bg$. The $2$ point invariants are easy to compute, they occur only in degree $1$. Henceforth, we will assume $n\geq 3$. Moreover, we assume all invariants with lower degree or fewer marked points have already been computed. We also assume that the invariants $\langle \alpha_1, \alpha_2, c_2, \ldots, c_2 \rangle_{n, d}$ are known.
A preliminary observation is that intersections of evaluation and $\kappa$ classes are obtained from the ordinary invariants:$$\label {kappa}\int_{\gscheme} \prod_{i=1}^{n}ev_i^{\star}\beta_i\cdot \prod_{i=1}^{m} \kappa(\alpha_i) = \int_{\overline M_{0,n+m}(\bg, d)}\prod_{i=1}^{n}ev_i^{\star} \beta_i \cdot \prod_{i=1}^{m} ev_{n+i}^{\star}\alpha_{i}.$$
Next, we claim that: $$\label {strip}\langle \alpha_1, \alpha_2,\ldots, c_2\alpha_n \rangle_{n,d} -\langle c_2\alpha_1 , \alpha_2 \ldots, \alpha_n\rangle_{n,d}$$ is sum of invariants $\langle\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_{n-1}, c_2\rangle_{n,d}$ and of invariants with fewer marked points or of lower degree.
To explain $\eqref {strip}$, we use equation $\eqref{re2}$ for $i=n$ and $j=1$. We obtain that $\eqref{strip}$ equals $$- \sum \int_{\gscheme} \Delta_{a,b}(S, T|c_2, \b) ev_{1}^{\star}\alpha_1\ldots ev_n^{\star}\alpha_n + \int_{\gscheme} \psi_1 \kappa(c_2) \cdot ev_{1}^{\star} \alpha_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot ev_n^{\star}{\alpha_n}.$$ Here $S$ and $T$ form a partition of $\{1, \ldots, n\}$ with $n\in S$ and $1\in T$. Let us consider the first terms in the above expression. For dimension reasons we need $a\neq 0$. Also for dimension reasons, if $b=0$, then $T$ should only have two elements, say $T=\{1,i\}$. The corresponding integral can be rewritten using equation $\eqref {kappa}$ as $\langle \alpha_1\alpha_i, \alpha_2, \ldots, \widehat \alpha_i, \ldots, \alpha_n, c_2\rangle_{n,d}$. Here the hat indicates the omission of the class $\alpha_i$. Finally, the terms with $b\neq 0$ can be expressed as usual as product of known invariants with lower degrees or fewer markings. This is a consequence of equation $\eqref{kappa}$ and the suitable analogue of the splitting axiom in Gromov-Witten theory which incorporates the $\kappa$ classes.
For the second integral, we make use of the following folklore result (which can be derived for example from $\eqref{psisum}$): $$\psi_1=\sum \Delta_{a,b}(\{1\}, \{n-1, n\})$$ To complete the argument of $\eqref {strip}$, we use the last equation to rewrite the second integral above as a sum of known invariants with fewer markings or of lower degrees or with the class $c_2$ on the last place. Special care must be taken for the terms involving $\Delta_{a,b}(\{1\}, \{n-1, n\})$ with one component of degree $0$ carrying only two marked points. Again, we rewrite them as invariants of degree $d$ and with $n$ markings but with evaluation at the class $c_2$ on the last place.
Equation $\eqref {strip}$ will allow us to move all powers of $c_2$ to the first position, so we can assume $\alpha_n$ is a power of $c_1$. We can then apply the Kontsevich-Manin reconstruction ([@KM], 3.2.3) to finish the computation. It remains to deal with the residual terms $\langle \beta_1, \ldots, \beta_{n-1}, c_2\rangle$. In fact we can apply equation $\eqref {re2}$ a few more times to set more $\beta$’s to $c_2$. Each time, we will have to express the corresponding $\psi$ classes as sums of boundary classes. That will make use of three markings; the evaluation classes at the remaining $n-3$ markings will not be changed. Repeating this argument inductively, we can assume that all $\beta's$ except the first two are equal to $c_2$. These special invariants $\langle \beta_1, \beta_2, c_2, \ldots, c_2\rangle_{n,d}$ were assumed to be known.
Finally, a dimension count, using that $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ can be at most $2(N-2)$ dimensional, shows that all invariants $\langle\beta_1, \beta_2, c_2, \ldots, c_2\rangle$ vanish when $\dim V>\frac{n-3}{d-2}$, with the only possible exception $d=1$. Now, the degree $1$ invariants can be easily computed from the following observation. We have a birational map obtained from the $n$ forgetful morphisms which remember only one marking: $$\pi: \overline M_{0,n}(\bg, 1)\to \overline M_{0,1}(\bg,1)\times_{\overline M_{0,0}(\bg,1)}\ldots \times_{\overline M_{0,0}(\bg,1)} \overline M_{0,1}(\bg,1).$$ This morphism is a composition of blowups over the loci where the markings coincide. It is now clear that the $n$ point degree $1$ Gromov-Witten invariants can be computed from the intersection theory of the above fibered product. The moduli spaces $\overline M_{0,0}(\bg, 1)$ and $\overline M_{0,1}(\bg, 1)$ are the flag varieties ${\bf F}(1, 3, V)$ and ${\bf F}(1, 2, 3, V)$ and the various evaluation classes on these spaces can be easily intersected.
A similar argument can be used for general varieties $X$, for primary Gromov Witten invariants with insertions in the ring generated by the Chern classes $c_1$ and $c_2$ of various vector bundles $E$ on $X$. The essential step is to prove that for all codimension $2$ classes $\alpha=c_2(E)$, the following relation holds on $\overline M_{0,n}(X, \beta)$: $$\label {re3} \left(ev_i^{\star}\alpha-ev_j^{\star}\alpha - \psi_j\kappa(\alpha)\right)\cap [\overline M_{0,n}(X, \beta)]^{vir}=- \iota_{\star}\left(\pi_1^{\star} \kappa(\alpha)\cap \left[\Delta(\{i\}, \{j\})\right]^{vir}\right).$$ Here $\iota$ denotes the inclusion of the boundary strata $\iota:\Delta(\{i\}, \{j\})\hookrightarrow \overline M_{0,n}(X, \beta)$ and $\pi_1^{\star}\kappa(\alpha)$ is the class of nodal maps on $\Delta(\{i\}, \{j\})$, the component containing the marking $i$ “intersecting” a subvariety in the class $\alpha$.
Twisting $E$ sufficiently many times, we may assume it is globally generated, hence it induces a morphism $f:X\to \bg$ such that $f^{\star} \q=E$. Then, we pull back relation $\eqref {re2}$. We use the fact that the $\kappa$ classes pullback naturally: $f^{\star}\kappa(\alpha)=\kappa(f^{\star} \alpha),$ as the arguments of [@M2] show (see the reasoning leading to equation VI.3.41). An argument is required to understand how the $\psi$ classes for $X$ and $\bg$ are related under pullback. Naively, the correction terms $\psi_i^{X}-f^{\star} \psi_i^{\bg}$ are boundary divisors of nodal maps to $X$ with one component which is contracted by composition with $f$ and which contains only the marking $i$. The precise details are similar to lemma 6.6.1 in [@M2] where the above statement is explained for constant morphisms. The computation is slightly non-trivial, as one has to account for the virtual fundamental classes and also make use of the stack of prestable morphisms.
Finally, equation $\eqref {re3}$ leads to a statement identical to corollary $1$.
(bis) Let $X$ be any smooth projective variety whose cohomology is generated by the Chern classes $c_1$ and $c_2$ of vector bundles on $X$. Fix coordinates on the small phase space and write $\bf X$ for the coordinates which are not coupled to idecomposable classes in $H^4(X)$. Then the Gromov-Witten potential $\Phi$ can be reconstructed from the inital conditions: $$\Phi|_{\bf X=0},\; \partial_i\Phi|_{\bf X=0},\;\text { and }\partial_{ij} \Phi|_{\bf X=0}.$$
We hope our method will extend to prove more general reconstruction results. In fact, we conjecture that proposition $\ref {evala}$ holds for arbitrary classes $\alpha$ on $\bg$. We could then derive an analogue of $\eqref {re3}$ for all $X$ and all classes $\alpha$ in the ring generated by the Chern classes of holomorphic bundles (that is, via the isomorphism provided by the Chern character, for all algebraic cohomology classes on $X$). When the cohomology of $X$ is generated by the small codimension classes, we could hope for reconstruction results of the type discussed in this paper. Of course, it would be interesting to prove better reconstruction theorems which would determine, for example, [*all*]{} Gromov-Witten invariants of flag varieties.
[\[L\]]{}
K. Behrend, A. O’Halloran, [*On the cohomology of stable map spaces*]{}, AG/0202288
A. Gathmann, [*Absolute and relative Gromov-Witten invariants of very ample hypersurfaces*]{}, AG/9908054.
E. Getzler, [*Operads and moduli spaces of genus $0$ Riemann surfaces*]{}, AG/9411004.
E. Getzler, [*Mixed Hodge structures on configuration spaces*]{}, AG/9510018.
T. Graber, R. Pandharipande, [*Localization of virtual classes*]{}, AG/9708001.
M. Kontsevich, Y. Manin, [*Gromov-Witten classes, quantum cohomology and enumerative geometry*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys, 163 (1994), 525-562.
B. Kim, R. Pandharipande, [*The connectedness of the moduli space of maps to homogeneous spaces*]{}, AG/0003168.
Y. P. Lee, R. Pandharipande, [*A reconstruction theorem in quantum cohomology and quantum K theory*]{}, AG/0104084.
Y. Manin, [*Stable maps of genus zero to flag spaces*]{}, AG/9801005.
Y. Manin, [*Frobenius Manifolds, Quantum cohomology and Moduli Spaces*]{}, AMS Colloquim Publications, v.47, 1999.
A. Marian, [*Informal lectures*]{}.
D. Oprea, [*The tautological rings of the moduli spaces of stable maps*]{}, submitted.
D. Oprea, [*Tautological classes on the moduli spaces of stable maps to projective spaces*]{}, in preparation.
R. Pandharipande, [*Intersection of Q-divisors on Kontsevich’s Moduli Space ${\overline M}_{0,n}(\pr,d)$ and enumerative geometry*]{}, AG/9504004.
[^1]: Recall that as a consequence of localization, numerical and rational equivalence coincide, essentially because the same is true for each of the fixed loci. One can perhaps conceive an argument which would establish $\eqref {reconstruction}$ without appealing to the [**claim**]{} above, simply by intersecting with the smooth curves of $\overline M$. We actually do this in the proof below for curves transversal to the boundary. The general argument should not be more complicated.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The strong spin-orbit coupling and the broken inversion symmetry in monolayer transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) results in spin-valley coupled band structures. Such a band structure leads to novel applications in the fields of electronics and optoelectronics. Density functional theory calculations as well as optical experiments have focused on spin-valley coupling in the valence band. Here we present magnetotransport experiments on high-quality n-type monolayer molybdenum disulphide (MoS$_{2}$) samples, displaying highly resolved Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations at magnetic fields as low as . We find the effective mass , about twice as large as theoretically predicted and almost independent of magnetic field and carrier density. We further detect the occupation of the second spin-orbit split band at an energy of about , i.e. about a factor $5$ larger than predicted. In addition, we demonstrate an intricate Landau level spectrum arising from a complex interplay between a density-dependent Zeeman splitting and spin and valley-split Landau levels. These observations, enabled by the high electronic quality of our samples, testify to the importance of interaction effects in the conduction band of monolayer MoS$_{2}$.'
author:
- Riccardo Pisoni
- Andor Kormányos
- Matthew Brooks
- Zijin Lei
- Patrick Back
- Marius Eich
- Hiske Overweg
- Yongjin Lee
- Peter Rickhaus
- Kenji Watanabe
- Takashi Taniguchi
- Atac Imamoglu
- Guido Burkard
- Thomas Ihn
- Klaus Ensslin
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: 'Interactions and magnetotransport through spin-valley coupled Landau levels in monolayer MoS$_{2}$'
---
Monolayer transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) such as MoS$_{2}$, MoSe$_{2}$, WS$_{2}$ and WSe$_{2}$ are two-dimensional (2D) semiconductors with band extrema at the corners (K, K$'$-points) of the first Brillouin zone [@xiao_coupled_2012]. Due to the strong spin-orbit coupling the spin degeneracy in the K and K$'$ valleys is lifted, with opposite spin polarization normal to the layer plane in opposite valleys (see Fig. \[fig:fig2\], inset). This peculiar band structure with coupled spin and valley degrees of freedom results in an anomalous Landau level (LL) structure [@li_unconventional_2013; @wang_valley-_2017; @kormanyos_landau_2015]. Theoretical proposals predict the formation of LLs under the influence of a perpendicular magnetic field that are arranged differently from those in conventional semiconductor quantum wells and graphene [@wang_valley-_2017]. Magnetotransport measurements have recently been performed in monolayer WSe$_{2}$, MoSe$_{2}$ and bilayer MoS$_{2}$ revealing two-fold degenerate LLs, large effective masses and carrier density dependent Zeeman splitting [@fallahazad_shubnikovchar21haas_2016; @movva_density-dependent_2017; @gustafsson_ambipolar_2018; @larentis_large_2018; @lin_probing_2018]. Previous works on thicker MoS$_{2}$, MoSe$_{2}$ and WSe$_{2}$ devices have measured the electron LLs structure at the Q and Q$'$ conduction band minima, showing the thickness dependence of the band structure in 2D TMDs [@wu_evenodd_2016; @pisoni_gate-defined_2017]. Here we focus on single layer MoS$_{2}$ where for low electron densities electrons clearly reside at the K-K$'$ minima of the bandstructure.
Here we report transport measurements in high mobility dual-gated monolayer MoS$_{2}$ under a perpendicular magnetic field. Our devices show ohmic contacts at temperatures as low as $T\approx\SI{100}{mK}$ allowing us to uncover signatures of so far not reported rich interplay of strong spin-orbit coupling and electron-electron interactions. Shubnikov-de Haas (SdH) oscillations appear already at magnetic fields $B\approx\SI{2}{T}$ at a temperature of $T\approx\SI{100}{mK}$. From the temperature dependence of the SdH oscillations we measure an electron effective mass of $\approx\SI{0.7}{m_{e}}$, compared to a value of $\SI{0.4}{m_{e}}$ predicted by Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations [@kormanyos_spin-orbit_2014; @kormanyos_monolayer_2013; @wang_electronics_2012; @liu_three-band_2013]. By increasing the electron density, we observe an interplay between even and odd filling factor sequences explained qualitatively by a density-dependent effective $g$-factor, similar to observations in p-doped WSe$_2$ and n-doped MoSe$_2$ monolayers [@movva_density-dependent_2017; @larentis_large_2018]. At electron densities $>\SI{4}\times{10^{12}}{~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}}$, corresponding to a Fermi energy $>\SI{15}{meV}$, the upper spin-orbit split bands start to be populated and the complex LL structure of the different valley-spin polarized bands is observed. We give evidence of intricate physics beyond the single particle picture that was employed to explain the experimental results in previous works [@fallahazad_shubnikovchar21haas_2016; @movva_density-dependent_2017; @gustafsson_ambipolar_2018; @larentis_large_2018; @lin_probing_2018].
High mobility TMD field effect devices were fabricated using a van der Waals heterostructure platform [@pisoni_gate-defined_2017; @pisoni_gate-tunable_2018]. A schematic of the device is shown in Fig. \[fig:fig1\](a). Monolayer MoS$_{2}$ flakes were encapsulated between two hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) layers and graphite flakes serve as top and bottom gates. We fabricated and measured four monolayer MoS$_{2}$ samples, labelled A, B, C and D, which show consistent behaviour. We will mainly discuss sample A here. Data from samples B, C and D are presented in the Supplementary. Fig. \[fig:fig1\](b) shows the optical micrograph of sample A with the MoS$_{2}$ flake outlined in black. The inset of Fig. \[fig:fig1\](b) displays a sketch of the MoS$_{2}$ flake where the ohmic contacts are numbered from 1 to 4. Contacts 2 and 4 are used for current injection and extraction, contacts 1 and 3 serve as voltage probes. The top and bottom hBN outlined in cyan and blue, respectively, serve as dielectric layers to insulate the conducting MoS$_{2}$ from the top and bottom graphite gates. We use graphite as a gate electrode because it provides an atomically flat surface and a uniform potential landscape for the MoS$_{2}$ layer [@pisoni_gate-defined_2017; @bretheau_tunnelling_2017; @hiske; @wang_electronic_2015].
The high electron mobility and low contact resistances allow us to investigate quantum transport phenomena in single-layer MoS$_{2}$ using standard lock-in techniques at . All measurements presented here are performed at $V_\mathrm{TG}=\SI{8}{V}$ in order to ensure Ohmic behaviour of the contacts at low temperatures. In Fig. \[fig:fig1\](c) we present the four terminal resistance $R_{24,13}$ as a function of magnetic field $B$ at $V_\mathrm{BG}=\SI{-2.2}{V}$, $n_{\mathrm{SdH}}\approx\SI{2.9}\times{10^{12}}{~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}}$, and $T \approx\SI{100}{mK}$ (left vertical dashed line in Fig. \[fig:fig2\]). SdH oscillations start at $B\approx\SI{2}{T}$ yielding a lower bound for the quantum mobility of $\approx\mathrm{5,000}~\mathrm{cm^{2}/Vs}$. The electron density is determined from the SdH oscillations according to $n_{\mathrm{SdH}} = (e/h)(1/\Delta(1/B))$, where $\Delta (1/B)$ is the period of the SdH oscillations in $1/B$. At $n_{\mathrm{SdH}}\approx\SI{2.9}\times{10^{12}}{~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}}$ we measure an alternating sequence of deeper and shallower minima corresponding to odd and even filling factors, respectively, meaning that the Landau levels of the K and K$'$ valleys are no longer degenerate. The inset of Fig. \[fig:fig1\](c) displays the $I-V_\mathrm{bias}$ traces as a function of $V_\mathrm{TG}$ at $V_\mathrm{BG} = \SI{0}{V}$ and $T \approx \SI{100}{mK}$. The linearity of the $I-V_\mathrm{bias}$ curves for $V_\mathrm{TG}>\SI{2}{V}$ indicates the regime of a good ohmic contact at low temperatures.
In order to determine the effective mass we measure in Fig. \[fig:fig1\](d) the four-terminal resistance $\Delta R_{24,13}$ with a smooth background subtracted as a function of $B$ at various elevated temperatures ranging from to at $V_\mathrm{BG}=\SI{-1.5}{V}$, $n_{\mathrm{SdH}}\approx\SI{4.1}\times{10^{12}}{~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}}$ (right vertical dashed line in Fig. \[fig:fig2\]). We observe the sequence of even filling factors $\nu = 22,~24,~26,~28$ since the splitting of the K and K$'$ valleys is not resolved for these elevated temperatures. From the $T$-dependence of the SdH oscillation amplitudes we extract the electron effective mass $m^{\ast}$ by fitting $\Delta R_{24,13}$ to $x/sinh(x)$, where $x = 2\pi^{2}k_{B}T/\hbar\omega_{c}$ and $\omega_{c} = eB/m^{\ast}$ is the cyclotron frequency (see Supplementary) [@ando_electronic_1982; @isihara_density_1986; @pudalov_probing_2014]. In the inset of Fig. \[fig:fig1\](d) we present $m^{\ast}$ at various electron densities $n_{\mathrm{SdH}}$ for the four different samples. For samples A and C we calculate the density-averaged mass ${m^{\ast}/m_{e}}=0.65 \pm 0.04$ where $m_{e}$ is the electron rest mass. For sample B, $m^{\ast}/m_{e} = 0.75 \pm 0.03$. Sample D shows $0.7 \leq m^{\ast}/m_{e}\leq0.8$ with larger error bars compared to the other three samples due to a less precise temperature calibration. No obvious dependence of the mass on $n_{\mathrm{SdH}}$ or $B$ is observed [@zhang_density-dependent_2005; @attaccalite_correlation_2002]. These $m^{\ast}$ values are larger than those of DFT studies which predict $m^{\ast}/m_{e}\approx0.4$ for single layer MoS$_{2}$ [@kormanyos_spin-orbit_2014; @kormanyos_monolayer_2013; @wang_electronics_2012; @liu_three-band_2013].
![\[fig:fig1\] (a) Device schematic. A single layer MoS$_{2}$ is encapsulated between two layers of hBN. Graphite flakes are used as bottom and top gates. Ti/Au electrodes are evaporated on top of the bottom hBN before the MoS$_{2}$ layer is transferred. (b) Optical micrograph of the sample. The MoS$_{2}$ flake is highlighted with black dashed lines (scale bar is ). Inset: Ti/Au contacts to the MoS$_{2}$ flake are numbered 1 - 4 (Scale bar is ). (c) Four-terminal resistance $R_{24,13}$ as a function of $B$ at $V_\mathrm{BG} = \SI{-2.2}{V}$, $n_{\mathrm{SdH}}\approx\SI{2.9}\times{10^{12}}{~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}}$ and $T \approx\SI{100}{mK}$. SdH oscillations appear at $B \approx\SI{2}{T}$. We observe a predominantly odd filling factor sequence $\nu = 17, 19, 21, 23$. Inset: Linear $I-V_\mathrm{bias}$ traces as a function of $V_\mathrm{TG}$ at $T \approx\SI{100}{mK}$. The Ohmic contact regime is achieved for $V_\mathrm{TG}> \SI{2}{V}$. (d) SdH oscillations as a function of the magnetic field for different temperatures at $V_\mathrm{BG} =\SI{-1.5}{V}$, $n_{\mathrm{SdH}}\approx\SI{4.1}\times{10^{12}}{~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}}$. An Even filling factor sequence $\nu = 22, 24, 26, 28$ is measured. Inset: effective mass $m^{\ast}$ calculated for the four samples as a function of electron density. Blue, red, green and black markers correspond to samples A, B, C and D, respectively. ](fig1){width="1\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:fig2\] we present an overview of the four-terminal magneto-resistance $R_{24,13}$ (color scale) over a wide range of $V_\mathrm{BG}$ and $B$ applied perpendicularly to the sample at $T\approx\SI{100}{mK}$. There are three qualitatively different regions which we discuss in the following. The first region (I) corresponds to $V_\mathrm{BG}<\SI{-1.6}{V}$, the second region (II) to $\SI{-1.6}{V}<V_\mathrm{BG}<\SI{1}{V}$ and the third region (III) to $V_\mathrm{BG}>\SI{1}{V}$. The black dashed lines in the inset of Fig. \[fig:fig2\] indicate the Fermi energies corresponding to regions (I), (II) and (III).
![\[fig:fig2\] Four-terminal resistance $R_{24,13}$ as a function of $V_\mathrm{BG}$ and magnetic field at $T \approx \SI{100}{mK}$. We observe a pronounced change in the slope (cyan dashed lines) of the Landau fan diagram at $V_\mathrm{BG}\approx\SI{-1.6}{V}$, $n_{\mathrm{SdH}}\approx\SI{4}\times{10^{12}}{~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}}$ (black arrow). The Landau fan diagram can be divided in three different regions: (I) $V_\mathrm{BG}< \SI{-1.6}{V}$; (II) $\SI{-1.6}{V} < V_\mathrm{BG}< \SI{1}{V}$; (III) $V_\mathrm{BG}> \SI{1}{V}$. Left and right white dashed lines correspond to the line cuts presented in Fig. \[fig:fig1\](c) and Fig. \[fig:fig1\](d), respectively. Inset: Sketch of the conduction band minima at the K and K$'$ points in the first Brillouin zone of monolayer MoS$_{2}$. Due to the strong spin-orbit interaction the spin degeneracy is lifted and spin and valley degrees of freedom are locked. Black dashed lines represent the Fermi energy corresponding to regions (I), (II) and (III), respectively. ](fig2){width="1\columnwidth"}
We now discuss region (I) of the Landau fan diagram shown in Fig. \[fig:fig2\]. Fig. \[fig:fig3\](a) shows a blow-up of the four-terminal resistance $R_{24,31}$ in this region as a function of $V_\mathrm{BG}$ and $B$ at $T\approx\SI{100}{mK}$. We observe two sets of LLs with different amplitudes that we attribute to the valley K spin-down and K$'$ spin-up LLs. In Fig. \[fig:fig3\](b-d) we show the SdH oscillations for three representative electron densities. Both for $n_{SdH}=\SI{2.4}\times{10^{12}}{~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}}$ (Fig. \[fig:fig3\](b)) and $n_{SdH}=\SI{3.8}\times{10^{12}}{~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}}$ (Fig. \[fig:fig3\](d)) one can observe an alternating sequence of deeper (primary) and shallower (secondary) minima. While for the lower density the primary minima are at odd filling factors $\nu$, for the higher density they are at even $\nu$. For the transition density $n_{SdH}=\SI{3.1}\times{10^{12}}{~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}}$ (Fig. \[fig:fig3\](c)) the minima at even and odd filling factors are approximately equally deep. This means that by tuning the electron density we observe a transition from a predominantly odd to a predominantly even filling factor sequence.
For the considered electron densities electron-electron interactions are expected to play a significant role [@larentis_large_2018; @movva_density-dependent_2017], similar to other multi-valley two-dimensional systems [@okamoto_spin_1999; @shashkin_indication_2001; @vakili_spin_2004].
The interaction strength can be characterized by the dimensionless Wigner-Seitz radius $r_s=1/(\sqrt{\pi\,n_\mathrm{e}}a^{\ast}_\mathrm{B})$, where $a^{\ast}_\mathrm{B}=a_\mathrm{B}(\kappa m_\mathrm{e}/m^{\ast})$ is the effective Bohr radius, $\kappa$ the dielectric constant and $a_\mathrm{B}$ the Bohr radius. For the regime $\SI{-3.2}{V}<V_\mathrm{BG}<\SI{-1.6}{V}$ we estimate that $r_s=9.8 - 7.5$, placing the system in a regime where interactions are important. Qualitatively, the observations can be explained by an extended single particle picture, where electron-electron interaction effects are accounted for by assuming i) $n_{\mathrm{SdH}}$-*dependent* valley $g$-factor $g_\mathrm{vl}^{}$, and ii) in good approximation $n_{\mathrm{SdH}}$-*independent* effective mass $m^{\ast}$.
For data taken at there are regimes where only even or odd filling factors are visible (see Supplementary). A model suggested in the literature [@movva_density-dependent_2017; @larentis_large_2018] based on a density dependent $g$-factor is in good agreement with these data (see Supplementary). Such a model will necessarily lead to a situation where neighbouring Landau levels become accidentally degenerate and the corresponding SdH minimum will disappear. Our low temperature data shown in Fig. \[fig:fig3\](b-d) indicate however, that neighbouring Landau levels are never degenerate, demonstrating the limitations of such a simple model. Extreme cases of such anti-crossings at $T\approx\SI{100}{mK}$ are indicated with white circles in Fig. \[fig:fig3\](a). These anticrossings, which happen for approximately integer value of the ratio of valley Zeeman energy with respect to cyclotron energy $E_{vz}/E_{c}$, cannot be explained in a single particle picture where the LLs in the K and K$'$ valleys are assumed to have out-of-plane (i.e., parallel to the magnetic field) and orthogonal spin-polarization, since this would imply that they should cross. Instead, these anticrossings can arise as a result of electron-electron interaction effects, that mix single-particle LLs of opposite spin and lead to not fully spin polarized LLs.
![\[fig:fig3\] (a) Region (I). $R_{24,13}$ as a function of electron density $n_{\mathrm{SdH}}$ and magnetic field at $T \approx \SI{100}{mK}$. Two sets of LLs corresponding to the K spin-down and K$'$ spin-up valleys can be distinguished (blue and red dashed lines, respectively). Anticrossings between not fully spin polarized LLs appear (white circles). (b-d) Four terminal resistance $\Delta R_{24,13}$, after subtracting a smooth background, as a function of LL filling factors at different electron densities. By increasing the electron density we observe an interplay between predominantly odd and predominantly even filling factors sequences (yellow, orange and red arrows in **a**, respectively). ](fig3){width="1\columnwidth"}
Continuing with region (II) in Fig. \[fig:fig2\], at $V_\mathrm{BG} = \SI{-1.6}{V}$, $n_{\mathrm{SdH}}\approx\SI{4}\times{10^{12}}{~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}}$ (black arrow), we observe two important changes in the SdH oscillations. First, as shown in the Supplementary, there is another even to odd transition in the SdH oscillation minima like in region (I) with the same interpretation. Second, as indicated in Fig. \[fig:fig2\] with cyan dashed lines \[one in region (I), the other in region (III)\], there is a sudden change in the slope of the SdH minima related to constant filling factor by about a factor of two in the Landau fan diagram at the left edge of region (II). A factor of two is expected when the density of states doubles. The Hall mobility $\mu$ and the four terminal resistance $R_{24,13}$ at zero magnetic field exhibit a pronounced change in slope at the same point (Supplementary). We attribute these observations to the occupation of the upper spin-orbit split K and K$'$ valleys in the conduction band of monolayer MoS$_2$ , as sketched in the inset of Fig. \[fig:fig1\](c).
A zoom into region (II) is shown in Fig. \[fig:fig4\](a). As we show in the inset of Fig. \[fig:fig4\](a), the difference between the total electron density (black dashed line) and that of the lower spin-orbit split bands (blue circles) increases linearly as a function of $V_\mathrm{BG}$ for $n_{\mathrm{SdH}}\approx\SI{4}\times{10^{12}}{~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}}$. The “missing” electron density (green circles) leads to a calculated additional Landau fan (green dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:fig3\](a)) which is compatible with the appearance of the intermittent shifts of the SdH maxima in this region.
The threshold electron density where the slope change occurs is $n_{\mathrm{SdH}}\approx\SI{4}\times{10^{12}}{~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}}$. Assuming a 2D density of states $DOS = m^{*}/\pi \hbar^{2}$ implying a two-fold degeneracy and using the experimentally determined effective mass, we calculate the Fermi energy to be $E_F \approx \SI{15}{meV}$, which gives us an estimate of the intrinsic spin-orbit interaction $2 \Delta_{cb}^{*}$ for K-valley electrons in monolayer MoS$_2$. This value of $2 \Delta_{cb}^{*}$ is about a factor of five larger than the results of DFT band structure calculations [@kormanyos_spin-orbit_2014]. We note that a similar (albeit smaller) enhancement of $2 \Delta_{cb}^{*}$ with respect to theoretical calculations was also observed [@larentis_large_2018] for monolayer MoSe$_2$. This apparent enhancement of the spin splitting of the bands might be due to an exchange interaction driven band renormalization. Although the upper spin-orbit split bands start to be filled, we found that, at $T\approx\SI{1.7}{K}$ the measurements can still be fitted nicely (see Supplementary) assuming that only the lower spin-orbit split bands give visible contributions to the SdH oscillations. The effect of the LLs corresponding to the upper spin-orbit split bands become apparent at lower temperatures where the distinctive “wavyness“ of the bright lines (Fig. \[fig:fig4\](a)) suggests that LLs corresponding to the lower spin-orbit split bands are affected by the LLs originating from the upper spin-orbit split bands.
We also note that, as discussed in the Supplementary, photoluminescence measurements exhibit, at $n_{\mathrm{SdH}}\approx\SI{4}\times{10^{12}}{~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}}$, a third peak, at lower energy than that of the exciton and the attractive polaron[@sidler_fermi_2017] peaks, indicating the emergence of a new emission channel.
![\[fig:fig4\] (a) Region (II). $R_{24,13}$, as a function of $V_\mathrm{BG}$ and magnetic field at $T \approx\SI{100}{mK}$. Inset: electron density as a function of $V_\mathrm{BG}$. Black dashed line indicate the total electron density determined from the capacitor model. Blue and green markers represent the lower and upper spin-orbit split bands electron densities, respectively. Green dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:fig4\](a) indicate the Landau fan diagram originating from the upper spin-orbit split bands. (b) Region (III). $R_{24,13}$ as a function of $V_\mathrm{BG}$ and magnetic field at $T \approx\SI{100}{mK}$. Multiple anticrossings through spin-valley coupled LLs are observed. ](fig4){width="1\columnwidth"}
Fig. \[fig:fig4\](b) shows a zoom-in of Fig. \[fig:fig2\] for region (III) at $T\approx\SI{100}{mK}$. We observe the appearance of anticrossings, a signature of split spin-valley coupled LLs originating from the lower and upper spin-orbit split bands. These observations indicate again that a standard single particle picture for the description of Landau levels is insufficient. It is remarkable that the observed anticrossings seem independent of which spin or/and valley states are involved. No obvious selection rules can be observed. Experimentally we find that the level anti-crossings at a magnetic field of can be resolved below a temperature of about . This corresponds to an estimated interaction energy scale of $4k_\mathrm{B}T\approx \SI{170}{\micro eV}$. In comparison the single-particle LL splitting $\hbar \omega_\mathrm{c}$ calculated with an effective mass of at is . We see that the interaction energy is a significant fraction of the Landau level spacing. The disorder-limited energy resolution for LL energy gaps in our experiment must be well below the estimated interaction energy. This in turn is in rough agreement with the quantum mobility of $\mathrm{5,000}~\mathrm{cm^{2}/Vs}$, which leads to an upper bound for the characteristic disorder energy of if we assume the experimentally deduced effective mass of .
Compared to standard semiconductor 2D electron gases such as those in high-mobility AlGaAs heterostructures, where most effects can be quantitatively explained within a single particle-model with the inclusion of exchange effects for small odd filling factors, the data presented here indicates that the formation of Landau levels in monolayer MoS$_{2}$ is governed if not dictated by the combination of both spin-orbit and carrier-carrier interactions.
Quantum Hall ferromagnetism [@poortere_resistance_2000; @jungwirth_magnetic_1998] is relevant for small filling factors ($< 5$) and it becomes less pronounced for larger filling factors since a possible overall spin/valley polarization decreases. For our experiments we deal with large filling factors ($> 20$) and the observed anti-crossings appear to be independent of filling factor. We conclude that exchange enhancement of the $g$-factor which causes quantum Hall ferromagnetism is not relevant here.
In conclusion, we fabricated high mobility dual-gated single layer MoS$_{2}$ devices using a van der Waals heterostructure platform with quantum mobilities as high as $\mu\approx\mathrm{5,000}~\mathrm{cm^{2}/Vs}$. The temperature dependence of the SdH oscillations reveals an electron effective mass of $\approx\SI{0.7}{m_{e}}$. We are able to measure and resolve the LL structure of the lower spin-orbit split K and K$'$ valleys. At $n_{\mathrm{SdH}}\approx\SI{4}\times{10^{12}}{~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}}$, we observe the occupation of the upper spin-orbit split K and K$'$ valleys, thus estimating $2\Delta_{cb}^{*}\approx\SI{15}{meV}$. At higher electron densities we observe the appearance of multiple sets of LLs originating from the upper and lower spin-orbit split K and K$'$ valleys. Interaction effects of valley and spin polarized LLs, at elevated temperatures consistent with a density-dependent $g$-factor, are observed in the experiments. Measurements of the LL structure of monolayer MoS$_{2}$ has been hindered to-date by high contact resistances and low sample mobilities. Our results demonstrate the subtle and unconventional conduction band Landau level structure of monolayer MoS$_{2}$, where strong spin-orbit interaction meets strong electron-electron interactions. This indicates the presence of rich, novel and so far unpredicted physics possibly beyond that expected from single-particle considerations. These prospects bear relevance also for related TMD materials, such as MoSe$_{2}$, WS$_{2}$ and WSe$_{2}$.
We thank Emanuel Tutuc, Beat Br[ä]{}m, Ovidiu Cotlet, Matija Karalic and Giorgio Nicolí for fruitful discussions. We thank Peter M[ä]{}rki, Erwin Studer, as well as the FIRST staff for their technical support. We acknowledge financial support from ITN Spin-NANO Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 676108, the Graphene Flagship and the National Center of Competence in Research on Quantum Science and Technology (NCCR QSIT) funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation. A.K. was supported by the National Research Development and Innovation Office of Hungary within the Quantum Technology National Excellence Program (Project No. 2017-1.2.1-NKP-2017-00001) and by the ELTE Excellence Program (783-3/2018/FEKUTSRAT). A.K. and G.B. acknowledge funding from DFG via FLAG-ERA project ‘iSpinText’. Growth of hexagonal boron nitride crystals was supported by the Elemental Strategy Initiative conducted by the MEXT, Japan and JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP15K21722.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'C. H. Yeung'
- 'K. Y. Michael Wong'
date: 'Received: date / Revised version: date'
subtitle: 'Self-Organization of Balanced Nodes'
title: 'Self-Organization of Balanced Nodes in Random Networks with Transportation Bandwidths'
---
[leer.eps]{} gsave 72 31 moveto 72 342 lineto 601 342 lineto 601 31 lineto 72 31 lineto showpage grestore
Introduction {#sec_introduction}
============
Analytical techniques developed in statistical physics have been widely employed in the analysis of complex systems in a wide variety of fields, such as neural networks [@hertz; @nishimori], econophysical models [@challet], and error-correcting codes [@nishimori; @kabashima]. Recently, a statistical physics perspective was successfully applied to the problem of resource allocation on sparse random networks [@wong2006; @wong2007; @yeung2009b]. Resource allocation is a well known network problem in the areas of computer science and operations management [@peterson; @ho]. It is relevant to applications such as load balancing in computer networks, reducing Internet traffic congestion, and streamlining network flow of commodities [@shenker; @rardin].
In networks with finite bandwidths, the problem of resource allocation was studied in [@yeung2009]. We derived an algorithm which enable us to find the optimal solutions without the need of a global optimizer. The mean-field approach was applicable when the connectivity is sufficiently high. It allows us to derive the resource shortage of a node as a well-defined function of its capacity, which corresponds to the optimized and initial resource relation. For networks with uniformly high connectivity we derived the profile of the allocated resources which exhibits features similar to the Maxwell construction. We generalized the analysis to networks with arbitrary connectivity and compared the modified Maxwell construction with numerical solutions.
In this paper, we focus on the self-organization of nodes in achieving a balanced environment. The analytical results are compared with simulations, where nodes self-organize to balance their shortages. After defining the model in Section \[sec\_model\], we introduce the chemical potentials in Section \[sec\_analysis\]. In Section \[sec\_Maxwell\] we review the theory of the Maxwell construction, which forms the basis for predicting the existence of clusters of balanced nodes. The emergence of balanced nodes correspond to the success in the uniform allocation of resources. We compare in Section \[sec\_cluster\] the statistics of saturated and unsaturated links, and show the existence of extensive balanced clusters. The deviations of the simulation results from the mean-field analyses show the dependence of final state on the locality of gifted and ungifted clusters in Section \[sec\_gifted\]. We compare in Section \[sec\_scalefree\] the fraction of balanced nodes in scale-free and regular networks and examine the role of hubs in resource allocation.
The Model {#sec_model}
=========
We consider a network with $N$ nodes, labelled $i\!=\!1,\dots,N$. Each node $i$ is randomly connected to $c$ other nodes. The connectivity matrix is given by $\cA_{ij}=1, 0$ for connected and unconnected node pairs respectively. Each node $i$ has a capacity $\Lambda_i$ randomly drawn from a distribution $\rho(\Lambda_i)$. Positive and negative values of $\Lambda_i$ correspond to supply and demand of resources respectively. The task of resource allocation involves transporting resources between nodes such that the demands of the nodes can be satisfied to the largest extent. Hence we assign $y_{ij}\equiv-y_{ji}$ to be the [*current*]{} drawn from node $j$ to $i$, aiming at reducing the [*shortage*]{} $\xi_i$ of node $i$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{xi_define}
\xi_i=\max\biggl(-\Lambda_i-\sum_{(ij)}\cA_{ij}y_{ij}, 0\biggr).\end{aligned}$$ The magnitudes of the currents are bounded by the [*bandwidth*]{} $W$, i.e., $|y_{ij}|\leq W$.
To minimize the shortage of resources after their allocation, we include in the total cost both the shortage cost and the transportation cost. Hence, the general cost function of the system can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E_define}
&&E=R\sum_{(ij)}\cA_{ij}\phi(y_{ij})
+\sum_i\psi(\Lambda_i,\{y_{ij}|\cA_{ij}=1\}).\end{aligned}$$ The summation $(ij)$ corresponds to summation over all node pairs, and $\Lambda_i$ is a quenched variable defined on node $i$.
In the present model of resource allocation, the first and second terms correspond to the transportation and shortage costs respectively. The parameter $R$ corresponds to the [*resistance*]{} on the currents, and $\Lambda_i$ is the capacity of node $i$. The transportation cost $\phi(y_{ij})$ can be a general even function of $y_{ij}$. In this paper, we consider $\phi$ and $\psi$ to be concave functions of their arguments, that is, $\phi'(y)$ and $\psi'(\xi)$ are non-decreasing functions. Specifically, we have the quadratic transportation cost $\phi(y)=y^2/2$, and the quadratic shortage cost $\psi(\Lambda_i, \{y_{ij}|\cA_{ij}=1\})=\xi_i^2/2$.
The Chemical Potentials and the Final Resources {#sec_analysis}
===============================================
The optimization problem can be written as the minimization of [Eq. (\[E\_define\])]{} in the space of $y_{ij}$ and $\xi_i$, subject to the constraints $$\begin{aligned}
\label{xiCon}
\Lambda_i+\sum_{(ij)}\cA_{ij}y_{ij}+\xi_i\ge 0 ,
\quad\quad
\xi_i\ge 0 ,\end{aligned}$$ and the constraints on the bandwidths of the links $|y_{ij}|\le W$. Introducing Lagrange multipliers to the above inequality constraints with the Kuhn-Tucker condition, the function to be minimized becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Lagr}
L\!=\!\sum_i\biggl[\psi(\xi_i)+\mu_i\biggl(\Lambda_i+\sum_{(ij)}\cA_{ij}y_{ij}+\xi_i\biggr)
+\alpha_i\xi_i\biggr]
\nonumber\\
+\sum_{(ij)}\cA_{ij}\biggl[R\phi(y_{ij})+\gamma^+_{ij}(W-y_{ij})+\gamma^-_{ij}(W+y_{ij})\biggr],\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_i\leq 0$, $\alpha_i\leq 0$, $\gamma_{ij}^+\leq 0$ and $\gamma_{ij}^-\leq 0$. Optimizing $L$ with respect to $y_{ij}$, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\label{solution}
y_{ij} =Y(\mu_j-\mu_i)\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{solutionY}
Y(x) = \max\biggl\{-W, \min\biggl[W, [\phi']^{-1}\biggl(\frac{x}{R}\biggr)\biggr]\biggr\}.\end{aligned}$$ The Lagrange multiplier $\mu_i$ is referred to as the [*chemical potential*]{} of node $i$, and $\phi'$ is the derivative of $\phi$ with respect to its argument. The function $Y(\mu_j-\mu_i)$ relates the potential difference between nodes $i$ and $j$ to the current driven from node $j$ to $i$. For the quadratic cost, it consists of a linear segment between $\mu_j-\mu_i = \pm WR$ reminiscent of Ohm’s law in electric circuits. Beyond this range, $y$ is bounded above and below by $\pm W$ respectively. Thus, obtaining the optimized configuration of currents $y_{ij}$ among the nodes is equivalent to finding the corresponding set of chemical potentials $\mu_i$, from which the optimized $y_{ij}$’s are then derived from $Y(\mu_j-\mu_i)$. This implies that we can consider the original optimization problem in the space of chemical potentials.
The optimal currents are given by [Eq. (\[solution\])]{} in terms of the chemical potentials $\mu_i$ which, from Eqs. (\[xi\_define\]) and (\[Lagr\]), are related to their neighbors via $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CPmu}
\mu_{i}=
\begin{cases}
0 \qquad\qquad\qquad\mbox{ for $h_{i}^{-1}(0)>0$,}
\\
h_{i}^{-1}(0) \qquad\qquad\mbox{ for $-\psi'(0)\leq h_{i}^{-1}(0)\leq 0$,}
\nonumber\\
g_{i}^{-1}(0) \qquad\qquad\mbox{ for $ h_{i}^{-1}(0)< -\psi'(0)$,}
\end{cases}
\\\end{aligned}$$ where $h_i(x)$ and $g_i(x)$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CPhg}
h_i(x) &=& -\Lambda_i-\sum_j\cA_{ij}Y(\mu_j-x),
\nonumber\\
g_i(x) &=& \psi'\circ h_i(x) + x,\end{aligned}$$ with function $Y$ again given [Eq. (\[solutionY\])]{}. $h_i(x)$ is the shortage of resource at node $i$ when $\mu_i$ takes the value $x$. $\psi'\circ h_i(x)$ is then the corresponding dissatisfaction cost per unit resource of node $j$. For the quadratic shortage cost considered in this paper, the [*frictionless*]{} condition $\psi'(0)=0$ is satisfied. Equation (\[CPmu\]) is then simplified to $$\label{CPmu2}
\mu_{i}=\min\left(0,-h_i(\mu_i)\right).$$ Hence we can interpret $\mu_i$ as the final shortage of resources after optimization. When $\mu_i<0$, $-\mu_i$ becomes the final resources allocated to node $i$. Equation (\[CPmu2\]) provides a simple local iteration algorithm for the optimization problem in which the optimal currents can be evaluated from the potential differences of neighboring nodes.
An alternative algorithm can be obtained by adopting message-passing approaches, which have been successful in problems such as error-correcting codes [@opper2001] and probabilistic inference [@mackay2003]. We refer the interested readers to [@yeung2009] for a comprehensive derivation of the messages.
The Resource Distribution Profile {#sec_Maxwell}
=================================
The High Connectivity Limit {#sec_highC}
---------------------------
We consider the case that the bandwidth of individual links scales as $\tilde W/c$ when the connectivity increases, where $\tilde W$ is a constant. Thus the total bandwidth $\tilde W$ available to an individual node remains a constant.
We start by writing the chemical potentials using [Eq. (\[CPmu2\])]{}, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vbmu}
\mu_i=\min\biggl[\Lambda_i
+\sum_{j=1}^N\cA_{ij}Y(\mu_j-\mu_i),0\biggr].\end{aligned}$$ In the high connectivity limit, the interaction of a node with all its connected neighbors become self-averaging, making it a function singly dependent on its own chemical potential, namely, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vbMmu}
\sum_{j=1}^N\cA_{ij}Y(\mu_j-\mu_i)\approx c M(\mu_i).\end{aligned}$$ Physically, the function $M(\mu)$ corresponds to the average interaction of a node with its neighbors when its chemical potential is $\mu$, facilitating a mean-field approach. Thus, we can write Eq. (\[vbmu\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vbmu1a}
\mu=\min[\Lambda+c M(\mu),0],\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu$ is now a function of $\Lambda$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vbMmuint1}
M(\mu_i)
=\int_{-\infty}^\infty d\Lambda\rho(\Lambda)
Y(\mu(\Lambda)-\mu_i)\end{aligned}$$ where we have written the chemical potential of the neighbors as $\mu(\Lambda)$, assuming that they are well-defined functions of their capacities $\Lambda$.
To explicitly derive $M(\mu)$, we take advantage of the fact that the rescaled bandwidth, $\tilde W/c$ vanishes in the high connectivity limit, so that the current function $Y(\mu_j-\mu_i)$ is effectively a sign function, corresponding to saturated links. (This approximation is not fully valid and will be further refined in subsequent discussions.) Thus, we approximate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vbMmuint2}
M(\mu_i)
=\frac{\tilde W}{c}\int_{-\infty}^\infty d\Lambda\rho(\Lambda)
{\rm sgn}[\mu(\Lambda)-\mu_i].\end{aligned}$$ Assuming that $\mu(\Lambda)$ is a monotonic function of $\Lambda$, and for Gaussian distribution of capacities, $\mu(\Lambda)$ is explicitly given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vbmu2}
\mu=\min\biggl[\Lambda-\tilde W{\rm erf}\biggl(
\frac{\Lambda-\langle\Lambda\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}\biggr),0\biggr].\end{aligned}$$ This equation relates the chemical potential of a node, i.e. the shortage after resource allocation, to its initial resource before. It tells us that resource allocation through a large number of links results in a well-defined function relating the two quantities.
[Eq. (\[vbmu2\])]{} gives a well-defined function $\mu(\Lambda)$ as long as $\tilde W\leq \sqrt{\pi/2}$. However, when $\tilde W> \sqrt{\pi/2}$, turning points exists in $\mu(\Lambda)$ as shown in Fig. \[gr\_maxwell\](a). This creates a thermodynamically unstable scenario, since in the region of $\mu(\Lambda)$ with negative slope, nodes with lower capacities have higher chemical potentials than their neighbors with higher capacities. Mathematically, the non-monotonicity of $\mu(\Lambda)$ means that ${\rm sgn}[\mu(\Lambda)-\mu_i]$ and ${\rm sgn}(\Lambda-\Lambda_i)$ are no longer necessarily equal, and [Eq. (\[vbmu2\])]{} is no longer valid.
Nevertheless, [Eq. (\[vbmu\])]{} permits another solution of constant $\mu$ in a range of $\Lambda$. Hence, we propose that the unstable region of $\mu(\Lambda)$ should be replaced by a range of constant $\mu$ as shown in Fig. \[gr\_maxwell\](b) analogous to the Maxwell construction in thermodynamics. Nodes within this range of constant $\mu$ have the same amount of final resources, and is the consequence of the ability of the optimization process to balance the resources. They are referred to as the [*balanced*]{} nodes.
In the high connectivity limit, resources are so efficiently allocated that the resources of the rich nodes are maximally allocated to the poor nodes. By considering the conservation of resources, and letting $(\Lambda_<, \mu_o)$ and $(\Lambda_>, \mu_o)$ be the end points of the Maxwell construction as shown in Fig. \[gr\_maxwell\](b), we have proved in [@yeung2009] that $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_o\int_{\Lambda_<}^{\Lambda_>} d\Lambda\rho(\Lambda)
= \int_{\Lambda_<}^{\Lambda_>} d\Lambda\rho(\Lambda)\mu(\Lambda),\end{aligned}$$ which implies that the value of $\mu_o$ should be chosen such that the areas A and B in Fig. \[gr\_maxwell\](b), weighted by the distribution $\rho(\Lambda)$, should be equal.
For capacity distributions $\rho(\Lambda)$ symmetric with respect to ${\langle \Lambda\rangle}$, we have $\mu_o = {\langle \Lambda\rangle} = (\Lambda_<+\Lambda_>)/2$. As a result, the function $\mu(\Lambda)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vbmuhori}
\mu(\Lambda) =
\begin{cases}
\langle\Lambda\rangle \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\mbox{ for $\Lambda_<<\Lambda<\Lambda_>$,}\\
\\
\min\left[\Lambda-
\tilde W{\rm erf}\left(\frac{\Lambda-\langle\Lambda\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}\right),0\right]
\mbox{ otherwise,}\\
\end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ where as $\Lambda_<$ and $\Lambda_>$ are respectively given by the lesser and greater roots of the equation $x=\langle\Lambda\rangle
+\tilde W{\rm erf}[(x-\langle\Lambda\rangle)/\sqrt{2}]$.
We compare the analytical result of $\mu(\Lambda)$ in Eq. (\[vbmuhori\]) with simulations in Fig. \[gr\_vbhori\]. For $\tilde W > \sqrt{\pi/2}$, data points $(\Lambda, \mu)$ of individual nodes from network simulations follow the analytical result of $\mu(\Lambda)$, giving an almost perfect overlap of data. The presence of the balanced nodes with effectively constant chemical potentials is obvious and essential to explain the behavior of the majority of data points from simulations. On the other hand, for $\tilde W<\sqrt{\pi/2}$, the analytical $\mu(\Lambda)$ shows no turning point as shown in the inset of Fig. \[gr\_vbhori\]. Despite the scattering of data points, they generally follow the trend of the theoretical $\mu(\Lambda)$.
The Cases with General Connectivity
-----------------------------------
Our analysis can be generalized to the case of large but finite connectivity, where the approximation in [Eq. (\[vbMmuint2\])]{} is not fully valid. This modifies the chemical potentials of the balanced nodes, for which [Eq. (\[vbMmuint2\])]{} has to be replaced by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vbslantMmu}
M(\mu)&&=
\frac{\tilde W}{c}\biggl[
\int_{\Lambda_>}^{\infty}d\Lambda\rho(\Lambda)
-\int_{-\infty}^{\Lambda_<}d\Lambda\rho(\Lambda)\biggr]
\nonumber\\
&&+\int_{\Lambda_<}^{\Lambda_>}d\Lambda\rho(\Lambda)
\biggl(\frac{\mu(\Lambda)-\mu}{R}\biggr).\end{aligned}$$ We introduce an ansatz of a linear relationship between $\mu$ and $\Lambda$ for the balanced nodes, namely, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vbslantanastz}
\mu=m\Lambda+b.\end{aligned}$$ After direct substitution of [Eq. (\[vbslantanastz\])]{} into $M(\mu)$ given by [Eq. (\[vbslantMmu\])]{}, we get the self-consistent equations for $m$ and $b$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vbslantmb}
m=\frac{R}{R+c~{\rm erf}\left(
\frac{\Lambda_>-\langle\Lambda\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}\right)},
\nonumber\\
b=\frac{c~{\rm erf}\left(
\frac{\Lambda_>-\langle\Lambda\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}\right)}
{R+c~{\rm erf}\left(
\frac{\Lambda_>-\langle\Lambda\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}\right)}\langle\Lambda\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the Maxwell construction has a non-zero slope when the connectivity is finite.
We remark that the approximation in [Eq. (\[vbslantMmu\])]{} assumes that the potential differences of the balanced nodes lie in the range of $2R\tilde W/c$, so that their connecting links remain unsaturated. Note that the end points of the Maxwell construction have chemical potentials ${\langle \Lambda\rangle}\pm R\tilde W/c$ respectively, rendering the approximation in [Eq. (\[vbslantMmu\])]{} [*exact*]{} at one special point, namely, the central point of the Maxwell construction. Hence, this approximation works well in the central region of the Maxwell construction, while deviations are expected near the end points.
We compare [Eq. (\[vbslantMmu\])]{} with the $\mu(\Lambda)$ given by the numerical solution of the integral equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_ns}
\mu(\Lambda_i) = \Lambda_i
+\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\Lambda \rho(\Lambda)Y[\mu(\Lambda)-\mu(\Lambda_i)].\end{aligned}$$ Since iterating this equation may lead to an oscillating solution of $\mu(\Lambda)$, we solve it by gradient descent. The results are shown in [Fig. \[gr\_slant\]]{} in an enlarged scale of $\mu$. As expected, [Eq. (\[vbslantMmu\])]{} works well around $\mu={\langle \Lambda\rangle}$ and show small deviations at the end points of the Maxwell construction. In comparison with simulations, data porints are scattered from the theoretical predictions, but generally follow the slanted path of $\mu(\Lambda)$ rather than the horizontal path as predicted by [Eq. (\[vbmuhori\])]{}. We will explain the scattering of data points in the next section. As shown in the inset of [Fig. \[gr\_slant\]]{}, the differences among the different approaches are not obvious unless the scale of $\mu$ is expanded. We thus conclude that both the horizontal and slanted Maxwell constructions are good approximations of $\mu(\Lambda)$ and capture the general trend of the simulation data.
Remarkably, as evident from Eq. (\[vbslantmb\]), even with constant available bandwidth $\tilde W$, increasing connectivity causes $m$ to decrease, and hence sharpens the chemical potential distribution. The narrower distributions correspond to higher efficiency in resource allocation. It leads us to realize the potential benefits of increasing connectivity in network optimization even for a given constant total bandwidth connecting a node.
The Self-organization of the Balanced Nodes {#sec_balanced}
===========================================
The fraction $f_{\rm bal}$ of balanced nodes is given by the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqfbal}
f_{\rm bal}={\rm erf}\biggl(\frac{\tilde W f_{\rm bal}}{\sqrt{2}}\biggl).\end{aligned}$$ Note that $f_{\rm bal}$ has the same dependence on $\tilde W$ for all negative ${\langle \Lambda\rangle}$. Figure \[gr\_fbal\] shows that when the total bandwidth $\tilde W$ increases beyond $\sqrt{\pi/2}$, the analytical fraction of balanced nodes increases, reflecting the more efficient resource allocation brought by the convenience of increased bandwidths. When $\tilde W$ becomes very large, a uniform chemical potential of ${\langle \Lambda\rangle}$ networkwide is recovered. converging to the case of non-vanishing bandwidths [@yeung2009].
We measure $f_{\rm bal}$ in simulations as follows. As only finite connectivity can be implemented, we define node $i$ to be balanced when its chemical potential falls into the slanted range of the Maxwell construction, i.e. ${\langle \Lambda\rangle}-R\tilde W/c\le\mu_i\le{\langle \Lambda\rangle}+R\tilde W/c$. The simulation results are compared with the analytical results in [Fig. \[gr\_fbal\]]{}. Deviations are found at intermediate values of $\tilde W$, which may be expained by the scattering of simulated data points. Nevertheless, increass in $f_{\rm bal}$ are observed at $\tilde W\approx \sqrt{\pi/2}$, corresponding to the emergence of balanced nodes in simulations.
The Extensive Clusters of Balanced Nodes {#sec_cluster}
----------------------------------------
In random networks, balanced nodes are found in clusters interconnected by an extensive fraction of unsaturated links. The clusters connect most balanced nodes and span the whole network when a large fraction of balanced node is found. The unsaturated links in the clusters provide the freedom to fine tune their currents so that the shortages among the nodes are uniform. These features are the natural consequences of optimization, in which nodes self-organize to balance their shortages.
To examine the clustering of balanced nodes, we show in [Fig. \[gr\_condP\]]{} (a) and (b) respectively the distributions $P(\mu_i, \mu_j| |y_{ij}|<W)$ and $P(\mu_i, \mu_j| |y_{ij}|=W)$, which correspond to the joint probability distributions of the final resources of terminal nodes $i$ and $j$ for link $(ij)$, given the link is unsaturated and saturated. As shown in [Fig. \[gr\_condP\]]{} (a), unsaturated links connect nodes with $\mu_i\approx\mu_j$. A prominent peak is found around $\mu_i\approx\mu_j\approx{\langle \Lambda\rangle}$, corresponding to unsaturated linkages between the balanced nodes. On the other hand, $P(\mu_i, \mu_j| |y_{ij}|=W)$ shows non-zero probabilities in regions other than $\mu_i\approx\mu_j$. Peaks are observed, which are similar to a Gaussian distribution with the central slice removed. Non-zero probabilities are observed along the axes $\mu_i\approx{\langle \Lambda\rangle}$ and $\mu_j\approx{\langle \Lambda\rangle}$, corresponding to saturated linkages between balanced and unbalanced nodes. These results support the existence of balanced clusters interconnected by an extensive fraction of unsaturated links.
The Neighborhood of Rich and Poor Nodes {#sec_gifted}
---------------------------------------
To understand the scattering of data points of $(\mu, \Lambda)$ from the mean-field predictions, we identify the role of the nodes in resource allocation according to their capacities. Nodes with capacities greater and less than ${\langle \Lambda\rangle}$ are respectively referred to as the [*gifted*]{} and [*ungifted*]{} nodes. Figure \[gr\_category\] shows the schematic relation of the resources of a node before and after optimization. Before optimization, the resource of a node is equal to its capacity. After optimization, the resource of a node is equal to $\mu$. Gifted nodes have their resources reduced after donating them, and ungifted nodes have their resources increased after receiving them. $\mu(\Lambda)$ is then described by the Maxwell construction as derived in the mean-field analysis.
As finite connectivity is implemented in simulations, the neighborhood of a node deviates from the mean-field descriptions which results in scattering of data points $(\mu, \Lambda)$. To examine the effect of the locality of nodes in relation with their final shortage, we define [*rich*]{} and [*poor*]{} nodes to be nodes with final resources higher and lower than the mean-field predictions. As shown in [Fig. \[gr\_category\]]{}(b), the nodes are thus categorized into [*gifted rich*]{}, [*gifted poor*]{}, [*ungifted rich*]{} and [*ungifted poor*]{}, in accordance to the scattering of the capacity-shortage relations i.e. $(\mu, \Lambda)$ of the node. As an example, gifted rich nodes are nodes with initial capacity higher than ${\langle \Lambda\rangle}$ and final resources higher than the mean-field predictions, as shown in [Fig. \[gr\_category\]]{}(b).
We examine the neighborhood of a node in [Fig. \[gr\_barChart\]]{} by measuring the fractions of gifted rich, gifted poor, ungifted rich and ungifted poor nodes among its nearest neighbors. As compared with the random case, a high ratio of gifted rich node is found surrounding a gifted rich node. In other words, gifted nodes are more likely to be rich in the neighborhood of gifted nodes, forming a cluster of rich nodes after allocation. Physically, the effective average capacity is higher than ${\langle \Lambda\rangle}$ in the locality of gifted clusters, leading to higher resources than the mean-field predictions. The converse is true for ungifted poor nodes, which results in lower resources in the locality of ungifted clusters. On the other hand, gifted nodes are more likely to be poor if they are in the neighborhood of ungifted clusters, as shown by the statistics of the neighbors of gifted poor nodes, and vice versa. We thus conclude that the final state of a node is highly dependent on its locality, which results in the scattering of the simulated data points of $(\mu, \Lambda)$ around the prediction of the mean-field analyses.
Balanced Nodes in Scale-Free Networks {#sec_scalefree}
=====================================
We have examined the features of balanced nodes in regular networks . However, recent studies of complex networks show that many realistic communication networks have highly heterogeneous structure, and the connectivity distribution obeys a power law [@barabasi]. These networks, commonly known as scale-free networks, are characterized by the presence of hubs, which are nodes with very high connectivities, and are found to modify the network behavior significantly. Hence, it is interesting to study the allocation of resources and the features of balanced nodes in scale-free networks. We define the bandwidth of the link $(ij)$ to be $W_{ij}=\tilde W/\max(c_i, c_j)$, where $c_i$ and $c_j$ are the connectivity of the terminal nodes. In this case, nodes in scale-free network may have a smaller effective $\tilde W$, as compared with their counterpart in regular networks with identical connectivity.
The simulation results are presented in Fig. \[figScaleFree\], where we plot the data points of $(\Lambda, \mu)$ from nodes of $c=3$ in scale-free networks. Despite their low connectivity, their capacity-shortage relations exhibit the flat distribution characteristic of the Maxwell construction, coinciding with the analytical results of the high connectivity limit. This shows that the presence of hubs in scale-free networks increases the global efficiency of resource allocation, leading to balanced shortages on nodes with low connectivity. To confirm this advantage of the scale-free topology, we also plot in the figure the data points obtained from networks of uniform connectivity $c=3$. Evidently, the data points are much more scattered away from the Maxwell construction.
However, the enhanced balancing in scale-free networks are found only for nodes with low connectivity. We compare in the inset of Fig. \[figScaleFree\], the $f_{\rm bal}$ in scale-free networks and regular networks, for nodes with higher connectivities. From the firgure for $c=3,4$, a much higher $f_{\rm bal}$ is found in scale-free networks than their counterparts in regular networks. The opposite is true for $c\ge 5$, and the differences increases with $c$. It implies that the nodes with higher connectivity in scale-free neworks sacrifice themselves for balancing the majority of nodes with low connectivity. In contrast, the fraction of balanced nodes increases with the connectivity in regular networks. This picture thus clarifies the role of hubs in resource allocation on scale-free networks.
Conclusion {#sec:Conclusion}
==========
We have applied statistical mechanics to study an optimization task of resource allocation on a network, in which nodes with different capacities are connected by links of finite bandwidths. By adopting suitable cost functions, such as quadratic transportation and shortage costs, the model can be applied to the study of realistic networks. The mean-field approach valid in the high connectivity limit enables us to derive the capacity-shortage relations, and study the deviations from this limit for finite connecitivty.
In particular, the study reveals interesting effects due to finite bandwidths. A remarkable phenomenon is found in networks with fixed total bandwidths per node, where bandwidths per link vanish in the high connectivity limit. For sufficiently large total bandwidths, clusters of balanced nodes self-organize to have a uniform shortage reminiscent of the Maxwell construction in thermodynamics. The locality of gifted and ungifted clusters respectively lead to the formation of rich and poor clusters. In scale-free networks, hubs are more likely to be unbalanced and make sacrifice for nodes with low connectivity to get balanced. We believe that the present analyses of balanced nodes lead us to better understanding of self-organization in resource allocation, as well as other systems.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work is supported by the Research Grant Council of Hong Kong (grant numbers HKUST 603607 and HKUST 604008).
[0]{} J. Hertz, A. Krogh, and R. G. Palmer, [*Introduction to the Theory of Neural Computation*]{} (Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, 1991).
H. Nishimori, [*Statistical Physics of Spin Glasses and Information Processing*]{} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2001).
D. Challet, M. Marsili and Y.-C. Zhang [*Minority Games*]{} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2005).
Y. Kabashima and D. Saad, J. Phys. A [**37**]{}, R1 (2004).
K. Y .M. Wong and D. Saad, Phys. Rev. E [**74**]{}, 010104(R) (2006).
K. Y .M. Wong and D. Saad, Phys. Rev. E [**76**]{}, 011115 (2007).
C. H. Yeung and K. Y. M. Wong, to appear in Phys. Rev E (2009).
L. Peterson and B.S. Davie, [*Computer Networks: A Systems Approach*]{} (Academic Press, San Diego CA, 2000).
Y. C. Ho, L. Servi, and R. Suri, Large Scale Syst. [**1**]{}, 51 (1980).
S. Shenker, D. Clark, D. Estrin and S. Herzog, Comput. Commun. Rev. [**26**]{}. 19 (1996).
R. L. Rardin [*Optimization in Operations Research*]{} (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1998).
C. H. Yeung and K. Y. M. Wong J. Stat. Mech. P03029 (2009).
M. Mézard, G. Parissi and M. A. Virasoro [*Spin Glass Theory and Beyond*]{} (World Scientific, 1987).
M. Opper and D. Saad, eds, [*Advanced Mean Field Methods*]{} (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999).
D. J. C. Mackey, [*Information Theory, Inference and Learning Algorithms*]{} (Cambridge University Press, UK, 2003).
A. L. Barabási and R. Albert, Science [**286**]{}, 509 (1999).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the rest-frame ultra-violet sizes of massive ($\sim0.8\times10^{11}M_{\sun}$) galaxies at $3.4\leq z<4.2$, selected from the FourStar Galaxy Evolution Survey (ZFOURGE), by fitting single profiles to HST/WFC3/F160W images from the Cosmic Assembly Near-Infrared Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey (CANDELS). Massive quiescent galaxies are very compact, with a median circularized half-light radius . Removing $5/16$ (31%) sources with signs of AGN activity does not change the result. Star-forming galaxies have , larger than quiescent galaxies. Quiescent galaxies at $z\sim4$ are on average smaller than at $z\sim0$ and smaller than at $z\sim2$. Star-forming galaxies of the same stellar mass are smaller than at $z\sim0$. Overall, the size evolution at $0<z< 4$ is well described by a powerlaw, with for quiescent and for star-forming galaxies. Compact star-forming galaxies are rare in our sample: we find only $1/14\Rightarrow7\%$ with $r_e/(M/10^{11}M_{\sun})^{0.75}<1.5$, whereas $13/16\Rightarrow81\%$ of the quiescent galaxies is compact. The number density of compact quiescent galaxies at $z\sim4$ is $1.8\pm0.8\times10^{-5}\mathrm{Mpc^{-3}}$ and increases rapidly, by $>5\times$, between $2<z<4$. The paucity of compact star-forming galaxies at $z\sim4$ and their large rest-frame ultra-violet median sizes suggest that the formation phase of compact cores is very short and/or highly dust obscured.'
author:
- 'Caroline M. S. Straatman, Ivo Labbé, Lee R. Spitler, Karl Glazebrook, Adam Tomczak, Rebecca Allen, Gabriel B. Brammer, Michael Cowley, Pieter van Dokkum, Glenn G. Kacprzak, Lalit Kawinwanichakij, Nicola Mehrtens, Themiya Nanayakkara, Casey Papovich, S. Eric Persson, Ryan F. Quadri, Glen Rees, Vithal Tilvi, Kim-Vy H. Tran, Katherine E. Whitaker'
title: 'The sizes of massive quiescent and star forming galaxies at $\mathrm{z\sim 4}$ with ZFOURGE and CANDELS'
---
Introduction
============
In recent years massive quiescent galaxies have been found beyond $z=3$ [e.g. @Chen04; @Wiklind08; @Mancini09; @Fontana09; @Marchesini10; @Guo13; @Stefanon13; @Muzzin13; @Spitler14] and even at $z\sim4$, when the universe was only 1.5 Gyrs old [@Straatman14]. Quiescent galaxies at high redshift ($z>1$) exhibit compact morphologies, with small effective radii [e.g @Daddi05; @vanDokkum08; @Damjanov09], which tend to become smaller with increasing redshift [@vanderWel14]. At $z\sim3$, they have sizes of $\sim1$kpc, $3-4\times$ smaller than early-type galaxies of similar stellar mass at $z\sim0$ [@Shen03; @Mosleh13] and $2-3\times$ smaller than star-forming galaxies at the same redshift.
How compact quiescent galaxies are formed is still unclear. Simulations propose mechanisms in which gas-rich major mergers can induce central starbursts, resulting in a compact merger remnant [@Hopkins09; @Wellons14], or in which massive star-forming clumps move to the centers if galaxy disks are unstable [@Dekel09; @Dekel14]. Alternatively they may have formed in a more protracted process at high redshift, when the universe was more dense [@Mo98].
To understand these scenarios it is necessary to identify compact quiescent galaxies and their progenitors at the highest redshifts. Compact star-forming galaxies been found in small numbers at $z=2-3$ [@Barro14a; @Barro14b; @Nelson14], but many host AGN, complicating the interpretation of the observations. At the same time, rest-frame ultra-violet (UV) or optically measured sizes of star-forming galaxies may be affected by dust-obscured central regions, thereby increasing their effective radii.
In this work we investigate the sizes of a stellar-mass complete sample of star-forming and quiescent galaxies at $z\sim4$. Throughout, we assume a standard $\mathrm{\Lambda CDM}$ cosmology with $\mathrm{\Omega_M=0.3,\ \Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7}$ and $H_0=70\mathrm{km\ s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}}$. The adopted photometric system is AB.
Sample selection {#sec:data}
================
The galaxies were selected using deep $K_s$-band images from the FourStar Galaxy Evolution Survey (ZFOURGE; Labbé et al. in prep.), a near-IR survey with the FourStar Infrared Camera [@Persson13], covering three $\mathrm{11'\times 11'}$ pointings, located in the fields CDFS [@Giacconi02], COSMOS [@Scoville07] and UDS [@Lawrence07]. The ZFOURGE $K_s$-band selected catalogs are at least $80\%$ complete down to $K_s=24.53,\ 24.74$ and $25.07$ mag in each field, respectively [@Papovich14]. Photometric redshifts and stellar masses were derived using 5 near-IR medium-bandwidth filters on FourStar ($J_{1},J_{2},J_{3},H_s,H_l$), which provide fine sampling of the age-sensitive Balmer/$\mathrm{4000\AA}$ break at $1.5<z<4$, in combination with public data over a wavelength range $0.3-8\micron$ [@Straatman14]. Here we make additional use of HST/WFC3/F160W data from CANDELS [@Grogin11; @Koekemoer11; @Skelton14], to examine galaxy sizes and Spitzer/MIPS $\mathrm{24\micron}$ data from GOODS-South (PI: Dickinson), COSMOS (PI: Scoville) and SPUDS (PI: Dunlop) to measure infrared flux.
The galaxies in this work have photometric redshifts $3.4\leq z<4.2$, stellar masses of and $K_s$-band signal-to-noise (SNR) of SNR$>7$. They are separated into quiescent and star-forming according to their rest-frame $U-V$ versus $V-J$ colours [@Labbe05; @Williams09; @Spitler14], yielding 19 quiescent and 25 star-forming galaxies [@Straatman14]. Of these, 34 have HST/WFC3/F160W coverage. One quiescent galaxy has SNR$<3$ in F160W and is not included. Another star-forming galaxy with a highly uncertain redshift solution was also rejected from the sample, along with two star-forming galaxies that appear to consist of two sources each in the higher resolution HST images. In total we study 16 quiescent and 14 star-forming galaxies. We include a control sample at $2\leq z<3.4$ (326 sources) at similar mass and SNR.
Galaxy sizes from HST/WFC3 imaging
==================================
fits {#sec:gf}
-----
\[tab:sztab\]
Sizes and structural parameters were measured by fitting [@Sersic68] profiles on $6\arcsec\times6\arcsec$ HST/WFC3/F160W image stamps using GALFIT [@Peng10]. In particular, we measure the half-light radius, encapsulating half the sources’ integrated light. The corresponding parameter in GALFIT is the half-light radius along the semi-major axis ($r_{1/2,maj}$), which can be converted to circularized effective radius ($r_e=r_{1/2,maj}\sqrt(b/a)$), with $b/a$ the axis ratio.
We manually subtracted the background in each image stamp, masking sources and using the mode of the pixel flux distribution. Sky estimation in GALFIT was turned off. Neighbouring objects at $r>1.1\arcsec$ from the source were effectively masked by setting their corresponding pixels in the image to zero flux and increasing those in the noise image by $\times10^6$. Close neighbouring objects were fitted simultaneously.
We created mean PSFs for each field by stacking image stamps of bright stars (masking all neighbouring sources). As many of the galaxies are small we investigate the impact of PSF choice. We repeated the fitting using the hybrid PSF models of @vanderWel12 and find marginally larger ($<5\%$) sizes. In particular, for the smallest galaxies ($r_e<0.20\arcsec$), we find a median $r_e/r_{e,PSFvdW}=0.93\pm0.05$.
Errors on the individual measurements were calculated using a Monte Carlo procedure. After subtracting the best-fit GALFIT models from the sources, we shifted the residuals by a random number of pixels, added back the model and used this as input for GALFIT. Repeating this $>200\times$ for each galaxy, errors were calculated as the $1\sigma$ variation on these measurements. We report our results in Table \[tab:sztab\].
In the fits, the index ($n_{sersic}$) was restricted to $0.1<n_{sersic}<8.0$. If $n_{sersic}$ reached the extreme value $0.1$ or $8.0$, GALFIT was rerun while forcing $n_{sersic}=1$ for star-forming and $n_{sersic}=4$ for quiescent galaxies. These values correspond to the median $n_{sersic}$ of galaxies with well-constrained fits and $\mathrm{SNR}_{F160W}>15$.
At $z\sim4$, this happens for $6/16\Rightarrow38\%$ quiescent and $2/14\Rightarrow14\%$ star-forming galaxies. To explore systematic effects introduced by the choice of profile, we set $n_{sersic}=1.0$ or $n_{sersic}=4.0$ for bright ($mag_{F160W}(AB)<24.5$) and compact sources ($r_e<0.20\arcsec$) and find on average $r_{e,n=1}/r_{e,n=4}=0.80\pm0.13$, corresponding to a systematic uncertainty of $20\%$. We add this in quadrature to the uncertainties from the Monte Carlo procedure for each galaxy. Systematic biases of this level do not affect the main results. For comparison, [@vanderWel12] derived typical systematic uncertainties on size of $\sim12\%$ for faint F160W$=24-26$ and small $r_e<0.3\arcsec$ galaxies.
As many galaxies have modest SNR, we tested the reliability of our measurements by a simulation, in which we inserted source models, convolved with the instrument PSF, in the F160W images. These have adopted magnitudes of $25<mag_{F160W}(AB)<26$ and size of $0.06<r_e(\arcsec)<0.3$. We find $r_{e,out}/r_{e,in}=0.97\pm0.05$, with $r_{e,in}$ and $r_{e,out}$ the input and output effective radii, showing that we can recover the sizes of faint compact sources without bias. As an additional test we determine the size distribution of point sources, by inserting PSFs in the images and measuring their size. We can constrain the size of bright objects to $0.01\arcsec$ at 95% confidence, which we adopt as a minimum uncertainty on the sizes.
We crossmatched our sample at $2\leq z<4.2$ with the size catalogs of [@vanderWel14], based on the 3D$-$HST photometric catalogs [@Skelton14]. We find that the sizes and indices agree well, with a median $r_{e,ZFOURGE}/r_{e,3DHST}=1.004\pm0.01$ and $n_{ZFOURGE}-n_{3DHST}=-0.012\pm0.058$.
We test for color gradients between rest-frame UV sizes and rest-frame optical sizes, using a rest-frame color and stellar-mass matched control sample at $z\sim3$. We find F160W (rest-frame $4000\mathrm{\AA}$) sizes are $0\pm6\%$ and $6\pm11\%$ smaller than F125W (rest-frame $3000\mathrm{\AA}$) sizes for star-forming and quiescent galaxies, respectively.
Stacking
--------
{width="14.60000%"} {width="23.90000%"} {width="19.90000%"} {width="41.40000%"}
We also measure the average sizes by stacking the background subtracted image stamps of the two subsamples, normalizing each by mean stellar mass. Neighbouring sources were masked. The final stacks were obtained by calculating the mean value at each pixel location of the image stamps.
We ran GALFIT using the same input parameters as for the individual galaxies. Errors were estimated by bootstrapping, i.e. randomly selecting galaxies, recreating the image stacks and rerunning GALFIT.
In Figure \[fig:fig1\] we show the stacks and examples of individual galaxies. The stack of quiescent galaxies is redder than the stack of star-forming galaxies and has a more compact morphology. We also show stellar mass surface density profiles ($\Sigma(\mathrm{M_{\Sun}/kpc^2})=M(<r)/(\pi r^2)$), obtained from the light profile measured in concentric apertures of radius $r$ and assuming a constant mass-to-light ratio. For the stacked profiles we used the mean mass of the galaxies in each stack. They are consistent with the individual profiles within the uncertainties, suggesting that the stack does not reveal an extended low surface brightness component, down to a surface brightness limit of $28.3\ \mathrm{mag/arcsec^{2}}$.
Contamination by AGN
--------------------
A substantial fraction of sources show signs of AGN activity either from X$-$ray detections or strong $24\micron$ (rest-frame $5\micron$, tracing hot dust). As WFC3/F160W ($\lambda=1.5396\micron$) corresponds to rest-frame $2960-3500\mathrm{\AA}$ (UV) at $3.4\leq z<4.2$, it could be that an AGN is dominating their central light, leading to small sizes of the single fits.
In the quiescent sample we find four X$-$ray detected galaxies, two of which are spectroscopically confirmed type-II QSOs [@Szokoly04]. Another has strong $24\micron$, which could either point towards dust-obscured star-formation or AGN activity. Several have small positive residuals after subtracting the best fit, suggesting the presence of a central point source. These $5/16$ (31%) galaxies were re-fit with two components, a model and a pointsource-like model (represented by a Gaussian with FWHM$=0.1$pixels) to trace possible AGN light. In these models, the point source accounts for $4.3-68\%$ of the total light (with $57$% and $68$% for the type-II QSOs, but on average $6.2$% for the remaining 3 AGN candidates). The average size of the component increases by $1.5\times$ (from a median $r_e=0.13\pm0.12\arcsec$ to $r_e=0.20\pm0.03\arcsec$).
Amongst the star-forming galaxies two are X$-$ray detected, and four are very bright at $24\micron$ (L$>7\times10^{12}L_{\Sun}$ or $SFR>1200M_{\Sun}/yr$). Re-fitting with a two-component model attributes $0.9-39.4\%$ of the light to a point source, while the extended component changes in size by $0.65\times$ (from $r_e=0.31\pm0.15\arcsec$ to $r_e=0.19\pm0.02\arcsec$). We note that for the most extended sources, adding central light reduces the index $n_{Sersic}$ of the extended component, and can result in a smaller $r_e$.
We additionally estimated the possible AGN contribution from the galaxy SEDs. We first determine the best fitting powerlaw bluewards of rest-frame $0.35\micron$ and at observed $8\micron$ [@Kriek09]. Then we fit the sum of the powerlaw and the original best-fit EAZY template to the data. The contribution of the AGN powerlaw template to F160W is $1.1-7.4\%$ for the 5 quiescent galaxies and $0.9-2.9\%$ for the 6 star-forming galaxies.
While the two-component fits and SEDs indicate that a point source contribution is probably small, the true contribution and its effect on the sizes remain unclear.
Results {#sec:size-results}
=======
{width="\textwidth"}
We show the effective radius as a function of stellar mass in Figure \[fig:msize\]. Quiescent galaxies at $z\sim4$ are very compact, with a bootstrapped median size . When we remove AGN we find a similar result: .
Star-forming galaxies have . They are larger than quiescent galaxies. Both samples have a large spread in size, with some almost as large as at $z\sim0$, showing that at $z\sim4$ the population is already very diverse. On average the sizes lie well below the $z\sim0$ relation [@Mosleh13], by for quiescent and for star-forming galaxies. Quiescent galaxies are also smaller than at $2\leq z<2.2$.
{width="\textwidth"}
In Figure \[fig:sb\] we show index versus size for the $z\sim4$ galaxies, and a sample at similar mass at $2\leq z<2.2$. Star-forming galaxies have smaller index, with on average $n_{sersic}=1.3\pm0.7$, compared to $n_{sersic}=3.2\pm1.2$ for quiescent galaxies. The difference between the two populations is also clear from the stellar mass density profiles in Figure \[fig:fig1\], with quiescent galaxies having steeper profiles and more centralized flux. In Figure \[fig:sb\] we also plot $\langle\Sigma\rangle_{max}$, defined as the average stellar mass density inside the radius where $\Sigma(\mathrm{M_{\Sun}/kpc^2})$ falls of by a factor of two [@Hopkins10], with uncertainties from the Monte Carlo procedure described in section \[sec:gf\].
Quiescent galaxies at $z\sim4$ have a median , much higher ($\sim10\times$) than for star-forming galaxies: , and more similar to $2\leq z<2.2$ quiescent galaxies: .
When stacking we find (quiescent) and (star-forming), and indices and , respectively. The effective radius of the quiescent stack is slightly larger than the median of the individual galaxies, by $1.3\pm0.3\times$ at $<1\sigma$ significance, but overall the results are consistent.
{width="90.00000%"} {width="89.00000%"}
\[fig:rz\]
In Figure \[fig:rz\] we show the median sizes at the respective mean redshifts of the two subsamples. Comparing with lower redshift, they continue to follow a trend of decreasing size with increasing redshift. Our control sample of galaxies at $2\leq z<3.4$ with $10.5\leq\mathrm{log_{10}}(M/M_{\sun})<11$ corresponds well with the results of [@vanderWel14], which suggest the same trend.
We fit a relation of the form $r_e=A(1+z)^{B}$kpc at $0<z<4$, using the measurements of [@vanderWel14] at $z<2$. We find for quiescent and for star-forming galaxies. We note that our sample at $z\sim4$ includes higher mass ($\mathrm{log_{10}}(M/M_{\sun})\geq 11$) galaxies. If we remove the most massive galaxies, we find the same evolutionary relation.
To test for incompleteness for diffuse galaxies, we redshift a stellar-mass matched sample with $r>2$kpc and $n_{sersic}<2.5$ at $z\sim2.5$ to $z=3.7$ and find 70% completeness.
Discussion
==========
Our results show that the galaxies at $z\sim4$ in this study obey similar relations between size and star-forming activity as galaxies at lower redshift. Quiescent galaxies are compact, while star-forming galaxies are more extended and diffuse. The difference is also clear when selecting purely on size: if we define compactness as $r_e/(M/10^{11}M_{\sun})^{0.75}<1.5$ [@vanderWel14], $13/14$ (93%) of massive compact galaxies would be classified as quiescent, and $13/16$ (81%) of larger galaxies as star-forming (Figure \[fig:sb\]).
The number density of compact, , quiescent galaxies at $z\sim4$ is $1.8\pm0.8\times10^{-5}\mathrm{Mpc^{-3}}$, increasing by $>5\times$ between $3.4\leq z<4.2$ and $2\leq z<2.2$, towards $1.0\pm0.3\times10^{-4}\mathrm{Mpc^{-3}}$. This suggests we are probing a key era of their formation, and we would expect to see their star-forming progenitors in abundance.
Small effective radii for star-forming galaxies have been reported at $z=2-3$ [@Barro14a; @Barro14b; @Nelson14]. They are rare in our sample: we find 1/14 with $r_e/(M/10^{11}M_{\sun})^{0.75}<1.5$. On average, star-forming galaxies at $z\sim4$ are twice as large as quiescent galaxies at $z\sim2$. If they are the direct progenitors of $z<4$ compact quiescent galaxies, we expect them to be similar, not only in size, but also in index and central surface density [@Nelson14]. However, we find smaller $n_{Sersic}$ for star-forming galaxies, while the central densities indicate that they must increase in $\langle\Sigma\rangle_{max}$ by $5-10\times$, to match the more cuspy profiles of $z=2-4$ quiescent galaxies.
In a recent simulation, @Wellons14 trace the evolution of galaxies to $z=2$. They indeed identified two theoretical formation tracks: one in which a brief and intense central starburst prompted by a gas-rich major merger causes the galaxies’ half-mass radius to decrease dramatically. The second is that of a more gradual but early formation, with small galaxy sizes due to the higher density of the universe. In the second case, nearly all of the stellar mass is in place at $z>4$.
Comparing with the observations, we find that 19/44 of massive $z\sim4$ galaxies are classified as quiescent, whereas all similarly massive galaxies in Illustris are still actively star-forming, with a typical $SFR=100-200M_{\Sun}/yr$. This level of star-formation is ruled out at $>3\sigma$ by Herschel observations of the $z\sim4$ quiescent galaxies [@Straatman14]. At the same time, the fraction of compact galaxies in our sample is 47% ,versus $\sim20\%$ in Illustris. Hence massive galaxies appear to quench their star-formation earlier and to be more compact than in simulations.
The paucity of compact star-forming galaxies at $z\sim4$ and their large median rest-frame UV size is puzzling. At face value it suggests that the rapid increase in number density of compact quiescent galaxies cannot be explained by simple shutdown of star-formation in typical star-forming galaxies of similar stellar mass. A possible solution is a rapidly forming dense core, i.e. a central starburst. Then the chance to observe the progenitors in our sample is small, as it is proportional to the duration of the main star-forming episode. For example, if compact cores of $2\leq z<2.2$ quiescent galaxies formed at random times between $2.5<z<6$, with a typical 100Myr central starburst duration, their predicted number density at $z\sim4$ would be $\sim6\times10^{-6}\mathrm{Mpc^{-3}}$. The observed number density of compact star-forming galaxies is $1.4\pm1.4\times10^{-6}\mathrm{Mpc^{-3}}$: smaller, but in a similar range given the large uncertainties.
We note that the remarkably high fraction of quiescent galaxies at $z\sim4$ (Figure \[fig:rz\]) is still uncertain. Current limits on the average dust-obscured SFR are weak [$<75M_{\Sun}/yr(3\sigma)$, @Straatman14], hence some of the quiescent galaxies could be star-forming. Cosmic variance is significant ($\sim30\%$). Highly obscured massive star-forming galaxies might also be missed by near-IR surveys [e.g. @Daddi09; @Caputi12], although the abundance and redshift distribution of such galaxies is still very uncertain. Finally, extended ($r>3$kpc) galaxies with small $n_{sersic}$ and low surface brightness are more difficult to detect than compact galaxies [(e.g. Trujillo et al. 2006)]{}.
We caution that the light profiles measured here may not be representative of the stellar mass distribution due to color gradients, with rest-frame UV sizes larger than rest-frame optical sizes. This would imply that the size evolution is stronger. However, using control sample at $z\sim3$, we find no difference between UV and optical, consistent with [@vanderWel14], who show this effect is $\lesssim10\%$ at $z\sim2$ and decreasing with redshift.
Galaxy sizes may also be overestimated if dust is obscuring a central starburst. Submm sizes of obscured starbursting galaxies could be small: $<1$kpc [e.g. @Ikarashi14; @Simpson15]. A direct comparison of ALMA submm and rest-frame optical/UV morphologies for the same objects with measured stellar mass will reveal the effect of dust obscuration on UV/optically measured galaxy sizes.
Acknowledgements
================
This research was supported by the George P. and Cynthia Woods Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy, the National Science Foundation grant AST-1009707 and the NL-NWO Spinoza Grant. Australian access to the Magellan Telescopes was supported through the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy of the Australian Federal Government. GGK is supported by an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship FT140100933. KEW is supported by an appointment to the NASA Postdoctoral Program at the Goddard Space Flight Center, administered by Oak Ridge Associated Universities through a contract with NASA. We thank Arjen van der Wel, Darren Croton, Duncan Forbes and Alister Graham for useful discussions.
[50]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, G., [et al.]{} 2014, , 791, 52
—. 2014, , 795, 145
, G. B., [van Dokkum]{}, P. G., & [Coppi]{}, P. 2008, , 686, 1503
, G., & [Charlot]{}, S. 2003, , 344, 1000
, D., [Armus]{}, L., [Bohlin]{}, R. C., [Kinney]{}, A. L., [Koornneef]{}, J., & [Storchi-Bergmann]{}, T. 2000, , 533, 682
, K. I., [et al.]{} 2012, , 750, L20
, G. 2003, , 115, 763
, H.-W., & [Marzke]{}, R. O. 2004, , 615, 603
, E., [et al.]{} 2005, , 626, 680
—. 2009, , 694, 1517
, I., [et al.]{} 2009, , 695, 101
, A., & [Burkert]{}, A. 2014, , 438, 1870
, A., [et al.]{} 2009, , 457, 451
, A., [et al.]{} 2009, , 501, 15
, R., [et al.]{} 2002, , 139, 369
, N. A., [et al.]{} 2011, , 197, 35
, Y., [et al.]{} 2013, , 207, 24
, P. F., [Hernquist]{}, L., [Cox]{}, T. J., [Keres]{}, D., & [Wuyts]{}, S. 2009, , 691, 1424
, P. F., [Murray]{}, N., [Quataert]{}, E., & [Thompson]{}, T. A. 2010, , 401, L19
, S., [et al.]{} 2014, ArXiv e-prints
, A. M., [et al.]{} 2011, , 197, 36
, M., [van Dokkum]{}, P. G., [Labb[é]{}]{}, I., [Franx]{}, M., [Illingworth]{}, G. D., [Marchesini]{}, D., & [Quadri]{}, R. F. 2009, , 700, 221
, I., [et al.]{} 2005, , 624, L81
, A., [et al.]{} 2007, , 379, 1599
, C., [Matute]{}, I., [Cimatti]{}, A., [Daddi]{}, E., [Dickinson]{}, M., [Rodighiero]{}, G., [Bolzonella]{}, M., & [Pozzetti]{}, L. 2009, , 500, 705
, D., [et al.]{} 2010, , 725, 1277
, H. J., [Mao]{}, S., & [White]{}, S. D. M. 1998, , 295, 319
, M., [Williams]{}, R. J., & [Franx]{}, M. 2013, , 777, 117
, A., [et al.]{} 2013, , 777, 18
, E., [et al.]{} 2014, , 513, 394
, C., [et al.]{} 2014, ArXiv e-prints
, C. Y., [Ho]{}, L. C., [Impey]{}, C. D., & [Rix]{}, H.-W. 2010, , 139, 2097
, S. E., [et al.]{} 2013, , 125, 654
, N., [et al.]{} 2007, , 172, 1
, J. L. 1968, [Atlas de galaxias australes]{}
, S., [Mo]{}, H. J., [White]{}, S. D. M., [Blanton]{}, M. R., [Kauffmann]{}, G., [Voges]{}, W., [Brinkmann]{}, J., & [Csabai]{}, I. 2003, , 343, 978
, J. M., [et al.]{} 2015, , 799, 81
, R. E., [et al.]{} 2014, ArXiv e-prints
, L. R., [et al.]{} 2014, , 787, L36
, M., [Marchesini]{}, D., [Rudnick]{}, G. H., [Brammer]{}, G. B., & [Whitaker]{}, K. E. 2013, , 768, 92
, C. M. S., [et al.]{} 2014, , 783, L14
, G. P., [et al.]{} 2004, , 155, 271
, A. R., [et al.]{} 2014, , 783, 85
, A., [et al.]{} 2012, , 203, 24
—. 2014, ArXiv e-prints
, P. G., [et al.]{} 2008, , 677, L5
, S., [et al.]{} 2014, ArXiv e-prints
, T., [Dickinson]{}, M., [Ferguson]{}, H. C., [Giavalisco]{}, M., [Mobasher]{}, B., [Grogin]{}, N. A., & [Panagia]{}, N. 2008, , 676, 781
, R. J., [Quadri]{}, R. F., [Franx]{}, M., [van Dokkum]{}, P., & [Labb[é]{}]{}, I. 2009, , 691, 1879
, Y. Q., [et al.]{} 2011, , 195, 10
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We investigate the effects of spatial discreteness of molecules in reaction-diffusion systems. It is found that discreteness within the so called Kuramoto length can lead to a localization of molecules, resulting in novel steady states that do not exist in the continuous case. These novel states are analyzed theoretically as the fixed points of accelerated localized reactions, an approach that was verified to be in good agreement with stochastic particle simulations. The relevance of this discreteness-induced state to biological intracellular processes is discussed.'
author:
- Yuichi Togashi
- Kunihiko Kaneko
date: 'August 5, 2004'
title: |
Molecular Discreteness in Reaction-Diffusion Systems Yields\
Steady States Not Seen in the Continuum Limit
---
{width="58mm"} {width="58mm"} {width="58mm"}
![(Color online) Average concentration of $X_{2}$, for different $r$ and $D$ ($a = 4$, $N=1000$, $L_{x}=1000$, sampled over $5000 < t <10000$, and 10 trials. The error bars show the standard deviation between the trials). The dotted lines correspond to $0.1$ molecule per the Kuramoto length $l_{1} = \sqrt{D / 50r}$ for each $r$.[]{data-label="fig-sp1-1-nbylk-d"}](fig2.eps){width="80mm"}
![(Color online) The acceleration factor $\alpha$, plotted against $\lambda_{2} / l_{1}$. We measure the relation from simulations with different $r$, $D$, and $a$ ($N=1000$, $L_{x}=1000$, sampled over $5000 < t <10000$, and 10 trials. The error bars show the standard deviation of $c_{2}$ between the trials). This is very close to the theoretical estimation $\alpha = 1 + \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \cdot \frac{\lambda_{2}}{l_{1}}$. []{data-label="fig-sp1-1-accel"}](fig3.eps){width="80mm"}
Many systems in nature that involve chemical reactions can be studied with the help of reaction-diffusion equations. For certain processes, a relatively small number of suitably chosen continuous macroscopic variables yields excellent descriptive results. In biological systems, however, not only is the variety of chemicals enormous, the number of molecules of each of the chemical species can range from the relatively very large to the relatively very small. Now, if the species with small numbers of molecules were irrelevant, obviously, their existence could be ignored and one could focus on the species with large numbers of molecules that can effectively be described by a continuous variable. However, it should not really come as a surprise that it was found that, in general, species with small numbers of molecules cannot be neglected and that certain functions in cells can critically depend on very small fluctuations [@Mikhailov; @Blumenfeld]. Indeed, in prior studies on reaction-diffusion systems some effects of fluctuations on pattern formation were found (see e.g., [@fluctuation1; @fluctuation2]). Stochastic differential equations are often used to study effects of fluctuations.
Of course, on a microscopic level chemicals are composed of molecules, and the actual reactions occur between these molecules. Therefore, in principle, reaction events must be integer and change only discretely. In analysis with stochastic differential equations, though, the fluctuations are regarded as continuous changes. Clearly, this approximation can only be valid if applied to fluctuations that involve sufficiently large numbers of molecules and should not be applied when relevant chemical species are very rare.
In order to address this issue, we previously studied the effects of discreteness in simple autocatalytic reaction network systems and reported discreteness-induced transitions as well as drastic effects on concentrations [@YTKK2001; @YTKK2003]. A key feature of these systems was, however, that the medium was assumed to be well-stirred.
In contrast, in a system with diffusion in space, the total number of molecules may vary from point to point. By assuming that the reaction is fast and the diffusion is slow, locally, the discreteness of the molecules can become important. In fact, this can even be the case if the total number of molecules is large but spread out over a large area as well.
Therefore, a length scale should be considered such that it can serve as a benchmark for judging whether or not a continuum approximation is applicable. To consider this problem, the ratio between the reaction and diffusion rates is important and a candidate for the length scale is the typical distance over which a molecule diffuses during its lifetime, i.e., before it undergoes reaction as defined by Kuramoto [@Kuramoto1; @Kuramoto2]. For reference, let us briefly review the work.
Consider the reaction [^1] $$A \stackrel{k}{\longrightarrow} X,\quad 2X \stackrel{k'}{\longrightarrow} B.$$ If the concentration of $A$ is set to be constant, $X$ is produced at a constant rate $k$ while decaying by the reaction $2X \rightarrow B$ at a rate $k'$. The average concentration of $X$ at the steady state is $\langle X \rangle = \sqrt{kA/2k'}$, where, for simplicity, $A$ is the concentration of the chemical $A$. Thus the average lifetime of $X$ at the steady state is estimated to be $\tau = 1 / (2k'\langle X \rangle) = 1 / \sqrt{2kk'A}$. Suppose that $X$ molecules diffuse with the diffusion constant $D$. The typical length over which an $X$ molecule diffuses in its lifetime is then estimated to be $$l = \sqrt{2D\tau},
\label{eqn:kuramoto}$$ which is called the Kuramoto length [@Kampen].
The Kuramoto length $l$ represents the relation between the reaction rate and the diffusion rate. When the system size is smaller than $l$, its behavior is dominated by diffusion and local fluctuations rapidly spread throughout the system. Contrastingly, if the system size is much larger than $l$, fluctuations are localized only in a small part of the system, and distant regions fluctuate independently.
In this reasoning, it is assumed that the average distance between molecules is much smaller than $l$. Thus the actual discreteness of the molecules can be ignored, and the concentration of the chemical $X$ can be regarded as a continuous variable. However, if the average distance between molecules is comparable to or larger than $l$, local discreteness of molecules may not be negligible. Suppose a chemical $A$, with very low concentration, produces another chemical $B$. The average lifetime of $B$ is short, such that the Kuramoto length of $B$ is shorter than the average distance between adjacent $A$ molecules. With this setting, chemical $B$ molecules may be considered as localized around $A$ molecules. This is especially so if the reactions involve 2nd or higher orders of $B$. Then the localization of chemical $B$ may drastically alter the total rate of the reactions, and the effect of the local discreteness of the molecules may thus be rather significant.
In order to systematically investigate the effects of the local discreteness of the molecules, we consider a simple one-dimensional reaction-diffusion system with 3 chemicals ($X_{1}$, $X_{2}$, and $X_{3}$) and the following 4 reactions $$\begin{aligned}
X_{2} + X_{3} \stackrel{k_{1}}{\longrightarrow} X_{2} + X_{1};\quad X_{3} +
X_{1} \stackrel{k_{2}}{\longrightarrow} 2 X_{3}\\
2 X_{2} \stackrel{k_{3}}{\longrightarrow} X_{2} + X_{1};\quad 2 X_{1}
\stackrel{k_{4}}{\longrightarrow} X_{1} + X_{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, we assume that the first two reactions are much faster than the others, i.e., the reaction constants satisfy $k_{1}, k_{2} \gg k_{3} > k_{4}$. To be specific, we take $k_{1}=k_{2}=100r$, $k_{3}=a r$, and $k_{4}=r$ ($r > 0$, $1 < a \ll 100$).
In the continuum limit, $c_{i}(t,x)$, the concentration of chemical $X_{i}$ at time $t$ and position $x$, is governed by the reaction-diffusion equation for the system given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial c_{1}}{\partial t} & = & -100r(c_{1}-c_{2})c_{3} -
r(c_{1}^{2} - a c_{2}^{2}) + D_{1} \frac{\partial^{2} c_{1}}{\partial
x^{2}}\ \label{eqn:rd1}\\
\frac{\partial c_{2}}{\partial t} & = & r(c_{1}^{2} - a c_{2}^{2}) + D_{2}
\frac{\partial^{2} c_{2}}{\partial x^{2}} \label{eqn:rd2}\\
\frac{\partial c_{3}}{\partial t} & = & 100r(c_{1}-c_{2})c_{3} + D_{3}
\frac{\partial^{2} c_{3}}{\partial x^{2}} \label{eqn:rd3}\end{aligned}$$ where $D_{i}$ is the diffusion constant of $X_{i}$. The system is closed and thus the total concentration $c$ is conserved. For simplicity, we assume $D_{i} = D$ for all $i$.
The reaction-diffusion equation has fixed points at $(c_{1},c_{2},c_{3}) = (0, 0, c), (\sqrt{a}c/(\sqrt{a} + 1), c/(\sqrt{a}
+ 1), 0)$ for all $x$. By performing a straightforward linear stability analysis, it is shown that only the former is stable. Indeed, by starting from an initial condition with $c_{i} > 0$, this reaction-diffusion equation always converges to the fixed point $(0, 0,
c)$.
Next, in order to obtain insights into the case when the continuum limit cannot be taken we carry out direct particle simulations. Each molecule diffuses randomly (showing Brownian motion) in a one-dimensional space with periodic boundary conditions (length $L_{x}$). When two molecules are within a distance $d_{r}$ they react with a certain probability and the total number of molecules ($N$) is conserved.
First, we investigate the case with $a = 4$ and show time series of the number of molecules $N_{i}$ of chemical species $X_{i}$ in Fig. \[fig-sp1-1-ts-d\]. As can be seen, $N_{1}$ and $N_{2}$ do not converge to $0$ but to relatively large numbers. As can be expected the final concentrations depend on $r$ and $D$ and for $X_{2}$ it is depicted in Fig. \[fig-sp1-1-nbylk-d\]. Approximately, the concentration turns out to be proportional to $\sqrt{r/D}$ when $N_{1}, N_{2} \ll N$.
To elucidate the origin of this proportionality, we take a closer look at the Kuramoto length, which, of course, depends on the molecule species. In the case of the $X_{1}$ molecules it is given by $l_{1} = \sqrt{D/50rc_{3}}$, as the average lifetime of $X_{1}$ is $1/100rc_{3}$. Here we consider the situation $N_{1}, N_{2} \ll N$, so that $c_{3} \approx c$. In the discussion below, we assume that $l_{1} = \sqrt{D/50rc} = \sqrt{DL_{x}/50rN}$.
Using this length $l_{1}$, the density of the remaining $X_{2}$ molecules is found to be about $0.1$ molecule per $l_{1}$, independent of the parameters, as shown in Fig. \[fig-sp1-1-nbylk-d\]. After relaxation, this density does not depend on the initial conditions, as long as $N_{i} \gg 1$ is satisfied initially. Furthermore, the density is independent of the system size $L_{x}$, if $L_{x} \gg l_{1}$, so that the number of remaining molecules $N_{2}$ is simply proportional to $L_{x}$. Consequently, in this analysis one obtains a finite $c_2$ regardless of the system size or initial conditions which is clearly different from the continuum limit where $c_2$ goes to $0$.
In this system, $X_{1}$ molecules are produced by $X_{2}$ molecules. If $\lambda_{2}$, the average distance between $X_{2}$ molecules, is smaller than $l_{1}$, the distributions of $X_{1}$ around neighboring $X_{2}$ molecules overlap each other significantly and one can regard $X_{1}$ to be uniformly distributed. In contrast, if $\lambda_{2}$ is much larger than $l_{1}$, molecules $X_{1}$ will localize around the $X_{2}$ molecules (The size $L_{x} \gg \lambda_{2}$). Then, the reaction $2 X_{1} \rightarrow X_{1} + X_{2}$ is accelerated when compared to the case that the same total number of $X_{1}$ molecules is uniformly distributed.
We define the acceleration factor $\alpha(\lambda_{2},l_{1})$ as the ratio between the reaction rate with localized $X_{1}$ and the reaction rate with uniformly distributed $X_{1}$. If $\lambda_{2} \gg l_{1}$, it is expected that $\alpha \gg 1$. Assuming that the distribution of $X_{1}$ is continuous and represented by the concentration $c_{1}(x)$ [^2], the acceleration factor can be expressed as $$\alpha = \frac{\langle c_{1}^{2} \rangle}{\langle c_{1} \rangle^{2}} =
\frac{L_{x}^{-1}\int c_{1}^{2} dx}{\left(L_{x}^{-1} \int c_{1}
dx\right)^{2}}.
\label{eqn:alpha0}$$
For simplicity, we assume that the distribution of the localized $X_{1}$ molecules is Gaussian with a standard deviation $l_{1}$ centered around the $X_{2}$ molecules (which may overlap each other). Suppose that the $X_{2}$ molecules are randomly distributed over the system with an average distance $\lambda_{2}$, we then obtain [^3] $$\alpha = 1 + \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{\pi}} \cdot \frac{\lambda_{2}}{l_{1}}
= 1 + \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{\pi} \cdot l_{1} c_{2}}.
\label{eqn:alpha}$$
On the other hand, the average lifetime of $X_{2}$ molecules is much longer, so that the Kuramoto length for $X_{2}$ molecules is longer than $\lambda_{2}$. Consequently, the reaction $2 X_{2} \rightarrow X_{2} + X_{1}$ is not accelerated by localization.
Provided that $N_{1}, N_{2} \ll N_{3}$, $N_{1} \approx N_{2}$ due to the fast reactions $X_{2} + X_{3} \rightarrow X_{2} + X_{1}$ and $X_{3} + X_{1} \rightarrow 2 X_{3}$. As a result, the ratio between the two reaction rates is given by $$\frac{\textrm{The rate of } (X_{1} \rightarrow X_{2})}{\textrm{The rate of }
(X_{2} \rightarrow X_{1})}
\approx \frac{\alpha k_{4} N_{1}^{2}}{k_{3} N_{2}^2}
\approx \frac{\alpha}{a}.
\label{eqn:rratio}$$
Following eq. (\[eqn:rratio\]), the two reaction rates are balanced if $N_{2}$ takes a value such that $\alpha = a$ is satisfied. Corresponding to $\alpha = a$, a novel fixed point appears at $$c_{1} = c_{2} = \left(2(a - 1)\sqrt{\pi}l_{1}\right)^{-1} (= c_{s}),
\label{eqn:fixedpoint}$$ provided $c_{1}, c_{2} \ll c_{3}$ and $c_{3} = c$. The stability of this fixed point is analyzed, by linearizing eqs. (\[eqn:alpha\]) and (\[eqn:fixedpoint\]) around the fixed point. Noting that $$\alpha = 1 + \frac{(a - 1) c_{s}}{c_{2}} = a - \frac{a - 1}{c_{s}}\delta
c_{2} + o(\delta c_{2}),
\label{eqn:alphafp}$$ with $c_{1} = c_{s} + \delta c_{1}$ and $c_{2} = c_{s} + \delta c_{2}$, and rewriting eqs. (\[eqn:rd1\]) and (\[eqn:rd2\]) with $\alpha$ in eq. (\[eqn:alphafp\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\dot{c_{1}}\\
\dot{c_{2}}
\end{array}
\right)
\!\!&=&\!
r \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
- 2a c_{s} - 100c & (3a - 1) c_{s} + 100c\\
2a c_{s} & - (3a - 1) c_{s}
\end{array}
\right)\!
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\delta c_{1}\\
\delta c_{2}
\end{array}
\right) \nonumber
\\
& & \ + o(\delta c_{1}, \delta c_{2}).
\label{eqn:fplinear}\end{aligned}$$ The Jacobi matrix has two negative eigenvalues, and the fixed point is stable (This is natural, since if $\alpha <a$, $N_2$ decreases, leading to the increase of $\alpha$, and vice versa). This fixed point (steady state) is distinct from that of the original reaction-diffusion equation, $(0,0,c)$. From eq. (\[eqn:alpha\]), $\alpha$ becomes $4$ when $\lambda_{2} / l_{1} = 6\sqrt{\pi} \approx 10.6$. In our simulation with $a = 4$, about $0.1$ $X_{2}$ molecule per $l_{1}$ remains, as shown in Fig. \[fig-sp1-1-nbylk-d\]. In other words, $\lambda_{2} / l_{1} \approx 10$, in good agreement with the estimate.
By changing $a$, we numerically obtain the relation between the $\lambda_{2} / l_{1}$ and the actual acceleration factor $\alpha$, again agreeing well with the above theoretical estimate $\alpha = 1 + \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{\pi}} \cdot \frac{\lambda_{2}}{l_{1}}$, as shown in Fig. \[fig-sp1-1-accel\].
In the estimate above, we consider the case that $N_{1}, N_{2} \ll N$. On the other hand, if $N$ is set to be smaller than the estimated value of $N_{2}$ at the steady state, $N_{2}$ increases to satisfy the balance, and finally reaches the state $N_{1}+N_{2}=N$, $N_{3}=0$, which corresponds to the unstable fixed point of the reaction-diffusion equation, $(\sqrt{a}c/(\sqrt{a} + 1), c/(\sqrt{a} + 1), 0)$, as shown in Fig. \[fig-sp1-1-ts-d\] (a). The localization of $X_{1}$ cannot be maintained without the spatial discreteness of $X_{2}$ molecules. In reaction-diffusion equations, any pattern will disappear eventually given a sufficiently long evolution time unless it is somehow sustained. This is even the case when the initial distribution of $X_{2}$ is discrete. But again, it is essential to recall that reaction-diffusion equations are an approximation and in that sense an idealization. In reality, a single molecule itself can of course not be broadened by diffusion and the spatial discreteness of $X_{2}$ molecules is always maintained. By itself, a molecule is a diffusion-resistant pattern.
The alteration of the steady state due to localization is not limited to the present type of reaction network. Provided that the conditions
1. Chemical $A$ generates another chemical species $B$.
2. The lifetime of $B$ is short or the diffusion of $B$ is slow so that the Kuramoto length of $B$ is much smaller than the average distance between $A$ molecules.
3. The localization of molecule $B$ accelerates some reactions.
are satisfied, discreteness may alter the dynamics. The last condition is easily satisfied if species $B$ is involved in second or higher order reactions. Finally, if
1. The acceleration alters the density of $A$ molecules,
the above acceleration mechanism may control the density of $A$ to produce a novel steady state.
As for the localization effect by the discreteness of catalytic molecules, Shnerb *et al.* recently showed that it can amplify autocatalytic reaction-diffusion processes [@Solomon2000; @Louzoun]. In their model, however, the density of the catalyst is fixed as an externally given value, and the concentration of the product, localized around the catalyst, diverges in time. In our mechanism, the density of the catalyst ($A$, or $X_{2}$) changes autonomously and reaches a suitable value to produce the discreteness effect. Hence the effect of discreteness is controlled by the discreteness itself, leading to a novel steady state. Indeed, theoretical estimates for the novel concentrations based on the self-consistent fixed point of acceleration due to the localization agree well with numerical results.
In so far as the conditions (i)–(iv) are met, our result does not depend on the details of the reactions, and should generally be valid for reaction-diffusion systems. We have carried out simulations of similar reaction-diffusion systems, and again the discreteness effect led to novel pattern formation that cannot be accounted for by Turing type mechanisms (with or without noise).
Experimental verification of our results should be possible by suitably designing a reaction system, with the use of, say, microreactors or vesicles. Also, in biological cells, many chemicals work at low concentrations on the order of 1 nM or less. Furthermore, diffusion is sometimes restricted, e.g. due to surrounding macro-molecules, and may be slow. In such an environment, it is probable that the average distance between the molecules of a given chemical species is much larger than the Kuramoto lengths of some of the other chemical species. Indeed, biochemical systems contain various higher order reactions and positive feedback mechanisms that might naturally support the conditions (iii)–(iv) above.
This research is supported by grants-in-aid for scientific research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan (11CE2006, 15-11161). One of the authors (Y.T.) is supported by a research fellowship from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
[99]{}
B. Hess and A. S. Mikhailov, Science **264**, 223 (1994).
L. A. Blumenfeld and A. N. Tikhonov, *Biophysical Thermodynamics of Intracellular Processes: Molecular Machines of the Living Cell* (Springer, New York, 1994).
D. A. Kessler and H. Levine, Nature **394**, 556 (1998).
M. Howard and A. D. Rutenberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. **90**, 128102 (2003).
Y. Togashi and K. Kaneko, Phys. Rev. Lett. **86**, 2459 (2001).
Y. Togashi and K. Kaneko, Jour. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **72**, 62 (2003).
Y. Kuramoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. **49**, 1782 (1973).
Y. Kuramoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. **52**, 711 (1974).
N. G. van Kampen, *Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry* (North-Holland, rev. ed., 1992), where, to be precise, the length is defined as the half of $l$, but the difference does not affect the discussion here.
N. M. Shnerb, Y. Louzoun, E. Bettelheim, and S. Solomon, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. **97**, 10322 (2000).
Y. Louzoun, S. Solomon, H. Atlan, and I. R. Cohen, Bull. Math. Biol. **65**, 375 (2003).
[^1]: In [@Kuramoto1; @Kuramoto2], this is expressed as $A+M \rightarrow X+M$, $2X \rightarrow E+D$, where, the concentrations of $A$, $M$, $E$ and $D$ are taken to be constant in order to make an analysis of the equations possible.
[^2]: Here, only the $X_{1}$ species is relevant to this reaction, so that it is not necessary to consider detailed structures smaller than the typical distance between $X_{1}$ molecules and the total rate of the reaction can therefore be described by a smoothened distribution.
[^3]: The acceleration factor $\alpha$ is estimated as follows. We assume that the distribution of localized $X_{1}$ molecules is Gaussian with a standard deviation $l_{1}$ around the $X_{2}$ molecules. I.e. $\rho_{i}(x) = (\sqrt{2\pi}l_{1})^{-1} \exp(-(x-x_{i})^{2} /
2l_{1}^{2})$, where $x_{i}$ is the position of each $X_{2}$ molecule. The total distribution (concentration) of $X_{1}$ is $c_{1}(x) = \sum_{i}
\rho_{i}(x)$, and $\langle c_{1} \rangle = \int \rho_{i}(x) dx / \lambda_{2} = 1 /
\lambda_{2}$. Since the molecules $X_{2}$ are randomly distributed, $\langle c_{1}^{2} \rangle = \left\langle (\sum \rho_{i})^{2} \right\rangle\\
= \left( \sum \langle \rho_{i} \rangle \right)^{2} + \sum \langle \rho_{i}^{2} \rangle
= \langle c_{1} \rangle^{2} + (2\sqrt{\pi}l_{1})^{-1} \langle c_{1} \rangle$\
($L_{x} \gg l_{1}, \lambda_{2}$). Thus, $\alpha = \langle c_{1}^{2} \rangle / \langle c_{1} \rangle^{2}\\
= 1 + (2\sqrt{\pi}l_{1})^{-1} \langle c_{1}\rangle^{-1}
= 1 + \lambda_{2} / (2\sqrt{\pi}l_{1})$.\
Consequently, we obtain $\displaystyle \alpha = 1 + \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{\pi}}
\cdot \frac{\lambda_{2}}{l_{1}}$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We compare two ways of constructing confidence intervals for the moments-matching parameter estimates of a Gaussian spatio-temporal Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process. It was found that those obtained via pairwise likelihood approximations had lower coverages and were more prone to the curse of dimensionality as opposed to those from a parametric bootstrap procedure.'
author:
- |
MICHELE NGUYEN AND ALMUT E. D. VERAART\
*Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London*
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: |
A note on confidence intervals for parameter estimates of\
a spatio-temporal Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process
---
[***Keywords:*** Monte Carlo confidence intervals, Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process, spatio-temporal, Gaussian, composite likelihood.]{}\
[***Mathematics Subject Classification:*** 60G10, 60G15, 60G60, 62F40, 62M40]{}
Introduction
============
In [@NV2016], a moments-matching (MM) estimation method as well as a least-squares (LS) extension was developed for a class of spatio-temporal Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (STOU) processes. In particular, the focus was on the canonical case: $$Y_{t}(x) = \int_{-\infty}^{t}\int_{x - c|t-s|}^{x + c|t-s|} \exp(-\lambda(t-s)) L(\mathrm{d}\xi, \mathrm{d}s), \label{eqn:TestOUh}$$ where $\lambda, c > 0$ and $L$ is a homogenous Lévy basis. The MM and LS estimators were shown to be consistent but no rate of convergence was derived. In addition, confidence intervals (CIs) of the point estimates were not considered.\
Here, we consider three types of CIs for parameter estimates of a canonical STOU process:
1. Asymptotically normal CIs based on pairwise composite likelihood estimation;
2. Monte Carlo CIs based on diamond grid (DG) simulations from the fitted model;
3. Monte Carlo CIs based on exact simulations.
Although our results show that there is room for improvement, they reveal the intricacies involved in constructing CIs. The experiments presented focus on the Gaussian case where we know the exact joint distribution of our process at different space-time locations. From Example 3 in [@NV2016], we know that if $L$ is Gaussian, $Y$ is Gaussian with spatio-temporal autocorrelation given by: $$\operatorname{Corr}[Y_{t}(x), Y_{t + d_{t}}(x+d_{x})] = \exp\left(-\lambda \max\left(|d_{t}|, \frac{|d_{x}|}{c}\right)\right). \label{eqn:STCorr}$$ To make fair comparisons of the CI construction methods, we need to test them on exact simulations of our process.\
There are various established methods to simulate from Gaussian random fields (see for example, Section 15.2 of [@Lantuejoul2002]). The first uses the *Cholesky decomposition* of the covariance matrix: $\Sigma = MM^{T}$ where $M$ is a lower triangular $n \times n$ matrix with $n$ being the sample size. The random field $Y$ can be simulated exactly using $\bm{\mu} + M\bm{\epsilon}$ where $\bm{\mu}$ is the mean vector and $\bm{\epsilon}$ is a vector of independent standard normal random variables. Although easy to implement, this method requires intensive storage and computational time for large data sets. Based on its default memory limit, the software R can handle the case $n = 101^2$ but not $n = 151^2$.\
To cope with larger data sets, many approximate methods for simulation have been suggested in the isotropic case. The turning bands method depends on the application of a central limit theorem (CLT), while classical spectral methods depend on either a CLT, an approximation of boundary effects or an approximation of the covariance function with one of compact support. A method based on circulant embedding has also been developed for the stationary and possibly non-isotropic Gaussian random fields (see for example, [@WC1994]). This is fast but due to the need for a non-negative definite circulant embedding of the original covariance matrix which is difficult to achieve for two-dimensional random fields, approximations are usually made. As a result, the exactness of the algorithm is lost. More recently, a remedy in the form of cut-off embedding for the isotropic case has been introduced to retain this exactness [@Gneiting2012]. This makes use of an intermediate function for distance values between $1$ and $r$, the cut-off value after which the covariance is artifically set to $0$. With differing conditions on the original covariance function, two intermediate functions and corrresponding cut-offs have been shown to lead to exactness. It is not clear what kind of extension is required for us to apply such a circular embedding strategy to Gaussian canonical STOU processes as we do not have isotropy or geometric anisotropy in the $|d_{x}^{2} + d_{t}^{2}|$ variable.\
Taking all of the above into account, we have chosen to conduct our tests on $101\times 101$ Cholesky data sets. In the next few sections, we go through each of the three CI construction methods and discuss the results of our simulation experiments.
Pairwise composite likelihood estimation
========================================
Theory for Gaussian spatial fields {#sec:TGRF}
----------------------------------
Let $\{Y(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{d}\}$ be a stationary Gaussian random field with mean $\mu \in\mathbb{R}$ and $\operatorname{Cov}(Y(\mathbf{x}), Y(\mathbf{x}')) = \sigma^{2}\rho(\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{x}'; \bm{\phi})$ where $\sigma^{2} > 0$, $\bm{\phi} \in \mathbb{R}^{p-2}$ for $p>2$ and $\rho$ is the correlation function of $Y$. Suppose that we observe the process at $n$ locations, $\mathbf{x}_{1}, \dots, \mathbf{x}_{n}$. Following [@BG2015], we can write the weighted pairwise marginal log-likelihood as a function of the parameter vector $\bm{\theta} = (\bm{\phi}, \sigma^{2}, \mu)\in \mathbb{R}^{p}$: $$pl(\bm{\theta}) = \sum_{i = 1}^{n}\sum_{j>i}^{n}w_{ij} l_{ij}(\bm{\theta}), \label{eqn:wpmll}$$ where $l_{ij}(\bm{\theta}) = -\frac{1}{2}\left[2\log \sigma^{2} + \log(1 - \rho_{ij}^{2}) + \frac{B_{ij}}{\sigma^{2}(1 - \rho_{ij}^{2})} \right]$, $\rho_{ij} = \rho(\mathbf{x}_{i} - \mathbf{x}_{j}; \bm{\phi})$, $B_{ij} = (Y(\mathbf{x}_{i}) - \mu)^{2} + (Y(\mathbf{x}_{j}) - \mu)^{2} - 2\rho_{ij}(Y(\mathbf{x}_{i}) - \mu)(Y(\mathbf{x}_{j}) - \mu)$ and $w_{ij}$ are weights used to save computational time and improve statistical efficiency. For example, we can use $w_{ij} = 1$ if $|\mathbf{x}_{i} - \mathbf{x}_{j}|\leq d$ and $0$ otherwise.\
We call the vector $\hat{\bm{\theta}}$ which maximises (\[eqn:wpmll\]) the *composite likelihood (CL) estimator*. The consistency and asymptotic normality of this estimator can be established under increasing domain asymptotics and the conditions given in Appendix 1 of [@BG2015].\
The asymptotic variance of the CL estimator is given by $G^{-1}(\bm{\theta}) = H^{-1}(\bm{\theta})J(\bm{\theta})H^{-1}(\bm{\theta})$ where: $$H(\bm{\theta}) = - \mathbb{E}\left[\nabla^{2}pl(\bm{\theta})\right] = \sum_{i = 1}^{n}\sum_{j>i}^{n} w_{ij} \begin{pmatrix} \alpha_{ij}^{2}\kappa_{ij}\kappa_{ij}^{T} & -\frac{\rho_{ij}}{\sigma^{2}(1+\rho_{ij})}\kappa_{ij} & \mathbf{0} \\ - & \sigma^{-4} & 0\\ - & - & \frac{2}{\sigma^{2}(\rho_{ij}+1)} \end{pmatrix}, \label{eqn:Hmat}$$ $\alpha_{ij} = (1 + \rho_{ij})^{-1}\sqrt{1 + \rho_{ij}^{2}}$, $\kappa_{ij} = (1 - \rho_{ij})^{-1}\nabla \rho_{ij}$ and $J(\bm{\theta}) = \mathbb{E}\left[\nabla pl(\bm{\theta}) \nabla pl(\bm{\theta})^{T}\right]$.\
Although an explicit expression in terms of the model parameters is also available for $J(\bm{\theta})$, the computation of this is infeasible for large datasets. Thus, it is typically estimated by using a window subsampling method. Suppose that $W^{-1}J(\hat{\bm{\theta}}) \rightarrow J^{*}$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$ for some matrix $J^{*}$ and $W = \sum_{(i, j)\in S} w_{ij}$ where $S$ is the full set of observation points. Now, we have that: $$W^{-1}J(\hat{\bm{\theta}}) = \mathbb{E}\left[W^{-1} \sum_{(i, j), (i', j')\in S}w_{ij}w_{i'j'} \nabla l_{ij}(\hat{\bm{\theta}}) \nabla l_{i'j'}(\hat{\bm{\theta}})^{T}\right].$$ So, we can estimate $J^{*}$ by, for example, the *window subsampling empirical variance (WSEV)* estimator: $$\widehat{J}^{*} = \frac{1}{m}\sum_{k = 1}^{m} \left\{ \frac{1}{W^{(k)}}\sum_{(i, j), (i', j')\in S_{k}}w_{ij}w_{i'j'} U_{ij}(\hat{\bm{\theta}}) U_{i'j'}(\hat{\bm{\theta}})^{T} \right\}.$$ Here, $W^{(k)} = \sum_{(i, j)\in S_{k}} w_{ij}$, $S_{1}, \dots, S_{m}$ are the $m$ windows or subsets of the observation points determined by the subsampling method and: $$U_{ij}(\bm{\theta}) = \nabla l_{ij}(\bm{\theta}) = \begin{pmatrix} \kappa_{ij}\frac{\rho_{ij}}{1 + \rho_{ij}}\left(1 - \frac{F_{ij}}{\sigma^{2}\rho_{ij}(1 - \rho_{ij}^{2})}\right) \\ -\frac{1}{\sigma^{2}} \left(1 - \frac{B_{ij}}{2\sigma^{2}(1 - \rho_{ij}^{2})}\right) \\ \frac{2\mu}{\sigma^{2}(1 + \rho_{ij})}\left(1 - \frac{Q_{ij}}{2\mu}\right)\end{pmatrix},$$ where $F_{ij} = \rho_{ij}(Y(\mathbf{x}_{i}) - \mu)^{2} + \rho_{ij}(Y(\mathbf{x}_{j}) - \mu)^{2} - (1 + \rho_{ij}^{2})(Y(\mathbf{x}_{i}) - \mu)(Y(\mathbf{x}_{j}) - \mu)$ and $Q_{ij} = Y(\mathbf{x}_{i}) + Y(\mathbf{x}_{j})$. Conditions for the consistency of the WSEV estimator for lattice data are given in Theorem 2 of [@HL2000].\
With the WSEV estimator $\widehat{J}^{*}$, the asymptotic covariance matrix of the CL estimator can be estimated by $\widehat{G^{-1}}(\hat{\bm{\theta}}) = W H^{-1}(\hat{\bm{\theta}})\widehat{J}^{*}H^{-1}(\hat{\bm{\theta}})$. The standard errors of each parameter estimate are given by the square root of the diagonal elements of $\widehat{G^{-1}}(\hat{\bm{\theta}})$.\
For spatial data in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$, the optimal window size, i.e. number of points in a window, has been shown to be $C n^{d/(d+2)}$ where $C$ is a constant and $n$ is the sample size. However, it is difficult to determine the constant $C$ for real data sets since it depends on for example, the dependence structure of the random field. In practice, computational reasons can determine the window size. In addition, using overlapping windows instead of disjoint ones can increase statistical efficiency.\
In the spatial case, the consistency of the WSEV estimator typically requires that the number and size of the windows used increases simultaneously. In a spatio-temporal case where the spatial domain is fixed but the time domain increases, [@LGS2007] used windows in the temporal direction with full spatial coverage. Consistency of the WSEV estimator in this scenario has not yet been established. Thus, we will adapt the spatial window subsampling method for our canonical STOU process.
Application to Gaussian canonical STOU processes
------------------------------------------------
Condition C3 for the consistency of our CL estimators in Appendix 1 of [@BG2015] states that the covariance function needs to have continuous second order partial derivatives with respect to our parameter vector. However, from (\[eqn:STCorr\]), we know that when $Y$ is a canonical STOU process, its covariance function is non-differentiable with respect to $\lambda$ and $\tilde{c} = \lambda/c$. Note that we estimate $\tilde{c}$ instead of $c$ because this parameterisation seems to lead to better results in the optimisation step of the CL estimation.\
In order to conduct weighted pairwise marginal likelihood estimation for our Gaussian canonical STOU process and satisfy the conditions required for asymptotic normality, we suppose instead that our correlation function is given by: $$\rho\left(Y_{t}(x), Y_{t + d_{t}}(x+d_{x})\right) = \exp\left(-\lambda|d_{t}| - \tilde{c}|d_{x}|\right). \label{eqn:SSTCorr}$$ This corresponds to a special case of the double stable model in Table 1 of [@PB2015]. By only using spatial and temporal pairs (that is, setting $w_{ij} = 1$ if and only if the pairs differ by space and not time and vice versa), (\[eqn:SSTCorr\]) is equal to (\[eqn:STCorr\]) and condition C3 is satisfied with $\bm{\theta} = (\lambda, \tilde{c}, \sigma^{2}, \mu)$. Following the notation in Section \[sec:TGRF\], $\sigma^{2} = \frac{c\tau^{2}}{2\lambda^{2}}$ is the variance of $Y$ and $\mu = \frac{2c\tilde{\mu}}{\lambda^{2}}$ is its mean. The parameters $\tilde{\mu}$ and $\tau^{2}$ represent the mean and variance of the Lévy seed respectively. Since the $w_{ij}$s are the user’s choice and the $l_{ij}$s involve either the spatial or the temporal pairs (thus not differentiating between (\[eqn:STCorr\]) and (\[eqn:SSTCorr\])), this assumption of an alternative correlation form is valid. Now, we can find the CL estimator $\hat{\bm{\theta}}$ easily by maximising (\[eqn:wpmll\]) using for example, the Nelder-Mead algorithm and using MM estimates as starting values.\
To compute $\widehat{J}^{*}$, we treat our temporal dimension as an additional spatial dimension and use window subsampling. Note that we need to choose the window size and steps. The Delta method can be used to obtain asymptotic normal CIs for $c$, $\hat{\tau}$ and $\hat{\tilde{\mu}}$.
Experiment results
------------------
Although CL estimation was shown to give good results in [@BSR2012] and [@HL2000], in the case of the canonical STOU process, we find that it is sensitive to the dimension of the parameter space. To illustrate this, we conduct CL estimation in the following scenarios:
1. Estimate $\lambda$ while fixing the other parameters.
2. Estimate $\tilde{c}$ while fixing the other parameters.
3. Estimate $\lambda$ and $\tilde{c}$ while fixing the other parameters.
4. Estimate $\lambda$, $\tilde{c}$ and $\sigma$ while fixing $\mu$.
5. Estimate $\lambda$, $\tilde{c}$ and $\mu$ while fixing $\sigma$.
6. Estimate all parameters.
For all the scenarios, CL estimation was applied to the same $250$ $101\times101$ Cholesky test data sets with $\lambda = c = 1$, $\tilde{\mu} = 0.2$ and $\tau = 0.1$ so that $\sigma^{2} = 0.005$ and $\mu = 0.4$. In addition, for the window subsampling, $11\times 11$ windows were used and set to move by $5$ units vertically and horizontally. Table \[table:CLCoverage\] shows the coverage rates for the different scenarios. Comparing the results for Scenario C to those for Scenarios D-F, we see that it is hard to estimate $\sigma^{2}$ and $\mu$ while also estimating the correlation parameters. In addition, estimating $\sigma^{2}$ reduces the accuracy of the correlation parameter estimates.\
A possible reason underlying the sensitivity of the CL estimation to the number of parameters to be estimated is the accuracy of the approximation of the log-likelihood. As can be seen from the conditions for the asymptotic properties, CL estimation is dependent on the mixing rate of the process $Y$ in two ways: the first is in the pairwise likelihood approximation and the second is in the estimation of $J(\bm{\theta})$. In addition, it has also been noted in [@BSR2012] that different window sizes do have affect the standard error estimation considerably. In their paper, the authors suggest using parametric bootstrap or Monte Carlo CIs instead. They argue that when the parameter estimators are consistent, bootstrapping will give standard error estimates of the same distribution as the empirical one. In the next section, we will use DG and Cholesky simulations to construct Monte Carlo CIs for our canonical STOU process.
**Parameter** **Scenario A** **Scenario B** **Scenario C** **Scenario D** **Scenario E** **Scenario F**
--------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
$\lambda$ $76.0$ - $76.4$ $14.0$ $76.4$ $18.8$
$\tilde{c}$ - $80.8$ $80.8$ $15.5$ $81.2$ $17.2$
$c$ - - $97.6$ $100.0$ $97.6$ $100.0$
$\tilde{\mu}$ - - - - $58.0$ $13.2$
$\tau$ - - - $57.2$ - $46.8$
$\mu$ - - - - $40.4$ $40.4$
$\sigma^{2}$ - - - $50.0$ - $42.4$
: $95\%$ confidence interval coverages (in %) based on CL estimation in the six scenarios.
\[table:CLCoverage\]
Monte Carlo CIs
===============
Construction and rationale
--------------------------
Suppose that we have one data set from a canonical Gaussian STOU process. Using the MM method, we can obtain point estimates for $\lambda$, $c$ as well as $\tilde{\mu}$ and $\tau$. Since we have simulation algorithms to simulate from the fitted model (that is, the STOU process with the estimated parameter values), we can generate different realisations of the fitted process. If the median of the latter estimates is close to the initial estimates, we can use quantiles of the latter estimates to get approximate CIs.
Using DG simulations
--------------------
In [@NV2016], it was shown that DG simulations replicate the spatial correlation structure of the process better than rectangular grid simulations. Thus, we will use DG simulations to generate different realisations from the fitted model. Later, we will use Cholesky simulations for the simulations so as to reduce the effect of simulation error. However, we note that unlike the Cholesky method, DG simulation is also applicable for non-Gaussian STOU processes.\
Table \[table:MCCoverage\] shows the $95\%$ CI coverages for the model parameters based on CIs constructed for $100$ Cholesky data sets using $100$ DG simulations each for the cases $\lambda = 1$ and $2$. In both cases, the other parameter settings are $c = 1$, $\tau = 0.1$ and $\tilde{\mu} = 0.2$ so that $\sigma^{2} = 0.005$ and $\mu = 0.4$. These DG simulations were generated using the same temporal grid size as the original data sets ($0.05$ units) and also contained $101\times 101$ data points. The kernel truncation parameter $p$ was set to $300$ so that the kernels were set to zero after distances of $15$ units.\
From Table \[table:MCCoverage\], we see that except for the parameter $c$, the interval coverages for the other parameters are much lower than the expected $95\%$. Although there is a slight drop in coverage for $\mu$ and no change in coverage for $\tilde{\mu}$, the coverages improve as a whole when the true value for $\lambda$ increases from $1$ to $2$. We note that an increase in $\lambda$ is associated is a stronger mixing of the STOU process since temporal and spatial correlations decrease.
Using Cholesky simulations
--------------------------
To show that the low coverages of the DG CIs are due to the slow mixing of the process rather than simulation error, we use Cholesky decomposition to simulate from the fitted models to construct the CIs. Since the parameter $\lambda$ affects both the temporal and the spatial correlation of our canonical STOU process, we compare the $95\%$ confidence interval coverages for the cases $\lambda = 1$, $2$ and $4$. A larger $\lambda$ value implies weaker correlation and stronger mixing. This should lead to faster convergence to the true parameter values and thus higher coverage rates. Indeed, we find that in Table \[table:MCCoverage\], the $95\%$ CI coverages improve massively when $\lambda$ is increased from $1$ to $4$.\
Although using DG and Cholesky simulations give similar coverage results for the case $\lambda = 2$, when we have Gaussian STOU processes, it is worth using the Cholesky method not only because it gives exact simulations but also because the computation of a Monte Carlo CI takes around seven minutes as opposed to the one and a half hour required by the DG method on a PC with characteristics: Intel$^{\circledR}$ Corei7-3770 CPU Processor @ 3.40GHz; 8GB of RAM; Windows 8.1 64-bit .
**Parameter** **DG** ($\lambda = 1$) **DG** ($\lambda = 2$) **Cholesky** ($\lambda = 1$) **Cholesky** ($\lambda = 2$) **Cholesky** ($\lambda = 4$)
--------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------
$\lambda$ $57$ $81$ $63$ $78$ $91$
$c$ $100$ $100$ $94$ $96$ $94$
$\tilde{\mu}$ $74$ $74$ $62$ $78$ $90$
$\tau$ $66$ $85$ $62$ $78$ $84$
$\mu$ $74$ $68$ $86$ $91$ $89$
$\sigma^{2}$ $76$ $100$ $65$ $78$ $87$
: $95\%$ confidence interval coverages (in %) when we use DG and Cholesky simulations. The coverages are computed based on $100$ data sets for each case. In all the cases, the other parameters are set to $c = 1$, $\tau = 0.1$ and $\tilde{\mu} = 0.2$ so that $\sigma^{2} = 0.005$ and $\mu = 0.4$.
\[table:MCCoverage\]
**Parameter** $\lambda = 1$ $\lambda = 2$ $\lambda = 4$
--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
$\lambda$ $79.6$ $85.1$ $92.0$
$c$ $100.0$ $100.0$ $100.0$
$\tilde{\mu}$ $98.4$ $100.0$ $100.0$
$\tau$ $100.0$ $100.0$ $100.0$
$\mu$ $100.0$ $100.0$ $100.0$
$\sigma^{2}$ $100.0$ $100.0$ $100.0$
: $95\%$ confidence interval coverage proxies (in %) when we use Cholesky simulations for $\lambda = 1, 2, 4$. The proxies are computed based on the empirical cumulative distribution of the MM estimates from $100$ data sets. In all the cases, the other parameters are $c = 1$, $\tau = 0.1$ and $\tilde{\mu} = 0.2$ so that $\sigma^{2} = 0.005$ and $\mu = 0.4$.
\[table:CoverageProxy\]
Some practical guidance
-----------------------
From our analysis, we see that the value of $\lambda$ affects the coverage rates of the Monte Carlo CIs. This is likely due to the rate at which convergence of the MM estimates to their true values occur. A higher value of $\lambda$, relative to the other parameter values, leads to stronger mixing of the process and faster convergence. This lends better justification for Monte Carlo CIs. While one can rescale the temporal and spatial units of our data to some degree in order to achieve higher $\lambda$ estimates, this leads to a reduction in the area covered by our data and is in conflict with the increasing domain asymptotics underlying some theoretical properties of our estimators.\
One possible way to check if good coverage can be obtained is to calculate coverage proxies based on the empirical distribution of the MM estimates from the fitted model. For example, if we want to compute a proxy for the $95\%$ confidence interval coverage of the Monte Carlo CI for $\theta$, we can define $\theta_{L}$, $\theta_{M}$ and $\theta_{U}$ to be the $2.5^{\text{th}}$ quantile, median and $97.5^{\text{th}}$ quantile of its MM estimates from fitted model simulations. The initial MM estimate used to fit the model, that is the true parameter value of the fitted model, is denoted by $\theta_{E}$. A schematic for these terms is given in Figure \[fig:coverageproxy\].\
We work under the assumption that further simulations using a MM estimate along the range represented by the horizontal line would lead to estimates which have a similar distribution and relation to the true value as the one outlined by $\theta_{L}$, $\theta_{M}$, $\theta_{U}$ and $\theta_{E}$. In Figure \[fig:coverageproxy\], the filled black dots represent the leftmost and rightmost points for which $\theta_{E}$ lies within a 95% CI. Thus, they represent the extreme values that contribute to the calculation of the coverage. With this in mind, a simple coverage proxy can be calculated via: $$CP = ECDF(\theta_{E} + (\theta_{M} - \theta_{L})) - ECDF(\theta_{E} - (\theta_{U} - \theta_{M})),$$ where $ECDF$ is the empirical cumulative distribution function of the MM estimates.\
Table \[table:CoverageProxy\] shows the results when we apply this proxy to Cholesky simulations for $\lambda = 1, 2, 4$. Since the method relies on the empirical distribution of the MM estimates, we also show the box plots of these in Figure \[fig:bpCL\]. From Table \[table:CoverageProxy\], we see that the coverage proxies tend to overestimate the coverages calculated by the experiments in Table \[table:MCCoverage\]. This is likely to be because we have not fully accounted for randomness in the further simulations as well as the differing accuracy of the MM estimation for different parameter values. With reference to Figure \[fig:bpCL\], the extent of this overestimation seems to increase as the range of the estimates narrows since $\tau$ and $\sigma^{2}$ suffer more from this than the other parameters. Despite these limitations, we see that this simple coverage proxy can distinguish between the better coverage scenarios because the proxy for $\lambda$ increases steadily as $\lambda$ increases from $1$ to $4$.\
As an alternative to check the coverage properties of Monte Carlo CIs in practice, we can conduct coverage experiments with the fitted model acting as the true one. This, however, will be more computationally expensive.
Conclusion and Discussion
=========================
In this note, we have investigated three different ways of constructing confidence intervals (CIs) for the parameters of a canonical spatio-temporal Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (STOU) process. Focusing on Gaussian processes, we showed that the asymptotically normal CIs obtained from pairwise composite likelihood (CL) estimation has poor coverage properties especially when the number of parameters to be estimated increases. Furthermore, due to the optimisation step in the CL estimation, the performance is also affected by the way we parameterised the model.\
Better coverage results were obtained when we used parametric bootstrap or Monte Carlo CIs involving diamond grid (DG) or Cholesky simulations and moments-matching (MM) estimation. While the Cholesky method is only applicable for Gaussian STOU processes, the DG algorithm can be used for non-Gaussian cases. We showed that coverage rates for these Monte Carlo CIs are dependent on the mixing rate of the process which in turn affects the consistency of the MM estimators. When using the DG simulations in practice, one should also check if the choice of the grid size and kernel truncation parameter is appropriate for the estimated correlation structure so as to reduce the simulation error associated with the DG algorithm.\
For an empirical example, one can imitate coverage experiments by simulating from the fitted model. However, this is computationally expensive and there is ground for developing more sophisticated coverage proxies than the one presented in Section 3.4. Another area for future research would be to consider the use of the rectangular grid algorithm and the least-squares adaptation of the MM method to construct Monte Carlo CIs for more general STOU processes with non-linear integration sets.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this work we present spectral algorithms for the numerical scattering for the defocusing Davey-Stewartson (DS) II equation with initial data having compact support on a disk, i.e., for the solution of d-bar problems. Our algorithms use polar coordinates and implement a Chebychev spectral scheme for the radial dependence and a Fourier spectral method for the azimuthal dependence. The focus is placed on the construction of complex geometric optics (CGO) solutions which are needed in the scattering approach for DS. We discuss two different approaches: The first constructs a fundamental solution to the d-bar system and applies the CGO conditions on the latter. This is especially efficient for small values of the modulus of the spectral parameter $k$. The second approach uses a fixed point iteration on a reformulated d-bar system containing the spectral parameter explicitly, a price paid to have simpler asymptotics. The approaches are illustrated for the example of the characteristic function of the disk and are shown to exhibit spectral convergence, i.e., an exponential decay of the numerical error with the number of collocation points. An asymptotic formula for large $|k|$ is given for the reflection coefficient.'
address:
- |
Institut de Mathématiques de Bourgogne, UMR 5584\
Université de Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, 9 avenue Alain Savary, 21078 Dijon Cedex, France\
E-mail [email protected]
- |
Institut de Mathématiques de Bourgogne, UMR 5584\
Université de Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, 9 avenue Alain Savary, 21078 Dijon Cedex, France\
E-mail [email protected]
author:
- Christian Klein
- Nikola Stoilov
title: 'Numerical scattering for the defocusing Davey-Stewartson II equation for initial data with compact support'
---
Introduction
============
Dispersive shock waves (DSW), i.e., zones of rapid modulated oscillations, appear in many applications in the vicinity of shocks whenever dispersion dominates dissipation. For the Korteweg-de Vries (KdV) equation, the seminal work by Gurevitch and Pitaevski [@GP] for step-like initial data provides analytic understanding of DSWs. The present work provides the first numerical step in the treatment of initial data with compact support for the Davey-Stewartson (DS) II equation, $$\begin{split}
i q_t + (q_{xx}-q_{yy}) + 2\sigma(\Phi + |q|^2)q&=0,\\
\Phi_{xx}+\Phi_{yy} +2(|q|^2)_{xx}&=0,
\end{split}
\label{eq:DSII}$$ an integrable 2d nonlinear Schrödinger equation; here $\sigma=1$ in the *defocusing* case studied in the present paper, $\sigma=-1$ the in the *focusing* case. The reader is referred to [@KS15] for a review on DS equations (also non-integrable cases) and a comprehensive list of references. We give numerical algorithms for the computation of the scattering transform for initial data with compact support on a disk for $\sigma=1$. We note here that, much like in the linear case of Fourier transformations, the direct and inverse problems are essentially the same.
D-bar systems
-------------
An asymptotic description of DSWs is in general only possible for small amplitudes via multiscales approximations. For completely integrable equations in one spatial dimension, steepest descent techniques for Riemann-Hilbert problems (RHPs) allow results for large amplitudes as well. A complete description of DSWs including the appearence of Painlevé transcendents exists so far only for the Korteweg-de Vries equation, see [@GK] for a review. For two-dimensional integrable equations d-bar problems often take the role RHPs play the 1d case, see [@BC]. For such problems no steepest descent techniques are known yet though partial progress has been made recently in [@AKMM] for the defocusing Davey-Stewartson II equation. In any case so far DSWs for two-dimensional integrable equations have been mainly studied numerically, see [@KSM; @KR13; @KR14].
The direct scattering transformation for the DS II equations is given by a system of d-bar equations, $$\begin{array}{l}
\bar{\partial}\psi_{1}=\frac{1}{2}q\psi_{2},\\
~\\
\partial\psi_{2}=\frac{1}{2}\sigma\bar{q}\psi_{1},
\label{dbarpsi}
\end{array}$$ where the scalar functions $\psi_{1}$ and $\psi_{2}$ satisfy the *complex geometric optics* (CGO) asymptotic conditions $$\begin{array}{l}
\lim_{|z|\to\infty}\psi_{1}\mathrm{e}^{-kz}=1,\\
~\\
\lim_{|z|\to\infty}\psi_{2}\mathrm{e}^{-\bar{k}\bar{z}}=0;
\label{dbarpsiasym}
\end{array}$$ here $q=q(x,y,t)$ is a complex-valued field, the *spectral parameter* $k\in\mathbb{C}$ is independent of $z=x+\mathrm{i} y$, and $$\partial:=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}-\mathrm{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\right)\quad\text{and}\quad
\bar{\partial}:=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial
x}+\mathrm{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\right).
%\label{eq:d-dbar}$$ The *reflection coefficient* $R=R(k)$ (which can be seen as a nonlinear analogue to a Fourier transform) is defined in terms of $\psi_2(z;k)$[^1] as follows: $$\mathrm{e}^{-kz}\overline{\psi_2(z;k)}=\frac{1}{2}R(k) z^{-1}+ O(|z|^{-2}),\quad |z|\to\infty.
\label{eq:r-def}$$ The existence and uniqueness of CGO solutions to system (\[dbarpsi\]) with $\sigma=1$ was studied in [@Su1; @Su2]) for Schwartz class potentials and in [@BU; @Brown; @Perry2012; @NRT] for more general potentials. Note that the understanding is much less complete in the focusing case $\sigma=-1$ since the system (\[dbarpsi\]) no longer has generically a unique solution for large classes of potentials $q$ for all $k\in\mathbb{C}$. There can be so-called exceptional points (special values of the spectral parameter $k$) where the system is not uniquely solvable. Note that the codes presented in this paper can also be applied to the focusing case in the absence of such exceptional points. However, since it is not clear when these points appear and since numerical problems are expected in the vicinity of exceptional points, we concentrate on the defocusing case here.
Systems of the form (\[dbarpsi\]) also appear in electrical impedance tomography (EIT) in 2d, the reconstruction of the conductivity in a given domain from measurements of the electrical current through its boundary, induced by an applied voltage, i.e., from the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map. This problem was first posed by Calderon [@calderon] and bears his name. For a comprehensive review of the mathematical aspects and advances see [@Uhl]. They also appear in the context of 2d orthogonal polynomials, and of Normal Matrix Models in Random Matrix Theory, see e.g. [@KM].
As $q$ in (\[eq:DSII\]) evolves in time $t$ according to , the reflection coefficient evolves by a trivial phase factor: $$R(k;t)=R(k,0)e^{4i t\Re(k^2)}.$$ The inverse scattering transform for DS II is then given by (\[dbarpsiasym\]) after replacing $q$ by $R$ and vice versa, the derivatives with respect to $z$ by the corresponding derivatives with respect to $k$, and asymptotic conditions for $k\to\infty$ instead of $z\to\infty$.
Numerical appoaches
-------------------
Numerical approaches to d-bar systems have so far mainly taken the following path: the inverse of the d-bar operator is known to be given by the solid Cauchy transform $$\overline{\partial}^{-1}F(x,y):=-\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{}^{}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\frac{F(x',y')\,dx'dy'}{(x'-x)+\mathrm{i} (y'-y)},
\label{eq:solid-Cauchy}$$ a weakly singular integral. This integral can be either computed via finite difference, finite element discretizations, or via a Fourier approach, see [@MuSi2012] for a review of techniques.
The original approach [@KnMuSi2004], see also [@APRS], uses a Fourier method for the computation of the integral, i.e., a 2d discrete Fourier transform. A rather bold regularization of the singular integrand was implemented by replacing the singularity simply by a finite value. This leads to a finite, but discontinuous integrand. Though discrete Fourier transforms are spectral methods which are known to show spectral convergence, i.e. an exponential decrease of the numerical error with the resolution, for the approximation of smooth functions, they are of first order method if a non-continuous function approximated. This means that the numerical error decreases only linearly with $1/N$ where $N$ is the number of Fourier modes. This first order convergence was proven in [@KnMuSi2004].
The first Fourier approach with spectral convergence (i.e., exponential decrease of the numerical error with the number $N$ of Fourier modes) was presented in [@KM] for potentials in the Schwartz class of rapidly decreasing smooth potentials $q$. The approach uses an analytic (up to numerical precision) regularization of the integrand. This is further developed in [@KMS]. In practice this means that accuracies of the order of machine precision can be reached on low-cost computers which are out of reach of a first order method.
In various applications, treating potentials with compact support is crucial. The focus of this paper will be on such potentials. The method of [@KM] cannot be generalized to potentials with compact support without severe loss of spectral accuracy since Gibbs phenomena appear at the discontinuity, see for example [@APRS] where a Fourier solver for the Beltrami equation is applied to various step like potentials. Therefore, here we present a completely different approach starting from a formulation of the system (\[dbarpsi\]) in polar coordinates. The system is discretized with a Chebychev spectral method in the radial coordinate $r$ and a Fourier spectral method in the angular coordinate $\phi$. This means that the functions $\psi_{1,2}$ in (\[dbarpsi\]) will be approximated via truncated series of Chebychev polynomials in $r$ and truncated Fourier series in $\phi$. Fast, efficient algorithms exist for both these approaches, making them a prime choice. In addition they are known to show an exponential decrease of the numerical error with the number of Chebychev polynomials and Fourier modes for smooth functions, i.e., here for smooth potentials $q$ on the disk. We show at examples that no Gibbs phenomena can be observed in our approach since we only approximate smooth functions (the functions are smooth on the considered domain, discontinuities appear only on the boundary). The numerical errors we discuss are thus always global, even at the discontinuity of the potential.
This discretization will be used in two different ways: First we construct a fundamental system of solutions to the finite dimensional system of ordinary differential equations (ODEs) with which (\[dbarpsi\]) is approximated after discretization in $\phi$. Note that the discontinuity of $q$ at the boundary of the disk does not affect the method since the latter is a domain boundary. Smoothness is only required inside the computational domain. The approach can be applied for arbitrary $k$ since the system (\[dbarpsi\]) is independent of the spectral parameter $k$. The CGO conditions (\[dbarpsiasym\]) are then implemented for given values of $k$ by imposing them on this fundamental solution. It is shown that this works well for values of $|k|\lesssim 1$.
For larger $|k|$, cancellation errors will play a role in this approach. To address this, we introduce functions $\Phi_{1}=\mathrm{e}^{-kz}\psi_{1}$ and $\Phi_{2}=\mathrm{e}^{-\bar{k}\bar{z}}\psi_{2}$ which satisfy with (\[dbarpsiasym\]) the simpler asymptotic conditions $$\lim_{|z|\to\infty}\Phi_{1}=1,\quad \lim_{|z|\to\infty}\Phi_{2}=0.
\label{Phisasym}$$ In other words, $\Phi_{1}$ and $\Phi_{2}$ are bounded functions at infinity. In terms of $\Phi_{1}$ and $\Phi_{2}$ the d-bar system (\[dbarpsi\]) leads to $$\begin{array}{l}
\bar{\partial}\Phi_{1}=\frac{1}{2}q\mathrm{e}^{\bar{k}\bar{z}-kz}\Phi_{2},\\
~\\
\partial\Phi_{2}=\frac{1}{2}\bar{q}\mathrm{e}^{kz-\bar{k}\bar{z}}\Phi_{1},
%\label{dbarphi}
\end{array}$$ for $\Phi_{1}$, $\Phi_{2}$ which contains the spectral parameter explicitly. The latter is solved with the same Chebychev and Fourier discretization as before, but this time with a fixed point iteration. This iteration is shown to converge rapidly in examples for all $k$ which allows to treat efficiently large values of $|k|$ and thus rapidly oscillating solutions.
The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we give analytical justification of the equations we are going to treat numerically using polar coordinates and study the example of $q$ being the characteristic function of the disk. In Section 3 we summarize the numerical schemes employed to discretize the differential operators and construct a fundamental solution to (\[dbarpsi\]). This fundamental solution is used in Section 4 to construct CGO solutions. In Section 5 we apply a fixed point iteration to solve system (\[dbarpolphi\]) which is equivalent to (\[dbarpsi\]). In Section 6 we add some concluding remarks.
D-bar system with compactly supported potentials on a disk
==========================================================
In this section we formulate the defining equations (\[dbarpsi\]) and (\[dbarpsiasym\]) for the CGO solutions in polar coordinates and use Fourier series in the azimuthal variable for the solutions. As an example we consider the case of constant potential on the disk.
Polar coordinates
-----------------
We write $z=r\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i\phi}}$ in which (\[dbarpsi\]) reads $$\begin{array}{l}
\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\phi}\left(\partial_{r}+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{r}\partial_{\phi}\right)\psi_{1}
=q(r,\phi)\psi_{2},
\\
~\\
\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\phi}\left(\partial_{r}-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{r}\partial_{\phi}\right)\psi_{2}
=\bar{q}(r,\phi)\psi_{1}.
\label{dbarpol}
\end{array}$$We are looking for solutions in the form of a Fourier series, $$\psi_{1}=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}^{}a_{n}(r)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}n\phi},\quad
\psi_{2}=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}^{}b_{n}(r)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}n\phi}.
\label{diskasym}$$ The functions $a_{n}$ and $b_{n}$ are determined by (\[dbarpol\]) for given $q(r,\phi)$ together with a regularity condition at $r=0$ up to a certain number of constants $\alpha_{n}$ and $\beta_{n}$ corresponding to general holomorphic respectively antiholomorphic functions arising in the determination of $a_{n}$ and $b_{n}$ respectively: if $a_{n}$ and $b_{n}$ are solutions to (\[dbarpol\]) regular for $r\to0$, so are $$a_{n}(r)+\alpha_{n}r^{n},\quad n=0,1,2,\ldots,\quad
b_{n}(r)+\beta_{n}r^{n},\quad n=0,-1,-2,\ldots
\label{ab}$$ The constants $\alpha_{n}$, $\beta_{n}$ will be uniquely determined by the asymptotic conditions (\[dbarpsiasym\]).
For $r>1$, where $q\equiv0$, the function $\psi_{1}$ is a holomorphic function, whereas $\psi_{2}$ is antiholomorphic. Continuity of the functions at the disk thus implies for $r>1$ $$\psi_{1}=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}^{}a_{n}(1)r^{n}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}n\phi},\quad
\psi_{2}=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}^{}b_{n}(1)r^{-n}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}n\phi}.
%\label{diskcont}$$ The first of the asymptotic conditions (\[dbarpsiasym\]) is equivalent to $c_{0}=1$ and $c_{n}=0$ for $n>0$ for $r\to\infty$, where $$\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}^{}c_{n}r^{n}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}n\phi}:=
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=0}^{n}\frac{(-k)^{m}}{m!}\left(a_{n-m}(1)r^{n}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}n\phi}
+a_{m-n-1}(1)r^{2m-n-1}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(2m-n-1)\phi}\right)
\label{diskasym1}.$$ Since the conditions are imposed for $r\to\infty$, negative powers of $r$ in (\[diskasym1\]) can be neglected. This implies that there will be only conditions for the positive frequencies $c_{n}$, $n\geq0$, which can be written in the form, $$c_{n}=\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}a_{n-m}(1)\frac{(-k)^{m}}{m!}
\label{cn}.$$ Note that these conditions — though obtained in the limit $r\to\infty$ — lead here to conditions at the rim of the disk $r=1$ because of the holomorphicity of $\psi_{1}$ for $r>1$ and the continuity of the function at the rim of the disk. In other words, the solution in the exterior of the disk follows from the holomorphicity of $\psi_{1}$ there as well as the asymptotic condition and the continuity at the disk. It is not necessary to solve a PDE there in contrast to the disk. The convolutions in (\[cn\]) can be computed in a standard way via Fourier series, $$c_{n} =\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\mathrm{d}\phi
\exp\left(-k\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i\phi}}\right)
\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}^{}a_{m}(1)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i(m-n)\phi}}
\label{cnfourier}.$$ In the numerical approach we present in Section 4, we will use the asymptotic conditions in the form (\[cnfourier\]).
Similarly we get for the second condition in (\[dbarpsiasym\]) that $d_{n}=0$ for $n=0,-1,-2,\ldots$, where $$\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}^{}d_{n}r^{n}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}n\phi}:=
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=0}^{n}\frac{(-\bar{k})^{m}}{m!}
\left(b_{n-m+1}(1)r^{2m-n-1}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(n+1-2m)\phi}
+
b_{m-n}(1)r^{n}\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}n\phi}\right)
%\label{diskasym2},$$ i.e., $$d_{n} = \sum_{m=0}^{\infty}b_{m-n}(1)\frac{(-\bar{k})^{m}}{m!}
%\label{dn}.$$ This is equivalent to $$d_{n}
=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\mathrm{d}\phi\exp\left(-\bar{k}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{-i\phi}}\right)
\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}^{}b_{m}(1)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i(n-m)\phi}}
\label{dnfourier}.$$
In this approach the reflection coefficient (\[eq:r-def\]) is simply given by the coefficient $d_{1}$, $$R = 2\bar{d}_{1}.
\label{Rd}$$
System (\[dbarpsi\]) has the advantage that it is independent of the spectral parameter $k$. A disadvantage from a numerical point of view are the asymptotic conditions (\[dbarpsiasym\]) which imply that the functions $\psi_{1}$ and $\psi_{2}$ have essential singularities at infinity. An alternative way to treat (\[dbarpsi\]) is thus to introduce the functions $$\Phi_{1}=\mathrm{e}^{-kz}\psi_{1},\quad
\Phi_{2}=\mathrm{e}^{-\bar{k}\bar{z}}\psi_{2}
\label{Phi},$$ which satisfy the asymptotic conditions (\[Phisasym\]). In the case of a potential $q$ with compact support, $\Phi_{1}$ is holomorphic in the complement of the support of $q$ and $\Phi_{2}$ is antiholomorphic there. System (\[dbarpol\]) for the functions (\[Phi\]) reads $$\begin{array}{l}
\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\phi}\left(\partial_{r}+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{r}\partial_{\phi}\right)\Phi_{1}
=q(r,\phi)\mathrm{e}^{\bar{k}\bar{z}-kz}\Phi_{2},
\\~\\
\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\phi}\left(\partial_{r}-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{r}\partial_{\phi}\right)\Phi_{2}
=\bar{q}(r,\phi)\mathrm{e}^{kz-\bar{k}\bar{z}}\Phi_{1}.
\label{dbarpolphi}
\end{array}$$ This system contains, in contrast to (\[dbarpol\]), not just $k$ but (for $|k|$ large) rapidly oscillating functions. On the other hand, the asymptotic conditions (\[Phisasym\]) are considerably simpler than the conditions (\[dbarpsiasym\]). Therefore we will use (\[dbarpol\]) for values of $|k|\lesssim 1$, and (\[dbarpolphi\]) for larger values of $|k|$.
Example
-------
In order to illustrate the above approach and to have a concrete example to test at least parts of the code, we consider the case of a constant potential at the disk, $$q =
\begin{cases}
1, & r\leq 1 \\
0, & r>1
\end{cases}.
%\label{diskq}$$
Differentiating the first equation of (\[dbarpsi\]) with respect to $\partial$ and eliminating $\psi_{2}$ via the second, we get in polar coordinates for $r\leq 1$ $$\partial_{rr}\psi_{1}+\frac{1}{r}\partial_{r}\psi_{1}
+\frac{1}{r^{2}}\partial_{\phi\phi}\psi_{1}=\psi_{1}.
% \label{helmholtz}$$ Note that the same equation holds for $\psi_{2}$. With (\[diskasym\]), we get that the $a_{n}$ satisfy the modified Bessel equation $$a_{n}''+\frac{1}{r}a_{n}'-\frac{r^{2}+n^{2}}{r^{2}}a_{n}=0,
% \label{bessel}$$ i.e., the solution regular on the disk is given by $a_{n}=\alpha_{n}I_{n}(r)$, where the $\alpha_{n}=const$ and where the $I_{n}(r)$ are the modified Bessel functions [@AS]. Thus we have for $r\leq 1$ $$\psi_{1}=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}^{}\alpha_{n}I_{n}(r)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}n\phi}
\label{psi11}.$$
For $r\leq 1$, the function $\psi_{2}$ can be computed from the first relation of (\[dbarpsi\]). Because of the identity $I_{n}'(r)-(n/r)I_{n}=I_{n+1}$, it can be written in the form $$\psi_{2}=
\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}^{}\alpha_{n}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(n+1)\phi}I_{n+1}(r).
\label{psi22}$$
For $r>1$, because of the continuity of the potentials at $r=1$ we get $$\psi_{1}=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}^{}\alpha_{n}I_{n}(1)z^{n},\quad
\psi_{2}=
\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}^{}\frac{\alpha_{n}}{\bar{z}^{n+1}}I_{n+1}(1).
\label{psi12}$$
The constants $\alpha_{n}$, $n\in\mathbb{Z}$ are determined by the asymptotic condition (\[dbarpsiasym\]). We only found an explicit solution for $k=0$, $\alpha_{0}=1/I_{0}(1)$ whereas $\alpha_{n}=0$ for $n\neq 0$. This implies $$\psi_{1} =
\begin{cases}
I_{0}(r)/I_{0}(1), & r\leq 1 \\
1, & r>1
\end{cases},
%\label{psi1k0}$$ and $$\psi_{2} =
\begin{cases}
I_{1}(r)/I_{0}(1)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\phi}, & r\leq 1 \\
I_{1}(1)/I_{0}(1)/\bar{z}, & r>1
\end{cases},
%\label{psi2k0}$$
Numerical construction of a fundamental solution to the d-bar system
====================================================================
In this section we present a spectral approach to the system (\[dbarpol\]) based on a discrete Fourier approach in $\phi$ and a Chebychev spectral method in $r$. We construct solutions $\psi_{1,2}^{(j)}$ to the system characterized by boundary conditions on the Fourier coefficients (\[diskasym\]) at the rim of the disk, in a way that a basis of solutions is obtained. In the next section this system of fundamental solutions is subjected to the asymptotic conditions (\[cnfourier\]) and (\[dnfourier\]). The solutions are then tested for the example of subsection \[example\].
Spectral approach
-----------------
The periodicity in the coordinate $\phi$ in (\[dbarpol\]) suggests to use Fourier techniques for this variable. This means that the series in (\[diskasym\]) are approximated via discrete Fourier transforms which implies the use of a discrete variable $\phi$ sampled on the $N_{\phi}$ collocation points $$\phi_{j}= \frac{2\pi j}{N_{\phi}},\quad j=0,1,\ldots,N_{\phi}-1
%\label{phij},$$ where $N_{\phi}$ is an even positive integer. Note that the discrete Fourier series is not only periodic in $\phi$, but also in the dual variable $n$. Since the d-bar system (\[dbarpol\]) contains factors $\mathrm{e}^{\pm\mathrm{i}\phi}$, we use an asymmetric definition of the Fourier sums approximating (\[diskasym\]), $$\psi_{1}\approx \sum_{n=-N_{\phi}/2}^{N_{\phi}/2-1}a_{n}(r)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}n\phi},\quad
\psi_{2}\approx\sum_{n=-N_{\phi}/2+1}^{N_{\phi}/2}b_{n}(r)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}n\phi},
\label{diskfft}$$ in order to be able to deal with the same powers of $\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\phi}$ in both equations (we use the same symbols as in (\[dbarpol\]) to avoid cluttered notation). The discrete Fourier transforms can be computed conveniently with a *Fast Fourier Transform* (FFT).
With (\[diskfft\]), the partial differential equation (PDE) system (\[dbarpol\]) is approximated via a finite system of ordinary differential equations (ODE) in $r$ for the $2N_{\phi}$ functions $a_{n}(r)$, $n=-N_{\phi}/2,\ldots,N_{\phi}/2-1$, and $b_{n}(r)$, $n=-N_{\phi}/2+1,\ldots,N_{\phi}/2$. To solve this system, we approximate these functions via a sum of Chebychev polynomials $T_{m}(l):=\cos (m\arccos x)$, $l\in[-1,1]$, i.e., $$\begin{array}{l}
a_{n}(r)\approx \sum_{m=0}^{N_{r}}a_{nm} T_{m}(l),\quad
n=-\frac{N_{\phi}}{2},\ldots,\frac{N_{\phi}}{2}-1,\\~\\
b_{n}(r)\approx \sum_{m=0}^{N_{r}}b_{nm} T_{m}(l),\quad
n=-\frac{N_{\phi}}{2}+1,\ldots,\frac{N_{\phi}}{2}
\label{cheb},
\end{array}$$ where $r=(1+l)/2$. The constants $a_{nm}$ are determined via a collocation method: on the points $$l_{j}=\cos\left(\frac{j\pi}{N_{r}}\right), \quad j=0,\ldots,N_{r}
%\label{lj},$$ the equations (\[cheb\]) are imposed as equalities, i.e., for fixed $n$ we have $$a_{n}(r(l_{j})) = \sum_{m=0}^{N_{r}}a_{nm}T_{m}(l_{j}),\quad
j=0,\ldots,N_{r}
%\label{coll}$$ which uniquely determines the $a_{nm}$. In the same way the $b_{nm}$ are fixed. Because of the definition of the Chebychev polynomials, one has $T_{m}(l_{j})=\cos (mj\pi/N_{r})$. Thus the coefficients $a_{nm}$ and $b_{nm}$ can be obtained via a *Fast Cosine Transformation* (FCT) which is related to the FFT, see e.g., the discussion in [@trefethen] and references therein.
The existence of fast algorithms, however, is not the only advantage of the Chebychev spectral method and the discrete Fourier transform. Both are so-called spectral methods which means that the numerical error in approximating smooth functions decreases faster than any power of $1/N_{r}$ and $1/N_{\phi}$, in practice it decreases exponentially. This is due to an analogue for discrete Fourier transforms of the well known theorem that the Fourier transform of a smooth, rapidly decreasing function is rapidly decreasing, see the discussion in [@trefethen].
To approximate derivatives via the ansatz (\[cheb\]), one uses $T_{0}'(l)=0$, $T_{1}'(l)=1$ and for $n\geq1$ the identity $$%\label{eq:recursderiv}
\frac{T'_{n+1}(l)}{n+1} - \frac{T'_{n-1}(l)}{n-1} = 2 T_n(l)$$ which implies that the derivative of the $a_{n}(r)$ is approximated via the action of a *differentiation matrix* $D$ on the Chebychev coefficients $a_{nm}$ $$a_{n}'(r)\approx
\sum_{m,\alpha=0}^{N_{r}}D_{m\alpha}a_{n\alpha}T_{m}(l)
%\label{chebder}.$$ The differentiation matrix is upper triangular and for even $N_{r}$ of the form $$D =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 & 0 & 3 & 0 & 5 & \hdots & N_{r}-1&0 \\
¥ & ¥ & 4 & 0 & 8 & \hdots & ¥ & ¥ & 2*N_{r}\\
¥ & ¥ & ¥ & 6 & 0 & 10 & \hdots & 2*(N_{r-1}) & 0\\
¥ & ¥ & ¥ & ¥ & 8 & 0 & 12 & \hdots & 2*N_{r} \\
¥ & ¥ & ¥ & ¥ & ¥ & \ddots & ¥ & ¥&0 \\
¥ & ¥ & ¥ & ¥ & ¥ & ¥ & ¥ & ¥ &\vdots\\
¥ & ¥ & ¥ & ¥ & ¥ & ¥ & ¥ & ¥ &0\\
¥ & ¥ & ¥ & ¥ & ¥ & ¥ & ¥ & ¥& 2*N_{r}
\end{pmatrix}.$$
In a similar way one can divide in the space of Chebychev coefficients by $r$ which is normally numerically a very delicate operation if $r$ can vanish on the considered interval as it does here. Using the identity $$T_{n+1}(l)+T_{n-1}(l)=2lT_{n}(x), \quad n=1,2,\ldots
\label{chebrec},$$ we can divide in coefficient space by $l\pm1$. For given Chebyshev coefficients $a_{nm}$ we define the coefficients $\tilde{a}_{nm}$ via $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_{nm}T_{m}(l)=:\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(l\pm1)\tilde{a}_{nm}T_{m}(l)$. This implies the action of a matrix $R$ in coefficient space (if $a_{n}(r)/r$ is bounded for $r\to0$), $$\frac{a_{n}(r)}{r}\approx
\sum_{m,\alpha=0}^{N_{r}}R_{m\alpha}a_{n\alpha}T_{m}(l)
\label{chebdiv}.$$ The matrix $R^{-1}$ has for even $N_{r}$ the form $$R^{-1} =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1/2 & ¥ & ¥ & ¥ \\
1 & 1 & 1/2 & ¥ & ¥ \\
¥ & 1/2 & \ddots & \ddots & \\
¥ & ¥ & \ddots & ¥ & ¥ \\
¥ & ¥ & ¥ & ¥ & ¥ & 1/2 \\
¥ & ¥ & ¥ & ¥ & 1/2 & 1
\end{pmatrix};$$ (the matrix $R$ is computed by inverting this matrix).
Denoting the combined action of FFT and FCT on a function $\psi(r,\phi)$ by $\mathbb{F}$, we thus approximate the system (\[dbarpol\]) via ($m=0,\ldots,N_{r}$) $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\alpha=0}^{N_{r}}\left(D-nR\right)_{m\alpha}a_{n\alpha}&=\mathbb{F}\left(q(r,\phi) \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\phi}
\sum_{\alpha=0}^{N_{r}}\sum_{\beta=-N_{\phi}/2}^{N_{\phi}/2-1}b_{\beta\alpha}T_{\alpha}(l)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\beta\phi}\right)_{nm},\quad n=-N_{\phi}/2,\ldots,N_{\phi}/2-1
\nonumber\\
\sum_{\alpha=0}^{N_{r}}\left(D+nR\right)_{m\alpha}b_{n\alpha}&=\mathbb{F}\left(\bar{q}(r,\phi) \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\phi}
\sum_{\alpha=0}^{N_{r}}\sum_{\beta=-N_{\phi}/2}^{N_{\phi}/2-1}a_{\beta\alpha}T_{\alpha}(l)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\beta\phi}\right)_{nm},\quad n=-N_{\phi}/2+1,\ldots,N_{\phi}/2.
\label{dbarsysnum}\end{aligned}$$ The action of the functions $q(r,\phi)\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\phi}$ and its conjugate in (\[dbarsysnum\]) is computed as a convolution in coefficient space via (\[chebrec\]) and by using the periodicity of the FFT in Fourier space. Note that the computation of convolutions or products in a spectral method can lead to so called *aliasing* errors, see the discussion in [@trefethen], which are due to the fact that only a finite number of terms are considered in the Chebychev and Fourier sums, whereas for instance relation (\[chebrec\]) implies the use of the whole series in order to get equality.
Denoting the vector built from the coefficients $a_{nm}$ by $A$ and the vector built by the coefficients $b_{nm}$ by $B$, equation (\[dbarsysnum\]) can be formally written as $$\mathcal{O}
\begin{pmatrix}
A \\
B
\end{pmatrix}=0
\label{mat},$$ where $\mathcal{O}$ is the $2(N_{r}+1)N_{\phi}\times2(N_{r}+1)N_{\phi}$ matrix built from the matrices $D$, $R$ and the convolutions of the coefficients of $q\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\phi}$ and its conjugate.
Fundamental solution
--------------------
The matrix $\mathcal{O}$ in (\[mat\]) has an $N_{\phi}$-dimensional kernel corresponding to the homogeneous solutions characterized by the constants $\alpha_{n}$, $\beta_{n}$ in (\[ab\]). Note that regularity of the solutions at $r=0$ does not need to be imposed since we handle the terms proportional to $1/r$ in (\[dbarpol\]) in the space of coefficients via the matrix $R$ in (\[chebdiv\]).
To obtain the general solution to the system (\[dbarsysnum\]), we introduce functions $\psi^{(j)}_{1}$ and $\psi^{(j)}_{2}$, $j=1,2,\ldots,N_{\phi}$ such that the general solution to the system can be written in the form $$\psi_{1}=\sum_{j=1}^{N_{\phi}}\gamma_{j}\psi^{(j)}_{1},\quad
\psi_{2}=\sum_{j=1}^{N_{\phi}}\gamma_{j}\psi^{(j)}_{2}
\label{general},$$ where $\gamma_{j}=const$ for $j=1,\ldots,N_{\phi}$. We define the solutions $\psi^{(j)}_{1}$ and $\psi^{(j)}_{2}$ to (\[dbarsysnum\]) in the following way via boundary conditions at the rim of the disk:\
for $j=1,\ldots,N_{\phi}/2$ $$a_{n}(1)=\delta_{(j-1)n},\quad n=-N_{\phi}/2,\ldots,
N_{\phi}/2-1, \quad b_{n}(1)=0, \quad n=-N_{\phi}/2+1,\ldots,
N_{\phi}/2
\label{abcond1},$$ and for $j=N_{\phi}/2+1,\ldots,N_{\phi}$ $$a_{n}(1)=0,\quad n=-N_{\phi}/2,\ldots,
N_{\phi}/2-1, \quad b_{n}(1)=\delta_{(j-N_{\phi})n}, \quad n=-N_{\phi}/2+1,\ldots,
N_{\phi}/2
\label{abcond2}.$$ These conditions uniquely determine the functions $\psi^{(j)}_{1}$ and $\psi^{(j)}_{2}$ and ensure that they form a basis of the regular solutions to (\[dbarsysnum\]).
The conditions (\[abcond1\]) and (\[abcond2\]) are implemented in the numerical approach via Lanczos’ $\tau$-method [@tau]. The idea is that these conditions replace certain equations in (\[mat\]) which leads to a new system of the form $$\tilde{\mathcal{O}}
\begin{pmatrix}
A \\
B
\end{pmatrix}=S
\label{mat2};$$ here $\tilde{O}$ is the matrix $\mathcal{O}$ where the rows corresponding to the Fourier index $j$ appearing in (\[abcond1\]) and (\[abcond2\]) and the Chebyshev index $m=N_{r}+1$ (the terms corresponding to the highest Chebyshev polynomial are thus in these cases neglected) are replaced by the left hand sides of (\[abcond1\]) and (\[abcond2\]). The right hand side $S$ of (\[mat2\]) is a $2(N_{r}+1)N_{\phi}\times N_{\phi}$ matrix which is identical to zero except for a single value in each column corresponding to the Fourier index $j$ and the Chebyshev index $N_{r}+1$.
Solving (\[mat2\]) thus provides a basis of solutions to (\[dbarsysnum\]). The $\tau$ method ensures that the boundary conditions at the disk are satisfied with the same spectral accuracy as the solved differential equation, see the discussion in [@trefethen].
Test
----
To test the above approach, we consider the example of section \[example\] with $N_{r}=32$ and $N_{\phi}=64$. Relations (\[psi11\]) and (\[psi22\]) imply for $j=1,\ldots,N_{\phi}/2$ $$\psi^{(j)}_{1}=\frac{I_{j-1}(r)}{I_{j-1}(1)}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(j-1)\phi},\quad
\psi^{(j)}_{2}=\frac{I_{j}(r)}{I_{j-1}(1)}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}j\phi},
\label{j1}$$ and for $j=N_{\phi}/2+2,\ldots,N_{\phi}$ $$\psi^{(j)}_{1}=\frac{I_{\tilde{j}-1}(r)}{I_{\tilde{j}}(1)}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\tilde{j}-1\phi},\quad
\psi^{(j)}_{2}=\frac{I_{\tilde{j}}(r)}{I_{\tilde{j}}(1)}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\tilde{j}\phi},
\label{j2}$$ where $\tilde{j}=0,-N_{\phi}/2+1,\ldots,-1$ for $j=N_{\phi}/2+2,\ldots,N_{\phi}$. The Bessel functions are computed for $j\geq0$ via the series representation (see [@AS]) $$I_{j}(r)=\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\left(\frac{r}{2}\right)^{2m+j}\frac{1}{m!(m+j)!}
% \label{modbessel}.$$ The series is approximated via a finite sum consisting of the terms $m=0,\ldots,16$ of the series. This gives an approximation of the modified Bessel functions to the order of machine precision (which is here roughly $10^{-16}$ though in practice limited to a maximal accuracy of the order of $10^{-14}$ because of rounding errors). The functions $I_{n}$, $n=0,\ldots,15$ can be seen in Fig. \[besselfig\] on the left. Note that $I_{-j}(r)=I_{j}(r)$ for $j\in\mathbb{N}$.
To study the numerical error, we define $\Delta :=
|\psi^{(j)}_{i,exact}-\psi^{(j)}_{i,numerical}|$, $i=1,2$. This error can be seen for $j=1,\ldots,N_{\phi}/2$ for $\psi^{(j)}_{1}$ on the right of Fig. \[besselfig\]. It is of the order of $10^{-14}$ on the whole disk for all values of $j$, i.e., of the same order of precision with which the modified Bessel functions are computed.
![On the left the modified Bessel functions $I_{n}$, $n=0,1,\ldots,15$ for $r\leq 1$ normalized to 1 for $r=1$ (the higher $n$, the closer the corresponding function is to the vertical axis on the right), and the modulus of the difference between numerical and exact solution for $\psi_{1}^{(j)}$, $j=1,\ldots,N_{\phi}/2$, on the right.[]{data-label="besselfig"}](modBessel.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![On the left the modified Bessel functions $I_{n}$, $n=0,1,\ldots,15$ for $r\leq 1$ normalized to 1 for $r=1$ (the higher $n$, the closer the corresponding function is to the vertical axis on the right), and the modulus of the difference between numerical and exact solution for $\psi_{1}^{(j)}$, $j=1,\ldots,N_{\phi}/2$, on the right.[]{data-label="besselfig"}](Deltapsi1.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
The same level of accuracy is obtained for the functions $\psi^{(j)}_{2}$ for $j=1,\ldots,N_{\phi}/2$ as can be seen in Fig. \[besselfig2\] on the left. The corresponding errors for $j=N_{\phi}/2+1,\ldots,N_{\phi}$ are given for $\psi_{1}^{(j)}$ in the middle and $\psi_{2}^{(j)}$ on the right of Fig. \[besselfig2\]. The errors are in all cases of the order of $10^{-14}$ or better.
![ $L^{\infty}$ norm of the difference between numerical and exact solution for $\psi_{2}^{(j)}$, $j=1,\ldots,N_{\phi}/2$, on the left, and for $j=N_{\phi}/2+1,\ldots,N_{\phi}$ and $\psi_{1}^{(j)}$ respectively $\psi_{2}^{(j)}$ on the middle respectively on the right.[]{data-label="besselfig2"}](Deltapsi12inf.pdf "fig:"){width="32.00000%"} ![ $L^{\infty}$ norm of the difference between numerical and exact solution for $\psi_{2}^{(j)}$, $j=1,\ldots,N_{\phi}/2$, on the left, and for $j=N_{\phi}/2+1,\ldots,N_{\phi}$ and $\psi_{1}^{(j)}$ respectively $\psi_{2}^{(j)}$ on the middle respectively on the right.[]{data-label="besselfig2"}](test2.pdf "fig:"){width="32.00000%"} ![ $L^{\infty}$ norm of the difference between numerical and exact solution for $\psi_{2}^{(j)}$, $j=1,\ldots,N_{\phi}/2$, on the left, and for $j=N_{\phi}/2+1,\ldots,N_{\phi}$ and $\psi_{1}^{(j)}$ respectively $\psi_{2}^{(j)}$ on the middle respectively on the right.[]{data-label="besselfig2"}](test21.pdf "fig:"){width="32.00000%"}
An often used, but rarely in a specific context proven result in the theory of spectral methods is that the highest spectral coefficients indicate the numerical error, see for instance [@CC60] where it was shown that the error in the Clenshaw-Curtis integration is controlled by the highest 3 spectral coefficients (note that this can be different in the case of equations ranging over several orders of magnitude or for highly ill-conditioned problems, see for instance [@CFKSV]). We test this behavior in the present context as shown in Fig. \[errorNr\]: on the left of the figure one can see that the maximum of the errors in Fig. \[besselfig2\] decreases exponentially with the number $N_{r}$ of the Chebyshev polynomials (the number of Fourier modes is always is always 64; as discussed above, due to the normalization of the solution for each Fourier mode, no decrease in the Fourier index can be expected) and the maximum of the highest Chebyshev coefficient on the right. It can be seen that the spectral coefficients are as expected a valid indicator of the numerical error and will be used in this way in the paper.
![ Maximum of the errors shown in Fig. \[besselfig2\] in dependence of the number of Chebyshev modes on the left, and the maximum of the highest Chebyshev coefficients for the solutions of the right.[]{data-label="errorNr"}](errorNr.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![ Maximum of the errors shown in Fig. \[besselfig2\] in dependence of the number of Chebyshev modes on the left, and the maximum of the highest Chebyshev coefficients for the solutions of the right.[]{data-label="errorNr"}](errorcoeff.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
We present the Chebyshev coefficients of the functions (\[j1\]) and (\[j2\]) respectively on the left respectively on the right of Fig. \[besselcheb\]. Evidently the coefficients decrease to the order of the rounding error as expected. The apparent discontinuity at $N_{\phi}/2$ is due to the different normalization conditions for $j\leq N_{\phi}/2$ (\[abcond1\]) and for $j>N_{\phi}/2$ (\[abcond2\]). It is clear that increasing the number of Fourier modes $N_{\phi}$ would make it necessary to choose a larger $N_{r}$ if spatial resolution is to be maintained. Since there is only one non-trivial Fourier coefficient per function in (\[j1\]) and (\[j2\]), we do not consider the Fourier dependence here. In the general case, this would be, however, necessary.
![ Modulus of the Chebyshev coefficients $\hat{\psi}_{1}^{(j)}$ (left) and $\hat{\psi}_{1}^{(j)}$ (right) of the functions given in (\[j1\]) and (\[j2\]).[]{data-label="besselcheb"}](psi1jcheb.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![ Modulus of the Chebyshev coefficients $\hat{\psi}_{1}^{(j)}$ (left) and $\hat{\psi}_{1}^{(j)}$ (right) of the functions given in (\[j1\]) and (\[j2\]).[]{data-label="besselcheb"}](psi2jcheb.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
The decrease of the coefficients with increasing Chebyshev and Fourier index is a test for the numerical approach in case there is no analytical test available. Note that the functions $\psi^{(j)}_{1,2}$ form a system of fundamental solutions and any solution can be expanded in terms of these functions. There is no decrease of the functions $\psi^{(j)}_{1,2}$ with the index $j$ though it is related to a Fourier index because of the conditions (\[abcond1\]) and (\[abcond2\]). However, we expect that the CGO solutions (\[general\]) built from the functions $\psi^{(j)}_{1,2}$ and satisfying the conditions (\[cnfourier\]) and (\[dnfourier\]) have spectral coefficients decreasing exponentially with Chebyshev and Fourier index as can be seen in the next section. This implies also that the $\gamma_{n}$, $n=1,\ldots,N_{\phi}$ in (\[general\]) must decrease exponentially.
Complex geometric optics solutions
==================================
In this section we use the fundamental solution constructed in the previous section to identify CGO solutions satisfying (\[abcond1\]) and (\[abcond2\]). To this end we determine the constants $\gamma_{n}$, $n=1,\ldots,N_{\phi}$ in (\[general\]) for a given $k$ via a linear system of equations. We consider the example of subsection \[example\] to illustrate the approach. To satisfy the conditions (\[abcond1\]) and (\[abcond2\]), we consider the functions $\psi^{(j)}_{1,2}$ for $r=1$ in physical space, i.e., after an FFT in the variable $\phi$ for fixed $r$ for all $j=1,\ldots,N_{\phi}$. The coefficients $c_{n}$ (\[cnfourier\]) and $d_{n}$ (\[dnfourier\]) are computed for each $j$ from the products $\psi^{(j)}_{1}\exp(-k\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i\phi}})$ and $\psi^{(j)}_{2}\exp(k\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{-i\phi}})$ respectively via an FFT as per (\[cnfourier\]) and (\[dnfourier\]). Because of the fast algorithm this is efficient though only the non-negative indices $n$ are needed in the first case in the conditions $c_{0}=1$ and $c_{n}=0$, $n>0$, and the non-positive indices in the conditions $d_{n}=0$, $n\leq 0$. Notice, however, that the coefficient $d_{1}$ gives the reflection coefficient via (\[Rd\]) which is therefore computed at the same time as the conditions on the $\gamma_{j}$.
The conditions on $c_{n}$ and $d_{n}$ lead to an $N_{\phi}$ dimensional linear system of equations for the $\gamma_{j}$, $j=1,\ldots,N_{\phi}$ in (\[general\]). For the example of Subsection \[example\], the coefficients $\gamma_{j}$, $j=1,\ldots,N_{\phi}$ can be seen in Fig. \[gammak1\] on the left. As expected, the coefficients for $j\sim N_{\phi}/2$ are of the order of the rounding error (note though that $\gamma_{N_{\phi}/2+1}$ corresponds to the case $b_{0}=1$ and is thus as expected of order 1).
![The coefficients $\gamma_{j}$, $j=1,\ldots,N_{\phi}$ of (\[general\]) for the example $q=1$ on the disk and $k=1$ on the left, and the reflection coefficient in dependence of $k$ on the right.[]{data-label="gammak1"}](gammak1.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![The coefficients $\gamma_{j}$, $j=1,\ldots,N_{\phi}$ of (\[general\]) for the example $q=1$ on the disk and $k=1$ on the left, and the reflection coefficient in dependence of $k$ on the right.[]{data-label="gammak1"}](reflectionk1.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
The corresponding solutions (\[general\]) can be seen in Fig. \[Phik1\] on the disk. Note that the solutions are diverging for $|z|\to\infty$.
![CGO solutions to (\[dbarpsi\]) and (\[dbarpsiasym\]) for $q=1$ on the unit disk and vanishing elsewhere for $k=1$, on the left $\psi_{1}$, on the right $\psi_{2}$.[]{data-label="Phik1"}](Phi1k1.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![CGO solutions to (\[dbarpsi\]) and (\[dbarpsiasym\]) for $q=1$ on the unit disk and vanishing elsewhere for $k=1$, on the left $\psi_{1}$, on the right $\psi_{2}$.[]{data-label="Phik1"}](Phi2k1.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
On the other hand, the functions $\Phi_{1}$ and $\Phi_{2}$ (\[Phi\]) as shown in Fig. \[Phik1exp\] are bounded for all $z\in \mathbb{C}$.
![CGO solutions (\[Phi\]) to (\[dbarpsi\]) and (\[dbarpsiasym\]) for $q=1$ on the unit disk and vanishing elsewhere for $k=1$, on the left $\Phi_{1}$, on the right $\Phi_{2}$.[]{data-label="Phik1exp"}](Phi1k1xy.jpg "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![CGO solutions (\[Phi\]) to (\[dbarpsi\]) and (\[dbarpsiasym\]) for $q=1$ on the unit disk and vanishing elsewhere for $k=1$, on the left $\Phi_{1}$, on the right $\Phi_{2}$.[]{data-label="Phik1exp"}](Phi2k1xy.jpg "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
The spectral coefficients for the solutions to (\[dbarpsi\]) and (\[dbarpsiasym\]) are shown in Fig. \[Phik1coeff\]. It can be seen that the coefficients decrease to machine precision both in the Chebyshev and in the Fourier index as already expected from the coefficients $\gamma_{j}$ in Fig. \[gammak1\]. This implies that the solution is resolved to the order of machine precision both in $r$ and in $\phi$.
![ Spectral coefficients of the CGO solutions to (\[dbarpsi\]) and (\[dbarpsiasym\]) for $q=1$ on the unit disk and vanishing elsewhere for $k=1$, on the left for $\psi_{1}$, on the right for $\psi_{2}$.[]{data-label="Phik1coeff"}](psi_1k1coeff.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![ Spectral coefficients of the CGO solutions to (\[dbarpsi\]) and (\[dbarpsiasym\]) for $q=1$ on the unit disk and vanishing elsewhere for $k=1$, on the left for $\psi_{1}$, on the right for $\psi_{2}$.[]{data-label="Phik1coeff"}](psi_2k1coeff.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
As already mentioned, the reflection coefficient (\[Rd\]) is given by the scalar product of the $\gamma_{j}$ and the coefficients $d_{1}^{(j)}$ computed according to (\[dnfourier\]) for each $\psi_{2}^{(j)}$, $j=1,\ldots,N_{\phi}$ in the determination of the former. Thus it is computed at negligible cost. We show the reflection coefficient for $k\leq 1$ for the example $q=1$ on the right of Fig. \[gammak1\]. Note that the reflection coefficient depends only on $|k|$ because of the radial symmetry of $q(z)$, and that it is real in the studied example.
It is of course possible to numerically implement the CGO conditions (\[cnfourier\]) and (\[dnfourier\]) for given $k$ instead of the conditions (\[abcond1\]) and (\[abcond2\]) in the same way as the latter. If one is only interested in the solution for one value of $k$, this is in fact more economic. In applications these solutions are in principle needed for all values of $k\in \mathbb{C}$ which means for a grid of values of $k$. The computational cost in producing the fundamental solution is $N_{\phi}$ times larger than producing the CGO solution for given $k$. Satisfying the CGO conditions for a given fundamental solution is then a lower dimensional problem since it is done for $r=1$ only. Thus as soon as one computes the CGO solutions for considerably more than $N_{\phi}$ values of $k$, the method presented in this section is clearly more economical: the main computational cost is in the determination of the fundamental solution of the last section, the CGO conditions being of lower dimension are then essentially for free.
Iterative solution of the d-bar system
======================================
In this section we present an iterative solution to the d-bar system (\[dbarpolphi\]). The same spectral approach as in the previous sections is applied to approximate the derivatives. The resulting system is solved with a Picard iteration which was shown in [@joh] to converge for more regular potentials for large $|k|$ like a geometric series in $1/|k|$. Here we show at concrete examples that the iteration converges very rapidly, and this for all values of $|k|$ we can access. This allows to test the codes of the previous section and the iterative approach given here by comparing their respective results. An asymptotic formula for the reflection coefficent is presented.
Fixed point iteration
---------------------
The system (\[dbarpolphi\]) will be solved with a fixed point iteration ($j=0,1,\ldots$) $$\begin{array}{l}
\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\phi}\left(\partial_{r}+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{r}\partial_{\phi}\right)\Phi_{1}^{(j+1)}
=q(r,\phi)\mathrm{e}^{\bar{k}\bar{z}-kz}\Phi_{2}^{(j)},
\\~\\
\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\phi}\left(\partial_{r}-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{r}\partial_{\phi}\right)\Phi_{2}^{(j+1)}
=\bar{q}(r,\phi)\mathrm{e}^{kz-\bar{k}\bar{z}}\Phi_{1}^{(j)}
\label{dbarpolphiit},
\end{array}$$ with the initial iterates $\Phi^{(0)}_{1}=1$ and $\Phi^{(0)}_{2}=0$.
As in the previous sections, see (\[cheb\]), we will apply a Chebyshev spectral method in $r$ and a discrete Fourier approach in $\phi$, $$\begin{array}{l}
\Phi^{(j)}_{1}\approx\sum_{\alpha=0}^{N_{r}}\sum_{\beta=-N_{\phi}/2+1}^{
N_{\phi}/2}a_{\beta\alpha}^{(j)}T_{\alpha}(l)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\beta\phi}
,\\~\\
\Phi^{(j)}_{2}\approx\sum_{\alpha=0}^{N_{r}}\sum_{\beta=-N_{\phi}/2}^{
N_{\phi}/2-1}b_{\beta\alpha}^{(j)}T_{\alpha}(l)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\beta\phi}
%\label{Phispec} .
\end{array}$$
System (\[dbarpolphiit\]) can thus be approximated by ($m=0,1,\ldots,N_{r}$) $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\alpha=0}^{N_{r}}\left(D-nR\right)_{m\alpha}a_{n\alpha}^{(j+1)}&=\mathbb{F}\left(q(r,\phi)\mathrm{e}^{\bar{k}\bar{z}-kz-\mathrm{i}\phi}\Phi_{2}^{(j)}\right)_{nm},\quad n=-N_{\phi}/2,\ldots,N_{\phi}/2-1,
\nonumber\\
\sum_{\alpha=0}^{N_{r}}\left(D+nR\right)_{m\alpha}b_{n\alpha}^{(j+1)}&=\mathbb{F}\left(\bar{q}(r,\phi)
\mathrm{e}^{kz-\bar{k}\bar{z}+{\mathrm{i}\phi}}\Phi_{1}^{(j)}\right)_{nm},\quad n=-N_{\phi}/2+1,\ldots,N_{\phi}/2.
\label{dbarsysnumit}\end{aligned}$$ The matrices $D\mp n R$ are inverted by using the boundary conditions (\[Phisasym\]) which imply $$\sum_{\alpha=0}^{N_{r}}a_{n\alpha}^{(j)}=\delta_{n0}, \quad
n=0,\ldots,N_{\phi}/2-1,
%\label{phi1cond}$$ and $$\sum_{\alpha=0}^{N_{r}}b_{n\alpha}^{(j)}=0, \quad
n=-N_{\phi}/2+1,\ldots,0.
\label{phi2cond}$$ Note that this can be seen as a simplified Newton iteration since just the diagonal part of the Jacobian $$\mbox{Jac}=
\begin{pmatrix}
\bar{\partial} & -\mathrm{e}^{\bar{k}\bar{z}-kz}q/2 \\
-\mathrm{e}^{kz-\bar{k}\bar{z}}\bar{q}/2& \partial
\end{pmatrix}$$ (the d-bar system is linear and thus equal to $\mbox{Jac}
\begin{pmatrix}
\Phi_{1} \\
\Phi_{2}
\end{pmatrix}
=0$) is inverted with some boundary conditions.
The right-hand sides of (\[dbarsysnumit\]) are computed in physical space to avoid convolutions. Due to the fast algorithms FFT and the FCT, this is very efficient. In the algorithm of the previous sections just one matrix $\mathcal{O}$ in (\[mat2\]) had to be inverted whereas here an iterative approach is used. However, the matrix $\mathcal{O}$ in (\[mat2\]) had to be determined via convolutions, whereas we are dealing here just with products in physical space and fast transforms.
\[remresolution\] For each value of $n$ in (\[dbarsysnumit\]), an $(N_{r}+1)\times(N_{r}+1)$ matrix has to be inverted which means $2N_{\phi}$ inversions of this size per iteration. The advantage with respect to the approach of the previous sections is that the system decouples here, just matrices of size $(N_{r}+1)\times (N_{r}+1)$ and $N_{\phi}\times N_{\phi}$ have to handled. This is much less demanding in terms of memory than the previous $2(N_{r}+1)N_{\phi}\times 2(N_{r}+1)N_{\phi}$ matrices in (\[mat2\]) (though the diagonal form of the differentiation in Fourier leads to sparse matrices there for which efficient algorithms are implemented in Matlab). Thus a much higher resolution can be reached here on the same hardware than before which is especially interesting for the case of large $|k|$. In other words, the price for the reduced memory requirements with respect to the method of the previous sections (where one big matrix had to inverted without iterating) is an iteration. The values of $N_{r}$ and $N_{\phi}$ have to be essentially chosen in a way that the factor $\mathrm{e}^{\bar{k}\bar{z}-kz}q$ is numerically resolved for given $k$ and $q$ on the disk.
The reflection coefficient $R$ (\[eq:r-def\]) follows in this approach from the function $\Phi_{2}$ for $r=1$. One gets from (\[phi2cond\]) $$R = 2\sum_{\alpha=0}^{N_{r}}\bar{b}_{1\alpha}
\label{reflection}.$$
Example {#example}
-------
As in the previous sections, we consider the case of $q=1$ at the disk and vanishing outside. To test the iterative code, we compare its results for $k=1$ with the code of the previous section (recall that the fundamental solution itself was tested in section 3 by comparison with modified Bessel functions). We use $N_{r}=32$ and $N_{\phi}=64$ in both cases. The solutions $\psi_{1,2}$ are computed via the fundamental solution, the solutions $\Phi_{1,2}$ with the iterative code. The differences between the solutions $\Delta\Phi_{1}:=\mathrm{e}^{kz}\psi_{1}-\Phi_{1}$ and $\Delta\Phi_{2}:=\mathrm{e}^{\bar{k}\bar{z}}\psi_{2}-\Phi_{2}$ can be seen in Fig. \[DeltaPhi\]. They are both of the order $10^{-13}$ which implies that both solutions are determined with the same precision.
![Differences of the CGO solutions to (\[dbarpsi\]) and (\[dbarpsiasym\]) for $q=1$ on the unit disk and vanishing elsewhere for $k=1$, obtained by the codes of the previous and the current section respectively, on the left for $\Phi_{1}$, on the right for $\Phi_{2}$.[]{data-label="DeltaPhi"}](DeltaPhi1.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Differences of the CGO solutions to (\[dbarpsi\]) and (\[dbarpsiasym\]) for $q=1$ on the unit disk and vanishing elsewhere for $k=1$, obtained by the codes of the previous and the current section respectively, on the left for $\Phi_{1}$, on the right for $\Phi_{2}$.[]{data-label="DeltaPhi"}](DeltaPhi2.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
The iteration is generally stopped when $\Delta_{\infty}:=||\Phi_{1}^{(j+1)}-\Phi_{1}^{(j)}||_{\infty}+||\Phi_{2}^{(j+1)}-\Phi_{2}^{(j)}||_{\infty}$ is smaller than $10^{-10}$. For small $|k|$, this takes roughly 30 iterations, but the iteration converges faster for larger $|k|$. We study this for three values of $k$, $k=0.1,1,10$ for the example $q=1$ on the disk. We use $N_{r}=32$ and $N_{\phi}=128$. The quantity $\Delta_{\infty}$ can be seen for these cases on the left of Fig. \[itconv\]. Visibly the convergence is linear. For $k=100$, just 9 iterations are needed as can be seen on the right of Fig. \[itconv\]. For the latter computation, $N_{r}=200$ and $N_{\phi}=600$ were used. Note that the convergence depends also on the norm $||q||_{\infty}$ which is here equal to 1. If much larger values are to be considered as in [@AKMM; @KMS], it might be necessary to solve the system (\[dbarsysnumit\]) without iteration, i.e., as in the previous section by inverting a large matrix. We do not address this possibility here since it was not necessary for the studied examples.
![The quantity $\Delta_{\infty}:=||\Phi_{1}^{(j+1)}-\Phi_{1}^{(j)}||_{\infty}+||\Phi_{2}^{(j+1)}-\Phi_{2}^{(j)}||_{\infty}$ in dependence of the number of iterations $j$ for $q=1$ on the unit disk and vanishing elsewhere, on the left for $k=0.1,1,10$ and on the right for $k=100$.[]{data-label="itconv"}](Conv3k.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![The quantity $\Delta_{\infty}:=||\Phi_{1}^{(j+1)}-\Phi_{1}^{(j)}||_{\infty}+||\Phi_{2}^{(j+1)}-\Phi_{2}^{(j)}||_{\infty}$ in dependence of the number of iterations $j$ for $q=1$ on the unit disk and vanishing elsewhere, on the left for $k=0.1,1,10$ and on the right for $k=100$.[]{data-label="itconv"}](Convk100.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
The modulus of the solutions for $k=100$ can be seen in Fig. \[Phik100\]. The function $\Phi_{1}$ on the left of the figure appears to be roughly equal to 1 in correspondence with its asymptotic value with corrections of order $1/k$. The high frequency oscillations of the solution are hardly visible. These oscillations are much more pronounced for function $\Phi_{2}$ on the right of the same figure with amplitude of order $1/k$ around the asymptotic value 0 for the solution.
![ CGO solutions to (\[dbarpsi\]) and (\[dbarpsiasym\]) for $q=1$ on the unit disk and vanishing elsewhere for $k=100$, on the left for $\Phi_{1}$, on the right for $\Phi_{2}$.[]{data-label="Phik100"}](Phi1k100xy.jpg "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![ CGO solutions to (\[dbarpsi\]) and (\[dbarpsiasym\]) for $q=1$ on the unit disk and vanishing elsewhere for $k=100$, on the left for $\Phi_{1}$, on the right for $\Phi_{2}$.[]{data-label="Phik100"}](Phi2k100xy.jpg "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
As before, the numerical resolution can be checked via the decrease of the spectral coefficients for large value of the Chebyshev and Fourier indices. For the example $k=100$, this can be seen in Fig. \[Phik100coeff\]. The coefficients decrease as expected to the order of machine precision which shows that the solutions are numerically well resolved.
![Spectral coefficients of CGO solutions to (\[dbarpsi\]) and (\[dbarpsiasym\]) for $q=1$ on the unit disk and vanishing elsewhere for $k=100$, on the left for $\Phi_{1}$, on the right for $\Phi_{2}$.[]{data-label="Phik100coeff"}](Phi1k100coeff.jpg "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Spectral coefficients of CGO solutions to (\[dbarpsi\]) and (\[dbarpsiasym\]) for $q=1$ on the unit disk and vanishing elsewhere for $k=100$, on the left for $\Phi_{1}$, on the right for $\Phi_{2}$.[]{data-label="Phik100coeff"}](Phi2k100coeff.jpg "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
Note that no aliasing problems are observed here, which is due exactly to the fact that the spectral coefficients decrease both in Chebyshev and Fourier indices to machine precision. In fact much higher values of $|k|$ can be treated if this is respected. As discussed in remark \[remresolution\], the number $N_{r}$ of Chebyshev polynomials and the number $N_{\phi}$ of Fourier modes have to be chosen such that the spectral coefficients of $q(r,\phi)\mathrm{e}^{\bar{k}\bar{z}-kz}$ decrease to machine precision. For $k=1000$ this is shown in Fig. \[qk1000\] on the left. For $N_{r}=1200$ and $N_{\phi}=4400$, the spectral coefficients decrease to the order of the rounding error. With this choice of the parameter $N_{r}$ and $N_{\phi}$, the iteration converges after just 7 steps. The spectral coefficients shown in Fig. \[qk1000\] decrease as expected to the order of the rounding error.
![ Spectral coefficients of $\mathrm{e}^{\bar{k}\bar{z}-kz}q$ on the left, and of CGO solutions to (\[dbarpsi\]) and (\[dbarpsiasym\]) for $q=1$ on the unit disk and vanishing elsewhere for $k=1000$, on the middle for $\Phi_{1}$, on the right for $\Phi_{2}$.[]{data-label="qk1000"}](qk1000coeff.jpg "fig:"){width="32.00000%"} ![ Spectral coefficients of $\mathrm{e}^{\bar{k}\bar{z}-kz}q$ on the left, and of CGO solutions to (\[dbarpsi\]) and (\[dbarpsiasym\]) for $q=1$ on the unit disk and vanishing elsewhere for $k=1000$, on the middle for $\Phi_{1}$, on the right for $\Phi_{2}$.[]{data-label="qk1000"}](Phi1k1000coeff.jpg "fig:"){width="32.00000%"} ![ Spectral coefficients of $\mathrm{e}^{\bar{k}\bar{z}-kz}q$ on the left, and of CGO solutions to (\[dbarpsi\]) and (\[dbarpsiasym\]) for $q=1$ on the unit disk and vanishing elsewhere for $k=1000$, on the middle for $\Phi_{1}$, on the right for $\Phi_{2}$.[]{data-label="qk1000"}](Phi2k1000coeff.jpg "fig:"){width="32.00000%"}
The solutions can be seen in Fig. \[Phi1k1000\]. The function $\Phi_{1}$ on the left has hardly visible oscillations, the deviation from the asymptotic value 1 is of order $1/k$ as in Fig. \[Phik100\]. The function $\Phi_{2}$ on the right on the other hand shows rapid oscillations of order $1/k$ around 0.
![ CGO solutions to (\[dbarpsi\]) and (\[dbarpsiasym\]) for $q=1$ on the unit disk and vanishing elsewhere for $k=1000$, on the left for $\Phi_{1}$, on the right for $\Phi_{2}$.[]{data-label="Phi1k1000"}](Phi1k1000xy.jpg "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![ CGO solutions to (\[dbarpsi\]) and (\[dbarpsiasym\]) for $q=1$ on the unit disk and vanishing elsewhere for $k=1000$, on the left for $\Phi_{1}$, on the right for $\Phi_{2}$.[]{data-label="Phi1k1000"}](Phi2k1000xy.jpg "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
Reflection coefficient
----------------------
The reflection coefficient can be computed for a given value of $k$ via (\[reflection\]). For the example of the characteristic function of the disk studied here, one gets for $k\in[1,100]$ the left figure of Fig. \[reflectionk100\]. The reflection coefficient has an amplitude decreasing proportional $1/|k|^{3/2}$ and an oscillatory singularity at infinity as can be seen from the plot of $Rk^{3/2}$ on the right of the same figure.
![Reflection coefficient $R$ (\[eq:r-def\]) for $q=1$ on the unit disk and vanishing elsewhere in dependence of $k$ on the left, and $kR$ on the right.[]{data-label="reflectionk100"}](reflectionk100.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Reflection coefficient $R$ (\[eq:r-def\]) for $q=1$ on the unit disk and vanishing elsewhere in dependence of $k$ on the left, and $kR$ on the right.[]{data-label="reflectionk100"}](reflectionk100k.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
An asymptotic formula for the reflection coefficent can be obtained via (\[eq:r-def\]) and (\[eq:solid-Cauchy\]) with $k=\kappa e^{i\psi}$, $\kappa,\psi\in\mathbb{R}$, $$\bar{R}(k)=\frac{2}{\pi}\int_{0}^{1}\int_{0}^{2\pi}q(r,\phi)e^{2i\kappa
r\sin(\phi-\psi)}\Phi_{1}rdr\phi.
\label{Rasym}$$ In [@joh] it was shown for $C^{\infty}$ potentials such that all derivatives are in $L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$ that $\Phi_{1}$ and $\Phi_{2}$ converge like a geometric series in $1/\kappa$ for $\kappa$ large. The situation is less clear for discontinuous potentials as the ones studied here, but numerical results indicate that $\Phi_{1}=1+O(1/\kappa)$ also in this case. This would imply for large $\kappa$ with a stationary phase approximation for (\[Rasym\]) for the example of the disk (where $k$ can be chosen to be real) that $$\bar{R}(k) \approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi k^{3}}}\cos(2k-3\pi/4)
\label{Rasym1}.$$
In Fig. \[reflectionkasym\] we show on the left the numerically computed reflection coefficient in blue and in red the asymptotic formula (\[Rasym1\]). It can be seen that the agreement is excellent already for values of the order of $|k|\sim 10$. The difference between numerically computed reflection coefficient and the asymptotic formula is shown to be of the order of $k^{5/2}$ on the right.
![Reflection coefficient $R$ (\[eq:r-def\]) for $q=1$ on the unit disk and vanishing elsewhere in dependence of $k$ on the left, in blue the numerical value, in red the asymptotic formula $R_{asym}$ (\[Rasym1\]), and $k^{5/2}(R-R_{asym})$ on the right.[]{data-label="reflectionkasym"}](reflectionk32asym.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Reflection coefficient $R$ (\[eq:r-def\]) for $q=1$ on the unit disk and vanishing elsewhere in dependence of $k$ on the left, in blue the numerical value, in red the asymptotic formula $R_{asym}$ (\[Rasym1\]), and $k^{5/2}(R-R_{asym})$ on the right.[]{data-label="reflectionkasym"}](reflectionk100asymdiff.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
Outlook
=======
In this paper, we have presented spectral approaches for the numerical construction of CGO solutions for potentials with compact support on a disk, i.e., the scattering for the defocusing DS II equation. It is straight forward to generalize these approaches to functions which are piecewise smooth on annular parts of the disk. For large values of the modulus of the spectral parameter $|k|$, the reflection coefficient is shown to have an oscillatory behavior. An asymptotic formula is given in this case. This could allow the computation of the reflection coefficient, i.e., the scattering data for all values of $k$ with a *hybrid* approach: for values of $|k|\lesssim 1000$, the reflection coefficient is numerically computed to machine precision. For larger values of $|k|$, an asymptotic series in $1\sqrt{|k|}$ will be given which could also be computed for large $|k|$ to machine precision. The oscillatory nature of the reflection coefficient for $k\to\infty$ makes the use of hybrid approaches necessary in the numerical inverse scattering. This means that the main asymptotic contribution has to be treated analytically with some semiclassical techniques, and just the residual between asymptotic and full CGO solution will be computed numerically. This will be the subject of further research.
A further direction of research will be related to the exceptional points of the d-bar system (\[dbarpsi\]) in the focusing case ($\sigma=-1$). The numerical tools developed in the present paper and in [@KMS] will allow to study large classes of potentials to see in which form and when exceptional points appear, and to which physical features (appearence of lump solitons?) they correspond in the context of the focusing DS.
An interesting question in the context of potentials with compact support would be cases with a non-circular boundary. The task would be to map for instance a smooth and convex boundary with a conformal transformation to a circle. The construction of such tansformations, see for instance [@HPT], and its combination with the codes presented here will be a direction of future research.
The present paper presents a purely spectral approach to the d-bar system (\[dbarpsi\]), i.e., all functions are expanded in terms of combined Chebyshev and Fourier series which are then truncated. Actual computations are done with the coefficients of these series called *spectral coefficients*. Resolution in terms of Chebychev polynomials is limited by the conditioning (second order differentiation matrices are known to have a conditioning of $O(N_{r}^{4})$, see the discussion in [@trefethen]). In [@OT] an ultraspherical approach with better conditioning and sparser matrices was presented which was applied in the context of the hypergeometric equation in [@CFKSV] to the 2d Laplace equation in polar coordinates. It was shown there that higher accuracies can be achieved than with Chebychev differentiation matrices. We will test in future publications whether this approach can also be efficient in the present context.
Note that the presented codes are highly parallelisable. First the task to compute CGO solutions for a high number of values of the spectral parameter $k$ can be done in parallel, in an efficient way on low cost GPUs as in [@KS]. Since the code is spectral and thus very efficient, they can be run on a single GPU for each $k$ up to rather large values of $|k|$. For exceptionally high resolutions, the codes can also be parallelised for single $k$ computation.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
This work was partially supported by the PARI and FEDER programs in 2016 and 2017, by the ANR-FWF project ANuI, the isite BFC project NAANoD and by the Marie-Curie RISE network IPaDEGAN. We are indebted to J. Sjöstrand for countless helpful discussions and hints.
[99]{} Abramowitz, M.; Stegun, I. A., eds. Handbook of mathematical functions, with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables. National Bureau of Standards Applied Mathematics Series, 55. Dover, New York, 1965. Assainova, O. , Klein, C. , McLaughlin, K. D. and Miller, P. D. (2019), A Study of the Direct Spectral Transform for the Defocusing Davey-Stewartson II Equation the Semiclassical Limit. Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 72: 1474-1547.
K. Astala, L. Páivárinta, J.M. Reyes, S. Siltanen, Nonlinear Fourier analysis for discontinuous conductivities: Computational results, Journal of Computational Physics 276, 74Ð91 (2014)
R. Beals and R. Coifman, Multidimensional inverse scattering and nonlinear PDE Proc. Symp. Pure Math. (Providence: American Mathematical Society) 43, 45-70 (1985)
R.M. Brown, Estimates for the scattering map associated with a two-dimensional first-order system. J. Nonlinear Sci. 11, no. 6, 459Ð471 (2001)
R. Brown and P. Perry, Soliton solutions and their (in)stability for the focusing DaveyÐStewartson II equation, Nonlinearity **31**(9) 4290 doi.org/10.1088/1361-6544/aacc46 (2018)
R.M. Brown, G.A. Uhlmann, Communications in partial differential equations 22 (5-6), 1009-1027 (1997)
A.P. Calderón On inverse boundary value problem. Seminar on Numerical Analysis and its Applications to Continuum Physics (Rio de Janeiro, 1980) pp 65-73 (Soc. Brasil. Mat.)
C. W. Clenshaw, A. R.Curtis, *A method for numerical integration on an automatic computer*, Numerische Mathematik 2, 1 (1960), pp. 197-205.
S. Crespo, M. Fasondini, C. Klein, N. Stoilov, C. Vallée, Multidomain spectral method for the Gauss hypergeometric function, Numer Algor (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11075-019-00741-7
T. Grava and C. Klein, Numerical study of the small dispersion limit of the Korteweg-de Vries equation and asymptotic solutions, Physica D, 10.1016/j.physd.2012.04.001 (2012). C. Klein and K. McLaughlin, Spectral approach to D-bar problems, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., DOI: 10.1002/cpa.21684 (2017)
A. G. Gurevich, L. P. Pitaevskii, Non stationary structure of a collisionless shock waves, JEPT Letters 17 (1973), 193-195.
N. Hyvönen, L. Päivärinta, and J. P. Tamminen. Enhancing d-bar reconstructions for electrical impedance tomography with conformal maps, Inverse Problems and Imaging 12(2) (2018), 373
C. Klein, K. McLaughlin and N. Stoilov, Spectral approach to semi-classical d-bar problems with Schwartz class potentials, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena DOI: 10.1016/j.physd.2019.05.006 (2019)
C. Klein and K. Roidot, Numerical study of shock formation in the dispersionless Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equation and dispersive regularizations, Physica D, Vol. 265, 1-25, 10.1016/j.physd.2013.09.005 (2013).
C. Klein and K. Roidot, Numerical Study of the semiclassical limit of the Davey-Stewartson II equations, Nonlinearity 27, 2177-2214 (2014).
C. Klein, J.-C. Saut, IST versus PDE: a comparative study. Hamiltonian partial differential equations and applications, 383Ð449, Fields Inst. Commun., 75, Fields Inst. Res. Math. Sci., Toronto, ON, (2015)
C. Klein, C. Sparber and P. Markowich, Numerical study of oscillatory regimes in the Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equation, J. Nonl. Sci. Vol. 17(5), 429-470 (2007).
C. Klein and N. Stoilov, A numerical study of blow-up mechanisms for Davey-Stewartson II systems, Stud. Appl. Math., DOI : 10.1111/sapm.12214 (2018)
K. Knudsen, J. L. Mueller, S. Siltanen. Numerical solution method for the d-bar equation in the plane. [*J. Comput. Phys.*]{} [ 198]{} no. 2, 500-517 (2004).
C. Lanczos, “Trigonometric interpolation of empirical and analytic functions,” *J. Math. and Phys.* 17, 123–199, 1938.
P. Muller, D. Isaacson, J. Newell, and G. Saulnier. A Finite Difference Solver for the D-bar Equation. [*Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Biomedical Applications of Electrical Impedance Tomography, Gananoque, Canada*]{}, 2014. J.L. Mueller and S. Siltanen. [*Linear and Nonlinear Inverse Problems with Practical Applications*]{}, SIAM, 2012. A. I. Nachman, I. Regev, and D. I. Tataru, A nonlinear Plancherel theorem with applications to global well-posedness for the defocusing Davey-Stewartson equation and to the inverse boundary value problem of Calderon, arXiv:1708.04759, 2017. S. Olver and A. Townsend, A fast and well-conditioned spectral method, SIAM Rev. (2013), 55(3), 462Ð489.
P. Perry. Global well-posedness and long-time asymptotics for the defocussing Davey-Stewartson II equation in $H^{1,1}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$. Preprint available at `arxiv.org/pdf/1110.5589v2.pdf`.
J. Sjöstrand, *private communication*. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">L.Y. Sung</span>, [*An inverse scattering transform for the Davey-Stewartson equations. I*]{}, J. Math. Anal. Appl. [ 183]{} (1) (1994), 121-154. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">L.Y. Sung</span>, [*An inverse scattering transform for the Davey-Stewartson equations. II*]{}, J. Math. Anal. Appl. [ 183]{} (2) (1994), 289-325. Trefethen, L.N.: Spectral Methods in Matlab. SIAM, Philadelphia (2000) G. Uhlmann. Electrical impedance tomography and Calderón’s problem. Inverse Problems, 25(12):123011, 2009. G. Vainikko. Multidimensional weakly singular integral equations. [*Lecture Notes in Mathematics*]{} [ 1549]{}, Springer (1993).
[^1]: Note that the notation $\psi_{2}(z;k)$ does not imply that the function is holomorphic in either $z$ or $k$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In modern Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) multicore systems, each core can generate many parallel memory requests at a time. The processing of these parallel requests in the DRAM controller greatly affects the memory interference delay experienced by running tasks on the platform.
In this paper, we model a modern COTS multicore system which has a non-blocking last-level cache (LLC) and a DRAM controller that prioritizes reads over writes. To minimize interference, we focus on LLC and DRAM bank partitioned systems. Based on the model, we propose an analysis that computes a safe upper bound for the worst-case memory interference delay.
We validated our analysis on a real COTS multicore platform with a set of carefully designed synthetic benchmarks as well as SPEC2006 benchmarks. Evaluation results show that our analysis is more accurately capture the worst-case memory interference delay and provides safer upper bounds compared to a recently proposed analysis which significantly under-estimate the delay.
author:
- |
Heechul Yun\
University of Kansas, USA.\
[email protected]\
bibliography:
- 'heechul.bib'
title: 'Parallelism-Aware Memory Interference Delay Analysis for COTS Multicore Systems'
---
Introduction
============
In modern Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) multicore systems, many parallel memory requests can be sent to the main memory system at any given time for the following two reasons. First, each core employs a variety of techniques—such as non-blocking cache, out-of-order issues, and speculative execution—to hide memory access latency. These techniques allow the core continue to execute new instructions while it is still waiting memory requests for previous instructions to be completed. Second, multiple cores can run multiple threads, each of which generates memory requests.
These parallel memory requests from the processor put high pressure on the main memory system. To deliver high performance, modern DRAM consists of multiple resources called banks that can be accessed in parallel. For example, a typical DRAM module has 16 banks, supporting up to 16 parallel accesses [@micronddr3]. To efficiently utilize the available bank level parallelism, modern COTS DRAM controllers employ sophisticated techniques such as out-of-order request processing, overlapped request dispatches, and interleaved bank mapping [@rixner2000memory; @natarajan2004study; @chatterjee2012staged].
While parallel processing of multiple memory requests generally improves overall memory performance, it is very difficult to understand precise memory performance especially when multiple applications run concurrently, because each memory request is more likely to be interfered by other requests. Therefore, reducing interference and improving performance isolation in COTS multicore systems has been an important research topic in the real-time systems community.
To this end, software based DRAM bank partitioning [@yun2014rtas; @liu2012software; @suzuki2013coordinated] and last-level cache (LLC) partitioning [@zhang2009towards; @mancuso2013rtas; @ding2011srm; @ward2013rtas; @lin2008gaining] have been studied by many researchers. These approaches reduce interference by allocating dedicated cache space and/or DRAM banks. While effective, it is also shown that partitioning these resources alone does not provide ideal isolation due to interference in other parts of the memory hierarchy, most notably in the DRAM controller and the shared memory bus (command and data) which connects the controller and the DRAM module [@yun2014rtas; @kim2014rtas]. As a result, it is still difficult to understand worst-case memory interference delay, even when the LLC and DRAM banks are partitioned.
Recently, Kim et al. proposed an analysis method that takes the DRAM controller and the shared memory bus into account [@kim2014rtas]. They faithfully model a modern COTS DRAM system, and provide an analytic upper bound on the worst-case memory interference delay of each memory request of the task under analysis. However, their analysis made a significant assumption that makes it difficult to apply it to modern COTS multicore systems. Specifically, the analysis assumes that each core can only generate one outstanding memory request at a time and stalls until the memory request is served. Unfortunately, this assumption is far from reality in modern COTS platforms. As outstanding requests can interfere with the memory request under analysis, the actual worst-case depends on the number of outstanding requests, which is typically substantially higher than the core count. For example, a COTS multicore processor used in our evaluation supports up to 32 outstanding reads and 16 outstanding writes while it has only 4 cores. As a result, the computed memory interference bounds can be significantly optimistic than the reality (i.e., underestimating the actual delay), as we experimentally demonstrated in Section \[sec:result\_syn\].
In this work, we present a parallelism-aware memory interference delay analysis. We model a COTS DRAM controller that has a separate read and a write request buffer. Multiple outstanding memory requests can be queued in the buffers and processed in out-of-order to maximize memory performance. Also, reads are prioritized over writes in our model. These features are commonly found in modern COTS multicore systems and crucially important in understanding memory interference. To minimize interference, we only consider a system in which the LLC and DRAM banks are partitioned. This is easily achievable on COTS multicore systems via software [@liu2012software; @suzuki2013coordinated]. Based on the system model, our analysis provides a safe analytic upper bound on the worst-case memory interference delay for each memory request of the task under analysis.
We evaluate the proposed analysis on a real COTS multicore platform with a set of synthetic benchmarks as well as SPEC2006 benchmarks. The synthetic benchmarks are specially designed to simulate worst possible memory interference delay. As for synthetic benchmarks, our analysis provides a tight and safe upper bound while the analysis in [@kim2014rtas] significantly under-estimates the actual delay (almost double than the computed delay). As for SPEC2006 benchmarks, we found our analysis provides safe upper bounds for all but two benchmarks, while the compared analysis under-estimates 11 (out of 19) benchmarks. Investigating the two benchmarks that our analysis under-estimated (so did [@kim2014rtas]), we find that space competition in miss status holding registers (MSHRs) [@kroft1981lockup], which track the status of outstanding cache misses, can be a considerable source of additional interference in modern COTS systems.
Based on our analysis and empirical evaluation, we propose two simple architectural supports, which can be easily incorporated in modern COTS, to effectively reduce worst-case interference delay.
Our contributions are as follows:
- To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first that considers memory level parallelism and read prioritized DRAM controllers to analyze memory interference delay.
- We experimentally validate and compare our analysis with a state of art analysis on a real COTS multicore platform with a set of carefully designed synthetic benchmarks as well as SPEC2006 benchmarks.
- We propose two simple architectural supports that can significantly reduce worst-case memory interference delay on COTS multicore processors.
The remaining sections are organized as follows: Section \[sec:background\] provides background on COTS multicore systems and LLC and DRAM bank partitioning techniques. Section \[sec:motivation\] discusses the state-of-art memory interference delay analysis. We present our analysis in Section \[sec:analysis\] and provide evaluation results in Section \[sec:evaluation\]. Section \[sec:recommendation\] discusses architectural recommendations. Section \[sec:related\] discusses related work. Finally, we conclude in Section \[sec:conclusion\].
Background: Modern COTS Multicore systems {#sec:background}
=========================================
A modern COTS multicore system, shown in Figure \[fig:architecture\], supports a high degree of memory level parallelism through a variety of architectural features. In this section, we provide some background on important architectural features of modern COTS multicore systems, and review existing software based resource partitioning techniques.
\[t\] ![Modern COTS multicore architecture[]{data-label="fig:architecture"}](architecture "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
Non-blocking Cache and MSHR
---------------------------
At the cache level, non-blocking caches are used to handle multiple simultaneous cache-misses. This is especially crucial for the shared last level cache (LLC), as it is shared by all cores. The state of the outstanding memory requests are maintained by a set of miss status holding registers (MSHRs). On a cache-miss, the LLC allocates a MSHR entry to track the status of the ongoing request and the entry is cleared when the corresponding memory request is serviced from the main memory. As such, the number of MSHRs effectively determines the maximum number of outstanding memory requests directed to the DRAM controller.
DRAM Controller
---------------
The DRAM controller receives requests from the LLC (or other DMA devices) and generates DRAM specific commands to access data in the DRAM. Modern DRAM controllers often include separate read and write *request buffers* and *prioritize reads* over writes because writes are not on the critical path for program execution. Write requests are buffered on the write buffer of the DRAM controller and serviced when there are no pending read requests or the write queue is near full [@natarajan2004study; @chatterjee2012staged]. The DRAM controller and the DRAM module are connected through a command/address bus and a data bus. Modern DRAM modules are organized into ranks and each rank is divided into multiple *banks*, which can be accessed in *parallel* provided that no collisions occur on either buses. Each bank comprises a row-buffer and an array of storage cells organized as *rows* and *columns*. In order to access the data stored in a DRAM row, an activate command (*ACT*) must be issued to load the data into the row buffer first before it can be read or written. Once the data is in the row buffer, any numbers of subsequent read or write commands (*RD, WR*) can be issued to access data in the row. If, however, a request wishes to access a different row from the same bank, the row buffer must be written back to the array with a pre-charge command (*PRE*) first before the second row can be activated.
Memory Scheduling Algorithm
---------------------------
Due to hardware limitations, the memory device takes time to perform different operations and therefore timing constraints between various commands must be satisfied by the controller. The operation and timing constraints of memory devices are defined by the JEDEC standard [@jedec]. The key facts concerning timing constraints are: 1) the latency for accessing a closed row is much longer than accessing a row that is already open; 2) different banks can be operated in parallel since there are no long timing constraints between banks. To maximize memory performance, modern DRAM controllers typically use a first-ready first-come-first-serve (FR-FCFS) [@rixner2000memory] scheduling algorithm that prioritizes:
1. Ready commands over non-ready commands,
2. Column (CAS) commands over row (RAS) commands,
3. Older commands over younger commands.
This means that the algorithm can process memory requests in out-of-order of their arrival times. Note that a DRAM command is said to be *ready* when it can be scheduled immediately as it satisfies all timing constraints imposed by previously scheduled commands and the current DRAM status.
DRAM Bank and Cache Partitioning
--------------------------------
In order to maximize memory level parallelism, most COTS DRAM controllers employ a version of *interleaved bank* addressing strategy. Under this scheme, consecutive memory blocks in physical address space, typically of the size of a memory page, are allocated to different banks. This makes pending memory requests in the DRAM controller are likely to target different banks, thereby maximizing memory level parallelism. In the worst case, however, it is possible that all programs allocate memory on the same bank, resulting in much increased memory latency compared to the average case. This dependency on run-time decisions by the memory allocator can be a significant potential source of unpredictability. Furthermore, since banks are interleaved, any core in the system can access any bank. If two applications running in parallel on different cores access two different rows in the same bank, they can force the memory controller to continuously pre-charge the row buffer and open a new row every time an access is performed. This loss of row locality can result in a much degraded row hit ratio and thus a corresponding latency increases for both applications. Software bank partitioning [@yun2014rtas; @liu2012software; @suzuki2013coordinated] can be used to avoid the problems of shared banks. The technique leverages the page-based virtual memory system of modern operating systems and allow us to allocate memory to specific DRAM banks. Each core, then, can be assigned to use its private DRAM banks, effectively eliminates bank sharing among cores without requiring any hardware modification. Similar techniques can also be applied to partitioning the shared LLC as explored in [@zhang2009towards; @mancuso2013rtas; @ding2011srm; @ward2013rtas; @lin2008gaining]. It is shown that partitioning DRAM banks and LLC substantially reduce memory interference among the cores [@yun2014rtas].
However, the LLC cache space and DRAM banks are not the only shared resources contributing to memory interference. Most notably, at the DRAM chip level, all DRAM banks fundamentally share the common command and data bus. Hence, contention in the buses can become a bottleneck. Furthermore, as many memory requests can be buffered inside the DRAM controller’s request buffers, its scheduling policy can greatly affect memory interference delay. Finally, at the LLC level, the MSHRs for the LLC are also shared by all cores even if the cache space is partitioned. We will show its performance impact in Section \[sec:result\_spec\].
**Goal:** The goal of this paper is to analyze the worst-case memory interference delay in a cache and DRAM bank partitioned system, focusing mainly on delay in the DRAM controller and command and data bus between the controller and the DRAM module.
The State of Art Delay Analysis and the Problem {#sec:motivation}
===============================================
\[t\]
\[t\]
In this section, we first review a state of art memory interference delay analysis for COTS memory systems, proposed by Kim et al. [@kim2014rtas]. We then investigate some of its assumptions that are not generally applicable in modern COTS multicore systems.
The analysis models a modern COTS memory system in great detail. While there has been a similar effort in the past [@zheng2013worst], this is the first work that considers the DRAM bank level request reordering effect (i.e., out-of-order execution of young row-hit column requests over older row-miss requests). Here, we briefly summarize the assumed system model and part of the memory interference delay analysis, relevant for the purpose of this paper.
The system model assumes a single channel DRAM controller and a DDR3 memory module. The DRAM controller includes request buffers and uses the FR-FCFS scheduling algorithm. At the high level, the analysis computes the worst-case memory interference delay of the task under analysis $\tau_i$ either (1) as a function of number of memory requests $H_i$ of the task (referred as Request driven approach) or (2) as a function of the number of memory requests generated by the other tasks on different cores (referred as Job driven approach)—it takes the minimum of the two—similar to prior work [@yun2012ecrts]. The unique characteristics of the analysis is that it considers both inter-bank and intra-bank (including request reordering) memory interference delay. For the purpose of this paper, however, we focus on their inter-bank delay analysis that assumes each core is assigned *dedicated DRAM bank partitions* using software bank partitioning systems [@yun2014rtas; @liu2012software].
The analysis assumes that each memory request of $\tau_i$ is composed of PRE, ACT, and RD/WR DRAM commands (i.e., a row-miss) and each of the command can be delayed by DRAM commands generated by other tasks on different cores, due to inter-bank timing constraints imposed by the JEDEC DDR3 specification [@jedec]. These timing constraint imposed inter-bank delay for PRE, ACT, and RD/WR commands are denoted as $L_{inter}^{PRE}$, $L_{inter}^{ACT}$, and $L_{inter}^{RW}$, respectively.
One major assumption of the analysis is that each core can generate only *one outstanding memory request* to the DRAM controller. Based on this assumption, the worst-case per-request inter-bank memory interference delay on a core $p$, $RD_p^{inter}$, is simply expressed by $
RD_p^{inter} = \sum_{\forall q: q \neq p} \times ( L_{inter}^{PRE} + L_{inter}^{ACT} + L_{inter}^{RW}).
$
Finally, the total memory interference delay of a task is calculated by multiplying $RD_p^{inter}$ to the number of total LLC misses $H_i$ of $\tau_i$
The analysis, however, has two main problems when it is applied to modern COTS multicore systems. On the one hand, it is overly *optimistic* as it assumes each interfering core only can generate one outstanding memory request at a time. Hence, it essentially limits the maximum number of competing requests to the number of cores in the system. However this is far from reality as modern COTS multicore can generate many parallel memory requests at a time. For example, a quad-core processor used in our evaluation can generate up to 48 concurrent DRAM requests at a time (see Section \[sec:setup\] for details). Because DRAM performance is much slower than CPU performance, these requests are queued inside the DRAM controller and can aggravate the overall delay. Figure \[fig:motivation1\] illustrates this problem. In the figure, three parallel requests RD1, RD2, and RD3 are already in the command queue for Bank2, when the request RD4 has arrived at Bank1. Note that the DRAM commands are numbered in the order of their arrival times in the DRAM controller. At memory clock 0, both RD1 and RD4 are ready, but RD1 is scheduled as FR-FCFS policy prioritizes older requests over younger ones. Similarly, RD2 and RD3 are prioritized over RD4 at time 4 and 8, respectively. At other times such as at clock 1, RD4 cannot be scheduled due a channel timing constraint ($tCCD$), even though it is ready w.r.t. the Bank1. On the other hand, it is also overly *pessimistic* as a memory request—composed of PRE, ACT, and RD/WR DRAM sub-commands—is assumed to suffer inter-bank interference for each sub-command, while in reality the delays of executing sub-commands of a memory request are not additive on efficient modern COTS memory controllers. Figure \[fig:motivation2\] shows such a case. In the figure, each bank has one row miss DRAM request. Hence, each has to open a new row with a ACT command followed by a RD command. Following the FC-FRFS policy, ACT1 on Bank2 is executed first at clock 0. Even though ACT2 is targeting to a different bank, it is not scheduled immediately due to the required minimum separation time $tRRD$ between two inter-bank ACT commands. At clock 4, however, ACT2 can be issued even though ACT1 on the Bank2 is still in progress. In other words, the two memory requests are *overlapped*. Hence, when RD2 is finally issued at time 11, there is no extra inter-bank delay other than the initial delay of $tRRD$.
From the point of view of WCET analysis, the former problem is more serious as it undermines the safety of the computed WCET.
We experimentally validated the former problem on our test platform with carefully engineered synthetic tasks, as we will detail in Section \[sec:result\_syn\]. To summarize the result, the calculated worst-case response time using the stated analysis is up to 53% smaller than the measured worst-case response time. The result motivates our analysis in the next section.
Parallelism-Aware Memory Interference Delay Analysis {#sec:analysis}
====================================================
In this section, we present our parallelism-aware memory interference delay analysis that is aimed to support modern COTS multicore systems. We begin by defining the system model on which our analysis is based. We then present the main analysis with examples.
System Model
------------
We consider a modern multicore architecture described in Section \[sec:background\]. Specifically, there are $N_{proc}$ identical cores in a single processor chip. A single LLC and MSHRs are shared among the cores. When there is a miss in the LLC, an entry is registered on the MSHR and it is removed when the associated DRAM transaction is completed. We assume a typical shared L3 cache that employs write-back write-allocate policy. Hence a write to DRAM only occurs when there is a L3 miss (either read or write) that evicts a modified cache-line in the L3 cache, and program execution can proceed without waiting the write request to be processed in the DRAM. Therefore, for the analysis purpose, we only consider memory interference delay imposed to each read request of the task under analysis $\tau_i$. Note that the number of DRAM read requests $H_i$ is equal to the number of LLC misses because, in a write-back write-allocate cache, a write miss also generates a DRAM read request to allocate the line in the L3 cache and then write to it.
On the DRAM controller side, we assume a modern DRAM controller that supports the FR-FCFS scheduling policy [@rixner2000memory; @wang2005umd] which is connected to a DDR3 DRAM module. At each memory clock tick, we assume a highly efficient FR-FCFS scheduler that picks the highest priority ready command among all requests and can overlap multiple requests simultaneously as long as DRAM bank and channel level timing constraints and the FR-FCFS priority rules are satisfied [@natarajan2004study]. We also assume that the DRAM controller has a read request buffer and a write request buffer, and prioritizes reads over writes. The writes are only serviced when there is no pending read request or the write buffer is full. The maximum number of prior read requests queued in the read request buffer is denoted as $N_{rq}$ and we assume it is much bigger than $N_{proc}$. In processing write requests, we assume it processes at least $N_{wq}$ requests in a batch to amortize the cost of the bus turnaround delay [@chatterjee2012staged]. The values of $N_{rq}$ and $N_{wq}$ are platform specific and determined by the number of MSHRs, the size of read request buffer and the write-scheduling algorithm in the DRAM controller. Table \[tbl:sysparams\] shows the parameters we used throughput this paper which closely model our evaluation platform described in Section \[sec:setup\]. [^1]
All previously mentioned assumptions closely follow common behaviors of commercial COTS DRAM controllers [@natarajan2004study]. We assume open-page policy is used for bank management to maximize data locality. We assume a single rank DRAM module for simplicity but our analysis can be extended to consider a multi-rank DRAM module.
We assume DRAM banks and the LLC space are partitioned on a per-core basis. In other words, each core is assigned its own private DRAM banks and LLC space. This can be easily achieved by using software partitioning techniques on COTS systems [@yun2014rtas; @liu2012software].
Finally, we assume that any increase in memory latency is additive to the task’s execution time as in [@kim2014rtas]. This is a pessimistic assumption given that we consider out-of-order cores that can hide much of memory access latency. Modeling reduced memory latencies by OoO cores is, however, out of the scope of this paper.
In short, our system model is similar to [@kim2014rtas], but significantly differs in that (1) it models multiple parallel memory requests buffered in the DRAM controller, and (2) it maintains separate read and write request queues in the DRAM controller and reads are prioritized over writes. Both are common characteristics of modern COTS multicore memory systems [@natarajan2004study].
Lastly, Table \[tbl:dramparams\] shows the DRAM parameters we used throughout this paper.
Symbols Description Value
------------ ------------------------------------- -------
$N_{rq}$ Maximum no. of prior read requests 30
$N_{wq}$ Maximum no. of prior write requests 4
$N_{proc}$ Number of cores 4
: System parameters for our evaluation platform
\[tbl:sysparams\]
Symbols Description DDR3-1066 Units
---------- ---------------------------- ----------- --------
$tCK$ DRAM clock cycle time 1.87 nsec
$tRP$ Row precharge time 7 cycles
$tRCD$ Row activation time 7 cycles
$CL$ Read latency 7 cycles
$WL$ Write latency 6 cycles
$tBURST$ Data burst duration 4 cycles
$tCCD$ Column-to-Column delay 4 cycles
$tWTR$ Write to read delay 4 cycles
$tRRD$ Activate to activate delay 4 cycles
$tRTP$ Read to precharge delay 4 cycles
$tFAW$ Four activate windows 20 cycles
$tRC$ Row cycle time 27 cycles
: DRAM timing parameters [@micronddr3]
\[tbl:dramparams\]
\[t\]
\[t\] {width="95.00000%"}
Delay Analysis
--------------
We now present our analysis that considers parallel memory requests in modern COTS multicore systems.
As mentioned in the previous section, write memory requests are not in the critical path of program execution in modern COTS systems. Hence, our primary concern is memory interference delay to read requests of the task under analysis.
As we consider a system in which both the LLC cache and DRAM banks are partitioned on a per-core basis, conventional cache space and share bank level contention do not exist. However, because the command and data bus are shared in processing the queued memory requests, DRAM controller’s request scheduling greatly affects memory interference delay. We now detail our delay analysis. Because the DRAM controller prioritize reads and the bus turn-around cost is high, the DRAM controller process requests in a *batch* for either reads or writes. In each processing mode, we analyze the worst-case memory interference delay to a newly arrived read request.
### Data Bus Contention Delay
When the DRAM controller is in the read processing mode, the worst-case to a newly arrived read request occurs when the request buffer is fully occupied by previously arrived $N_{rq}$ read requests from the other competing cores. Furthermore, regardless whether the read request under analysis is row-hit or row-miss, the worst-case interference delay occurs when all the previous reads are pipelined (i.e., overlapped scheduling [@natarajan2004study]).
Reads can be pipelined in two cases: consecutive reads on the same row or reads over different banks (see Figure \[fig:motivation2\]). When reads are pipelined, the data bus is fully occupied and the newly arrived read (the request under analysis) must wait until all the previous reads are processed (because FR-FCFS prioritize older requests). If, however, the previous requests are not pipelined, the read request under analysis (younger request) can be processed ahead of older requests on the other banks (i.e. out-of-order processing). Figure \[fig:timing-reorder\] shows such an example. At time 0, both RD3 and RD1 are ready to be scheduled and FR-FCFS schedules RD1 as it is older than RD3. At time 4, both PRE1 and RD3 are ready, but this time FR-FCFS chooses RD3 as it first prioritizes row-hit column commands (i.e., RD) over other commands (i.e., PRE, ACT).
When read requests are pipelined, the processing time of each read is $tBURST$. Therefore, the delay caused by previously arrived read commands $L_{rq}$ is $$L_{rq} = N_{rq} \times tBURST.$$
Note that if a read request under analysis needs to execute PRE or ACT commands (closing the previous row and open a new row, respectively), they can be executed in parallel by the time the data bus becomes free, without adding to the total delay.
### Write Draining and Bus Turn-around Delay {#sec:wqdrain}
When there is no pending reads or the write request buffer is full, the DRAM controller switches the mode to process pending writes. It is called write draining and once the drain process begins, new incoming read requests must wait until at least $N_{wq}$ writes are drained to amortize the bus switching cost $tWTR$ [@chatterjee2012staged].
In draining writes, the worst-case happens when all writes access different rows in the same bank, forcing the memory controller to close and open a new row for each write. In this case, the required time between two successive writes is determined by the row cycle time $tRC$.
Therefore, the write queue draining delay $L_{wq}$ is given by $$\begin{split}
L_{wq} = N_{wq} \times tRC + tWTR. \\
\end{split}
\label{eq:wqdrain}$$
Then, the worst-case delay for a read request for the core under analysis arises when the request arrived right after (1) the write queue drain process began and (2) $N_{rq}$ read requests from other cores arrived. A simplified illustrative example is shown in Figure \[fig:timing-worst\]. In the figure, at time 0, three events occurred in-order: (1) the write queue drain started to process two pending write requests (WR1 and WR2); (2)two read requests (RD1 and RD2) from competing cores arrived; (3) a read request (RD3) from the core under analysis arrived. In this case, the RD3 must wait until all previous activities finish.
Therefore, the worst-case inter-bank delay $D_p$ for a read request on the core under analysis $p$ is expressed as follows:
$$D_{p} = L_{rq} + L_{wq}.$$
Finally, the total inter-bank memory delay of $t_i$ can be computed by $$H_i \times D_p,$$ where $H_i$ is the number of LLC misses.
Evaluation {#sec:evaluation}
==========
In this section, we first present details on the hardware and software platform used in our evaluation. We then present our evaluation results obtained using a set of synthetic and SPEC2006 benchmarks.
Evaluation Setup {#sec:setup}
----------------
Our hardware platform is a quad-core Intel Xeon W3530 (Nehalem) [@molka2009memory] based computer. Each core has a private L1 cache (32K-I/32K-D) and a private L2 cache (256 KiB), and all cores share a 8MiB L3 cache. Shared MSHRs (called Global Queue or GQ [@intel2012optimization]) track the status of up to 32 read requests and 16 write requests from all cores. According to [@david2012bandit], a single core can generate up to 10 concurrent read requests at a time, which we also experimentally verified to be true in our test platform. The memory controller (MC) is integrated in the processor and clocked at 1066 MHz. The computer equips a single-channel dual-rank 4 GiB PC10666 DDR3 DIMM module which includes 16 DRAM banks. We disabled all hardware prefetchers, dynamic voltage and frequency scaling, and the turbo-boost feature for better predictability.
We use PALLOC [@yun2014rtas] to partition DRAM banks and the L3 cache. For the purpose of our evaluation, we assign one private DRAM bank and 1/4 (2MiB) private L3 cache partition to each core. Therefore, there are neither cache space evictions nor DRAM bank conflicts caused by memory accesses from contending cores.
For measurement, we use Linux kernel’s $perf$ infrastructure to monitor LLC miss hardware performance counter.
Results with Synthetic Benchmarks {#sec:result_syn}
---------------------------------
\[t\] ![Measured and analytic worst-case response times of *Latency* benchmark under high memory interference.[]{data-label="fig:result_syn"}](result_syn "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
We now investigate the validity of our analysis compared to experimental results obtained using a set of carefully engineered synthetic benchmarks.
In this experiment, our goal is to simulate and measure the worst-case memory interferences on a system in which DRAM banks and the LLC are partitioned. We use *Latency* benchmark [@yun2013rtas] as the task under analysis. The benchmark is a pointer-chasing application over a randomly shuffled linked-list. Due to data dependency, it only can generate one outstanding memory request at a time. Furthermore, because the size of linked list is two times bigger than the size of the LLC, each memory access is likely to result in a cache miss, hence generating a DRAM request. As a result, its execution time highly depends on DRAM performance and any delay in its memory access will directly contribute to its execution time increase. In effect, this benchmark defeats any potential benefits from out-of-order instruction processing and other memory latency hiding techniques (i.e., an equivalent of in-order processing).
We first run the Latency benchmark alone on Core0 to collect its solo execution time and the number of LLC misses. We then co-schedule three memory intensive tasks on the other cores (Core1-3) to generate high memory traffic and measure the response time increase of the Latency benchmark. Note that the number of L3 misses of Latency do not change between solo and co-scheduled execution as the L3 cache space is partitioned. Furthermore, because each core also has a dedicated DRAM bank, the number of DRAM row hit and misses also would not change. Therefore, any response time increase mainly comes from contention in the DRAM controller and its shared command and data bus which we modeled in Section \[sec:analysis\]. We repeat the experiment with three different memory intensive benchmarks: *Bandwidth(read)*, *Bandwidth(write)*, and *Stream*[^2]. All three benchmarks essentially access a big array continuously but differ in their access patterns—Bandwidth(read) only performs consecutive reads; Bandwidth(write) do writes only; Stream performs both reads and writes. Because memory accesses of these benchmarks do not have data dependencies, modern Out-of-Order (OoO) cores can generate as many outstanding requests as possible, hence simulating the worst-case as their requests will occupy most of the read request buffer (and the write request buffer) in the DRAM controller.
Figure \[fig:result\_syn\] shows both measured and analytically calculated response times of the Latency benchmark (normalized to the solo execution time). First, measured response times in the left side of the figure show that Bandwidth(write) causes the highest memory interference. This is because the benchmark generates two memory requests—a DRAM read (a cache-line allocation) and a DRAM write (a write-back)—for each LLC miss, and processing writes can add high delays due to reasons described in Section \[sec:wqdrain\]. Second, note that the state-of-art analysis [@kim2014rtas] significantly under-estimates the memory interference delay—the computed WCET is just 53% of the measured worst-case response time. This is mainly due to the fact that the analysis assumes only one memory request from each competing core while in this experiment competing cores generate many requests at a time occupying the request buffers. On the other hand, our analysis, denoted as *Ours*, provides a safe upper bound for all cases. Note that our analysis that ignores write-queue induced worst-case latency, denoted as *Ours(nowq)*, provides an upper bound when the co-scheduled task performs read only—i.e., Bandwidth(read)—but fails to do so when the co-scheduled task performs many writes—i.e., Stream and Bandwidth(write)—because it does not account additional delay caused by occasional write buffer draining. Lastly, the calculated WCET of our analysis is considerably higher than the measured worst-case response time by about 29%. We believe this is because our analysis assumes that all writes are row-misses (see Eq. \[eq:wqdrain\]) in draining the write-queue, while the actual writes from the benchmark are mostly row-hits. In other words, the analysis over-estimated write-queue draining delay $L_{wq}$.
-------------------------- --------- ------------ -----------
\[0\][\*]{}[Benchmark]{} Average LLC misses Memory
IPC per msec intensity
462.libquantum 0.52 32497
482.sphinx3 0.70 22429
437.leslie3d 0.39 21478 high
450.soplex 0.24 17970
471.omnetpp 0.30 16629
403.gcc 0.89 8465
483.xalancbmk 0.11 7035
465.tonto 1.21 5995
447.dealII 1.41 4941 medium
445.gobmk 1.12 2531
456.hmmer 1.94 2001
454.calculix 2.38 1970
458.sjeng 1.33 1672
435.gromacs 1.12 1334
400.perlbench 0.37 907
464.h264ref 1.92 759
444.namd 1.61 372 low
416.gamess 2.08 40
453.povray 1.35 0
-------------------------- --------- ------------ -----------
: SPEC2006 benchmark characteristics
\[tbl:spec2006\]
-------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------- ------- ------------------- ------
\[0\][\*]{}[Benchmark]{} \[0\][\*]{}[Measured]{}
Kim[@kim2014rtas] Ours Kim[@kim2014rtas] Ours
462.libquantum 3.22 5.19 15.10 61% 369%
482.sphinx3 3.31 3.89 10.73 18% 224%
437.leslie3d 2.45 3.77 10.32 54% 321%
450.soplex 2.45 3.32 8.80 35% 259%
471.omnetpp 3.01 3.15 8.21 4% 173%
403.gcc 2.53 2.09 4.66 -17% 85%
483.xalancbmk 1.68 1.91 4.05 14% 141%
465.tonto 1.78 1.77 3.60 0% 103%
447.dealII 1.59 1.64 3.14 3% 98%
445.gobmk 1.34 1.33 2.10 -1% 57%
456.hmmer 1.32 1.26 1.87 -5% 42%
454.calculix 1.31 1.25 1.85 -4% 42%
458.sjeng 1.35 1.22 1.73 -10% 28%
435.gromacs 1.20 1.17 1.58 -2% 32%
400.perlbench 1.23 1.12 1.39 -9% 14%
464.h264ref 1.18 1.10 1.33 -7% 12%
444.namd 1.08 1.05 1.16 -3% 7%
416.gamess 1.07 1.01 1.02 -6% -5%
453.povray 1.35 1.00 1.00 -26% -26%
-------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------- ------- ------------------- ------
: Normalized response times of SPEC2006 benchmarks with three memory intensive tasks.
\[tbl:result\_spec\]
Results with SPEC2006 Benchmarks {#sec:result_spec}
--------------------------------
In this subsection, we evaluate the response times of SPEC2006 benchmarks. The main characteristics of 19 benchmarks we used are given in Table \[tbl:spec2006\]. We exclude 10 (out of 29) benchmarks whose memory footprints are bigger than a DRAM bank partition size (i.e., 256MB) for the purpose of our evaluation.
The basic experiment setup is the same as the previous subsection except that we now use each of SPEC2006 benchmark as the task under analysis instead of the Latency benchmark. As for interfering tasks, we use Bandwidth(write) benchmark, described in the previous subsection, as it gives worst-case memory interference.
Table \[tbl:result\_spec\] shows the measured and analytic response times. The two rightmost columns show pessimism in the analysis compared to the measured response times. Note first that the baseline analysis [@kim2014rtas] under-estimates worst-case response times of 11 out of 19 benchmarks, although the degree of under-estimation is much less than the engineered synthetic tasks we used in Section \[sec:result\_syn\]. As explained earlier, this is because the analysis does not take multiple outstanding memory requests into account, resulting much less queuing delay in its calculation than reality.
Interestingly, both analyses under-estimate the response times of 453.povray and 416.gamess. This is because both benchmarks generate very little (close to zero) DRAM traffic, as can be see in Table \[tbl:spec2006\], the added interference is not caused by DRAM related interference that both analyses try to estimate. This is interesting as we already partition the L3 cache space among cores. It means that the observed interference delay is caused neither by cache space competition nor DRAM related interference. To further investigate the source of the delay, we varied the number of interfering tasks—i.e., Bandwidth(write)—from 1 to 3, and found that performance suffers only when there are more than two Bandwidth instances. We believe this is because the MSHRs are shared by both L2 and L3 caches in our platform so that cache misses of both caches compete the limited MSHR space. Specifically, there are a total of 32 entries for outstanding reads where each core can use up to 10 entries. When three Bandwidth instances run (on Core1-3), they use up to 30 entries (10 entries/core x 3 cores), it leaves only two entries for the task under analysis (on Core0)—*a 80% reduction* (2 out of 10). Given that both benchmarks (453.povray and 416.gamess) show relatively high L2 miss rates, they likely suffer from the reduction in the available MSHR entries. We currently do not consider this MSHR space contention in the analysis as we have no control over the allocations of MSHRs. We will discuss how we can provide better isolation concerning MSHR competition in Section \[sec:recommendation\].
Other than these two benchmarks, our analysis provides safe upper bounds for the rest of benchmarks we tested, albeit pessimistic. We argue, however, this is expected behavior given the fact that our analysis—as well as [@kim2014rtas]—does not consider latency hiding techniques used in modern OoO cores, which are highly effective in reducing perceived memory access latency to the task [@wang2002memory], and we assume increased memory access latency is addictive to the task execution time. Another major source of pessimism in our analysis comes from the fact that we assume the read request queue in the DRAM controller is always fully occupied by prior requests from the interfering tasks. However, when the task under analysis itself is highly memory intensive and has a high degree of memory level parallelism, such as 462.libquantum, the read request queue likely contains many memory requests from the analyzed task.
Desired Architectural Support for Real-Time Systems {#sec:recommendation}
===================================================
In this section, we discuss two simple and low-cost architectural supports that can greatly reduce worst-case memory interference delay on COTS multicore systems.
Software Controlled MSHR Reservation
------------------------------------
MSHRs are important shared resources that determine the amount of parallelism in the system. As experimentally shown in Section \[sec:result\_spec\], when a highly memory intensive task generate many parallel requests, MSHRs become scarce, thereby significantly lower achievable memory level parallelism of competing tasks. As a result, competing tasks’ performance would suffer. To achieve better performance isolation, it is desirable for each core to reserve a fraction of MSHRs, preferably by software. This can be easily implemented in hardware, as shown in [@ebrahimi2010fairness], and can eliminate unintended memory interference due to contention in MSHRs.
Software Controlled Bank Prioritization
---------------------------------------
The biggest factor in high worst-case memory interference comes from the fact that a large number of previously arrived memory requests are prioritized under FR-FCFS scheduling policy, even if the newly arrived request is from a higher priority task, effectively creating a priority inversion problem [@sha2004real]. Hence, from the real-time perspective, it is highly desirable if software can influence on prioritization logic of the DRAM controller. If, for example, software can prioritize a specific bank over the other banks, memory requests to the prioritized bank can always be processed almost immediately without waiting the all the queued requests are serviced. It will be especially effective for a DRAM bank partitioned system as assumed in our analysis.
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
As memory performance is becoming increasingly important in modern multicore systems, there have been great interests in the real-time research community to minimize and analyze memory related interference delay for designing more predictable real-time systems.
Initially, many researchers model the cost to access the main memory as a constant and view the main memory as a single resource shared by the cores [@yun2012ecrts; @pellizzoni2010worst; @yao2012memory; @schranzhofer2010timing]. However, modern DRAM systems are composed of many sophisticated components and the memory access cost is far from being a constant as it varies significant depending on the states of the variety of components comprising the system.
Many researchers turn to hardware approaches and develop specially designed DRAM controllers that are highly predictable and provide certain performance guarantees [@reineke2011pret; @zheng2013worst; @akesson2007predator; @paolieri2009analyzable; @goossen2013conservative]. The work in [@reineke2011pret] and [@zheng2013worst] both implement hardware based private banking scheme which eliminate interferences caused by sharing the banks. They differ in that the controller in [@reineke2011pret] uses close page policy with TDMA scheduling while the work in [@zheng2013worst] uses open page policy with FCFS arbitration. AMC [@paolieri2009analyzable] and Predator [@akesson2007predator] utilize interleaved bank and close page policy. Both approaches treat multiple memory banks as a single unit of access to simplify resource management. They differ in that AMC uses a round-robin arbiter while Predator uses the credit-controlled static-priority (CCSP) arbitration [@akesson2008rtcsa], which assigns priorities to requestors in order to guarantee minimum bandwidth and bounded latency. While these proposals are valuable, especially for hard real-time systems, they are not available in COTS systems.
To improve performance isolation in COTS systems, several recent papers proposed software based bank partitioning techniques [@yun2014rtas; @liu2012software; @suzuki2013coordinated]. They exploit the virtual memory of modern operating systems to allocate memory on specific DRAM banks without requiring any other special hardware support. Similar techniques has long been applied in partitioning shared caches [@liedtke97ospart; @lin2008gaining; @zhang2009towards; @soares2008reducing; @ding2011srm; @ward2013rtas; @mancuso2013rtas]. These resource partitioning techniques eliminate space contention of the partitioned resources, hence improve performance isolation. However, as shown in [@yun2014rtas; @kim2014rtas], modern COTS systems have many other still shared components that affect memory performance. A recent attempt to analyze these effects [@kim2014rtas], which is reviewed in Section \[sec:motivation\], greatly increased our understanding on the DRAM controller, but its system model is still far from real COTS systems, particularly on its assumption of one outstanding memory request per core. In contrast, our work models a more realistic COTS DRAM controller that handles multiple outstanding memory requests from each core and out-of-order memory request processing (i.e., prioritizing reads over writes). We believe our system model and the analysis capture commonly found architectural features in modern COTS systems, hence better applicable in analyzing memory interference on COTS multicore systems.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We presented a new parallelism-aware worst-case memory interference delay analysis for COTS multicore systems. We model a COTS DRAM controller that has a separate read and a write request buffer. The modeled DRAM controller buffers multiple outstanding memory requests from the LLC and processes them in out-of-order fashion. It prioritizes reads over writes and row-hit over misses. By modeling these architectural features, which are commonly found in COTS multicore systems, our analysis can compute more accurate worst-case memory access delay of COTS multicore systems.
We validated our analysis on a real COTS multicore platform with a set of carefully designed synthetic benchmarks as well as SPEC2006 benchmarks. For synthetic benchmarks, our analysis produces a tight and safe upper bound while the compared recent work [@kim2014rtas] significantly under-estimates the interference delay. For SPEC2006 benchmarks, our analysis is more pessimistic but safer than the compared work. These evaluation results show that our analysis is better applicable for modern COTS multicore systems. As future work, we will examine several architectural supports that can provide better isolation and reduce pessimism in the analysis.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledge .unnumbered}
================
This research is supported in part by NSF CNS 1302563.
[^1]: Each core in our evaluation platform can have up to 10 outstanding memory requests [@david2012bandit]. Hence, $N_{rq} = 10 \times
(N_{proc} - 1) = 30$. As for $N_{wq}$, we use the value of Intel 870 memory controller [@natarajan2004study].
[^2]: We use the code provided by the authors of [@kim2014rtas].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider the problem of a robot learning the mechanical properties of objects through physical interaction with the object, and introduce a practical, data-efficient approach for identifying the motion models of these objects. The proposed method utilizes a physics engine, where the robot seeks to identify the inertial and friction parameters of the object by simulating its motion under different values of the parameters and identifying those that result in a simulation which matches the observed real motions. The problem is solved in a Bayesian optimization framework. The same framework is used for both identifying the model of an object online and searching for a policy that would minimize a given cost function according to the identified model. Experimental results both in simulation and using a real robot indicate that the proposed method outperforms state-of-the-art model-free reinforcement learning approaches.'
author:
- 'Shaojun Zhu$^{1}$, Andrew Kimmel$^{1}$, Abdeslam Boularias$^{1}$[^1]'
title: '**Information-theoretic Model Identification and Policy Search using Physics Engines with Application to Robotic Manipulation** '
---
Introduction
============
Consider the scenario shown in Figure \[fig:ex\], where a robot (Motoman) assists another robot (Baxter) that cannot reach its desired object. Due to the placements of the robots in the scene, the intersection of each robot’s reachable workspace is empty, which restricts the robots from executing a “direct hand-off” maneuver. In this case, the Motoman robot must exploit the dynamic physical properties of the object in order to “slide” it over to the Baxter robot. Ideally, this action would happen without intervention or assistance from an outside operative, such as a human.
Learning the physical properties of an object and predicting its motion under physical interaction is a critical aspect of this challenge. If the robot simply executes a maximum velocity push on the object, the result could cause the object to leave the robot’s workspace (i.e. falling off the table), which is undesirable as it would ruin the autonomous behavior of the system.
This paper proposes a data-efficient approach for motion prediction by utilizing a physics engine and learning the physical parameters through black-box Bayesian optimization. Specifically, the objective of the method is to predict the motion of an object when acted upon by a robotic hand. First, a real robot is used to perform some random pushing action with an object on a tabletop [@agrawal2016learning]. Both the initial and final configurations of the object and the hand are recorded. Instead of learning the object’s motion explicitly, a Bayesian optimization technique is used to identify relevant physical parameters, such as mass and friction, through the physics engine simulation. To predict the motion of the object under a new action, the learned parameters can be used to simulate the action in a physics engine. The results of this simulation can then be used by the robot to predict the effect of its action on the object. To solve the challenge in Figure \[fig:ex\], the same Bayesian optimization technique is used to search the optimal control policy for the robotic hand pushing the object.
![Proposed Experiment: The cylindrical object (bottle) on the table is unknown, and the Baxter robot needs to grasp it but it cannot reach it. The Motoman SDA10F robot on the left can reach the object. The Motoman pushes with the object a few times, identifies its mechanical properties, and attempts to roll it safely into Baxter’s reachable workspace, without dropping it off the table.[]{data-label="fig:ex"}](Figures/moto_push_0.png){width="49.00000%"}
Related work
============
Several physics engines have been used for simulating dynamics of robots as well as the objects they interact with. Examples of popular physics engines frequently used in robotics include [*Bullet*]{} [@Bullet], [*MuJoCo*]{} [@MuJoCo], [*DART*]{} [@DART], [*PhysX*]{} [@PhysX], [*Havok*]{} [@Havok], [*ODE*]{} [@ODE], and [*GraspIt!*]{} [@GraspItSimulator]. A survey and a comparison of these tools are given in [@ErezTT15].
Data-driven system identification is a popular approach that is at the core of learning for control techniques. Examples of these techniques include model-based reinforcement learning for instance [@Sutton:1998:IRL:551283]. We focus here on works related to learning mechanical models of unknown objects. Several cognitive models that combine Bayesian inference with approximate knowledge of Newtonian physics have been proposed recently [@Hamrick2016Cognitive; @Chang2016; @BattagliaNIPS2016]. These methods learn probabilistic models from noisy physical simulations. Nevertheless, these models are built to explain the learning of Newtonian physics in humans, rather than to be used for robotic manipulation, which typically requires a higher precision as well as faster learning and inference times.
Two high-level approaches exist for solving physical interaction problems, which reside at two extremes of a spectrum. Model-based approaches [@Dogar_2012_7076; @LunchMason1996; @Mericli2014; @isbell:physics:2014; @ZhouPBM16] rely on accurate models for objects and their properties. They are used within standard simulation, planning, and actuation control loops. A physics-based simulation was used in [@Dogar_2012_7076] for predicting the effects of pushing actions, but the authors considered only flat, well-separated objects on a smooth surface. A nonparametric approach was used in [@Mericli2014] for learning the outcome of pushing large objects (furniture). A Markov Decision Process (MDP) is used in [@isbell:physics:2014] for modeling interactions between objects, however, only simulation results on pushing were reported in that work. Nevertheless, it is prohibitive to manually define perfect and accurate models that express all types of interactions a robot can experience in the real world. Other Bayesian model-based techniques, such as PILCO [@Deisenroth:2011fu], have been proven efficient in utilizing a small amount of data for learning dynamical models and optimal policies. These techniques learn dynamical equations from scratch, unlike our method which assumes that the motion equations are known and provided by a physics engine, and instead concentrates on identifying only the inertial and friction properties of the objects.
Another alternative, which is becoming increasingly popular, addresses these challenges through end-to-end learning [@agrawal2016learning; @EslamiHWTKH16; @FragkiadakiALM15; @ullman:cogsci2014; @WuYLFT15; @ByravanF16; @finn2016deep; @ZhangWZFT16; @li16arxiv; @LererGF16; @DBLP:journals/corr/PintoGHPG16; @DBLP:journals/corr/0003LF16; @citeulike:14184576]. This involves the demonstration of many successful examples of physical interaction and learning the controls for solving a problem as a function of the sensing input. These approaches, however, usually require many physical experiments to effectively learn. The proposed method aims to be more data-efficient, and can quickly adapt online to minor changes in object dynamics. Furthermore, it is not clear for existing methods how uncertainty, a consequence of learning from a small number of data points, could be handled in a principled way. Note that there is a significant body of work on learning sliding models of objects using [*white-box*]{} optimization [@ZhouPBM16; @LunchMason1996; @DBLP:conf/iros/YuLR15]. It is not clear, at the moment, if these methods would perform better than the proposed approach. A drawback of white-box methods is that they are often used only in simple setups, such as pushing planar objects [@ZhouPBM16].
Proposed Approach
=================
System Overview
---------------
To solve the problem of modeling mechanical properties of objects, this paper proposes an online learning approach to identify mass and sliding models of objects using Bayesian optimization. The goal is to allow the robot to use predefined models of objects, in the form of prior distributions, and to improve the accuracy of these models on the fly by interacting with the objects. This learning process must happen in real time since it takes place simultaneously with the physical interaction.
{width="\textwidth"}
Figure \[systemIDWorkFlow\] shows an overview of the proposed approach. The first step consists of using a pre-trained object detector to detect the different objects present in the scene and estimate their poses by mapping them to a knowledge base of pre-existing 3D mesh models. The proposed method augments the 3D mesh models of each object with the mechanical properties. These properties correspond to the object’s mass, as well as the static and kinetic friction coefficients for each rigid subpart of a given object. Using a different model for each subpart of an object is crucial to modeling articulated objects. In this work, we focus on non-articulated objects. We divide the surface of an object into a regular grid and identify the friction parameters of each part of the grid. These properties are represented as a $d$-dimensional vector $\theta$. A prior distribution $P_0$ on $\theta$ is used instead of a single value of $\theta$, since different instances of the same category usually have different mechanical properties.
The online learning algorithm takes as input a prior distribution $P_t$ on the model parameters $\theta$. $P_t$ is calculated based on an initial distribution $P_0$ and a sequence of observations $(x_0,\mu_0, x_1,\mu_1, \dots, x_{t-1},\mu_{t-1}, x_{t})$, wherein $x_t$ is the 6D pose (position and orientation) of the manipulated object at time $t$ and $\mu_{t}$ is a vector describing a force applied by the robot’s fingertip on the object at time $t$. Applying a force $\mu_t$ results in changing the object’s pose from $x_{t}$ to $x_{t+1}$.
Model Identification
--------------------
Given a prior distribution $P_t$ and a new observation $(x_{t},\mu_{t+1}, x_{t+1})$, a physics engine is used to estimate a posterior distribution $P_{t+1}$ on the model parameters $\theta$. We are currently using the [*Bullet*]{} physics engine [@Bullet]. The posterior distribution $P_{t+1}$ is obtained by simulating the effect of force $\mu_{t+1}$ on the object under various values of parameters $\theta$ and observing the resulting positions $\hat{x}_{t+1}$. The goal is to identify the model parameters that make the outcome $\hat{x}_{t+1}$ of the simulation as close as possible to the actual observed outcome $x_{t+1}$. In other terms, the following black-box optimization problem is solved: $$\begin{aligned}
\theta^* = \arg \min_{\theta} E(\theta) \stackrel{def}{=} \|x_{t+1} - f(x_{t}, \mu_t, \theta) \|_2,\end{aligned}$$ wherein $x_{t}$ and $x_{t+1}$ are the observed poses of the object at times $t$ and $t+1$, $\mu_t$ is the force that moved the object from $x_{t}$ to $x_{t+1}$, and $f(x_{t}, \mu_t, \theta) = \hat{x}_{t+1}$, the simulated pose at time $t+1$ after applying force $\mu_t$ in pose $x_t$.
The model parameters $\theta$ can be limited to a discrete set, i.e. $\theta \in \{\theta^1,\theta^2,\dots, \theta^n\} \stackrel{def}{=} \Theta $. A naive approach of solving this problem consists of systematically simulating all the parameters $\theta^i$ in $\Theta$, simulating the effect of force $\mu_t$ on the object with parameters $\theta^i$, and comparing the predicted pose $f(x_{t}, \mu_t, \theta^i)$ to the actual pose $x_{t+1}$. However, this would be inefficient due to the size of $\Theta$, which is relatively large given that the dimension $d$ of the parameter space is typically high. Furthermore, each individual simulation is also computationally expensive. It is therefore important to minimize the number of simulations while searching for the optimal parameters. Moreover, the optimization problem above is ill-posed, as is the case in all inverse problems. In other terms, there are multiple model parameters that can explain an observed movement of an object. Instead of returning a single answer, the proposed algorithm returns a distribution $P_{t+1}$ on the set of possible parameters $\Theta$.
This paper formulates this challenge in a Bayesian optimization framework, which uses the Entropy Search technique presented in [@HennigSchuler2012]. This work instead presents a more computationally efficient version of the Entropy Search technique, that we call [*Greedy Entropy Search*]{} and describe in the following.
To solve the aforementioned Bayesian optimization problem, the error function $E$ must be learned from a minimum number of simulations, using a sequence of parameters $\theta_1,\theta_t,\dots,\theta_k\in \Theta$. To choose these parameters efficiently, a belief about the actual error function is maintained. This belief is a probability measure $p(E)$ over the space of all functions $E : \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. A Gaussian Process (GP) is used to represent the belief $p$, which is sequentially updated using the errors $E(\theta_i)$ computed from simulation using model parameters $\theta_i$. Readers can find more details in textbooks on how Gaussian processes are updated from data and how to get the GP belief $p$ on unknown function $E$ from data points $E(\theta_i)$ [@RasmussenGPM]. The belief $p$ is initialized at each time instance $t$ using prior $P_t$, which represents the model distribution from the previous time-step.
After simulating the object’s motion with different model parameters $\theta_1,\theta_t,\dots,\theta_k$, $p$ is updated using the computed simulation errors. $p$ implicitly defines another distribution $P_{min}$ on the identity of the best model parameter $\theta^*$, which can be used to select the next simulation parameter $\theta_{k+1}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
P_{min}(\theta) &\stackrel {def}{=} P\big(\theta = \arg\min_{\theta^i \in \Theta} E(\theta^i)\big) \\
&= \int_{E: \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}} p(E) \Pi_{\theta^i \in \Theta-\{\theta\} } H \big(E(\theta^i) - E(\theta)\big) \mathrm{d}E,
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ where $H$ is the Heaviside step function, i.e. $H \big(E(\theta^i) - E(\theta)\big) = 1$ if $E(\theta^i) \geq E(\theta)$ and $H \big(E(\theta^i) - E(\theta)\big) = 0$ otherwise.
Unlike $p(E)$, the distribution of the simulation error $E$ modeled as a Gaussian Process, the distribution $P_{min}$ does not have a closed-form expression. Therefore, [*Monte Carlo*]{} is used for estimating $P_{min}$ from samples of $E(\theta^i)$ for each $\theta^i\in \Theta$. Specifically, this process samples vectors containing the values that $E$ takes, according to the learned Gaussian process, in each model parameter in $\Theta$. $P_{min}(\theta^i)$ is estimated by counting the fraction of sampled vectors of the values of $E$ where $\theta^i$ happens to have the lowest value.
The model parameter $\theta$ is chosen such that it has the highest contribution to the current entropy of $P_{min}$, i.e. with the highest term $-P_{min}(\theta) \log \big(P_{min}(\theta)\big)$, as the next model parameter to evaluate in simulation. This method is referred to as the [*Greedy Entropy Search*]{} method because it aims to decrease the entropy of the belief $P_{min}$. This process is repeated until the entropy of $P_{min}$ does not change much or until the simulation’s time budget is consumed. After that, $P_{min}$ is used as the new belief $P_{t+1}$ on the model parameters. This new belief can then be utilized for planning an action $\mu_{t+1}$ which will move the object to a new pose $x_{t+1}$, after which the same process is repeated all over again.
Policy Optimization
-------------------
Given a distribution $P_t$ on the model (e.g, friction parameters and mass), and cost function $J:\tau \rightarrow \mathbb R$, where $\tau = (x_0,\mu_0, x_1,\mu_1, \dots, x_{H-1},\mu_{H-1}, x_{H})$ is a trajectory of predicted object poses and applied forces, the robot needs to find a feedback control policy $\pi_{\eta}$ that returns an action $\mu_t$ in pose $x_t$ of the object. Policy $\pi_{\eta}$ is limited to a family of predefined policies (e.g, pushing directions) and parametrized by $\eta$ (e.g., end-effector velocity along a given pushing direction). Since the physics engine that we are using is deterministic, the transition model used by the physics engine is defined to be a function $f$ that takes as input an initial pose $x_0$ and a policy $\pi_{\eta}$, a model parameter $\theta$ and returns a trajectory $\tau = f(x_0, \pi_{\eta}, \theta)$. We then search for a policy parameter $\eta^*$ defined as $\eta^*=\arg\min_{\eta} J(f(x_0, \pi_{\eta},\theta))$.
To solve this problem in real-time, only the most likely object model $\theta^* = \arg\max_{\theta\in \Theta} P_t(\theta)$ is used for finding the optimal policy parameter $\theta^*$. The policy parameter $\eta$ can be limited to a discrete set, i.e. $\eta \in \{\eta^1,\eta^2,\dots, \eta^n\} \stackrel{def}{=} \Pi$. A naive approach of solving this problem consists of iterating over all the parameters $\eta^i$ in $\Pi$, simulating a trajectory $\tau_i = f(x_0, \pi_{\eta_i}, \theta^*)$ of the object using policy $\pi_{\eta_i}$, and selecting the policy parameter $\eta_i$ with the minimum cost $J(\tau_i)$. However, this would be computationally inefficient.
We therefore use the same [*Greedy Entropy Search*]{} method, presented in the previous section, for searching for the best policy parameter $\eta^*$ in real-time. This is achieved by noticing the analogy between model parameters $\theta$ and policy parameters $\eta$, and between the simulation error $E(\theta)$ and the cost function $J(f(x_0, \pi_{\eta}, \theta^*))$. Hence, the same technique can be used for finding $\eta^*=\arg\min_{\eta} J(f(x_0, \pi_{\eta},\theta))$ where $\theta$ is known and $\eta$ is a variable.
Experiments
===========
In all experiments, we used [*Blender*]{}[@Blender] which utilizes the [*Bullet*]{} [@Bullet] physics engine. PHYSIM\_6DPose[@PHYSIM] was used to track the object and provide the initial and final poses of the object, through a RealSense depth camera mounted on the torso of the [*Motoman*]{} robot. Videos of the experiments can be found here: <https://goo.gl/8Pi2Gu>.
Learning Physical Properties for Motion Prediction {#motion prediction}
--------------------------------------------------
![Data collection: the robot executes a series of random pushes, and records the location of the object before and after being pushed.[]{data-label="fig:moto_push_1"}](Figures/moto_push_phase1.png){width="45.00000%"}
### Data Collection and Evaluation Metrics {#data}
In this preliminary experiment, a [*Reflex SF*]{} robotic hand mounted on the right arm of a [*Motoman SDA10F*]{} manipulator was used to randomly push a simple rigid object on a tabletop, as shown in Figure \[fig:moto\_push\_1\]. We learn the object model parameters $\theta$ (mass and the friction coefficient) of an [*Expo*]{} eraser. During data collection, no human effort is needed to reset the scene since both the speed and pushing direction were controlled such that the object was always in the workspace of the robotic hand. Using the collected pushing data, the physical properties of the object were learned so as to predict the motion of the object under new actions. Fifteen random pushing actions were performed. Six actions were discarded due to inaccurate tracking caused by occlusions. Out of the remaining nine actions, six were used for training and the other three for testing. To measure the accuracy of the learned model, the error between the predicted location of the object and the observed end location was computed.
Additionally, a large scale planar push dataset[@yu2016more] was also used to validate the proposed method. The dataset contained recorded poses of a planar object before and after being pushed by an ABB IRB 120 robot arm. The poses are recorded using the Vicon tracking system and are therefore more accurate.
### Results
[0.25]{} ![Comparison between Greedy Entropy Search method with random search. Greedy Entropy Search achieved lower error in both (a) the data collected with [*Motoman*]{} and (b) the planar push dataset[@yu2016more].[]{data-label="BO_GS"}](Figures/bo_rs_training_expo-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.25]{} ![Comparison between Greedy Entropy Search method with random search. Greedy Entropy Search achieved lower error in both (a) the data collected with [*Motoman*]{} and (b) the planar push dataset[@yu2016more].[]{data-label="BO_GS"}](Figures/MIT_RS_BO_iros-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
We compared the results of the proposed Greedy Entropy Search method against Random Search in Figure \[BO\_GS\]. Random Search was performed by randomly sampling $\theta$ in the same parameter space as the Greedy Entropy Search. Both methods were run ten times, with the resulting mean and standard deviation of the training error reported. The results show that Greedy Entropy Search achieved lower error when predicting the results of new actions.
[0.25]{} {width="\textwidth"}
[0.25]{} {width="\textwidth"}
The prediction error is also reported as a function of the number of training samples. Figure \[no\_of\_sample\] shows a comparison between the prediction errors of models trained with one sample, three samples and all six samples in. The results indicate that with more training samples, the average error decreases.
The proposed method was also tested using a large scale pushing dataset[@yu2016more]. Specifically, we report the result using the [*rect1*]{} shape on the [*abs*]{} surface. 200 samples were randomly selected and the result of 10-fold cross validation is shown in Figure\[MIT\]. The proposed Greedy Entropy Search also achieved lower error than the Random Search baseline.
Policy Optimization using the Motion Prediction Model {#action_selection}
-----------------------------------------------------
![Once the robot has learned the physical properties of the object, it can find the optimal policy to push the object to a specific goal region.[]{data-label="fig:moto_push_2"}](Figures/moto_push_phase2.png){width="45.00000%"}
### Setup
In this experiment, the task is to push the object to a fixed goal position from a start region. The setup is similar to \[motion prediction\], a *Motoman* manipulator pushing an *Expo* eraser using a [*Reflex hand*]{}. For each trial, we push the object twice towards the goal, as shown in Figure \[fig:moto\_push\_2\]. In this experiment, the policy parameter $\eta$ is the push direction. 25 random actions are sampled and the action that can push the object closest to the goal position is selected to be executed.
### Results
We compare the pushing results using motion prediction model with two sets of parameters: one is learned using Greedy Entropy Search, the other is found using Random Search. Figure \[action\] shows that the model using Greedy Entropy Search enabled the robot to push the object to the 1cm vicinity of the goal position 7 out of 10 trials, while the one using Random Search only did it 4 times.
![Comparison between Greedy Entropy Search method with Random Search for policy optimization. Greedy Entropy Search method achieves higher accuracy in pushing the object to the goal position.[]{data-label="action"}](Figures/action-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
High Speed Push Policy Optimization using Model Trained with Low Speed Push {#exp:high_spped}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So far, the actions were limited to low speed pushes so that the object was always in the reachable workspace of the robot. In order to solve the challenge presented in Figure \[fig:ex\], however, higher speed push actions are needed. The friction between the object and the contact surface varies when the object moves at different speeds. We can collect data using higher speed push in a similar way to \[data\]. However, this also means much more human resets will be needed, since the robot would push the object away from its workspace, sometimes even off the table. In this experiment, we avoid the human resets and aim to optimize high speed pushing policy using model trained with only low speed pushing data.
### Setup
![The task in \[exp:high\_spped\] to push the object to the other side of the table.[]{data-label="fig:moto_push_3"}](Figures/moto_push_phase3.png){width="45.00000%"}
{width="\textwidth"}
In this experiment, the task is to push the bottle from one side to the other side of the table, which is about one meter away, as shown in Figure \[fig:moto\_push\_3\]. We aim to find the optimal policy with parameter $\eta$ representing the pushing speed of the robotic hand. We collected random low speed pushing data in a similar way to \[data\], using a [*glucose bottle*]{}, without human reset.
After being pushed, the object sometimes is no longer within the view of the RealSense camera on the torso of [*Motoman*]{}. Instead, the in-hand camera on [*Baxter*]{} robot was used to localize the final location of the object after it’s being pushed. After learning the object model with parameters $\theta$ (mass and the friction coefficient), using the Greedy Entropy Search approach, optimal policy that can push the object closest to the goal position is selected. We compare our approach with a model-free reinforcement learning method: Policy learning by Weighting Exploration with the Returns (PoWER)[@kober2009policy]. PoWER iteratively optimizes a stochastic policy as an Expectation-Maximization(EM) problem, directly using real roll-outs results.
### Results
We report results from both simulation and real roll-outs. We evaluate:
- The error between the final object location after being push and the desired goal location.
- The number of times object falling off the table.
Figure \[fig:Simulation\] and \[fig:Rollouts\] show the result in simulation and with a real [*Motoman*]{} robot. In simulation, we randomly set ground-truth(GT) mass and friction parameters and perform roll-outs using the GT parameters. Both in simulation and with the real [*Motoman*]{} robot, the proposed method achieves both lower error and fewer object drops. We argue this is important in robot learning as we would like to minimize human efforts during the learning process in order to achieve autonomous robot learning. Notice that PoWER achieved smaller variance in real rollouts comparing to simulation. The probable reason for that is that because of sensing and actuation error in real roll-outs, PoWER tended to be over conservative in terms of pushing speed because of the object drops it made.
[0.25]{} ![High speed push policy optimization result in simulation. Proposed Greedy Entropy Search achieves faster convergence and fewer object drops comparing with model-free reinforcement learning method PoWER.[]{data-label="fig:Simulation"}](Figures/sim-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.25]{} ![High speed push policy optimization result in simulation. Proposed Greedy Entropy Search achieves faster convergence and fewer object drops comparing with model-free reinforcement learning method PoWER.[]{data-label="fig:Simulation"}](Figures/sim_num_falls-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.25]{} ![High speed push policy optimization result using a real [*Motoman*]{} robot.[]{data-label="fig:Rollouts"}](Figures/rollouts-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.25]{} ![High speed push policy optimization result using a real [*Motoman*]{} robot.[]{data-label="fig:Rollouts"}](Figures/real_num_falls-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
Conclusion and Future Work
==========================
In this paper, we presented a data-efficient online learning method for identifying mechanical properties of objects. The method leverages a physics engine through simulation and finds the optimal parameters that match the real roll-outs in a Bayesian optimization framework. The same framework is also used for policy optimization. Experimental results, both in simulation and using a real robot, show that the method outperforms model-free reinforcement learning methods.
An important aspect of robot learning is how many real world roll-out data are enough to achieve a certain success rate. We are currently working on evaluating the model confidence by computing the expected success rate using the uncertainty of the model. In the future, finding efficient methods for handling model parameters of non-homogeneous objects is an interesting future direction that can help scaling to more complex environment. Furthermore, while this work only considered random exploratory actions, a more intelligent way of action sampling could help better exploring the action space. Additionally, it would be interesting to investigate combining the pre-trained deep models with online learning to achieve both high capability of generalization and data efficiency.
[^1]: $^{1}$Shaojun Zhu, Andrew Kimmel, and Abdeslam Boularias are with the Department of Computer Science, Rutgers University, New Jersey, USA
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In this paper, we address the problem of enhancing the speech of a speaker of interest in a cocktail party scenario when visual information of the speaker of interest is available.
Contrary to most previous studies, we do not learn visual features on the typically small audio-visual datasets, but use an already available face landmark detector (trained on a separate image dataset).
The landmarks are used by LSTM-based models to generate time-frequency masks which are applied to the acoustic mixed-speech spectrogram. Results show that: *(i)* landmark motion features are very effective features for this task, *(ii)* similarly to previous work, reconstruction of the target speaker’s spectrogram mediated by masking is significantly more accurate than direct spectrogram reconstruction, and *(iii)* the best masks depend on both motion landmark features and the input mixed-speech spectrogram.
To the best of our knowledge, our proposed models are the first models trained and evaluated on the limited size GRID and TCD-TIMIT datasets, that achieve speaker-independent speech enhancement in a multi-talker setting.
address: |
$^{\star}$Department of Engineering “Enzo Ferrari”, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy\
$^{\dagger}$Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Ferrara, Italy
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Face Landmark-based Speaker-Independent Audio-Visual Speech Enhancement in Multi-Talker Environments'
---
audio-visual speech enhancement, cocktail party problem, time-frequency mask, LSTM, face landmarks
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
In the context of speech perception, the *cocktail party effect* [@cocktail_party; @mcdermott] is the ability of the brain to recognize speech in complex and adverse listening conditions where the attended speech is mixed with competing sounds/speech.
Speech perception studies have shown that watching speaker’s face movements could dramatically improve our ability at recognizing the speech of a target speaker in a multi-talker environment [@ZionGolumbic1417; @Ma_Wei].
This work aims at extracting the speech of a target speaker from single channel audio of several people talking simultaneously. This is an ill-posed problem in that many different hypotheses about what the target speaker says are consistent with the mixture signal. Yet, it can be solved by exploiting some additional information associated to the speaker of interest and/or by leveraging some prior knowledge about speech signal properties (e.g., [@bregman]). In this work we use face movements of the target speaker as additional information.
This paper *(i)* proposes the use of face landmark’s movements, extracted using Dlib [@Kazemi_2014_CVPR; @dlib09] and *(ii)* compares different ways of mapping such visual features into time-frequency (T-F) masks, then applied to clean the acoustic mixed-speech spectrogram.
By using Dlib extracted landmarks we relieve our models from the task of learning useful visual features from raw pixels. That aspect is particularly relevant when the training audio-visual datasets are small.
The analysis of landmark-dependent masking strategies is motivated by the fact that speech enhancement mediated by an explicit masking is often more effective than mask-free enhancement [@yuxuan_wang_training_2014].
All our models were trained and evaluated on the GRID [@cooke_audio-visual_2006] and TCD-TIMIT [@harte_tcd-timit:_2015] datasets in a speaker-independent setting.
Related work
------------
Speech enhancement aims at extracting the voice of a target speaker, while speech separation refers to the problem of separating each sound source in a mixture. Recently proposed audio-only single-channel methods have achieved very promising results [@DANet17; @Isik2016SingleChannelMS; @Kolbaek17]. However the task still remains challenging. Additionally, audio-only systems need separate models in order to associate the estimated separated audio sources to each speaker, while vision easily allow that in a unified model.
Regarding audio-visual speech enhancement and separation methods an extensive review is provided in [@rivet:hal-00990000]. Here we focus on the deep-learning methods that are most related to the present work.
Our first architecture (Section \[ssec:vidland2mask\]) is inspired by [@gabbay_seeing_2017], where a pre-trained convolutional neural network (CNN) is used to generate a clean spectrogram from silent video [@ephrat2017improved]. Rather than directly computing a time-frequency (T-F) mask, the mask is computed by thresholding the estimated clean spectrogram. This approach is not very effective since the pre-trained CNN is designed for a different task (video-to-speech synthesis). In [@gabbay2018visual] a CNN is trained to directly estimate clean speech from noisy audio and input video. A similar model is used in [@hou_audio-visual_2018], where the model jointly generates clean speech and input video in a denoising-autoender architecture.
[@hou_audio-visual_2016] shows that using information about lip positions can help to improve speech enhancement. The video feature vector is obtained computing pair-wise distances between any mouth landmarks. Similarly to our approach their visual features are not learned on the audio-visual dataset but are provided by a system trained on different dataset. Contrary to our approach, [@hou_audio-visual_2016] uses position-based features while we use motion features (of the whole face) that in our experiments turned out to be much more effective than positional features.
Although the aforementioned audio-visual methods work well, they have only been evaluated in a speaker-dependent setting. Only the availability of new large and heterogeneous audio-visual datasets has allowed the training of deep neural network-based speaker-independent speech enhancement models [@ephrat_looking_2018; @afouras_conversation:_2018; @owens2018audio].
The present work shows that huge audio-visual datasets are not a necessary requirement for speaker-independent audio-visual speech enhancement. Although we have only considered datasets with simple visual scenarios (i.e., the target speaker is always facing the camera), we expect our methods to perform well in more complex scenarios thanks to the robust landmark extraction.
MODEL ARCHITECTURES {#sec:model}
===================
We experimented with the four models shown in Fig. \[fig:model\]. All models receive in input the target speaker’s landmark motion vectors and the power-law compressed spectrogram of the single-channel mixed-speech signal. All of them perform some kind of masking operation.
VL2M model {#ssec:vidland2mask}
----------
At each time frame, the video-landmark to mask (VL2M) model (Fig. \[fig:model\]a) estimates a T-F mask from visual features only (of the target speaker). Formally, given a video sequence $\textbf{v} = [\textbf{v}_1, \dots ,\textbf{v}_T], \, \textbf{v}_t \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and a target mask sequence $\textbf{m} = [\textbf{m}_1, \dots ,\textbf{m}_T], \, \textbf{m}_t \in \mathbb{R}^d$, VL2M perform a function $\mathcal{F}_{vl2m}(\textbf{v}) = \mathbf{\hat{m}}$, where $\mathbf{\hat{m}}$ is the estimated mask.
The training objective for VL2M is a Target Binary Mask (TBM) [@Anzalone2006; @Kjems2009], computed using the spectrogram of the target speaker only. This is motivated by our goal of extracting the speech of a target speaker as much as possible independently of the concurrent speakers, so that, e.g., we do not need to estimate their number. An additional motivations is that the model takes as only input the visual features of the target speaker, and a target TBM that only depends on the target speaker allows VL2M to learn a function (rather than approximating an ill-posed one-to-many mapping). Given a clean speech spectrogram of a speaker $\mathbf{s}=[\mathbf{s}_1, \dots, \mathbf{s}_T], \, \mathbf{s}_t \in \mathbb{R}^d$, the TBM is defined by comparing, at each frequency bin $f \in [1, \dots, d]$, the target speaker value $\textbf{s}_t[f]$ vs. a reference threshold $\tau[f]$. As in [@gabbay_seeing_2017], we use a function of long-term average speech spectrum (LTASS) as reference threshold. This threshold indicates if a T-F unit is generated by the speaker or refers to silence or noise. The process to compute the speaker’s TBM is as follows:
1. The mean $\pi[f]$ and the standard deviation $\sigma[f]$ are computed for all frequency bins of all seen spectrograms in speaker’s data.
2. The threshold $\tau[f]$ is defined as $\tau[f] = \pi[f] + 0.6 \cdot \sigma[f]$ where $0.6$ is a value selected by manual inspection of several spectrogram-TBM pairs.
3. The threshold is applied to every speaker’s speech spectrogram $\mathbf{s}$. $$\mathbf{m}_t[f] = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, & \text{if $\mathbf{s}_t[f] \geq \tau[f]$,} \\
0, & \text{otherwise.} \\
\end{array}
\right.$$
The mapping $\mathcal{F}_{vl2m}(\cdot)$ is carried out by a stacked bi-directional Long Short-Term Memory (BLSTM) network [@graves13]. The BLSTM outputs are then forced to lay within the $[0,1]$ range. Finally the computed TBM $\mathbf{\hat{m}}$ and the noisy spectrogram $\mathbf{y}$ are element-wise multiplied to obtain the estimated clean spectrogram $\mathbf{\hat{s}^m} = \mathbf{\hat{m}} \circ \mathbf{y}$, where $\textbf{y}=[\textbf{y}_1, \dots \textbf{y}_T], \, \textbf{y}_t \in \mathbb{R}^d$.
The model parameters are estimated to minimize the loss: $$\scalebox{0.78}[1]{$J_{vl2m} = \sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{f=1}^d -\mathbf{m}_t[f] \cdot \log(\mathbf{\hat{m}}_t[f]) - (1-\mathbf{m}_t[f]) \cdot \log(1-\mathbf{\hat{m}}_t[f])$} \nonumber$$
VL2M\_ref model {#ssec:full_model}
---------------
VL2M generates T-F masks that are independent of the acoustic context. We may want to refine the masking by including such context. This is what the novel VL2M\_ref does (Fig. \[fig:model\]b). The computed TBM $\mathbf{\hat{m}}$ and the input spectrogram $\mathbf{y}$ are the input to a function that outputs an Ideal Amplitude Mask (IAM) $\mathbf{p}$ (known as FFT-MASK in [@yuxuan_wang_training_2014]). Given the target clean spectrogram $\mathbf{s}$ and the noisy spectrogram $\mathbf{y}$, the IAM is defined as: $$\mathbf{p}_t[f] = \frac{\mathbf{s}_t[f]}{\mathbf{y}_t[f]}$$ Note that although IAM generation requires the mixed-speech spectrogram, separate spectrograms for each concurrent speakers are not required.
The target speaker’s spectrogram $\mathbf{s}$ is reconstructed by multiplying the input spectrogram with the estimated IAM. Values greater than $10$ in the IAM are clipped to $10$ in order to obtain better numerical stability as suggested in [@yuxuan_wang_training_2014].
The model performs a function $\mathcal{F}_{mr}(\textbf{v},\textbf{y}) = \mathbf{\hat{p}}$ that consists of a VL2M component plus three different BLSTMs $\mathcal{G}_m$, $\mathcal{G}_y$ and $\mathcal{H}$.
$\mathcal{G}_m(\mathcal{F}_{vl2m}(\textbf{v})) = \textbf{r}_m$ receives the VL2M mask ${\mathbf{\hat{m}}}$ as input, and $\mathcal{G}_y(\textbf{y}) = \textbf{r}_y$ is fed with the noisy spectrogram. Their output $\textbf{r}_m, \textbf{r}_y \in \mathbb{R}^z$ are fused in a joint audio-visual representation $\mathbf{h}=[\textbf{h}_1, \dots , \textbf{h}_T]$, where $\textbf{h}_t$ is a linear combination of $\textbf{r}_{m_t}$ and $\textbf{r}_{y_t}$: $\mathbf{h}_t = \textbf{W}_{hm} \cdot \textbf{r}_{m_t} + \textbf{W}_{hy} \cdot \textbf{r}_{y_t} + \textbf{b}_h$. $\mathbf{h}$ is the input of the third BLSTM $\mathcal{H}(\mathbf{h})=\mathbf{\hat{p}}$, where $\mathbf{\hat{p}}$ lays in the \[0,10\] range. The loss function is: $$J_{mr} = \sum_{t=1}^T \sum_{f=1}^d (\mathbf{\hat{p}}_t[f] \cdot \mathbf{y}_t[f] - \mathbf{s}_t[f])^2$$
Audio-Visual concat model {#ssub:concat_model}
-------------------------
The third model (Fig. \[fig:model\]c) performs early fusion of audio-visual features. This model consists of a single stacked BLSTM that computes the IAM mask $\mathbf{\hat{p}}$ from the concatenated $[\mathbf{v},\mathbf{y}]$. The training loss is the same $J_{mr}$ used to train VL2M\_ref. This model can be regarded as a simplification of VL2M\_ref, where the VL2M operation is not performed.
Audio-Visual concat-ref model {#ssub:concat_ref_model}
-----------------------------
The fourth model (Fig. \[fig:model\]d) is an improved version of the model described in section \[ssub:concat\_model\]. The only difference is the input of the stacked BLSTM that is replaced by $[\mathbf{\hat{s}^m},\mathbf{y}]$ where $\mathbf{\hat{s}^m}$ is the denoised spectrogram returned by VL2M operation.
Experimental setup
==================
Dataset
-------
All experiments were carried out using the GRID [@cooke_audio-visual_2006] and TCD-TIMIT [@harte_tcd-timit:_2015] audio-visual datasets. For each of them, we created a mixed-speech version.
Regarding the GRID corpus, for each of the $33$ speakers (one had to be discarded) we first randomly selected $200$ utterances (out of $1000$). Then, for each utterance, we created $3$ different audio-mixed samples. Each audio-mixed sample was created by mixing the chosen utterance with one utterance from a different speaker.
That resulted in $600$ audio-mixed samples per speaker.
The resulting dataset was split into disjoint sets of $25$/$4$/$4$ speakers for training/validation/testing respectively.
The TCD-TIMIT corpus consists of $59$ speakers (we excluded $3$ professionally-trained lipspeakers) and $98$ utterances per speaker. The mixed-speech version was created following the same procedure as for GRID, with one difference. Contrary to GRID, TCD-TIMIT utterances have different duration. Thus $2$ utterances were mixed only if their duration difference did not exceed $2$ seconds. For each utterance pair, we forced the non-target speaker’s utterance to match the duration of the target speaker utterance. If it was longer, the utterance was cut at its end, whereas if it was shorter, silence samples were equally added at its start and end.
The resulting dataset was split into disjoint sets of $51$/$4$/$4$ speakers for training/validation/testing respectively.
LSTM training
-------------
In all experiments, the models were trained using the Adam optimizer [@adam]. Early stopping was applied when the error on the validation set did not decrease over $5$ consecutive epochs.
VL2M, AV concat and AV concat-ref had $5$, $3$ and $3$ stacked BLSTM layers respectively. All BLSTMs had $250$ units. Hyper-parameters selection was performed by using random search with a limited number of samples, therefore all the reported results may improve through a deeper hyper-parameters validation phase.
VL2M\_ref and AV concat-ref training was performed in $2$ steps. We first pre-trained the models using the oracle TBM $\mathbf{m}$. Then we substituted the oracle masks with the VL2M component and retrained the models while freezing the parameters of the VL2M component.
Audio pre- and post-processing
------------------------------
The original waveforms were resampled to 16 kHz. Short-Time Fourier Transform (STFT) $\mathbf{x}$ was computed using FFT size of 512, Hann window of length 25 ms (400 samples), and hop length of 10 ms (160 samples). The input spectrogram was obtained taking the STFT magnitude and performing power-law compression $\mathbf{\lvert x \rvert}^p$ with $p=0.3$. Finally we applied per-speaker 0-mean 1-std normalization.
In the post-processing stage, the enhanced waveform generated by the speech enhancement models was reconstructed by applying the inverse STFT to the estimated clean spectrogram and using the phase of the noisy input signal.
Video pre-processing
--------------------
Face landmarks were extracted from video using the Dlib [@dlib09] implementation of the face landmark estimator described in [@Kazemi_2014_CVPR]. It returns 68 x-y points, for an overall 136 values. We upsampled from 25/29.97 fps (GRID/TCD-TIMIT) to $100$ fps to match the frame rate of the audio spectrogram. Upsampling was carried out through linear interpolation over time.
The final video feature vector $\mathbf{v}$ was obtained by computing the per-speaker normalized motion vector of the face landmarks by simply subtracting every frame with the previous one. The motion vector of the first frame was set to zero.
[lSSS]{} & [SDR]{} & [PESQ]{} & [ViSQOL]{}\
Noisy & -1.06 & 1.81 & 2.11\
VL2M & 3.17 & 1.51 & 1.16\
VL2M\_ref & $\; \; \mathbf{6.50}$ & $\; \; \mathbf{2.58}$ & $\; \; \mathbf{2.99}$\
AV concat & 6.31 & 2.49 & 2.83\
AV c-ref & 6.17 & $\; \; \mathbf{2.58}$ & 2.96\
[lS @ S @S|S @ S @ S]{} & &\
& [SDR]{} & [PESQ]{} & [ViSQOL]{} & [SDR]{} & [PESQ]{} & [ViSQOL]{}\
Noisy & 0.21 & 1.94 & 2.58 & -5.34 & 1.43 & 1.62\
VL2M & 3.02 & 1.81 & 1.70 & -2.03 & 1.43 & 1.25\
VL2M\_ref & 6.52 & 2.53 & 3.02 & 2.83 & 2.19 & 2.53\
AV concat & 7.37 & 2.65 & 3.03 & 3.02 & 2.24 & 2.49\
AV c-ref & $ \; \; \mathbf{8.05}$ & $ \; \; \mathbf{2.70}$ & $ \; \; \mathbf{3.07}$ & $ \; \; \mathbf{4.02}$ & $ \; \; \mathbf{2.33}$ & $ \; \; \mathbf{2.64}$\
[lS @ S @S|S @ S @ S]{} & &\
& [SDR]{} & [PESQ]{} & [ViSQOL]{} & [SDR]{} & [PESQ]{} & [ViSQOL]{}\
Noisy & 0.21 & 2.22 & 2.74 & -3.42 & 1.92 & 2.04\
VL2M & 2.88 & 2.25 & 2.62 & -0.51 & 1.99 & 1.98\
VL2M\_ref & 9.24 & 2.81 & 3.09 & 5.27 & 2.44 & 2.54\
AV concat & 9.56 & 2.80 & 3.09 & 5.15 & 2.41 & 2.52\
AV c-ref & $ \; \; \mathbf{10.55}$ & $ \; \; \mathbf{3.03}$ & $ \; \; \mathbf{3.21}$ & $ \; \; \mathbf{5.37}$ & $ \; \; \mathbf{2.45}$ & $ \; \; \mathbf{2.58}$\
Results
=======
In order to compare our models to previous works in both speech enhancement and separation, we evaluated the performance of the proposed models using both speech separation and enhancement metrics. Specifically, we measured the capability of separating the target utterance from the concurrent utterance with the source-to-distortion ratio (SDR) [@vincent_performance_2006; @raffel2014mir_eval]. While the quality of estimated target speech was measured with the perceptual PESQ [@rix_perceptual_2001] and ViSQOL [@hines_visqol:_2012] metrics. For PESQ we used the narrow band mode while for ViSQOL we used the wide band mode.
As a very first experiment we compared landmark position vs. landmark motion vectors. It turned out that landmark positions performed poorly, thus all results reported here refer to landmark motion vectors only.
We then carried out some speaker-dependent experiments to compare our models with previous studies as, to the best of our knowledge, there are no reported results of speaker-independent systems trained and tested on GRID and TCD-TIMIT to compare with. Table \[tab:grid\_spk\_dep\] reports the test-set evaluation of speaker-dependent models on the GRID corpus with landmark motion vectors. Results are comparable with previous state-of-the-art studies in an almost identical setting [@gabbay_seeing_2017; @gabbay2018visual].
Table \[tab:grid\] and \[tab:tcdtimit\] show speaker-independent test-set results on the GRID and TCD-TIMIT datasets respectively. V2ML performs significantly worse than the other three models indicating that a successful mask generation has to depend on the acoustic context. The performance of the three models in the speaker-independent setting is comparable to that in the speaker-dependent setting.
AV concat-ref outperforms V2ML\_ref and AV concat for both datasets. This supports the utility of a refinement strategy and suggests that the refinement is more effective when it directly refines the estimated clean spectrogram, rather than refining the estimated mask.
Finally, we evaluated the systems in a more challenging testing condition where the target utterance was mixed with $2$ utterances from $2$ competing speakers. Despite the model was trained with mixtures of two speakers, the decrease of performance was not dramatic.
Code and some testing examples of our models are available at <https://goo.gl/3h1NgE>.
Conclusion
==========
This paper proposes the use of face landmark motion vectors for audio-visual speech enhancement in a single-channel multi-talker scenario. Different models are tested where landmark motion vectors are used to generate time-frequency (T-F) masks that extract the target speaker’s spectrogram from the acoustic mixed-speech spectrogram.
To the best of our knowledge, some of the proposed models are the first models trained and evaluated on the limited size GRID and TCD-TIMIT datasets that accomplish speaker-independent speech enhancement in the multi-talker setting, with a quality of enhancement comparable to that achieved in a speaker-dependent setting.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'I. N. Agafonov, M. V. Chekhova, T. Sh. Iskhakov, A. N. Penin'
title: 'High-Visibility Multi-Photon Interference of Classical Light'
---
It is known that the nonclassical phenomena of two-photon interference [@Mandel1] and two- photon ghost diffraction and imaging [@Shih+Strekalov], [@Shih+Pittman] have classical counterparts. Two-photon interference of classical light has been first discovered in the pioneering experiments by Hanbury Brown and Twiss [@HBT] and since then was observed with various sources, including pseudothermal ones [@Haner], true thermal ones [@Wu], and coherent ones [@Mandel2]. Somewhat later, ghost imaging with classical light has been demonstrated, both in the near-field and far-field domains [@Lugiato], [@Boyd], [@Shih]. The only disadvantage of classical light with respect to two-photon interference and two-photon ghost imaging, compared to two-photon entangled sources, is the limited visibility, which is always below $50$% [@Mandel3], [@aspekty]. On the other hand, in interference and imaging experiments with classical sources the visibility is independent of the intensity, which can therefore be arbitrarily high. Entangled sources, in contrast, should be sufficiently weak to provide high-visibility interference: while the visibility is close to 100% for faint two-photon light, it drops with the increase in the mean number of photons per mode [@NL], [@Lugiato].
In this paper we show that classical sources can provide much better visibility if one passes to higher-order intensity correlations. This fact, which has considerable importance for multi-photon imaging and multi-photon lithography, is also remarkable in view of the numerous recent experiments on higher-order correlations and multi-photon interference [@multiphoton]. Indeed, while in the case of two-photon interference any experiment with the visibility exceeding $50$% can be interpreted as non-classical, no such criterion is formulated for higher-order interference. Our results show that for multi-photon interference to be recognized as nonclassical, its visibility should exceed really high values: $81.9$% in the three-photon case and $94.4$% in the four-photon one. These values are classical visibility limits for three- and four-photon interference, respectively.
For our consideration, we chose the scheme of the two-slit Young’s interference experiment [@generality]. This geometry was used in many experiments on two-photon interference and two- photon ghost imaging [@Shih+Strekalov], [@Shih+Pittman], [@Haner], [@Boyd], [@Lugiato], [@Shih]. This time, however, we consider the interference to be registered by three detectors instead of two (Fig.1), each detector measuring the instantaneous intensity and the triple photocount coincidences being counted by a coincidence circuit. This is the standard experimental technique to measure the third-order Glauber’s intensity correlation function (ICF) [@GCF]. Let the two sources $A$, $B$ be classical ones, having the same statistics, the same average intensities, and independently fluctuating phases. The last condition provides the ‘erasure’ of the first-order interference in the far-field zone. However, a simple calculation shows that the intensity correlation functions will be sensitive to the positions of the detectors. Passing to the normalized third-order correlation function for the detectors placed at points 1, 2, 3, $$g_{123}^{(3)}\equiv\frac{\langle I_1I_2I_3\rangle}{\langle
I_1\rangle\langle I_2\rangle\langle I_3\rangle}, \label{g3def}$$ $I_j$ being the instantaneous intensity at point $j=1,2,3$, we obtain that $$g_{123}^{(3)}=\frac{g^{(3)}}{4}+
\frac{g^{(2)}}{2}[\frac{3}{2}+\hbox{cos}\phi_{12}+
\hbox{cos}\phi_{23}+\hbox{cos}\phi_{13}],
\label{g3}$$ where $g^{(2)}, g^{(3)}$ are, respectively, the second-order and third-order normalized ICFs for each of the two sources and $\phi_{ij}\equiv\phi_{Ai}-\phi_{Aj}-\phi_{Bi}+\phi_{Bj}$, $\phi_{Sd}$ being the phase gained by the radiation of source $S=A,B$ on the way to detector $d=1,2,3$.
According to Eq.(\[g3\]), the maximal visibility is provided by the radiation sources with the minimal ratio of $g^{(3)}/ g^{(2)}$. Among the classical sources, this ’visibility limit’ is achieved for coherent light and is equal to $81.9$%. Thermal radiation gives a lower visibility, $60$%, which is still much higher than the corresponding value in the case of two-photon interference ($33$%).
In our experiment, the third-order Glauber’s correlation function was measured through the coincidence counting rate of three detectors (Fig.2). As the radiation source, we used a frequency doubled Q-switched YAG:Nd laser with the wavelength $532$ nm, pulse duration $5$ ns, and the repetition rate $3$ kHz. Instead of two slits, which should be very precisely matched in width to achieve the maximum visibility of multi-photon interference, a single slit of width $150 \mu$ was used, followed by a birefringent crystal (calcite). The crystal split the beam into the ordinary one and the extraordinary one; with the slit and the crystal placed between crossed polarization (Glan) prisms, this configuration was equivalent to two identical slits separated by a distance of $1.3$ mm. In the far-field zone, where the interference pattern was formed, the radiation was attenuated using neutral-density filters and fed into a three-arm Hanbury Brown-Twiss interferometer with three photon-counting avalanche diodes and a triple-coincidence circuit. Attenuation was necessary to keep the average number of photocounts per pulse much less than one; otherwise, because of the detectors dead-time effect, the photocount and coincidence rates would be measured incorrectly. Gating of the registration electronic system provided suppression of the dark noise by several orders of magnitude. In order to scan the interference pattern, thick glass plates were placed at the inputs of detectors 1 and 3. Spatial mode selection was provided by $70 \mu$ apertures A1, A2, A3 placed in front of each detector. By turning the glass plates, one could scan the phase of either one or two detectors within the range $0\dots
6\pi$. The phase of detector 2 could be adjusted by moving the aperture A2.
The varying relative phase of the two sources was introduced by inserting an electro-optical modulator (EOM) after the calcite crystal. The EOM was oriented in such a way that its bias voltage induced a phase shift between the ordinary and extraordinary beams. Applying an AC voltage with the amplitude $85$ V (slightly below the quarter-wave one) and the frequency $50$ Hz, we erased the interference pattern in the time-averaged intensity distribution. Although this harmonic phase modulation was different from a randomly varying relative phase of sources $A,B$ (Fig.1), it resulted in the same time-averaged ICFs.
We studied third-order interference both for coherent and pseudo-thermal radiation at the input. Pseudo-thermal light was prepared by means of a rotating ground-glass disc placed after the calcite crystal. The envelope of the third-order spatial ICF was determined by the coherence radius of the radiation, which, in its turn, depended on the sizes of the spots formed on the disc by the ordinary and extraordinary beams, and its FWHM corresponded to approximately two periods of the interference pattern. Because of this, the visibility in the case of thermal light was considerably less than the theoretical value.
The results for the coherent and pseudo-thermal cases are presented in Fig.3 a,b, respectively. Experimental points correspond to the normalized third-order Glauber’s ICF; curves show the dependencies given by Eq.(\[g3\]). In Fig.3b, the finite value of the coherence radius was also taken into account. From Eq.(\[g3\]) one can see that the maximum visibility is achieved when two of the three phases are varied simultaneously in the opposite directions, $\phi_{12}=-\phi_{32}$. In accordance with this, in our experiment the glass plates in front of detectors 1 and 3 were rotated synchronously, both clockwise (since detector 1 was in the reflected beam and detector 3 in the transmitted beam, this led to the opposite variation of the phases). The obtained visibility for the case of coherent radiation is $74$%; for the case of pseudo-thermal radiation, $38$%. In each plot, we also show the spatial dependence of single counts for one of the detectors whose phase was scanned. Although the dependence is not completely flat (the variation is caused by the speckle structure of the laser light and the envelope of the single-slit diffraction pattern), the two-slit interference pattern in the intensity distribution is erased. Note that the presented ICF was normalized to the product of the three intensities; as a result, the ‘noisy’ structure of single-photon counts did not influence the third-order interference pattern.
If the third-order interference pattern is scanned by only one of the three detectors, the visibility is lower than $81.9$% but still considerably higher than in the case of the second-order interference. It reaches its maximal value $\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}$ (approximately $70.5$%) when the relative phase between the remaining two detectors is equal to $\pi/2$.
Quite similarly, one can show that the fourth-order intensity interference of two classical sources is given by the formula
$$\begin{aligned}
g_{1234}^{(4)}=\frac{g^{(4)}}{8}+
\frac{g^{(3)}}{2}+\frac{3[g^{(2)}]^2}{8}+
\frac{g^{(3)}+[g^{(2)}]^2}{4}[\cos\phi_{12}\nonumber
\\
+\cos\phi_{13}+\cos\phi_{14}+
\cos(\phi_{12}-\phi_{13})+\cos(\phi_{12}-\phi_{14})\nonumber
\\
+ \cos(\phi_{13}-\phi_{14})]+
\frac{[g^{(2)}]^2}{8}[\cos(\phi_{12}+\phi_{13}-\phi_{14})\nonumber
\\
+\cos(\phi_{12}+\phi_{14}-\phi_{13})+\cos(\phi_{13}+\phi_{14}-\phi_{12})].
\label{g4}\end{aligned}$$
Here, the same notation for the phases and normalized ICFs is used as in Eq.(\[g3\]). Analysis of this expression shows that the maximal visibility of the fourth-order interference for thermal sources is $77.8$% while for coherent sources, it is $94.4$%. The last figure exceeds the visibility values achieved in nearly all known ‘four-photon’ experiments.
Experimental observation of the fourth-order interference by registering four-fold coincidences was difficult because of the low coincidence counting rate in this case. For this reason, we turned to another method of measuring spatial ICFs, the one based on digital image processing (see, for instance, Ref. [@Lugiato_CCD]). The interference pattern in the far-field zone was registered by a digital photographic camera Canon PowerShot S2 IS. The source, again a frequency-doubled YAG:Nd laser, in this case had a repetition rate $50$ Hz. Each frame was made with a single laser pulse, the exposure time (1/60 s) being less than the distance between the pulses. A typical interference pattern recorded in one frame is shown in Fig.4. To accumulate sufficient statistics, $n=500$ shots were made. Due to the phase shift introduced by the EOM, the phase of the interference pattern varied from frame to frame, so that the intensity spatial distribution averaged over all frames revealed almost no interference (the visibility of Young’s interference pattern was less than $10$%). In each frame, a rectangular area was selected, with the dimensions $50$ pixels in the vertical ($y$) direction and $600$ pixels in the horizontal ($x$) direction (a rectangle shown in Fig.4). First, the intensity distribution recorded in each frame was averaged over the $y$ side of the rectangle, so that intensity distributions $I_j(x)$ for all $n$ pulses were obtained. Next, averaging over $j$ was performed, the averaged intensity distribution and the third- and fourth-order normalized correlation functions being calculated as
$$I(x)=\langle I_j(x)\rangle\equiv\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n I_j(x),
\label{calc1}$$
$$g^{(3)}(x)=\frac{\langle
I_j(x)I_j(0)I_j(-x)\rangle}{I(x)I(0)I(-x)},\label{calc2}$$
$$g^{(4)}(x)=\frac{\langle
I_j(x)I_j(0)I_j(-x)I_j(-2x)\rangle}{I(x)I(0)I(-x)I(-2x)}.
\label{calc3}$$
Note that the arguments of intensities used in (\[calc2\]), (\[calc3\]) are chosen so as to provide the maximal visibility. In the above-described coincidence method of $g^{(3)}$ measurement, this was achieved by scanning two detectors in opposite directions and the third one being fixed; for a $g^{(4)}$ measurement, the fourth detector should be scanned with a double speed.
Fig.5 shows the third-order (a) and fourth-order (b) interference patterns obtained for coherent sources by means of digital-image processing. For convenience and similarity with Fig.3, the $x$ coordinate, originally measured in pixels, is plotted in phase units, so that $x=\phi_{12}$; the other phases obey the relations $\phi_{32}=-\phi_{12}, \phi_{42}=-2\phi_{12}$. As expected, the distribution in Fig 5a is similar to the third-order interference pattern registered by means of coincidence method. The interference visibilities achieved for three- and four-photon interference are $73\%$ and $93\%$, respectively. For comparison, theoretical dependencies given by Eqs (\[g3\]), (\[g4\]) are shown as thin solid lines. The averaged distribution of the intensity (shown in both plots by empty circles) has almost no modulation with the period of the interference pattern; the observed non-uniformity is caused by the interference pattern envelope and the edge effects in the EOM.
Similar dependencies (with smaller visibilities) were measured for the case of pseudo-thermal sources.
In conclusion, we have demonstrated, both theoretically and experimentally, that while the classical visibility limit for two-photon interference is only $50$%, it becomes considerably higher in the multi-photon case. Three-photon and four-photon interference has been observed both for coherent and pseudo-thermal light, and the maximal visibility values $74$% and $93$% have been achieved. These results, on the one hand, show that classical pulsed radiation, in addition to the high spatial resolution of ghost diffraction and ghost imaging, can also provide a high visibility, but in this case multi-photon correlations should be used. On the other hand, our results establish a visibility ‘threshold’ in multi-photon interference experiments: for the interference to be clearly nonclassical, the visibility should exceed $81.9$% in the three-photon case and $94.4$% in the four-photon one. Since exceeding these rather high values is practically difficult, we suggest that the visibility criterion should be simply avoided in multi-photon interference experiments, and some other observable signs of nonclassicality be used, such as the Lee-Klyshko criterion [@Lee-klyshko], relations between the different-order normalized ICFs [@NL], or the scaling of normalized ICFs with the mean photon number [@quantel]. This work was supported in part by the RFBR grants \# 06-02-16393, \# 05-02-16391, \# 06-02-39015-GFEN and the Program of Leading Scientific Schools Support, \# NSh-4586.2006.2. T.Sh.I. acknowledges the support of the ’Dynasty’ Foundation.
R. Ghosh and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 1903 (1987).
D. V. Strekalov, A. V. Sergienko, D. N. Klyshko, and Y. H. Shih, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3600-3603 (1995)
T. B. Pittman, Y. H. Shih, D. V. Strekalov, and A. V. Sergienko,
Phys. Rev. A 52, R3429-R3432 (1995)
R. Hanbury Brown and R. Q. Twiss, Nature, 178, 1046-1048 (1956).
A. B. Haner and N. R. Isenor, American Journal of Physics, 38, 6, P. 748-751 (1970).
Y.-H. Zhai, X.-H. Chen, D. Zhang, and L.-A. Wu, Phys. Rev. A 72, 043805 (2005).
R. I. Pfleegor and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. 159, 1084-1088 (1967); Z. Y. Ou, E. C. Gage, B. E. Magill, and L. Mandel, Optics Communications, 69 (1), 1-5 (1988).
A. Gatti, E. Brambilla, M. Bache, and L. A. Lugiato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 093620 (2004); F. Ferri, D. Magatti, A. Gatti, M. Bache, E. Brambilla, and L. A. Lugiato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 183602 (2005).
R. S. Bennink, S. J. Bentley, and R. W. Boyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 113601 (2002).
G. Scarcelli, A. Valencia, and Y. Shih, Phys. Rev. A 70, 051802(R) (2004); M. D’Angelo, A. Valencia, M. H. Rubin, and Y. Shih, Phys. Rev.A 72, 013810 (2005).
R. Glauber, Phys Rev. 130, 2529 (1963).
L.Mandel, Phys. Rev. A 28, 929-943 (1983).
D. N. Klyshko, Physics-Uspekhi, 37 (11), 1097 (1994).
D. N. Klyshko, Physics-Uspekhi, 39(6), 573 (1996).
M. W. Mitchell, J. S. Lundeen, and A. M. Steinberg, Nature 429, 161-164 (2004); Ph. Walther, J.-W. Pan, M. Aspelmeyer, R. Ursin, S. Gasparoni, and A. Zeilinger, Nature 429, 158-161 (2004); Zh. Zhao, T. Yang, Y.-A. Chen, A.-N. Zhang, M. Zukowski, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, No 18, 180401 (2003).
Description of other types of two-beam interferometers such as, for instance, Mach-Zehnder one, is similar.
M. Bache, D. Magatti, F. Ferri, A. Gatti, E. Brambilla, and L. A. Lugiato, Phys. Rev. A 73, 053802 (2006).
E. Waks, B. C. Sanders, E. Diamanti, and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. A 73, 033814 (2006).
O. A. Ivanova, T. Sh. Iskhakov, A. N. Penin, M. V. Chekhova, Quantum Electronics 36 (10) 951 - 956 (2006).
{height="2cm"}
{height="4cm"}
![Interference pattern in the normalized third-order ICF for (a) coherent sources (b) pseudo-thermal sources obtained by tilting glass plates at the inputs of detectors 1 and 3. Empty circles show the intensity distribution given by the counting rate $R_1$ of detector 1. Solid lines show the theoretical fit with Eq.(\[g3\])](Fig3a.eps "fig:"){height="4cm"} ![Interference pattern in the normalized third-order ICF for (a) coherent sources (b) pseudo-thermal sources obtained by tilting glass plates at the inputs of detectors 1 and 3. Empty circles show the intensity distribution given by the counting rate $R_1$ of detector 1. Solid lines show the theoretical fit with Eq.(\[g3\])](Fig3b.eps "fig:"){height="4cm"}
{height="3cm"}
![Interference patterns in normalized third-order (a) and fourth-order (b) ICFs for coherent sources obtained by processing digital images as shown in Fig.4. The averaged intensity distribution in the $x$ coordinate is shown in both plots by empty circles. Thin solid lines show the theoretical dependencies (\[g3\]) (Fig.5a) and (\[g4\]) (Fig.5b).](Fig5a.eps "fig:"){height="3cm"} ![Interference patterns in normalized third-order (a) and fourth-order (b) ICFs for coherent sources obtained by processing digital images as shown in Fig.4. The averaged intensity distribution in the $x$ coordinate is shown in both plots by empty circles. Thin solid lines show the theoretical dependencies (\[g3\]) (Fig.5a) and (\[g4\]) (Fig.5b).](Fig5b.eps "fig:"){height="3cm"}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In the early $1980$s a landmark result was obtained by Atiyah and independently Guillemin and Sternberg: the image of the momentum map for a torus action on a compact symplectic manifold is a convex polyhedron. Atiyah’s proof makes use of the fact that level sets of the momentum map are connected. These proofs work in the setting of finite-dimensional compact symplectic manifolds. One can ask how these results generalize. A well-known example of an infinite-dimensional symplectic manifold with a finite-dimensional torus action is the based loop group. Atiyah and Pressley proved convexity for this example, but not connectedness of level sets. A proof of connectedness of level sets for the based loop group was provided by Harada, Holm, Jeffrey and Mare in $2006$.
In this thesis we study Hilbert manifolds equipped with a strong symplectic structure and a finite-dimensional group action preserving the strong symplectic structure. We prove connectedness of regular generic level sets of the momentum map. We use this to prove convexity of the image of the momentum map.
author:
- Kathleen Smith
bibliography:
- 'ut-thesis.bib'
nocite: '[@*]'
title: Connectivity and Convexity Properties of the Momentum Map for Group Actions on Hilbert Manifolds
---
\[section\] \[thm\][Corollary]{} \[thm\][Lemma]{} \[thm\][Claim]{} \[thm\][Proposition]{} \[thm\][Fact]{} \[thm\][Definition]{} \[thm\][Example]{}
\[thm\][Remark]{} \[thm\][Notation]{}
I would like to thank my supervisors, Lisa Jeffrey and Yael Karshon, for their guidance and patience over the years. I would also like to thank Paul Selick for many helpful discussions and advice.
Introduction
============
Background and Preliminaries
============================
Normal Forms
============
Connectedness - The Base Case
=============================
Convexity and Connectedness
===========================
Example - The Based Loop Group
==============================
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We present numerical simulations of terrestrial planet formation that examine the growth continuously from planetesimals to planets in the inner Solar System. Previous studies show that the growth will be inside-out, but it is still common practice to assume that the entire inner disk will eventually reach a bi-modal distribution of embryos and planetesimals. For the combinations of disk mass, initial planetesimal radius and gas disk lifetime explored in this work the entire disk never reaches a simple bi-modal mass distribution.
We find that the inside-out growth is amplified by the combined effects of collisional evolution of solid bodies and interactions with a dissipating gas disk. This leads to oligarchic growth never being achieved in different places of the disk at the same time, where in some cases the disk can simultaneoulsy support chaotic growth and giant impacts inside 1 au and runaway growth beyond 2 au. The planetesimal population is efficiently depleted in the inner disk where embryo growth primarily advances in the presence of a significant gas disk. Further out in the disk growth is slower relative to the gas disk dissipation, resulting in more excited planetesimals at the same stage of growth and less efficient accretion. This same effect drives mass loss due to collisional grinding strongly altering the surface density of the accreted planets relative to the initial mass distribution. This effect decreases the Mars-to-Earth mass ratios compared to previous works with no collisional grinding. Similar to some previous findings utilizing vastly different growth scenarios these simulations produce a first generation of planetary embryos that are stable for 10-20 Myr, or 5-10 e-folding times of the gas dissipation timescale, before having an instability and entering the chaotic growth stage.
author:
- 'Kevin J. Walsh & Harold F. Levison'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'Planetesimals to Terrestrial Planets: collisional evolution amidst a dissipating gas disk '
---
Introduction
============
A long-standing issue in models of terrestrial planet formation is the order of magnitude difference in mass between Earth and Mars. Most models aiming to track the final stages of planet formation start from an intermediate stage of growth, with similar-sized planetary embryos amidst a sea of planetesimals. These models regularly fail to recover the relatively small mass of Mars for the simple reason of the surplus of material at 1.5 au in most nominal surface density profiles - leading to Mars-analogs that are usually 5-10 times too massive [@Chambers:2001p7618; @Raymond:2009p11530; @Fischer:2014p13097]. Some works have been able to create small Mars-analogs, but require migrating planets or disk incontinuities to vastly deplete certain regions of the disk [@Hansen:2009p8802; @Walsh:2011p12463; @Izidoro:2014p15200; @Clement:2018]. Other models rely on the majority of the initial solid mass to remain in cm-sized “pebbles”, which can lead to a vastly different accretion mode [@Levison:2015p20212; @Morbidelli:2015p23049]. However, a statistical simulation to this problem suggests that mass loss due to collisional fragmentation and drift can make planetary embryos that are a good match for Mars’ mass and accretion timescale, but only for relatively high disk masses and smaller initial planetesimals [@Kobayashi:2013p11732].
Complete models of terrestrial planet growth from planetesimals are not yet fully explored, as the complicated interaction of collisional fragmentation and gas disk affects have not been exhaustively explored in numerical models spanning the entire growth from planetesimals to planets. Modeling the entirety of planet formation represents a dynamic range problem where a huge population of dust becomes very few planets, interactions between dust happens on very short timescales, and the final accretion of the planets takes 10’s of millions of years. These are the driving reasons that push the vast majority of studies to take a piece-wise or regional approach to the problem, and these efforts have produced a general picture of distinct stages of growth.
The first stage of growth following planetesimal formation is “runaway growth”. Owing to the effects of gravitational focusing, the largest planetesimals in a given local region grow at a faster rate than smaller neighbors, allowing them to runaway in mass relative to the others [@Greenberg:1978p15127; @Lissauer:1987p21583]. This leads to a break in the size distribution that is secured once the largest bodies begins to stir the orbits of their smaller neighbors, increasing relative velocities and discouraging further growth among the population of small bodies. This transition into “oligarchic growth” occurs when the large bodies attain roughly half the total local mass [@Kokubo:1998p9706; @Kokubo:2000p10143; @Chambers:2006p11697].
With growth slowed and mass partitioned evenly between $\sim$10–100 large bodies and numerous small bodies, the oligarchic growth stage serves as the typical starting point for numerical models of the full terrestrial planet region. This will continue until a final set of planets have been built by way of giant impacts during the “giant impact” or “chaotic growth” stage of growth where the embryos’ orbits eventually become crossing and giant embryo-embryo collisions occur due to the lack of damping from planetesimals or the gas disk [see @Morbidelli:2012p11505]. The expectation is that the spacing of the oligarchs, or embryos, is constant in terms of their mutual Hill Spheres but increasing with mass with further distance for typical surface density profiles. No simple prescription exists for the location and mass of the planetesimal population and it is typically assumed to follow the initial surface density profile [@Obrien:2006p8571; @Raymond:2009p11530].
While each of the stages of growth have been explored in detail, combining them into one model of planet formation relies on extrapolations from very regional simulations to establish conditions for global simulations. A key aspect to this extrapolation is to assume that oligarchic growth can be reached throughout all regions of the disk at the same time, which allows modelers to start modeling the final stage of growth from a disk of embryos amidst planetesimals. Since observed gas disk lifetimes [@Haisch:2001p10160] are similar to estimates for planetary embryo growth timescales at 1 au (2-10 Myr) it is common to ignore many of the effects of the gaseous solar nebula, which can strongly affect the orbits of both the small and large bodies at oligarchic growth stage. Finally, collisional fragmentation is not typically modeled throughout as it is numerically challenging due to the possible rapid increase in the number of simulation particles if/when objects start fragmenting. This is an important omission as fragments can dynamically interact with large ones, changing orbits and accretion efficiency locally, or simply be lost due to rapid gas drag or at later times by Poynting Robertson drag [@Kenyon:2006p11683; @Leinhardt:2009p10318; @Chambers:2013p19990; @Carter:2015p19516].
The aim for this work is to model the growth from planetesimals in the inner Solar System and to present simulation results that continue through the entire process to systems of planets. The modeling techniques will include the continuous growth from planetesimals to planets in the midst of the dissipation of the gaseous solar nebula and collisional evolution. The model extends through the stage of chaotic growth and giant impacts, and multiple simulations are performed for a range of initial conditions to provide a statistical comparison of the produced planetary systems.
Previous studies - planetesimals to planets
-------------------------------------------
Previous studies have either focused on the early growth from planetesimals to embryos or on the latter stages from embryos to planets. One of the foundations of most analytical approaches is establishing the end point of the early stages of growth, before chaotic interactions between embryos should begin, as a function of disk properties. This end, and the produced suite of embryos or “oligarchs”, typically sets up the initial conditions for numerical models that are capable of modeling the more chaotic final stages of growth. Aspects of these works provide a solid foundation that should be re-created in any end-to-end modeling effort.
A near universally used concept is that the largest body at any distance should grow to a so-called Isolation Mass ($M_\mathrm{iso}$), which is defined as the total mass per well-separated feeding zone [@Lissauer:1987p21583; @Kokubo:1998p9706; @Kokubo:2000p10143; @Kobayashi:2013p11732]. This depends on the spacing of planetary embryos, but with the typically assumed $\sim$10 Hill sphere spacing [@Kokubo:1998p9706] the isolation mass as a function of semimajor axis and mass of the disk can be easily determined:
$$M_{\mathrm{iso}}=0.13\chi^{3/2}\Big(\frac{a}{1.5\mathrm{au}}\Big)^{3}M_{\oplus}$$,
where $\chi$ is the scaling of the classical Hayashi Minimum Mass Solar Nebula (7.1 g cm$^{-2}$ surface density for solids and 1.7$\times$10$^{3}$ g cm$^{-2}$ for gas at 1au) and $a$ is the semimajor axis of the growing embryo [@Hayashi:1981p22959]. This accounts only for accretion of local planetesimals by embryos, and does not consider mass re-distribution (drifting or scattered planetesimals), embryo-embryo accretion or the final giant impact stage of planet growth (note that @Chambers:2006p11697 include an increase of 50% to $M_{\mathrm{iso}}$ to account for embryo-embryo mergers in a semi-analytical model).
For a typical surface density that scales as $a^{-3/2}$ the isolation mass increases with distance, where at 1.5 au this leads to typical embryos roughly equal to a Mars mass (see Figure \[fig:Iso\]). This concept encodes no information about timescales and does not consider mass loss and re-distribution due to collisional fragmentation. Mass loss due to fragmentation and drift will depend strongly on the behavior of the gas disk over time [@Kominami:2002p21136; @Chambers:2008p78; @Kobayashi:2010p9661; @Ormel:2010p11711]. Despite these clear inadequacies, it does serve as a foundation for many of the analytic approaches below and as a valuable fiducial for comparing the early stages of growth found in numerical approaches.
### Analytical Descriptions including Fragmentation and Gas Effects
Semi-analytic models of embryo growth necessarily consider the collision probability between the growing bodies and the local swarm of smaller planetesimals, where the dynamical excitement of all bodies and their size distribution is a critical component in determining accretion rates. The fragmentation and drift of planetesimals complicate this calculation, and where included has been found to alter the accretion rates due to the loss, or re-distribution, of mass [@Chambers:2006p11697; @Kobayashi:2010p9661; @2012ApJ...747..115O].
@Chambers:2008p78 included this effect in a semi-analytic approach to modeling the growth of planetary embryos but was restricted in the handling of an evolving size distribution of planetesimals, where fragmented planetesimals all were put in one size bin. This work also considers embryo-embryo mergers and embryo atmospheres, for which the former affect is found to roughly increase embryo growth rates by the simple flat rate of $\sim50$%. With all of the above physics included, and assuming a decreasing surface density of the gas disk with an exponential 2 Myr timescale, and planetesimals initially with diameters of 10 km @Chambers:2006p11697 finds inside-out growth of embryos, with a slow march towards isolation masses over 3-10 Myr (see @Chambers:2006p11697 Figure 12). For nominal MMSN masses of gas and solids and surface density profiles, the embryo growth is found to approach isolation masses at 1 au in under 1 Myr and 2 au in $\sim$3 Myr and have a growth timescale that scales as $t^3$, with the only fluctuations/variations related to initial planetesimal excitement briefly driving oligarch growth away from that scaling. Other noted affects are that shallow surface densities lead to growth exceeding isolation mass because more solid material drifts into regions of the inner disk (from outside the inner disk) than drifts out of it. Increased masses increase the isolation mass and decrease the time to reach isolation mass.
It has been found that growth timescales also depend on the initial size of the planetesimals [@Kobayashi:2010p9661; @Kobayashi:2013p11732], with more rapid growth and more collisional grinding for smaller initial sizes. When planetesimals can collisionally evolve and create a collisional cascade down to small sizes, the timescale for depletion by fragmentation becomes inversely proportional to the surface density and increases for increasing initial planetesimal size and scales strongly with semimajor axis ($\sim a^{3.2}$) (see @Kobayashi:2013p11732 Eq. 4.). Therefore embryo masses will be below isolation masses when the initial planetesimal size is less than $R_\mathrm{init}\lesssim100$ km. When initial planetesimal sizes are very small, 1–10 km, embryo growth by fragment accretion becomes more important, where, with no radial drift of fragments, embryos can reach isolation mass more rapidly than growth from the initial planetesimals population.
@Kobayashi:2013p11732 propose that a solution to the combined problem of the mass of Mars and its rapid formation timescale can be addressed by decreasing initial planetesimal size to increase accretion rate, and to also increase the surface density to make up for mass loss to collisional grinding. Combined initial radii between 1–10 km and surface densities between 2–3 MMSN may satisfy both criteria – and this is tested numerically in this work.
Despite significant advantages to modeling growth analytically during runaway and oligarch growth stages there are strict limitations once oligarchs start crossing orbits, having chaotic orbital evolution or altering the mass distribution of material by scattering planetesimals. Hence we cannot draw from these works conclusions about the final planetary system, in terms of the number of planets, orbital properties or timescales for the giant impacts that serve as critical chronometers for growth and evolution timescales.
### Numerical Descriptions including Fragmentation and Gas Effects
Numerical efforts typically rely on statistical techniques to account for the short timescales and large numbers of interactions between very small objects in a gas-disk and then necessarily transition to $N$-body integrations of planetary embryos having distant gravitational encounters for millions of years. Combining these very different types of calculations results in hydrid $N$-body codes with a range of capabilities [@Kenyon:2006p11683; @Leinhardt:2009p10318; @Levison:2012p12338; @Morishima:2015p20942]
Numerical models typically find the inside-out growth predicted by the analytics. In hybrid $N$-body simulations with $R_\mathrm{init}=1-3$ km between 0.86-1.14au and a $\sim$1$\times$MMSN surface density, @Kenyon:2006p11683 find that oligarchs ($m>10^{26}$ g) are produced at the inner edge of the annulus in 300,000 years with the transition to oligarchy moving outwards across the annulus. The timescales for reaching and leaving oligarchic growth is found to depend strongly on initial surface density, where chaotic growth regime begins earlier and is more violent for more massive disks. When modeling a disk stretching from 0.2-2 au they find inside-out growth with oligarchs formed on the inner edge in $\sim$100,000 years and in 1 Myr at the outer edge. No fragmentation or mass loss due to collisional grinding was included, and the dependence on gas disk timescale for onset of the chaotic stage of growth was not investigated.
The dependence on the timescale and nature of the dissipating gas-disk was the focus of a study utilizing a full $N$-body model of the final stages of planet formation [@2004Icar..167..231K]. The onset of embryo crossing orbits depends strongly on the gas disk lifetime and allows for continued accretion of embryos before giant impacts initiate (see also @Walsh:2016p23062 which found similar outcomes while modeling a different formation scenario). The implication is that the gas density is more closely correlated with the onset of embryo-crossing orbits than are the damping affects of dynamical friction from planetesimals. Therefore attempting to model just the final stages of growth it may be admissable to begin a model under the assumption that the gas has just dissipated, allowing crossing embryos orbits, but there would be no clear guidance on what to assume in the planetesimal population. A long gas lifetime could keep a stable suite of embryos around for a long time, but would allow for more depletion of planetesimals relative to a short disk lifetime.
Collisional fragmentation and mass loss has been modeled in full $N$-body simulations utilizing a specific state-of-the-art collision model, called EDACM [@Leinhardt:2012; @Leinhardt:2015p18851], integrated into the $N$-body accretion model $pkdgrav$ [@Carter:2015p19516; @Leinhardt:2015p18851]. This model utilizes particle radius inflation to decrease computational requirements and is particularly well-suited for very high-resolution simulations starting mid-way through runaway growth and continuing into the onset of giant impacts and chaotic growth. They are not ideal for the final long runout of accretion due to the second-order integrator accuracy. These works started with similar sized particles [@Leinhardt:2015p18851] or from with a size distribution of planetesimals representative of a disk still in runaway growth ranging up to 0.01 Earth Masses for the largest [@Carter:2015p19516]. Both note the inside-out growth characterized by an “embryo front” that moves through the disk. The growth to embryos in the midst of the gas disk produced less massive embryos, but on shorter timescales, than for systems with no gas drag (see also @Wetherill:1993p11515 [@Kokubo:2000p10143]).
When bouncing or fragmention is included for the final stages of growth, during the epoch of giant impacts and the final growth of the planets, the primary affect is found to extend the timescale for formation and produce slightly less dynamically excited final systems of planets [@Kokubo:2010p20928; @Chambers:2013p19990]. These works either allow bouncing of embryo’s to simulate non-perfect accretion scenarios [@Kokubo:2010p20928] or set a minimum fragment size that can be produced in an energetic collision [@Chambers:2013p19990]. Modeling this effect is particularly hard as large impacts could create a huge number of new particles spanning all sizes all the way down to dust, instantly increasing the $N$ of a simulation.
### This work
The combined previous research finds numerous important affects that should be expected to strongly impact the growth and final suite of planets. Many of these are not typically considered when constructing initial conditions for models of the final stages of planet growth:
1. Growth timescales should be increase with distance,
2. Fragmentation can increase the accretion timescale and when paired with small initial planetesimals will decrease embryo masses,
3. The state and dissipation of the gas disk may determine the onset of giant impacts and chaotic growth,
In this work we aim to explore the growth of the terrestrial planets from planetesimals to planets, in the midst of a decaying gas disk, as a function of the gas disk decay timescale and with a size distribution of planetesimals that collisionally evolve and can be lost due to collisional fragmentation. We endeavor to compare, where possible, with the timescales and scaling relationships previously discussed and with results from different analytical and numerical approaches. Specific questions to be answered:
1. When and where is a disk in oligrachic growth?
2. What is the spatial and size distribution of planetesimals during this growth?
3. How does exponential disk decay affect embryos and planetesimals at different stages of growth?
Another driving goal of this work is to develop a prescription to describe the state of the inner disk growth as a function of time, gas disk properties and initial planetesimal properties. The constant mention that previous initial conditions are typically inadequate is meant to motivate future modelers to use something superior, and we aim to facilitate this.
Futhermore, by the nature of the modeling techniques used, we will present final planetary systems for numerous sets of input parameters. In places we present suites of simulations to give a more robust view of possible outcomes. Naturally, this covers a small region of large parameter space, but provides the important connection between models of embryo growth in the context of important constraints on final planetary systems.
Methods
=======
To do planetesimal to planet simulations we use the code [LIPAD]{}, which stands for Lagrangian Integrator for Planetary Accretion and Dynamics [@Levison:2012p12338]. [LIPAD]{} is based on the algorithm known as the Wisdom-Holman Mapping (WHM; @Wisdom:1991p456). It can treat close encounters between bodies using the algorithms of [SyMBA]{} [@Duncan:1998p7713]. SyMBA also allowed for increased computational speed by breaking the population into larger “embryos” that had full $N$-body gravitational interactions with each other, and a smaller population of planetesimals that had $N$-body gravitational interactions with embryos, but not each other. Here, [LIPAD]{} utilizes “tracer” particles that each have the identical total mass for calculating the gravitational evolution of the system. Each tracer also has a representative radius $s$, such that it represents a swarm of particles each of radius $s$ whose mass sums up to the total mass of the tracer itself. The tracers have normal $N$-body interactions with larger embryos (as in SyMBA), but can evolve the sizes and random velocities of other tracers.
Collisional probabilities are calculated for each tracer as a function of its size $s$ and the total mass, sizes and orbits of its neighboring tracers. The dynamics of each tracer is modeled with direct gravity calculations with all embryos as well as other dynamical effects (dynamical friction, viscous stirring between tracers), where many calculations depend on the particle’s radius $s$ and the masses, sizes and orbits of its neighbors. Tracer particles can grow to the point where they are promoted into being embryos, although they go through a phase as “sub-embryo” so as to avoid unphysically large scatterings as they would be only slightly more massive than the tracer particles (see[@Levison:2011p17955] for more details).
There are limits on the smallest size that tracers can reach. As they get smaller, collisional probabilities increase and simulations become more computationally expensive. Thus a small size is set, below which particles are removed from the system, under the presumption that they will collisionally grind to dust on rapid timescales or, if the gas disk is still present, they will experience rapid inward drift and remove themselves from affecting the larger dynamics of the system. In the presence of the gaseous nebula the sizes of particles that experience maximum inward drift is near 1 meter, which is selected as the smallest size allowed in the collisional cascade for all simulations presented in this work. Tests were run with a small size of 0.1 m, for the first 1 Myr of evolution and then from 4–8 Myr of evolution of a nominal simulation, and while the mass loss amounts and locations were not identical, they were similar enough to suggest that when simulations with smaller sizes are computationally feasible the results will look quite similar.
For the first 4 Myr of each simulation the giant planets were at 3.5 and 6 au with 1 Earth mass each. At 4 Myr they were moved instantaneously to 5.0 and 9.2 au and increased to their current masses on dynamically cold orbits ($e=i=0$), where these orbits are meant to represent the low-eccentricity orbits preceeding the expected giant planet instability [@Levison:2011p17955].
The effects of the solar nebula are modeled through aerodynamic drag and type-I eccentricity damping (see @Levison:2012p12338 and references therein). For Nominal tests here the gas disk started with a surface density at 1 au of 1.4$\times10^{-9}$ g cm$^{-3}$ [@Hayashi:1981p22959], and the density profile with radius and time is $\rho(r,t) = \rho_0r^{-\gamma}\exp(-t/\tau)$, where $\gamma$ is 9/4 and the decay timescale $\tau$ is 2 Myr. The disk also has a flaring profile $z = h\Big(\frac{r}{\mathrm{AU}}\Big)^f$ where the scale height $h$=0.05 au, and a power law profile $f$=1.25. The mass of the gas disk, the population of solids and the timescale for disk decay were all varied in different suites of simulations.
Planetesimals and embryos had a density of 3 g cm$^{-3}$ throughout. When a collision occurs a fragmentation law is used to determine the outcome [@Benz:1999p505]. This determines the expected size distribution of fragments, and a radius $s$ is chosen from that distribution for each tracer involved. The size distribution of the system requires the inclusion of many tracer particles, each with different sizes to build a size distribution regionally (see @Levison:2012p12338 for more detail). The handful of very large, embryo-embryo, impacts in each simulation are treated in the exact same fashion, despite @Benz:1999p505 experiments being designed for impacts between bodies with radius $<$ 1000 km (see Deienno et al. in prep for further work on energy dissipation in giant impacts in LIPAD simulations).
Simulations utilized a range of resolution, total number of initial tracer particles, and semimajor axis range, but always had an inside edge of the mass distribution at 0.7 au.
Nominal Case
------------
The “Nominal” case uses 5000 particles starting with $R_\mathrm{init}=30$ km with a 1-$\sigma$ spread in radius of 3 km. The initial surface density profile follows $r^{(-3/2)}$ for a total mass of solid material equaling 3.32 Earth masses between 0.7-3.0 au. A gas disk is included in the calculation that has an initial gas density of 1.4$\times10^{-9}$ g/cm$^{3}$ at 1 au that provides aerodynamic gas drag and type-I eccentricity damping on particles [@1976PThPh..56.1756A; @Tanaka:2004p8662]. The gas density decreases exponentially with a 2 Myr timescale. The smallest allowable particle produced in a collision is 1 meter, below that size particles are removed from the simulation, and tracked as mass lost to collisional grinding.
The Nominal and the related high-resolution case (with 2$\times$ the number of tracer particles, but identical total system mass), were both used for analysis of initial growth to $\sim$10 Myr, and the related timescales associated with the transition to oligarchic growth as a function of semimajor axis. These cases were not used in the analysis of the final planetary systems due to prohibitively long run-times - all final planetary systems were part of the various low-resolution suites of simulations that used 2000 tracer particles between 0.7–2.25 au.
Grid of Mass and Gas Lifetimes
------------------------------
We rely below on a grid of simulations where increasing total disk masses are paired with decreasing disk lifetimes. Disk masses of 2$\times$, 1.5$\times$ and 1$\times$ Minimuim Mass Solar Nebula were modeled with gas disk dissipation timescales of 1 Myr, 2 Myr and 3 Myr respectively for a total of three different sets of parameters. For these three cases, four simulations each were run with randomized orbital elements and sizes, and are combined for some analyses. Additionally, there are other singular test cases, such as simulations with no gas disk, gas disks that extend forever, no collisional grinding etc., that are used as simple tests of different scalings. For all of these cases, where the simulations were run to 115 Myr, they were low-resolution, with 2000 initial tracers between 0.7–2.25 au.
Test of Kobayashi & Dauphas 2013
--------------------------------
A direct test of a proposed set of disk properties that could be capable of growing Mars-sized embryos fast enough to match Mars’ growth timescale was put forth in a series of analytical arguments and statistical simulations [@Kobayashi:2013p11732]. Here, four simulations were run using $R_\mathrm{init}=5$ km with a 2$\times$MMSN disk mass and a 2 Myr disk dissipation timescale, where the parameters were selected from Figure 3 of @Kobayashi:2013p11732 as being safely in the region satisfying expected embryo sizes and growth timescales. These simulations presented here otherwise utilized the Nominal settings described above, with the exception of not including massive giant planets during any of the growth (instead these simulations include 0.1 Earth Mass planets at 5.4 and 9.0 au - a difference we do not expect to be important for the tests reported here).
Results
=======
Here we present models of the growth and evolution of the inner Solar System from km-sized planetesimals up to a final system of planets. We include fragmentation of particles during collisions, interaction at all sizes with a dissipating gaseous solar nebula, and the gravitational interaction of all of the mass in the system. A Nominal simulation and its initial conditions is shown in Figure \[fig:FourFrames\]. The growth is strongly inside-out, as found and predicted by previous works [@Weidenschilling:1997p23043; @Kenyon:2006p11683; @Minton:2014p18561; @Carter:2015p19516]. The localized area near 1 au reaches a 50% mass ratio between planetary embryos and planetesimals in 700 kyr (here objects more massive than 0.012 Earth Masses, a lunar mass, are considered embryos and less massive objects are planetesimals). This region is nearly 90% planetary embryos by mass at 2 Myr and already a Mars-mass embryo has grown. Meanwhile, at 2 au the same bi-modal state is reached in approximately 18 Myr, and only reaches a point where 90% of the mass is in planetary embryos at 50 Myr and the largest body does not reach a Mars mass due to grinding and drifting of planetesimals. The planetesimal population is heavily depleted inside of 1 au by 2 Myr, and is almost entirely gone by 10 Myr. Meanwhile at 1.5 au the planetesimals are slightly depleted, but also dynamically excited (as seen by their elevated eccentricity relative to those closer to 2 au). Despite being 5 e-folding times into the gas disk dissipation, the system of embryos is still dynamically cold (see top panes in Figure \[fig:FourFrames\]). This has changed by 20 Myr, as the embryos are in the midst of a instability with high eccentricities, high velocity collisions and giant impacts. The excited embryos naturally lead to the excited population of planetesimals.
The timescales for embryo growth can be directly compared to previous analytical formulations. Embryo growth proceeds with roughly the predicted scaling with time ($\sim$ $t^3$) for times up to a few hundred thousand years, as found in the analysis of [@Chambers:2006p11697]. This is recovered despite not considering embryo atmospheres but including a full planetesimal size distribution. The growth at 1 au is an especially close match beyond a few hundred thousand years despite there also being a mis-match in initial planetesimal size (these models start with 30 km as opposed to 10 km used by @Chambers:2006p11697: see Figure \[fig:ChambersTime\]). Similarly, embryo growth at 1.5au proceeds largely as predicted by the analytical work found in [@Kobayashi:2010p9661; @Kobayashi:2013p11732], despite a large disparity in gas dissipation timescale (10Myr vs. 2Myr: see Figure \[fig:KobayTime\]).
![The growth of embryos at 1 au plotted as a function of mass (Earth masses) as a function of time (Myr). The black circles are taken from @Chambers:2006p11697 Figure 1 with a fit to $t^3$ through 200,000 years shown in the solid black line. The LIPAD Nominal simulation is shown in connected blue circles and the 2$\times$ resolution Nominal simulation is shown with the red connected squares. []{data-label="fig:ChambersTime"}](Figure03.eps){width="3in"}
![The growth of embryos out to 10 Myr as calculated in @Kobayashi:2013p11732 for $R_\mathrm{init}=27$ km shown as mass (Earth masses) as a function of time (Myr). The connected blue circles are results from the Nominal LIPAD simulation at 1.5 au. Note that the mass decreases at points, which is a result of some embryos moving in and out of the region 1.45–1.55 au that is analyzed to track growth in this region. []{data-label="fig:KobayTime"}](Figure04.eps){width="3in"}
The growth of embryos in LIPAD can also be compared to the direct $N$-body simulations utilizing gas affects and the EDACM collision model (see Figure \[fig:CarterTime\]). The two simulations being compared used different inner edges of the disk, 0.5 and 0.7 au for @Carter:2015p19516 and this work respecively. They also used different starting sizes for planetesimals, where @Carter:2015p19516 used an initial size distribution of particles ranging between 196-1530 km meant to represent a disk already in runaway growth, which is therefore at a more advanced stage of growth than the Nominal LIPAD simulation initial conditions with a unimodal size distribution $R_\mathrm{init}=30$ km. Furthermore, the direct $N$-body simulations of @Carter:2015p19516 use very different techniques, with very high resolution (100,000 particles) and radius inflation to reduce runtime (where comparisons are made between their scaled effective simulation times). Despite these parameter and modeling differences, the growth and evolution of the suite of embryos is qualitatively similar, showing strong inside-out growth and embryos growing above expectations for isolation masses due to embryo-embryo mergers and mass re-distribution in only a few million years. These are important aspects to the current results discussed in depth below.
Finally, the resulting planet systems can be compared with a plethora of previous works. This Nominal suite of simulations lost significant mass to collisional grinding (see Section \[massloss\] below for more in depth discussion of mass loss). This mass lost drove the final mass in planets very low compared to the current Solar System, resulting in an average total mass of 1.44 Earth Masses (compared to 1.97 for the current Solar System). This resulted in too many planets (average of 9.5) on dynamically cold orbits (see Table \[bigtable\]). There were nominally small Mars analogs, averaging masses of 0.25 Earth Mass, but in light of the total depletion of mass this does not represent a significant change in the Earth/Mars mass ratio. It also motivates the other parameter space that is explored in this work with more massive initial starting conditions.
To zero-th order these Nominal LIPAD simulations reproduce many of the qualitative growth patterns and quantitative timescales previously found. While the inside-out growth has generally been predicted or observed in numerical experiments before, it is commonly assumed, that the disparity in timescales was less than the time of the transition from oligarchic growth to chaotic growth or giant impacts (see @Kenyon:2006p11683 who note that this is not always the case in their simulations). The completion of oligarchic growth across the entire disk provided convenient initial conditions for numerical models that aim to model the final stages of planet growth and the resultant planetary systems. Here, the outcomes of these models do not support this assumption and warn future works away from assuming a full disk of embryos amidst planetesimals in different places at different times.
Oligarchy moves outward like a wave
-----------------------------------
Oligarch growth moves outward like a wave and is only valid in one place in the disk at a time. This is more than just inside-out growth, but rather a “front” (a term used by @Carter:2015p19516) of oligarchic growth progressing over time, such that only one small region of the disk can meet any canonical oligarchy condition of mass ratio between embryos and planetesimals. The timescales for growth vary as a function of semimajor axis due largely to differences in orbital periods [@Chambers:2006p11697; @Kobayashi:2010p9661]. One analytic estimation for growth timescale from planetesimal accretion alone, $\tau_\mathrm{grow,p}$ depends on semimajor axis, $a$, to the $27/10$ power (see @Kobayashi:2013p11732 eq. 5), which alone could account for a factor of three in growth timescales between 1au and 1.5au.
In the nominal simulations (including the high-resolution case) and the grid of twelve simulations exploring disk mass and disk lifetime, the time at which isolation mass is reached can be described by $\sim
a^4$ to $\sim a^{4.2}$ (see Figure \[fig:Oligarch\] showing the two nominal simulations). This steeper relationship results in slower relative growth at 1.5 au compared to 1 au, resulting in closer to a factor of five in growth timescales (see Figure \[fig:Oligarch\]).
![The time at which the isolation mass is reached as a function of semimajor axis (au) for the nominal model (including nominal and high-resolution). The blue dots are data from both the standard and high-resolution simulations with a best-fit line drawn (red) with a dependence on $a^4$.[]{data-label="fig:Oligarch"}](Figure06.eps){width="3in"}
The likely reason for the stronger dependence on $a$ found in this work compared to previous analytic efforts could be the more substantial mass loss and drift due to collisional grinding. A test simulation was run for the nominal scenarios where no collisional grinding was allowed (collisions occurred and were tracked, but the $Q^{\star}$ law was altered to make bodies unbreakable). The time to reach isolation mass had a less steep dependence, best fit by $a^{3.6}$ (see Figure \[fig:OligarchNoColl\]). While this does not entirely bridge the gap with the analytical estimates, there is a key difference in modeling setups, where for any region in the analytical models there is material and debris grinding and drifting from a more distant semimajor axis. Here, the disks modeled have edges at 2.25 au or 3.0 au, so there is likely some contribution to these differences by the lack of material drifting in from the outside to partially replace material that has drifted away to smaller semimajor axis.
![The time at which the isolation mass is reached as a function of semimajor axis (au) for the nominal model with no collisional grinding. The blue dots are data from one simulation with a best-fit line drawn (red) with a dependence on $a^{3.6}$.[]{data-label="fig:OligarchNoColl"}](Figure07.eps){width="3in"}
This stronger inside-out growth means that for a minimal mass solar nebula with $R_\mathrm{init}\sim30$ km, there is no time when the entire disk is in runaway growth [*or*]{} oligarchic growth (see Figure \[fig:ThreeSFD2Myr\]). At 2 Myr the region inside 1 au is dominated by embryos, making up 81% of the mass, which is seen in the break in the size frequency distribution (Figure \[fig:ThreeSFD2Myr\], bottom left pane). Between 1.0 and 2.0 au the disk is 22% embryos, and there is no break in the size distribution pointing to most of the region still growing by runaway growth. Finally, beyond 2 au, there are only planetesimals the largest of which has grown to 787 km and runaway growth is moving along slowly.
The timescales across the inner disk are so vastly different that by 20 Myr the region inside of 1 au is experiencing chaotic growth and giant impacts, but beyond 2 au the disk has built its first few embryos (see Figure \[fig:ThreeSFD20Myr\]). Despite the successes of analytical models in calculating embryo growth some of the disk entering a chaotic phase challenges any analytical description of final planet growth owing to the chaotic nature of embryo-embryo collisions and scattering, This same affect also challenges numerical techniques that can’t handle simultaneous modeling of such different regimes of growth.
Mass loss due to grinding has a strong dependence on semimajor axis {#massloss}
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Different embryos that have similar mass but are growing in different regions of the disk, experience different growth conditions over their lifetime due to differences in mass loss and growth timescales relative to the gas disk lifetime. At 1 au a bi-modal mass distribution is reached after only 700 kyr, which is $\sim$1/2 of the gas disk’s e-folding dissipation time. This is in stark contrast to 18 Myr at 2 au, which is $\sim$9 e-folding times of the gas disk dissipation timescale. The enormous difference in gas quantities results in more effective stirring by the embryos at greater distance, where the RMS eccentricity of planetsimals is 0.014 at 700 kyr at 1 au, while at 18 Myr at 2 au it is 0.1 (these translate to average collision velocities of $\sim$0.46 km/s and 2.3 km/s respectively).
This disparity leads to a strong preferential mass loss at greater distances (Figure \[fig:Money\]), owing to the higher eccentricities (Figure \[fig:FourFrames\]) and thus more violent and disruptive impacts. The location of maximum mass loss tracks outward with the oligarchic wave, so that at very early times (0-5 Myr), most of the collisional grinding is happening around 1 au - where the first embryos are growing. As embyros start appearing further out, mass loss follows, as at smaller distances the larger embyros have heavily depleted their local planetesimal population and at further distances there are no embryos around yet to stir the planetesimals.
The magnitude of mass loss to collisional grinding is known to also be a function of the initial planetesimal size (as is the growth timescale, which here is relevant since the gas disk dissipation timescale is not changing; see @Kobayashi:2013p11732). Here, when the initial planetesimal radius is 3 km or 100 km (instead of 30 km in the Nominal case) there is more and less collisional grinding respectively, but varying by no more than a factor of two. In the case of $R_\mathrm{init}=$100 km, with the least mass loss, more then 20% of initial mass at 1.5 au was lost to disruptive impacts. Similarly, extending or decreasing the gas disk lifetime can alter the amount and profile of mass loss. For a simple test over 25 Myr, with a gas disk lifetime or 1 Myr and 4 Myr, the shorter disk lifetime allows earlier excitation of the system and more collisional grinding and mass loss (Figure \[fig:DustGasLife\]).
This result leads naturally to ask how this substantial mass loss affects the final planetary systems since it appears to offer a path to depart from the initial surface density distribution of solids.
Can grinding account for Earth/Mars mass ratio?
-----------------------------------------------
As found above, mass loss due to collisional fragmentation has a strong dependence on semi-major axis, with mass loss maximized at and beyond where oligarch growth has reached by the time that the gas-disk has dissipated $\sim$5 e-folding times. At large heliocentric distances the lack of damping due to the gas means that accretion efficiencies are lower and collisional fragmentation is increased amidst planetary embryos that are stirring the local population. For a suite of four low-resolution nominal case simulations (nominal initial conditions, but only 2000 tracer particles), the grinding causes significant mass loss around 1.5 au, and production of a reasonable Mars-analogs ($\sim 0.25 M_\oplus$). However, the total amount of grinding affected the masses of the Earth and Venus analogs, leaving only 1.44$M_\oplus$ of total mass in planets after 115 Myr (see Table \[bigtable\]). This mass loss resulted in many planets remaining on dynamically cold orbits (see N$_\mathrm{planets}$ and AMD in Table \[bigtable\]). While longer run-times may have found eventual reduction in the total number of planets, the total planet mass was so low that the runs were not continued beyond 115 Myr.
The Nominal results motivate an exploration of disk mass and gas disk dissipation timescale. This is similar approach to that of @Kobayashi:2013p11732 who sought a combination of initial planetesimal radius and total disk mass to accomodate the mass of embryos at 1.5 au and the short accretion timescale of Mars. Here, the relation is that with increasing disk lifetime the point in the disk where grinding is maximized moves outward as Oligarch growth will move further due to the longer time amidst gas. But the growth rate increases with increasing total disk mass, as does the expected isolation masses of embryos. By testing combinations of 1$\times$,$1.5\times$,2$\times$MMSN paired with gas disk timescales of 3 Myr, 2 Myr and 1 Myr we aim to balance increased solid material with less or more rapid growth timescales and less or more total grinding. For each set of parameters four low-resolution simulations were performed.
This grid of simulations did not find a sweet spot of a depressed Mars mass and $\sim 2 M_\oplus$ of planets (see Table \[bigtable\]). The set of parameters that was closest to $\sim 2
M_\oplus$ of total mass of planets was for a 1.5x MMSN and 2 Myr gas lifetime, with an average of 2.22 $M_\oplus$. However, the Mars analogs were large and averaged 0.6 $M_\oplus$. The Mars analogs are lower for the 1x MMSN 3 Myr gas cases, 0.43 $M_\oplus$, but the total mass in all planets was only 1.62 $M_\oplus$.
For each simulation in the grid of runs, the system was analyzed at 115 Myr, tracking the total mass of planets M$_\mathrm{tot}$, where a planet is defined to be 1/30 th of an Earth Mass. Also tracked are the mass of Mars analogs (M$_\mathrm{M}$; if $1.2<a<2.0$) and their semimajor axis at completion (a$_\mathrm{M}$), and the system Angular Momentum Deficit (AMD) and the Radial Mass Concentration (RMC). The AMD measures the dynamical excitement of a system of planets relative to the same system with zero eccentricity and incliation [@Laskar:1997p23044; @Chambers:2001p7618], where the current terrestrial planets value is 0.0014, and is defined as
$$AMD = \frac{\sum_j M_j \sqrt{a_j}(1-\cos(i_j)\sqrt{1-e_j^2})}{\sum_j M_j \sqrt{a_j}}
\label{eq2}$$
where $M_j$, $a_j$, $i_j$, and $e_j$ are the mass, semimajor axis, inclination, and eccentricity of planet $j$.
The RMC is a metric that increases with concentration of planetary mass, and decreases with widespread systems with distributed planetary mass, where the current solar system value is 89.9 and its calculated by [@Chambers:2001p7618]. $$RMC = {\rm max}\Big(\frac{\sum M_j}{\sum M_j [\log_{10}(a/a_j)]^2}\Big)
\label{eq3}$$ where $M_j$ and $a_j$ are again the mass and semimajor axis of planet $j$, and $a$ ranges from 0.1 au to 2 au. The RMC is particularly sensitive to the small Mars problem, where results with the typically over-sized Mars-analogs of 5-10$\times$ the size of Mars produce RMC values between 30–50 [@Raymond:2009p11530].
The planetary systems created in the partial grid of parameters space, from 1-2$\times$MMSN and 1-3 Myr gas disk dissipation time, produced roughly consistent systems within each set of parameters (see Figure \[fig:123MMSN\] and Table \[bigtable\]). The 1$\times$MMSN case has too little mass remaining, averaging 1.62 $M_\oplus$ due to mass lost during collisional grinding. The mass of Mars is the lowest of the three cases, averaging 0.43 $M_\oplus$, but simply decreased proportional to the total deficiency of mass in the planetary system. The deficiency of total mass also results in low mass Earths (Figure \[fig:123MMSN\]a), and the largest number of total planets, 4.5, on average.
The 2$\times$MMSN overshot the total mass, averaging 2.63 $M_\oplus$ per system of planets, and also large Mars analogs averaging 0.69 $M_\oplus$. This is expressed in the handful of $\sim$1.3 $M_\oplus$ planets formed in these simulations (Figure \[fig:123MMSN\]b). Finally, the 1.5$\times$MMSN initial disk with a 2 Myr gas disk lifetime provided the best match to the total mass of the suite of final planets, averaging 2.22 $M_\oplus$, but still far overshooting the mass of Mars analogs with an average of 0.6 $M_\oplus$.
All of the parameter suites produced similar AMD and RMC values. The similarity of the RMC shows that the mass of Mars is increasing or decreasing roughly in proportion to the total mass of planets for each set of parameters. The values of RMC are roughly in line with those found for numerous previous simulation scenarios including giant planet excitation [@Raymond:2009p11530], and well below those found by the scenarios that utilize an annulus that have found good matches for this particular metric. [@Hansen:2009p8802; @Jacobson:2014p18340; @Brasser:2016].
A large suite of classical simulations that varied primarily the giant planet orbit conditions produced final AMD values between 1-10$\times$ the current value, so between 0.0018 and 0.018 [@Raymond:2009p11530]. A large suite of annulus, or Grand Tack, simulations found that AMD values for final planets would vary between $10^{-4}$ and 0.01 for a range of tested initial embryo mass and embryo size [@Jacobson:2014p18340]. The averages found here, 0.0030 – 0.0046, or $\sim$2–3$\times$ the current value represent no clear improvement over the outcomes described in @Raymond:2009p11530, and are possibly slightly worse than that found in the Grand Tack cases tested in @Jacobson:2014p18340.
The RMC values for @Raymond:2009p11530 tests range between 0.2–0.8$\times$ the current value. Naturally @Jacobson:2014p18340, doing annulus tests that have a long record of producing good Earth/Mars mass ratios, produced excellent RMC values 0.5–1.1 times the present RMC. Meanwhile the simulations presented here look more similar to the full-disk tests of @Raymond:2009p11530 and consistently produce RMC values between 30–60, or 0.3–0.75 times the current RMC value, suggesting Mars-analogs that are too massive.
![The final planets remaining in the four simulations for (a) 1$\times$MMSN with a 3 Myr gas disk dissipation timescale. The produced planets are the open circles and the actual planets are the filled squares, and they are both plotted as (top) their orbital eccentricity (middle) orbital inclination in degrees and (bottom) their mass in Earth masses as a function of their semi-major axes in Astronominal Units (au). Pane (b) shows the same data for four simulations with 1.5$\times$MMSN with a 2 Myr gas disk dissipation timescale, and (c) shows four simulations of a 2$\times$MMSN with a 1 Myr gas disk dissipation timescale. []{data-label="fig:123MMSN"}](Figure12.eps){width="7.2in"}
There is no parameter set tested here, of gas disk lifetime and disk mass, using 30 km initial planetesimal radii, that can satisfy both a small Mars and supply the total mass required by the four terrestrial planets.
R$_\mathrm{init}$ (run \#) N$_\mathrm{planets}$ M$_\mathrm{tot}$ AMD RMC M$_\mathrm{M}$ (M$_\oplus$) a$_\mathrm{M}$ (au)
--------------------------------------------- ---------------------- ------------------ -------- ------- ----------------------------- --------------------- -- -- --
1xMMSN 2Myr gas (1) 19 1.39 0.0001 42.82 0.17 1.51
1xMMSN 2Myr gas (2) 8 1.40 0.0006 48.75 0.19 1.24
1xMMSN 2Myr gas (3) 5 1.43 0.0008 40.73 0.37 1.37
1xMMSN 2Myr gas (4) 6 1.55 0.0007 43.17 0.27 1.22
Average 9.5 1.44 0.0006 43.87 0.25 1.34
2xMMSN 1Myr gas (1) 3 2.64 0.0029 59.13 0.51 1.63
2xMMSN 1Myr gas (2) 5 2.55 0.0031 32.40 0.50 1.34
2xMMSN 1Myr gas (3) 4 2.55 0.0019 43.49 1.08 1.34
2xMMSN 1Myr gas (4) 4 2.79 0.0039 40.52 0.66 1.63
Average 2x 1Myr gas 4 2.63 0.0030 43.89 0.69 1.49
1.5xMMSN 2Myr gas (1) 3 1.94 0.0027 44.32 0.28 1.52
1.5xMMSN 2Myr gas (2) 3 1.97 0.0021 56.02 0.54 1.53
1.5xMMSN 2Myr gas (3) 4 2.35 0.0125 33.07 0.79 1.59
1.5xMMSN 2Myr gas (4) 5 2.61 0.0011 35.52 0.81 1.39
Average 1.5x 2Myr gas 3.5 2.22 0.0046 42.23 0.6 1.5
1xMMSN 3Myr gas (1) 6 1.75 0.0024 43.97 0.34 1.74
1xMMSN 3Myr gas (2) 4 1.60 0.0063 47.22 0.47 1.50
1xMMSN 3Myr gas (3) 4 1.44 0.0036 53.11 0.46 1.43
1xMMSN 3Myr gas (4) 4 1.68 0.0030 49.05 0.46 1.22
Average 1x 3Myr gas 4.5 1.62 0.0038 48.34 0.43 1.47
Current Solar System 4 1.97 0.0014 89.9 0.11 1.52
$R_\mathrm{init}=5$ km 2xMMSN 2 Myr gas (1) 4 2.41 0.0019 41.5 0.60 1.41
$R_\mathrm{init}=5$ km 2xMMSN 2 Myr gas (2) 4 2.47 0.0020 35.5 0.61 1.73
$R_\mathrm{init}=5$ km 2xMMSN 2 Myr gas (3) 2 2.38 0.0032 40.8 – –
$R_\mathrm{init}=5$ km 2xMMSN 2 Myr gas (4) 4 2.69 0.0026 37.0 0.28 1.71
Average 5 km, 2xMMSN, 2 Myr gas 3.5 2.49 0.0024 38.7 0.50 1.61
Growing Mars from Small Planetesimals in a Massive Disk
-------------------------------------------------------
@Kobayashi:2013p11732 propose that the combined constraints of the chronology of Mars accretion ($\sim$few million years) and its small mass relative Earth can be accounted for by the growth from a massive (a few times MMSN) disk of small planetesimals (less than 10 km). The timescales to reach oligarchic growth are faster for the smaller initial planetesimal size, and the increased disk mass makes up for loss to collisional grinding. However, it is less clear what will happen at 1 au - whether a suitable set of Earth and Venus analogs will form - and how many other Mars-mass embryos could grow nearby or beyond any that grow at 1.5 au.
We performed a suite of simulations with $R_\mathrm{init}=5$ km and a 2$\times$MMSN disk with a 2 Myr gas disk lifetime. The growth is indeed substantially faster, reaching isolation masses roughly twice as fast for the Nominal scenario (see Figures \[fig:Kob5km\] and \[fig:KobFrames\]). In only $\sim$1 Myr embryos have grown out beyond 1.5 au, and by 5 Myr they stretch across the entire disk and dominate the total mass of the system.
The system at 5 Myr is nearly an ideal description of a bi-modal mass distribution - or the simple clean idea of oligarchic growth conditions so frequently assumed in models. It is not entirely so simple; between 0.7–1.0 au the embryos account for 94% of the mass, but only 53% between 1.7–2.0 au. The planetesimal distribution is not smooth, rather it shows a less extreme inside-out depletion as found in the Nominal simulations discussed above.
The final planets meanwhile suggest that not enough total mass was lost due to collisional grinding (Figure \[fig:PlanetsKob\]). The four simulations had similar final masses of planets all over 2.49 $M_\oplus$. The Mars-analog on average were only two to three times larger than Mars, but that was balanced by the simulation that only produce 2 planets with no Mars-analog. Meanwhile, of the few Earth-analogs formed at 1 au one was also 60% of an Earth-mass, while another was 1.77 $M_\oplus$. Without a more complete suite of simualtions its hard to entirely discount this scenario, but these first results suggest that while the accretion timescale and embryo mass at 1.5 au might be matched with the collateral outcome of too much mass at 1 au resulting in too few and/or too massive planets.
![The time at which the isolation mass is reached as a function of semimajor axis (au) for the nominal model with initial planetesimals with radius of 5 km.[]{data-label="fig:Kob5km"}](Figure13.eps){width="4in"}
Two generations of planets
--------------------------
We find that embryos resulting from Oligarchic growth remain stable even after the vast majority of planetesimal mass are gone, where at 10 Myr the region inside of 1 au is 91% embryo by mass and is 94% by 15 Myr. This stability results in a quiescent period lasting $\gtrsim$10 Myr prior to the onset of the giant impact stage of planet formation that is characterized by violent collisions between the embryos.
This dynamically cold and quasi-stable phase lasts longer than expected for similar systems without any gas affects. The spacing of the embryos found here, 10-12 mutual Hill Spheres, are the same as typically found in numerical and theoretical models (Figure \[fig:Hill\]) [@Kokubo:1998p9706; @Chambers:2006p11697; @Kobayashi:2010p9661]. Absent dynamical friction from planetesimals, and the affects of damping from gas, this spacing is not stable on long timescales for an isolated system of embryos, where 10 bodies with non-uniform, but average, spacing of 10 mutual Hill Sphere and non-uniform masses should only be stable for $\sim$1 Myr [@Chambers:1996p18902]. Owing to the presence of the dissipating gaseous solar nebula, the system of embryos remains dynamically cold (low eccentricity and inclination) and quasi-stable. The evolution of dynamical excitement is seen in the history of the system’s Angular Momentum Deficit (AMD), a common metric to track a systems divergence from circular and uninclined orbits [@Laskar:1997p23044], where here a very slow increase in AMD is seen from 1-10 Myr. Only after 10 Myr does the AMD rapidly increase by over an order of magnitude in a few Myr (Figure \[fig:Hill\]). The sharp increase of the AMD reveals the dynamically cold suite of embryos transitioning into the giant impact stage of planet formation.
These dynamics are dominated by the effects of the gas disk. The dynamical stability of multi-planet systems has been found to change with only 0.1% of the starting MMSN of available gas [@Iwasaki:2001p21107; @Kominami:2002p21136], which is similar to the amount left in these simulations after $\sim$5 e-folding times, $\sim$10 Myr, when an instability is typically first encountered. Similar dynamics is found in other recent studies utilizing an exponentially dissipating gas disk [@Walsh:2016p23062; @Levison:2015p20212], where two very different pathways to a suite of embryos, an annulus or pebble accretion, both result in similar quasi-stability of the initial embryos. The two different timescales, a few Myr for building the first suite of embryos and a few 10’s Myr for completing the accretion of the planets is similar to the expected accretion times for Mars and Earth respectively [@Dauphas:2011p19768; @Kleine:2009p9784], which provides some support for the idea that Mars is essentially an embryo that sat out the final stage of growth.
The evolution of the system can be viewed as two generations of planets, the first grown in a few Myr and only after $\gtrsim$10 Myr will the final set of planets start to be built. This is something not typically captured in models that begin at the Oligarchic growth stage in the [*absence*]{} of gas.
Rough Prescription for Generating Initial Conditions
====================================================
One big takeaway from the above discussion is that planet formation initial conditions are vastly different than the typically assumed Moon to Mars sized embryos amidst a sea of planetesimals. This condition is never reached in any of our simulations, and here we endeavor to provide sufficient descriptions to enable others to build a set of initial conditions that match the growth described here.
At any given time knowledge of the regional size frequnecy distribution (SFD) and orbital properties at each semimajor axis should encapsulate the key pieces of information. An example of this also displays the breakdown between all mass and planetesimal mass (see Figure \[fig:SD\]), as well as the largest body in each semimajor axis bin and particle size-frequency distributions in three distinct locations in the disk. The relationship between total mass and planetesimal mass will allow for determination of embryo mass, and the size of the largest body will provide, at least roughly, the dynamical excitment of the local planetesimal population. The complete set of data files showing orbit and size properties of every body are available over entire simulations online (at [www.boulder.swri.edu/\~kwalsh/LIPAD.html](www.boulder.swri.edu/~kwalsh/LIPAD.html)).
![The evolution of the Nominal simulation over the first 10 Myr showing the (left) total mass and (center) planetesimal mass as a function of semimajor axis (au). The third column of panes show the size of the largest body in kilometers as a function of semimajor axis and times. Finally, the fourth column shows the size frequency distribution in three different semimajor axis ranges: in black solid line is 0.7–0.9 au, in orange dashed line is 1.3–1.5 au and the green dotted line is 2.3–2.5 au.[]{data-label="fig:SD"}](Figure17.eps){width="5in"}
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
Terrestrial planet formation is a deeply studied problem, but despite the attention that it garners, effects studied for over a decade are regularly not taken into account in modern discussions and simulations. Furthermore we find here that some of the affects are exaggerated when the dynamics of collisional evolution and the dissipating gas disk are utilized for the entire growth from planetesimals to planets.
The three questions posed in Section 1.1.3 questioned where and when one can find oligarchy in a disk and the implications for the planetesimal population. The Nominal scenario (1$\times$MMSN, 2 Myr gas disk dissipation timescale and 30 km $R_\mathrm{init}$) finds that the growth timescale relative to the gas disk dissipation timescale allow for rapid progression of oligarchy inside 1 au leading to rapid depletion of planetesimals and rapid construction of a suite of dynamically cold and stable embryos. It takes another 10 Myr years for this state to reach the outer edges of the tested regions, by which time the depleted gas disk allows for much more planetesimal loss to collisional grinding. In this case chaotic growth starts inside of 1 au before oligarchic growth has reached beyond 2 au. Enough mass is lost to leave behind insufficient mass to build a suite of terrestrial planets.
In the simulations designed to test the $R_\mathrm{init}$=5 km and 2$\times$MMSN the growth timescale was significant faster than the gas dissipation timescale and a full suite of disk-wide embryos formed before the giant impact stage commenced. These simulations still had significantly more depletion of planetesimals in the inner disk compared to the outer.
The big takeaway is that exploring a modest grid of disk mass and gas disk dissipation timescales there was no clear sweetspot where collisional grinding could account for the mass difference between Earth and Mars. Extending this to the proposed solution of @Kobayashi:2013p11732 of $\sim$5 km initial planetesimals also did not seem to address the issue of the Earth/Mars mass ratio (although it did decidedly speed up growth of Mars-sized embryos, as predicted in that work). While there is significant parameter space yet to explore there is no guarantee that there is a simple answer to this issue based on collisional evolution, despite some clear trends, basic physics and the attractive simplicity of it. Furthermore, collisional grinding may not need to solve this problem alone, rather a combination of different growth patterns (e.g pebble accretion; see @Levison:2012p12338) or larger solar system evolution (e.g an early giant planet instability; see @Clement:2018) may also contribute to changing the Earth/Mars mass ratio.
Another way to view these findings are that despite the discussed differences in collisional mass loss and long-lasting suite of stable embryos, the planetetary systems are not wholly different than previous works. Once the mass of the disk was increased to 1.5 or 2.0$\times$ MMSN, and the final total planet mass was close to 2.0 Earth masses, the typical metrics for modeling the terrestrial planets showed values similar to nominal cases from @Raymond:2009p6769. While differences will still lurk in the outcomes for the growth timescales, number and nature of giant impacts and the structure of the remaining asteroid belt, it shows generally that the starting mass distribution (and its profile) will govern the final mass distribution in the terrestrial planets.
Future work should focus on departing from the simple assumption about an exponential decay of the gas disk, which may be biasing results away from any sharp discontinuities in embryo size or growth timescale at specific distances. Similarly, departing from simple monodisperse distribution of initial planetesimal sizes could play an important role in changing the outcome of the simulations. Also, a change in the initial surface density profile of the disk could also contribute to an increase in the Earth/Mars mass ratio. Finally, these results are compiled from combining suites of four simulations per parameter set and may not provide robust statistical views of the possible outcomes.
The test of @Kobayashi:2013p11732 also highlighted that in a regime where the growth timescale is substantially shorter than the the gas disk dissipation timescale, the disk did nearly reach a bi-modal mass distribution (although the planetesimal population did not follow the original surface density profile). Although not tested here, one can speculate that substantially changing any of the variables, disk mass, or gas disk lifetime, so that embryo growth happens under similar gas conditions throughout the disk would promote this outcome. However, for the Nominal conditions here - all typical in the literature - the gas disk timescale is similar to embryo growth near 1 au, leaving the outer regions of the disk to grow in subtantially less gas-rich condtions.
The small Mars problem is otherwise dealt with in the literature by significant involvment of the giant planets [@Raymond:2009p6769; @Walsh:2011p12463; @Clement:2018], non-smooth distributions of solid materials [@Izidoro:2014] or vastly different modes of accretion [@Levison:2015p20212]. Some of these models rely on scenarios and simulations built on the same assumptions assailed throughout this work - a simplistic bi-modal distribution of embryos and planetesimals. For example, the “Grand Tack” scenario modeled the migration of Jupiter through this simplistic disk, whereas the results here suggest that there could be significant differences in outcomes as a function of time and growth of the disk beyond $\sim$ 2 au (see @Jacobson:2014p18340 [@Brasser:2016]) - such that the migrating giant planets encounter only planetesimals and no embryos, or the opposite, during their migration.
Other avenues to improve and expand on this work lie in the collisional model utilized. Here, using the @Benz:1999p505 disruption model was realtively simple, but there are more recent investigations into the complex array of possible outcomes during small and large impacts [@Leinhardt:2012; @Leinhardt:2015p18851; @Movshovitz:2016p22086]. Given the huge number of collisions between planetesimals means that small shifts in disruptions laws at this size could add to big differences, and the complexity of possible outcomes between embryos makes it hard to generalize these critical final accretion/disruption events. Improved modeling of collisions at both could change the outcomes of models similar to this.
Other consequences that could spring from this work relate to rapid depletion of planetesimals near 1 au. The innermost planetesimals are accreted nearly to entirety and almost entirely into planets forming nearby. While there are some leftover planetesimals, there is minimal leftover mass relative to the typical bi-modal distributions typically used in modeling approaches. Whether the relative contribution to the planets from different regions of the inner solar system have substantially changed due to this affect is beyond the scope of the resolution of the simulations presented here and would require a specialized study.
The other stark difference with some previous work is the quasi-stable phase of the first suite of planetary embryos, dubbed “two generation of planets” in the main text. The evolution described here would generate a different history of giant impacts between planetary embryos, with much of the actual “giant impact” phase not kicking off until the nebular gas has greatly dissipated, potentially $\sim$ 10 Myr later than previously modeled. Presuming that this is a generic effect, that even minimal amounts of nebular gas can provide stability for a system of planetary embryos, then it could change the way we look for or interpret signs of giant impacts in extra-solar planetary systems.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
KJW and HL were supported by NASA’s SSERVI program (Institute for the Science of Exploration Targets) through institute grant number NNA14AB03A, and NASA’s Emerging Worlds program. This work used the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE), which is supported by National Science Foundation grant number ACI-1053575.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address: 'Institute of Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan, H. Javid pr. 33, 370143 Baku, Azerbaijan\'
author:
- 'Fuad M. Saradzhev[^1]'
title: Kinetic equation for tachyons
---
INTRODUCTION
============
Quantum fluctuations of a scalar field can enter a tachyonic regime where their frequency becomes imaginary. Such regime can occur if the scalar field is either coupled to a strong stationary external potential [@schiff; @tanaka; @bert; @full] or strongly self-interacting with a potential exhibiting spontaneous symmetry breaking [@ann; @SW; @dj]. In the tachyonic regime the system is essentially restructured. Its effective action develops an imaginary part [@erick], the fluctuations Hamiltonian becomes unbounded from below, while the Hilbert space of states acquires an indefinite metric [@bert]. All these changes are indicative of a new, metastable phase.
In the present work, we aim to derive a quantum kinetic equation describing the production of the tachyonic modes for a self-interacting neutral massive scalar field. Particle production in the tachyonic regime has been extensively studied so far in various models of spontaneous symmetry breaking [@linde]. In these studies, the occupation number of produced particles has been estimated at the end of the metastable phase . Herein we suggest to study the full time evolution of the momentum distribution of the tachyonic modes using a kinetic description.
The decay of the metastable vacuum state has been discussed in different ways, including the semiclassical approach [@cole], the classical lattice field theory [@polo], the two-particle irreducible effective action formalism [@yoav]. Our approach is based on the canonical quantization of the tachyonic modes.
The plan of the paper is as follows. In Sec.\[tachyon\] we introduce the model and identify the tachyonic regime. In Sec.\[quant\] we perform the quantization of the tachyonic modes. A quantum kinetic equation is derived in Sec.\[kinetic\]. We conclude with summary in Sec.\[summ\].
TACHYONIC REGIME {#tachyon}
================
We consider a general scalar field model with the Lagrangian density $${\cal L}= \frac{1}{2} ({\partial}_{\mu} {\varphi}) ({\partial}^{\mu}
{\varphi}) - \frac{1}{2} m^2 {\varphi}^2 - V({\varphi}),
\label{1}$$ where $V({\varphi})$ is a self-interaction potential which contains orders ${\varphi}^3$ and higher without derivative terms and $m$ is the mass of the scalar field. The model is defined in a finite volume $L^3$, $-L/2 \leq x_i
\leq L/2$, $i=1,2,3$. The continuum limit is $\frac {1}{L^3}
\sum_{\vec k} \Longrightarrow \int \frac{d^3\vec{k}}{(2{\pi})^3}$.
From (\[1\]) we obtain the Klein-Gordon type equation of motion for the field ${\varphi}({\vec x},t)$: $$\label{2}
(\Box + m^2) {\varphi} = J \equiv
- \frac{{\delta}V}{{\delta}{\varphi}},$$ where the non-linear current $J$ is also determined by the self-interaction.
Following the mean-field approximation, we decompose ${\varphi}(\vec{x},t)$ into its space-homogeneous vacuum mean value ${\phi}(t)=\langle {\varphi}(\vec{x},t) \rangle$ and fluctuations ${\chi}$ $${\varphi}(\vec{x},t) = {\phi}(t) + {\chi}(\vec{x},t)
\label{3}$$ with $\langle {\chi}(\vec{x},t) \rangle =0$. The mean field is treated as a classical background field defined with respect to the in-vacuum $|0 \rangle$ as $${\phi}(t) \equiv \langle {\varphi}(\vec{x},t) \rangle \equiv
\frac{1}{L^3} \int d^3x \langle 0| {\varphi}(\vec{x},t) |0 \rangle,
\label{4}$$ so that in the limit $t \to -\infty$ ${\phi}(t) \to 0$, while the fluctuations are quantized and take place at all times.
Using Eq.(\[3\]) provides the following decomposition for the current $$J({\phi} + {\chi}) = J({\phi}) + \frac{{\delta}J({\phi})}
{{\delta}{\phi}} {\chi} + \overline{J}({\phi},{\chi}),
\label{5}$$ where $\overline{J}({\phi},{\chi})$ includes terms of second and higher orders in ${\chi}$, $$\overline{J}({\phi},{\chi}) = \frac{1}{2}
\frac{{\delta}^2 J({\phi})}{{\delta}{\phi}^2} {\chi}^2 + ... .
\label{6}$$ Substituting Eq.(\[3\]) also into Eq.(\[2\]) and taking the mean value $\langle
... \rangle$ yields the vacuum mean field equation $$\label{7}
\ddot{\phi} + m^2 {\phi} - J({\phi})
=\langle \overline{J} \rangle ,$$ where the overdot indicates the derivative with respect to time, while the equation of motion for the quantum fluctuations reads $$(\Box + m_{eff}^2) {\chi} = \overline{J} -
\langle \overline{J} \rangle
\label{8}$$ with $$m_{eff}^2 \equiv m^2 + \frac{{\delta}^2 V({\phi})}{{\delta} {\phi}^2}.
\label{9}$$ For $\frac{{\delta}^2 V}{{\delta}{\phi}^2} > 0$, the effective mass squared is positive at all times. However, if $\frac{{\delta}^2 V}{{\delta} {\phi}^2} < 0$, $m_{eff}^2$ becomes negative for $|\frac{{\delta}^2 V}{{\delta} {\phi}^2}|
> m^2$ indicating a tachyonic regime.
In terms of the Fourier components ${\chi}(\vec{k},t)$, Eq.(\[8\]) takes the form $$\ddot{\chi}(\vec{k},t) + {\omega}_k^2(t) {\chi}(\vec{k},t)=
F_{\chi}(\vec{k},t),
\label{10}$$ where $$F_{\chi}(\vec{k},t) \equiv \overline{J}(\vec{k},t) -
\sqrt{V} \langle \overline{J} \rangle {\delta}_{{\vec k},0}
\label{11}$$ and $\overline{J}(\vec{k},t)$ is the Fourier transform of the current $\overline{J}(\vec{x},t)$, $$\overline{J}(\vec{k},t) \equiv \frac{1}{L^{3/2}} \int d^3x
e^{-i{\vec k}{\vec x}} \overline{J}(\vec{x},t),
\label{12}$$ while $${\omega}_k^2(t) \equiv {\vec k}^{~2} + m_{eff}^2(t)
\label{13}$$ is the time-dependent frequency squared of the fluctuations . In the tachyonic regime, ${\omega}_k^2(t)$ can be negative.
Whether the system evolves in the tachyonic or non-tachyonic regime is dynamically fixed by the time-dependent critical momentum: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{14}
{\vec k}_c^{~2} & = &\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
\Big| \frac{{\delta}^2 V}{{\delta}{\phi}^2} \Big|
- m^2\,, && \frac{{\delta}^2 V}{{\delta}{\phi}^2}<-m^2\\
0\,, && {\rm otherwise}
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ All momentum modes below ${\vec k}_c^{~2}$ are tachyonic. For $\frac{{\delta}^2 V}{{\delta} {\phi}^2} > - m^2$, the critical momentum is zero, since the frequency is always positive and no tachyonic modes can appear.
The system can enter the tachyonic regime in different ways: gradually when the critical momentum becomes nonzero very slowly, or discontinuously when tachyonic modes appear suddenly [@anselm; @rand; @DB2002] on a short time scale. In any case, the critical momentum changes in tune with the time dependence of the vacuum mean field ${\phi}$. If ${\phi}$ oscillates, then the same momentum mode can change its nature during the time evolution.
Eqs. (\[7\]) and (\[10\]) are exact, self-consistently coupled and include back-reactions. The vacuum mean field modifies the equation for fluctuations via a time dependent frequency, while the fluctuations react back on the vacuum mean field via the source term $\langle \overline{J} \rangle$ in Eq.(\[7\]) and on the fluctuations themselves via the “external force” term $F_{\chi}(\vec{k},t)$ in Eq.(\[10\]).
QUANTIZATION {#quant}
============
The Hamiltonian density corresponding to (\[1\]) is $${\cal H} = \frac{1}{2} {\pi}^2 + \frac{1}{2} (\vec{\nabla} {\varphi})^2
+ \frac{1}{2} m^2 {\varphi}^2 + V({\varphi}),
\label{15}$$ where ${\pi}$ is the momentum canonically conjugate to ${\varphi}$. With the decomposition for the potential $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
V({\phi}+{\chi})
& = & V({\phi}) - J({\phi}){\chi}
+ \frac{1}{2} (m_{eff}^2 - m^2) {\chi}^2\\
& + & \overline{V}({\phi},{\chi}),
\label{16}\end{aligned}$$ orders ${\chi}^3$ and higher being included into $\overline{V}({\phi},
{\chi})$, we deduce from (\[15\]) the Hamiltonian density governing the dynamics of the fluctuations $${\cal H}_{\chi} \equiv \frac{1}{2} {\pi}_{\chi}^2 +
\frac{1}{2} ( \vec{\nabla} {\chi} )^2 + \frac{1}{2} m_{eff}^2 {\chi}^2
+ \overline{V}({\phi},{\chi}).
\label{17}$$ In terms of the Fourier components ${\chi}(\vec{k},t)$ and ${\pi}_{\chi}(\vec{k},t)$, the fluctuations Hamiltonian reads $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&& H_{\chi} =
\int d^3x {\cal H}_{\chi}\\\nonumber
&& = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{{\vec k}^{~2} > {\vec k}_c^{~2}}
\Big( {\pi}_{\chi}^{\dagger}(\vec{k},t) {\pi}_{\chi}(\vec{k},t)
+ {\omega}_k^2(t) {\chi}^{\dagger}(\vec{k},t)
{\chi}(\vec{k},t) \Big)\\\nonumber
&& + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{{\vec k}^{~2} < {\vec k}_c^{~2}}
\Big( {\pi}_{\chi}^{\dagger}(\vec{k},t) {\pi}_{\chi}(\vec{k},t)
- {\nu}_k^2(t) {\chi}^{\dagger}(\vec{k},t)
{\chi}(\vec{k},t) \Big)\\
&& + L^{3/2} \overline{V}(\vec{k}=0,t),
\label{18}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\nu}_k^2 \equiv - {\omega}_k^2 > 0$ for ${\vec k}^{~2} < {\vec k}_c^{~2}$, and $$\begin{aligned}
{\chi}^{\dagger}(\vec{k},t) & = & {\chi}(-\vec{k},t), \\
{\pi}_{\chi}^{\dagger}(\vec{k},t) & = & {\pi}_{\chi}(-\vec{k},t)
\label{19-20}\end{aligned}$$ for all momentum modes.
The non-tachyonic and tachyonic modes contribution to the Hamiltonian (\[18\]) represents a collection of positive and inverted (repulsive) oscillators, respectively. Both types of modes are coupled. Their interaction is described by the last term in Eq.(\[18\]), $\overline{V}(\vec{k},t)$ being the Fourier transform of the potential $\overline{V}
(\vec{x},t)$.
For the standard, non-tachyonic modes, we introduce the annihilation and creation operators by $${\chi}(\vec{k},t) = {\Gamma}_{\vec{k}}(t) a(\vec{k},t) +
{\Gamma}_{\vec{k}}^{\star}(t) a^{\dagger}(-\vec{k},t),
\label{21}$$ and $${\pi}_{\chi}(\vec{k},t) = -i{\omega}_k(t) \Big[
{\Gamma}_{\vec k}(t) a(-\vec{k},t) -
{\Gamma}_{\vec k}^{\star}(t) a^{\dagger}(\vec{k},t) \Big],
\label{22}$$ where $${\Gamma}_{\vec{k}}(t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2{\omega}_k(t)}}
\exp\{ -i{\Theta}_k({\omega}_k,t) \},
\label{23}$$ and ${\Theta}_k({\omega}_k,t)$ is a phase which in the in-limit takes the form ${\omega}_k^0 t \equiv \sqrt{{\vec k}^2 + m^2} t$.
Eqs.(\[21\]) and (\[22\]) are well-known expressions for the real frequency oscillations. The first term in the Hamiltonian (\[18\]) – we denote it by $H_{\chi}^{nt}$ – becomes up to a c-number: $$H_{\chi}^{nt} =
\sum_{{\vec k}^{~2} > {\vec k}_c^{~2}}
{\omega}_k(t) N^{nt}(\vec{k},t),
\label{24}$$ where $N^{nt}(\vec{k},t) \equiv a^{\dagger}(\vec{k},t) a(\vec{k},t)$ is the non-tachyonic modes number density operator.
For the modes with ${\vec k}^{~2} < {\vec k}_c^{~2}$, ${\omega}_k = \pm i{\nu}_k = \pm i \sqrt{{\vec k}_c^{~2} - {\vec k}^2}$ and one of the phase factors in the ansatz (\[21\]), ${\Gamma}_{\vec k}(t)$ or ${\Gamma}_{\vec k}^{\star}(t)$, grows exponentially in time. Instead of oscillations we have an exponential growth of long wavelength quantum fluctuations with momenta ${\vec k}^{~2} < {\vec k}_c^{~2}$. This is the so-called tachyonic instability [@linde; @anselm; @rand; @DB2002].
Making the transition ${\omega}_k \to {\nu}_k$ in Eq.([22]{}) yields the following ansatz for the negative frequency squared fluctuations $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&& {\chi}({\vec k},t) \to {\chi}_t({\vec k},t) \\
&& = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2{\nu}_k}} \Big( e^{{\vartheta}_k} a({\vec k},t)
+ e^{-{\vartheta}_k} a^{\dagger}(-{\vec k},t) \Big),
\label{25}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\vartheta}_k({\nu}_k,t) = -i{\Theta}_k({\omega}_k,t)$. Introducing $$\begin{aligned}
{\sigma}_1({\vec k},t) & \equiv & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2{\nu}_k}}
\cosh{\vartheta}_k \cdot \Big( a({\vec k},t) + a^{\dagger}(-{\vec k},t)
\Big),\\
{\sigma}_2({\vec k},t) & \equiv & - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2{\nu}_k}}
\sinh{\vartheta}_k \cdot \Big( a({\vec k},t) - a^{\dagger}(-{\vec k},t)
\Big),
\label{26-27}\end{aligned}$$ which obey the hermiticity condition ${\sigma}_{1(2)}^{\dagger}
({\vec k},t) = {\sigma}_{1(2)}(-{\vec k},t)$, we rewrite Eq.(\[25\]) as $${\chi}_t({\vec k},t) = {\sigma}_1({\vec k},t) + i {\sigma}_2({\vec k},t)
\label{28}$$ with ${\chi}_t^{\dagger}({\vec k},t) \neq {\chi}_t(-{\vec k},t)$, i.e. the ansatz (\[25\]) is non-Hermitian.
The canonically conjugate momentum is transformed as $${\pi}_{\chi}({\vec k},t) \to {\pi}_{{\chi},t}({\vec k},t) =
{\pi}_{{\sigma}1}({\vec k},t) + i{\pi}_{{\sigma}2}({\vec k},t),
\label{29}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\pi}_{{\sigma}1}(\vec{k},t) & \equiv &
{\nu}_k \coth{\vartheta}_k \cdot {\sigma}_2^{\dagger}(\vec{k},t),\\
{\pi}_{{\sigma}2}(\vec{k},t) & \equiv &
- {\nu}_k \tanh{\vartheta}_k \cdot {\sigma}_1^{\dagger}(\vec{k},t).
\label{30-31}\end{aligned}$$ The commutation relations for ${\sigma}_1$,${\sigma}_2$-fields are $${\Big[ {\sigma}_1(\vec{k},t) , {\sigma}_2({\vec p},t) \Big]}_{-}
= \frac{i}{2{\nu}_k} \sinh2{\vartheta}_k \cdot {\delta}_{{\vec k},
-{\vec p}},
\label{32}$$ all other commutators vanishing.
Analytically continuing the ansatz (\[21\]) in the frequency to imaginary values leads therefore to a non-Hermitian field. This is not acceptable because we require the hermiticity conditions, Eqs.(19)-(20), to be valid for all momentum modes and at all steps of our consideration. In addition, such non-Hermitian field is known to violate causality [@sudar].
To define the Hermitian tachyonic fluctuations we can use either ${\sigma}_1({\vec k},t)$ or ${\sigma}_2({\vec k},t)$ instead of ${\chi}_t({\vec k},t)$. Without loss of generality, we choose ${\sigma}_1({\vec k},t)$ and introduce the field $${\sigma}_t({\vec k},t) \equiv \frac{1}{\cosh{\vartheta}_k}
{\sigma}_1({\vec k},t).
\label{33}$$ Its canonically conjugate momentum is $${\pi}_{{\sigma},t}({\vec k},t) \equiv \frac{1}{\cosh{\vartheta}_k}
{\pi}_{{\sigma},1}({\vec k},t).
\label{34}$$ With Eqs.(\[33\]) and (\[34\]), the second term in the Hamiltonian (\[18\]) takes the form $$H_{\chi}^t = \sum_{{\vec k}^{~2} < {\vec k}_c^{~2}}
{\nu}_k(t) N^t({\vec k},t),
\label{35}$$ where $$N^t({\vec k},t) \equiv - \frac{1}{2} \Big( a^{\dagger}({\vec k},t)
a^{\dagger}(-{\vec k},t) + a(-{\vec k},t) a({\vec k},t) \Big).
\label{36}$$ Since the spectrum of an inverted oscillator is purely continuous, the tachyonic modes are not really “particle” ones [@guth]. In contrast with the case of the standard, non-tachyonic modes where the eigenfunctions of $H_{\chi}^{nt}$ coincide with those of the number operator, the tachyonic modes are not eigenoperators of $$N^t \equiv \sum_{{\vec k}^{~2}<{\vec k}_c^{~2}}
N^t({\vec k},t),
\label{37}$$ namely $$\begin{aligned}
{\Big[ N^t , a({\vec k},t) \Big]}_{-} & = & a^{\dagger}
(-{\vec k},t), \\
{\Big[ N^t , a^{\dagger}({\vec k},t) \Big]}_{-} & = &
- a(-{\vec k},t),
\label{38-39}\end{aligned}$$ so that $a({\vec k},t)$,$a^{\dagger}({\vec k},t)$ in Eq.(\[35\]) can not be viewed as creation and annihilation operators.
However, once complex values are allowed for energy, the particle interpretation can be kept for the tachyonic modes as well . Let us introduce $${\alpha}_{1(2)}({\vec k},t) \equiv
\frac{1 \mp i}{2} a^{\dagger}(-{\vec k},t)
+ \frac{1 \pm i}{2} a({\vec k},t),
\label{40}$$ where the upper signs correspond to the subscript 1 and the lower ones to 2. These new mode operators are Hermitian and fulfill the algebra $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\Big[ {\alpha}_1({\vec k},t) , {\alpha}_1^{\dagger}({\vec p},t) \Big]}_{-}
= {\Big[ {\alpha}_2({\vec k},t) , {\alpha}_2^{\dagger}({\vec k},t) \Big]}_{-}
=0, \\
&& {\Big[ {\alpha}_1({\vec k},t) , {\alpha}_2^{\dagger}({\vec p},t) \Big]}_{-}
= i {\delta}_{{\vec k},{\vec p}}.
\label{41-42}\end{aligned}$$ The Fock representation for the algebra (41)-(42) is constructed by using an indefinite metric . Indeed, if $|0;t \rangle$ is an instantaneous vacuum state defined by $${\alpha}_1({\vec k},t) |0;t \rangle =
{\alpha}_2({\vec k},t) |0;t \rangle =0
\hspace{5 mm}
{\rm for}
\hspace{5 mm}
(k_i)>0,
\label{43}$$ where $(k_i)=(k_1,k_2,k_3)$, then for the excited states $$|{\alpha}_{1(2)};{\vec k},t \rangle \equiv
{\alpha}_{1(2)}^{\dagger}({\vec k},t) |0;t \rangle,
\hspace{5 mm}
(k_i)>0,
\label{44}$$ the inner product is vanishing or imaginary, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle {\alpha}_{1(2)};{\vec k},t | {\alpha}_{1(2)};{\vec p},t \rangle
& = & 0,\\
\langle {\alpha}_1;{\vec k},t | {\alpha}_2;{\vec p},t \rangle
& = & i {\delta}_{{\vec k},{\vec p}}.
\label{45-46}\end{aligned}$$ The indefinite inner product is related to the existence of associated eigenvectors of $H_{\chi}$ [@keld].
The density of $N^t$ becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
N^t({\vec k},t) & = &
- i N_{\alpha}^t({\vec k},t)\\
& \equiv &
- \frac{1}{2} \Big( {\alpha}_1^{\dagger}({\vec k},t)
{\alpha}_2({\vec k},t) + {\alpha}_2^{\dagger}({\vec k},t)
{\alpha}_1({\vec k},t)
\Big),
\label{47}\end{aligned}$$ ${\alpha}_{1(2)}({\vec k},t)$ being eigenoperators of $$N_{\alpha}^t \equiv \sum_{\stackrel{{\vec k}^{~2}<{\vec k}_c^{~2}}
{(k_i)>0}} 2N_{\alpha}^t({\vec k},t)
\label{48}$$ with real eigenvalues, $${\Big[ N_{\alpha}^t , {\alpha}_{1(2)}({\vec k},t) \Big]}_{-} =
\mp {\alpha}_{1(2)}({\vec k},t) .
\label{49}$$ For the instantaneous vacuum, $N_{\alpha}^t |0;t \rangle=0$, while for the excited states $N_{\alpha}^t$ counts excitations. For the state $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&& |n{\alpha}_2; {\vec k}_1, {\vec k}_2, ...,{\vec k}_n;t \rangle\\\nonumber
&& \equiv {\alpha}_2^{\dagger}({\vec k}_1,t)
{\alpha}_2^{\dagger}({\vec k}_2,t) \cdot
... \cdot {\alpha}_2^{\dagger}({\vec k}_n,t) |0;t \rangle,\\
&& {\rm all}
\hspace{5 mm}
(k_{1,i},...,k_{n,i})>0,
\label{50}\end{aligned}$$ for instance, $$N_{\alpha}^t |n{\alpha}_2;{\vec k}_1, {\vec k}_2,...,
{\vec k}_n ;t \rangle
= n |n{\alpha}_2;{\vec k}_1, {\vec k}_2, ...,{\vec k}_n ;t \rangle,
\label{51}$$ i.e. $N_{\alpha}^t$ plays the role of the “number operator”.
In the space with indefinite metric, the Hamiltonian $H_{\chi}^t$ is pseudoadjoint [@bert] and its eigenvalues are imaginary. If $| \varepsilon ;t \rangle$ is an eigenstate of $H_{\chi}^t$ with eigenvalue $\varepsilon$, then for the state ${\alpha}_2^{\dagger}({\vec k},t)| \varepsilon ;t \rangle$ we obtain $$H_{\chi}^t {\alpha}_2^{\dagger}({\vec k},t) | \varepsilon ;t \rangle =
\Big( {\varepsilon} + i{\nu}_k \Big) {\alpha}_2^{\dagger}({\vec k},t)
| \varepsilon ;t \rangle,
\label{52}$$ i.e. ${\alpha}_2^{\dagger}({\vec k},t) | \varepsilon ;t \rangle$ is also an eigenstate of $H_{\chi}^t$ with the eigenvalue shifted by $i{\nu}_k$. Neglecting for a moment the third term in the right-hand sise of Eq.(\[18\]), we see that the eigenvalues of the total Hamiltonian $H_{\chi}^{nt} +
H_{\chi}^t$ are complex, the corresponding eigenfunctions representing unstable states.
KINETIC EQUATION {#kinetic}
================
In the mean-field approximation, the quantum fluctuations are treated perturbatively. This is necessary, in particular, for the derivation of the kinetic equation. One of basic points of the kinetic formulation is the postulate of asymptotic completeness [@SR1980]. The postulate specifies the set of possible states of the system in the infinite past as a complete set of states of freely moving non-interacting particles. For the system with a self-interaction, this postulate can be applied only in a few lower orders of perturbations when the interaction potential vanishes in the in-limit due to the vanishing of the vacuum mean field . In higher orders, the quantum fluctuations dominate, the corresponding terms in the interaction potential surviving in the infinite past.
We limit our consideration to the third order term in $\overline{V}({\phi},{\chi})$ neglecting all higher orders. In addition, we use a Hartree-type approximation that in the second and third orders consists of the factorization $${\chi}^2 \to \langle {\chi}^2 \rangle,
\hspace{5 mm}
{\chi}^3 \to 3 \langle {\chi}^2 \rangle {\chi}.
\label{53}$$ For the non-tachyonic modes, the form of the kinetic equation is well-known and was given in different models [@klug; @DB2002]. It determines the time evolution of the occupation number density $${\cal N}^{nt}({\vec k},t) \equiv \langle 0| N^{nt}({\vec k},t)
|0 \rangle
\label{54}$$ which defines the number of particles of a given state characterized by the momentum ${\vec k}^{~2}>{\vec k}_c^{~2}$ at time $t$. An increase in the occupation number density is interpreted as particle production.
Herein we focus on the time evolution of $${\cal N}^t({\vec k},t) \equiv \langle 0| N_{\alpha}^t({\vec k},t)
|0 \rangle
\label{55}$$ which defines the momentum distribution of the tachyonic modes. We start with the tachyonic Hamiltonian equations of motion $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\sigma}_t({\vec k},t) & = &
{\pi}_{{\sigma},t}^{\dagger}({\vec k},t),\\
\dot{\pi}_{{\sigma},t}({\vec k},t) & = &
{\nu}_k^2 {\sigma}^{\dagger}_t({\vec k},t) +
\overline{J}(-{\vec k},t),
\label{56-57}\end{aligned}$$ where the current $\overline{J}(-\vec{k},t)$ represents the self-interaction potential contribution. With the factorization (\[53\]), the self-interaction potential and current take the form $$\overline{V}({\vec k}=0,t) = -\frac{1}{2}
\frac{{\delta}^2J({\phi})}{{\delta}{\phi}^2}
\langle {\chi}^2 \rangle {\sigma}_t(0,t)
\label{58}$$ and $$\overline{J}(\vec{k},t) = \frac{1}{2} L^{3/2}
\frac{{\delta}^2 J({\phi})}{{\delta} {\phi}^2}
\langle {\chi}^2 \rangle {\delta}_{{\vec k},0},
\label{59}$$ respectively. Using the relations $${\alpha}_{1(2)}({\vec k},t) = \sqrt{\frac{{\nu}_k}{2}}
\Big( {\sigma}_t({\vec k},t) \mp \frac{1}{{\nu}_k}
{\pi}_{{\sigma},t}^{\dagger}({\vec k},t) \Big)
\label{60}$$ yields then the equations for ${\alpha}_{1(2)}({\vec k},t)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\dot{\alpha}_{1(2)}({\vec k},t) & \pm & {\nu}_k {\alpha}_{1(2)}({\vec k},t) -
\frac{\dot{\nu}_k}{2{\nu}_k} {\alpha}_{2(1)}({\vec k},t)\\
& = & \mp \frac{1}{\sqrt{2{\nu}_k}} \overline{J}({\vec k},t).
\label{61}\end{aligned}$$ Taking next the time derivative of ${\cal N}^t({\vec k},t)$ we find: $$\dot{\cal N}^t({\vec k},t) = \frac{\dot{\nu}_k}{2{\nu}_k}
\Big( C_{1}({\vec k},t) + C_{2}({\vec k},t) \Big),
\label{62}$$ where we have defined the time-dependent one-particle correlation functions $$C_{1(2)}({\vec k},t) \equiv
\langle 0| {\alpha}_{1(2)}
(-{\vec k},t) {\alpha}_{1(2)}({\vec k},t) |0 \rangle .
\label{63}$$ Since $\langle {\chi}({\vec x},t) \rangle =0$, the vacuum expectation values for the zero momentum mode operators ${\sigma}_t(0,t)$ and ${\pi}_{{\sigma},t}(0,t)$ are equal to zero, and , as a result, the current $\overline{J}({\vec k},t)$ drops out of Eq.(\[62\]).
The functions $C_{1(2)}({\vec k},t)$ obey the equations $$\dot{C}_{1(2)}({\vec k},t) = \frac{\dot{\nu}_k}{{\nu}_k}
{\cal N}^t({\vec k},t) \mp 2{\nu}_k C_{1(2)}({\vec k},t) .
\label{64}$$ Their formal solution is $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
C_{1(2)} ({\vec k},t)
& = & \int_{t_0}^t dt^{\prime} \frac{\dot{\nu}_k(t^{\prime})}
{{\nu}_k(t^{\prime})} {\cal N}^t({\vec k},t^{\prime}) \\
& \times & \exp\{ \pm 2( {\vartheta}_k^{ad}(t^{\prime})
- {\vartheta}_k^{ad}(t) ) \},
\label{65}\end{aligned}$$ where $${\vartheta}_k^{ad}(t) \equiv \int_{t_0}^t
dt^{\prime} {\nu}_k(t^{\prime})
\label{66}$$ and $t_0$ is a moment of time at which the tachyonic regime starts. If $t_0 = -\infty$ , then the in-vacuum can be chosen as an initial state of the system.
Although we have not assumed that the frequency ${\nu}_k$ varies adiabatically slowly in time and the phase ${\vartheta}_k$ in the ansatz (\[25\]) is a general function of ${\omega}_k$ and $t$, it is just the “adiabatic” phase (\[66\]), i.e. the phase which looks exactly like the one in the adiabatic case, that enters this solution. Substituting it into Eq.(\[62\]), we obtain a closed equation for ${\cal N}^t({\vec k},t)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\dot{\cal N}^t(\vec{k},t) & = &
\frac{\dot{\nu}_k}{{\nu}_k}
\int_{t_0}^{t} dt^{\prime} \frac{\dot{\nu}_k(t')}
{{\nu}_k(t')} {\cal N}^t(\vec{k},t^{\prime})\\
& \times &
\cosh\Big[ 2{\vartheta}_k^{ad}(t^{\prime}) - 2{\vartheta}_k^{ad}(t) \Big]
\label{67}\end{aligned}$$ This kinetic equation determines the time evolution of the momentum distribution of the tachyonic modes produced in the fluctuations of the scalar field. As seen from the definition (\[47\]), the tachyonic modes production is symmetric in the momentum space, ${\cal N}^t({\vec k},t)={\cal N}^t(-{\vec k},t)$ for all times $t$.
Eq.(\[67\]) has non-Markovian character due to the explicit dependence of its right-hand side - the source term ${ -}$ on the time evolution of ${\cal N}^t({\vec k},t)$ and therefore involves memory effects starting from $t_0$. For the real particle modes, the source term is known to contain a time integration over the statistical factor $(1 \pm 2{\cal N}({\vec k},t))$, where the plus sign corresponds to bosons and the minus one to fermions [@klug]. For the tachyonic modes , this factor reduces to $2{\cal N}({\vec k},t)$ reflecting once more the fact that tachyons are not real particles .
In our approximation, the vacuum mean field equation becomes $$\ddot{\phi} + m^2{\phi} = J(\phi) + \frac{1}{2}
\frac{{\delta}^2 J}{{\delta} {\phi}^2} \langle {\chi}^2 \rangle,
\label{68}$$ where the $\langle {\chi}^2 \rangle$-term represents the back-reaction of the fluctuations on the vacuum mean field and provides damping of the oscillations of ${\phi}$. The initial conditions for both Eqs.(\[67\]) and (\[68\]) are specified by the model under study.
The vacuum mean value of ${\chi}^2$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\langle {\chi}^2 \rangle
& = & \frac{1}{L^3} \sum_{{\vec k}^{~2}>{\vec k}_c^{~2}}
\langle 0| {\chi}(\vec{k},t) {\chi}(-\vec{k},t) |0 \rangle \\
& + & \frac{1}{L^3} \sum_{{\vec k}^{~2}<{\vec k}_c^{~2}}
\langle 0| {\sigma}_t({\vec k},t) {\sigma}_t(-{\vec k},t)
|0 \rangle ,
\label{69}\end{aligned}$$ the bi-linear operator expressions here being assumed to be normal-ordered with respect to the instantaneous vacuum state. Both types of modes, tachyonic and non-tachyonic, contribute to $\langle {\chi}^2 \rangle$, so a proper inclusion of the back-reactions effects can be achieved only by the complete treatment of all momentum modes.
Taking the vacuum expectation value of the fluctuations Hamiltonian yields $$\langle 0| H_{\chi} |0 \rangle =
E_{\chi} - i \frac{{\Gamma}_{\chi}}{2},
\label{70}$$ where the non-tachyonic modes contribute to the energy of the metastable vacuum state $$E_{\chi} \equiv \sum_{{\vec k}^{~2}>{\vec k}_c^{~2}}
{\omega}_k(t) {\cal N}^{nt}({\vec k},t),
\label{71}$$ while the tachyonic ones to its decay rate, $${\Gamma}_{\chi} \equiv 2 \sum_{{\vec k}^{~2}<{\vec k}_c^{~2}}
{\nu}_k(t) {\cal N}^t({\vec k},t).
\label{72}$$
SUMMARY {#summ}
=======
For the model of a self-interacting scalar field, we have derived a non-Markovian quantum kinetic equation determining the momentum distribution of the tachyonic modes. These modes are produced in quantum fluctuations of the scalar field around its vacuum mean value when the system is in a metastable phase. The kinetic and vacuum mean field equations are coupled, the latter including the back-reaction term, while the collisions effects are neglected.
Despite the fact that the fluctuations Hamiltonian is not bounded from below in the tachyonic regime, the conservation of energy prevents any catastrophic production of tachyons. If the system starts in a false, metastable vacuum state and then undergoes the transition to a lower energy density , stable one, the tachyonic regime stops as soon as all the potential energy of the false vacuum state is transferred into the quantum fluctuations. We have shown that the tachyonic modes contribute to the decay rate of this state, so their intensive production results in its rapid decay.
The kinetic equation obtained is hoped to be useful for the numerical study of the tachyonic modes production in various problems, in particular, in cosmology [@linde] and heavy-ion collisions [@anselm; @rand; @DB2002]. The complete study requires the inclusion of higher orders effects when the quantum fluctuations interact with each other. Its realization within the kinetic formulation would provide further insight into the dynamics of the tachyonic regime.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This research was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under project number 436 ASB 17/1/02. The author thanks D.B. Blaschke and V.G. Morozov for discussions. He also acknowledges hospitality at the University of Rostock where this work was completed.
[99]{} L.I. Schiff, H. Snyder, and J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. [**15**]{} (1940) 315. S. Tanaka, Progr. Theor. Phys. [**24**]{} (1960) 171. B. Schroer and J.A. Swieca, Phys. Rev. [**D 2**]{} (1970) 2938; B. Schroer, Phys. Rev. [**D 3**]{} (1971) 1764. S.A. Fulling, Phys. Rev. [**D 14**]{} (1976) 1939. D.A. Kirzhnits and A.D. Linde, Phys. Lett. [**B 42**]{} (1972) 471; Ann. Phys. (NY) [**101**]{} (1976) 195. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. [**D 9**]{} (1974) 3357. L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. [**D 9**]{} (1974) 3320. E.J. Weinberg and A. Wu, Phys. Rev. [**D 8**]{} (1987) 2474. G. Felder et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{} (2001) 011601; G. Felder, L. Kofman, and A. Linde, Phys. Rev. [**D 64**]{} (2001) 123517 and references therein. S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. [**D 15**]{} (1977) 2929; S. Coleman and F. De Luccia, Phys. Rev. [**D 21**]{} (1980) 3305. Sz. Borsányi et al., Phys. Rev. [**D 62**]{} (2000) 085013. Y. Bergner and L.M.A. Bettencourt, hep-ph-0206053. A.A. Anselm and M.G. Ryskin, Phys. Lett. [**B 266**]{} (1991) 482; K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek, Nucl. Phys. [**B 399**]{} (1993) 395; [**B 404**]{} (1993) 577; D. Boyanovsky, H.J. de Vega, and R. Holman, Phys. Rev. [**D 51**]{} (1995) 734. J. Schaffner-Bielich and J. Randrup, Phys. Rev. [**C 59**]{} (1999) 3329; J. Randrup, Heavy Ion Phys. [**9**]{} (1999) 289; Phys. Rev. [**C 62**]{} (2000) 064905. D.B. Blaschke et al., Phys. Rev. [**D 65**]{} (2002) 054039. M.E. Arons and E.C.G. Sudarshan, Phys. Rev. [**173**]{} (1968) 1622; J. Dhar and E.C.G. Sudarshan, Phys. Rev. [**174**]{} (1968) 1808. A.H. Guth and S.-Y. Pi, Phys. Rev. [**D 32**]{} (1985) 1899; G. Barton, Ann. Phys. (NY) [**166**]{} (1986) 322. M.V. Keldysh, Russian Math. Surveys [**26**]{} (4) (1971) 15;\
G.V. Radzievski, ibid [**37**]{} (2) (1982) 81. S.R. deGroot, W.A. van Leeuwen, and C.G. van Weert, [*Relativistic Kinetic Theory*]{} (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1980). Y. Kluger, E. Mottola, and J.M. Eisenberg, Phys. Rev. [**D 58**]{} (1998) 125015 and references therein; S.M. Schmidt et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**E 7**]{} (1998) 709; Phys. Rev. [**D 59**]{} (1999) 094005.
[^1]: email: fuad\[email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Interaction of Alfvén waves with plasma inhomogeneities generates phase mixing which can lead to dissipate Alfvén waves and to heat the solar plasma. Here we study the dissipation of Alfvén waves by phase mixing due to viscosity and resistivity variations with height. We also consider nonlinear magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) equations in our theoretical model. Non-linear terms of MHD equations include perturbed velocity, magnetic field, and density. To investigate the damping of Alfvén waves in a stratified atmosphere of solar spicules, we solve the non-linear MHD equations in the $x-z$ plane. Our simulations show that the damping is enhanced due to viscosity and resistivity gradients. Moreover, energy variations is influenced due to nonlinear terms in MHD equations.'
author:
- 'Z. Fazel, and H. Ebadi'
title: 'Non-linear damping of visco-resistive Alfvén waves in solar spicules'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Alfvén wave phase mixing has been studied extensively as a possible mechanism for coronal heating [@Heyvaerts1983; @Parker1991; @Hood1997a; @Nakara1997; @De99; @Tsik2002; @Mocan2008; @Mcla2011]. When the medium has a density gradient perpendicular to the magnetic field, the Alfvén speed is a function of the transverse coordinate. The generation of transverse gradients in the wave leads to a strong increase in the dissipation of Alfvén wave energy due to viscosity and/or resistivity. @Heyvaerts1983 were first to suggest that phase mixing of Alfvén waves in coronal plasmas could be a primary mechanism in heating of corona. Then several authors have studied the phase mixing in different conditions and ways. @Parker1991 investigated the effect of a density and/or a temperature gradient in the direction of vibration of a transverse Alfvén wave. A strong coupling of waves on different lines of force, producing a coordinated mode that was not subject to simple phase mixing, was resulted. @Hood1997a [@Hood1997b] derived a self similar solution of Alfvén wave phase mixing in both open and closed magnetic topologies. @Nakara1997 extended the model of @Heyvaerts1983, considering the non-linear excitation of fast magnetosonic waves by phase mixing of Alfvén waves in a cold plasma with a smooth inhomogeneity of density across a uniform magnetic field. They found that this non-linear process could be a possible mechanism of indirect plasma heating by phase mixing through the excitation of fast waves. @Botha2000 by considering a developed stage of Alfvén waves phase mixing showed that the non-linear generation of fast modes by Alfvén waves has little effect on the classical phase mixing. @Tsik2002 considered the interaction of an impulsively-generated, weakly non-linear MHD pulse with a 1D density inhomogeneity in the three-dimensional regime, in an ideal plasma. They found that phase mixing remains a relevant paradigm. @Mcla2011 have investigated the non-linear, non-ideal behavior of Alfvén wave propagation and phase mixing over long timescales. They found that the equilibrium density profile is significantly modified by both the flow of density due to visco-resistive heating and the non-linear response to the localized heating through phase mixing.
Spicules are one of the most fundamental components of the solar chromosphere. They are seen in spectral lines at the solar limb at speeds of about $20-25$ km s$^{-1}$ propagating from photosphere into the magnetized low atmosphere of the Sun [@Tem2009]. Their diameter and length varies from spicule to spicule having the values from $400$ km to $1500$ km and from $5000$ km to $9000$ km, respectively. The typical lifetime of them is $5-15$ min. The typical electron density at heights where the spicules are observed is approximately $3.5\times10^{16}-2\times10^{17}$ m$^{-3}$, and their temperatures are estimated as $5000-8000$ K [@bec68; @ster2000]. @Kukh2006 and @Tem2007 observed their transverse oscillations with the estimated period of $20-55$ and $75-110$ s by analyzing the height series of $H\alpha$ spectra in solar limb spicules observed. Recently, @Ebadi2012a based on *Hinode*/SOT observations estimated the oscillation period of spicule axis around $180$ s. They concluded that the energy flux stored in spicule axis oscillations is of order of coronal energy loss in quiet Sun.\
In this paper we are interested to study the non-linear Alfvén wave propagation and phase mixing in a stratified atmosphere, i.e., the spicule. Section $2$ gives the basic equations and theoretical model. In section $3$ numerical results are presented and discussed, and a brief summary is followed in section $4$.
Theoretical modeling {#sec:theory}
====================
The equilibrium
---------------
We consider effects of the stratification due to gravity in $2$D x-z plane in the presence of steady flow and shear field. The phase mixing and the dissipation of propagating Alfvén waves are studied in a region with nonuniform Alfvén velocity both along and across the spicule axis. Non-ideal MHD equations in the plasma dynamics are as follows: $$\label{eq:mass} \frac{\partial \mathbf{\rho}}{\partial t} + \nabla
\cdot (\rho \mathbf{v}) = 0,$$ $$\label{eq:momentum} \rho\frac{\partial \mathbf{v}}{\partial t}+
\rho(\mathbf{v} \cdot \nabla)\mathbf{v} = -\nabla p + \rho
\mathbf{g}+ \frac{1}{\mu_{0}}(\nabla \times \mathbf{B})\times
\mathbf{B}+ \rho\nu(z)\nabla^2\mathbf{v},$$ $$\label{eq:induction} \frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial t} = \nabla
\times(\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{B})+ \eta(z)\nabla^2\mathbf{B},$$ $$\label{eq:divergence} \nabla \cdot \mathbf{B} = 0,$$ $$\label{eq:state} p = \frac{\rho RT}{\mu}.$$ where $\mu_{0}$ is the vacuum permeability and $\mu$ is the mean molecular weight. $\nu(z)$ is the viscosity coefficient which is defined for a fully ionized and collision-dominated $H$ plasma. It should be noted that the Coulomb logarithm has a weak dependence on temperature and density variations which is in agreement with the presence of the transition region. It is given by $$\label{eq:viscos} \rho\nu(z)= 2.2\times 10^{-17}T_{0}(z)^{5/2}~ kg m^{-1}s^{-1},$$ and $\eta(z)$ is the resistivity coefficient which is defined as a typical value in the solar chromosphere and corona [@Prie1982] by $$\label{eq:resist} \eta(z)= (8\times 10^{8}-10^{9})T_{0}(z)^{-3/2} ~ m^2s^{-1},$$ the temperature profile in Eqs. \[eq:viscos\], and \[eq:resist\] is taken as a smoothed step function, i.e.: $$\label{eq:temp}
T_{0}(z)= \frac{1}{2}T_{c}\left [1+d_{t}+(1-d_{t})\tanh(\frac{z-z_{t}}{z_{\omega}})\right],$$ here, $d_{t}=T_{ch}/T_{c}$ which $T_{ch}$ is the chromospheric temperature at its lower part and $T_{c}$ denotes the coronal temperature that is separated from the chromosphere by the transition region. $z_{w}=200$ km is the width of transition region which is located at the $z_{t}=2000$ km above the solar surface. We put $T_{ch}=15\times10^{3}$ K and $T_{c}=1\times10^{6}$ K.
The perturbations
-----------------
We assume that spicules are highly dynamic with speeds that are significant fractions of the Alfvén speed. Perturbations are assumed to be independent of y, i.e.: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:perv}
\textbf{v} &=& v_{0} \hat{k} + v_{y}(x,z,t) \hat{j}, \nonumber\\
\textbf{B} &=& B_{0}e^{-k_{b}z} \left[\cos[k_{b}(x-a)]\hat{i}-\sin[k_{b}(x-a)]\hat{k} \right] \nonumber\\
& & + b_{y}(x,z,t) \hat{j}\end{aligned}$$ where $a$ is the spicule radius. The equilibrium sheared magnetic field is two-dimensional and divergence-free [@Del2005; @Tem2010].\
Since the equilibrium magnetic field is force-free, the pressure gradient is balanced by the gravity force, which is assumed to be $\textbf{g}$=$-g\hat{k}$ via this equation: $$\label{eq:balance}
-\nabla p_{0}(x,z) + \rho_{0}(x,z) \textbf{g}=0,$$ the pressure in an equilibrium state is: $$\label{eq:presse}
p_{0}(x,z)= p_{0}(x)~\exp\left(-\int^{z}_{z_{r}}\frac{dz'}{\Lambda(z')}\right).$$ and the density profile is written in the following form: $$\label{eq:density}
\rho_{0}(x,z)= \frac{\rho_{0}(x)T_{0}}{T_{0}(z)}~\exp\left(-\int^{z}_{z_{r}}\frac{dz'}{\Lambda(z')}\right),$$ where $\rho_{0}(x)$ is obtained from the Alfvén velocity for a phase mixed and stratified atmosphere due to gravity which is assumed to be [@De99; @Karami2009]: $$\label{eq:densityx}
\rho_{0}(x)= \rho_{0} [2+ \tanh(\alpha(x-a))]^{-2},$$ and $$\label{eq:scale}
\Lambda(z)= \frac{RT_{0}(z)}{\mu g},$$ where $\rho_{0}$ is the plasma density at $z=5000$ km, $\alpha$ controls the size of inhomogeneity across the magnetic field. In Figure \[fig1\] we present the equilibrium mass density, gas pressure, and magnetic field lines.
![The panels from top to bottom represent equilibrium mass density, gas pressure, and magnetic field lines, respectively. \[fig1\]](fig1a.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![The panels from top to bottom represent equilibrium mass density, gas pressure, and magnetic field lines, respectively. \[fig1\]](fig1b.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![The panels from top to bottom represent equilibrium mass density, gas pressure, and magnetic field lines, respectively. \[fig1\]](fig1c.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
The non-linear dimensionless MHD equations with these assumptions are: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dens}
\frac{\partial \rho_{1}(x,z)}{\partial t}+ v_{0}\frac{\partial \rho_{0}(x,z)}{\partial z}+ v_{0}\frac{\partial \rho_{1}(x,z)}{\partial z} &=& 0\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:veloy}
(\frac{\partial v_{y}}{\partial t}+ v_{0}\frac{\partial v_{y}}{\partial z}) &=& \nonumber
\\
\frac{\left[B_{0x}(x,z)\frac{\partial b_{y}}{\partial x}+B_{0z}(x,z)\frac{\partial b_{y}}{\partial z}\right]}{\rho_{0}(z)+\rho_{1}(x,z)}+ \nu(z)\nabla^{2}v_{y},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mag}
\frac{\partial b_{y}}{\partial t}+ v_{0}\frac{\partial b_{y}}{\partial z} &=& \nonumber
\\ \left[B_{0x}(x,z)\frac{\partial v_{y}}{\partial x}+B_{0z}(x,z)\frac{\partial v_{y}}{\partial z}\right] + \eta(z)\nabla^{2}b_{y},\end{aligned}$$ where densities, velocities, magnetic field, time and space coordinates are normalized to $\rho_{\rm 0}$ (the plasma density at dimensionless $z=6$), $V_{A0}$, $B_{\rm 0}$, $\tau$, and $a$ (spicule radius), respectively. Also the gravity acceleration is normalized to $a^{2}/\tau$. Second terms in the left hand side of Eqs. \[eq:veloy\] and \[eq:mag\] present the effect of steady flows. Multiplying of $\rho_{1}(x,z)$ in the first term of Eq. \[eq:veloy\] in the left hand side, gives us the non-linear contribution of MHD waves. Eqs. \[eq:veloy\], and \[eq:mag\] should be solved under following initial and boundary conditions: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:icv}
v_{y}(x,z,t=0) &=& V_{A0}\exp \left[-\frac{(x-x_{0})^{2}+(z-z_{0})^{2}}{\omega^{2}}\right] \nonumber\\
b_{y}(x,z,t=0) &=& 0,
$$ where $\omega$ is the width of the gaussian packet. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bc}
v_{y}(x=0,z,t) = v_{y}(x=2,z,t) = 0, \nonumber\\
b_{y}(x=0,z,t) = b_{y}(x=2,z,t) = 0, \nonumber\\
\rho_{1}(x=0,z,t) = \rho_{1}(x=2,z,t) = 0.
$$ Figure \[fig2\] shows the initial wave packet given by Eq. \[eq:icv\] for $\omega=0.8a$ ($a$ is the spicule radius).
![The initial wave packet for $\omega =0.8a$ is showed. \[fig2\]](fig2.eps){width="7cm"}
Numerical results and discussion
================================
To solve the coupled Eqs. \[eq:veloy\], and \[eq:mag\] numerically, the finite difference and the Fourth-Order Runge-Kutta methods are used to take the space and time derivatives, respectively. The implemented numerical scheme is using by the forward finite difference method to take the first spatial derivatives with the truncation error of ($\Delta x$), which is the spatial resolution in the $x$ direction. The order of approximation for the second spatial derivative in the finite difference method is $O((\Delta x)^2)$. On the other hand, the Fourth-order Runge-Kutta method takes the time derivatives in the questions. The computational output data are given in $17$ decimal digits of accuracy.\
We set the number of mesh-grid points as $256\times256$. In addition, the time step is chosen as $0.0005$, and the system length in the $x$ and $z$ dimensions (simulation box sizes) are set to be ($0$,$5$) and ($0$,$20$).
The parameters in spicule environment are as follows: $a=250$ km (spicule radius), $\omega=0.8a=200$ km (the width of Gaussian packet), $L=5000$ km (Spicule length), $v_{0}=25$ km s$^{-1}$, $n_{e}=11.5\times10^{16}$ m$^{-3}$, $B_{0}=1.2\times10^{-3}$ Tesla, $T_{0}=14~000$ K, $g=272$ m s$^{-2}$, $R=8300$ m$^{2}$s$^{-1}$k$^{-1}$ (universal gas constant), $V_{A0}=75$ km/s, $\mu=0.6$, $\tau=20$ s, $\rho_{0}=1.9\times10^{-10}$ kg m$^{-3}$, $\alpha =2$, $p_{0}=3.7\times10^{-2}$ N m$^{-2}$, $\mu_{0}=4\pi \times10^{-7}$ Tesla m A$^{-1}$, $z_{r}=5000$ km (reference height), $z_{w}=200$ km, $z_{t}=2000$ km, $x_{0}=1000$ km, $z_{0}=125$ km, $H= 750$ km, $\eta=10^{3}$ m$^2$ s$^{-1}$, and $k_{b}=\pi/2$ (dimensionless wave number normalized to $a$).
Figures \[fig3\] and \[fig4\] illustrate the $3D$ plots of the perturbed velocity and magnetic field with respect to $x$, $z$ for $t= 5 \tau$ s, $t= 30 \tau$ s, and $t= 50 \tau$ s. At the presence of the mentioned gradients and stratification due to gravity, the damping process takes place in time than in space. In spite of the standing waves, propagating waves are stable and dissipate after some periods due to phase mixing [@Ebadi2012b].
![The $3D$ plots of the transversal component of the perturbed velocity with respect to $x$, $z$ in $t=5 \tau$ s, $t=30 \tau$ s, and $t=50 \tau$ s for $k_{b}=\pi/2$. \[fig3\]](fig3a.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![The $3D$ plots of the transversal component of the perturbed velocity with respect to $x$, $z$ in $t=5 \tau$ s, $t=30 \tau$ s, and $t=50 \tau$ s for $k_{b}=\pi/2$. \[fig3\]](fig3b.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![The $3D$ plots of the transversal component of the perturbed velocity with respect to $x$, $z$ in $t=5 \tau$ s, $t=30 \tau$ s, and $t=50 \tau$ s for $k_{b}=\pi/2$. \[fig3\]](fig3c.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
![The same as in Fig. \[fig3\] for the perturbed magnetic field. \[fig4\]](fig4a.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![The same as in Fig. \[fig3\] for the perturbed magnetic field. \[fig4\]](fig4b.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![The same as in Fig. \[fig3\] for the perturbed magnetic field. \[fig4\]](fig4c.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
Figure \[fig5\] shows perturbed velocity variations with respect to time in $x=250$ km, $z=875$ km; $x=250$ km, $z=2500$ km; and $x=250$ km, $z=4250$ km, respectively. In Figure \[fig6\], perturbed magnetic field variations are presented for $x=250$ km, $z=875$ km; $x=250$ km, $z=2500$ km; and $x=250$ km, $z=4250$ km, respectively. In these figures the perturbed velocity and magnetic field are normalized to $V_{A0}$ and $B_{0}$ respectively, and it is obvious from the plots that there is a damping at the first stage of phase mixing. This behavior can be related to the presence of transition region between chromosphere and corona.\
At the first height ($z=875$ km), total amplitude of both velocity and magnetic field oscillations have values near to the initial ones. As height increases, the perturbed velocity and magnetic field amplitudes increase. Nonetheless, exponentially damping behavior is obvious in both cases. This means that with an increase in height, amplitude of velocity oscillations is expanded due to significant decrease in density, which acts as inertia against oscillations. Similar results are observed by time-distance analysis of solar spicule oscillations [@Ebadi2012a]. It is worth to note that the density stratification influence on the magnetic field is negligible, which is in agreement with Solar Optical Telescope observations of solar spicules [@Verth2011].
![The perturbed velocity variations are showed with respect to time and $x= 250$ km for three values of $z= 875$ km, $z= 2500$ km, and $z= 4250$ km from top to bottom. \[fig5\]](fig5a.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![The perturbed velocity variations are showed with respect to time and $x= 250$ km for three values of $z= 875$ km, $z= 2500$ km, and $z= 4250$ km from top to bottom. \[fig5\]](fig5b.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![The perturbed velocity variations are showed with respect to time and $x= 250$ km for three values of $z= 875$ km, $z= 2500$ km, and $z= 4250$ km from top to bottom. \[fig5\]](fig5c.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
![The perturbed magnetic field variations are showed with the same coordinates as inferred in figure \[fig5\]. \[fig6\]](fig6a.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![The perturbed magnetic field variations are showed with the same coordinates as inferred in figure \[fig5\]. \[fig6\]](fig6b.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![The perturbed magnetic field variations are showed with the same coordinates as inferred in figure \[fig5\]. \[fig6\]](fig6c.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
In Figure \[fig7\], kinetic, magnetic and total energies normalized to the initial total energy, are presented from top to bottom, respectively. Since the presence of transition region leads to the variation of viscosity and resistivity coefficients, these inhomogeneities can change the rate of damping of Alfvén waves. Thus, it seems that our model will be useful to study the solar spicules. Spicules are short-living and transient phenomena, and we conclude that the phase mixing in such circumstances can occur in time rather than in space [@De99]. Obtained damping times ($\tau_{d}= 320 s$) are in agreement with spicule lifetimes [@Tem2009].
![Time variations of the normalized kinetic, magnetic and total energies for $\omega = 0.8a$. \[fig7\]](fig7a.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![Time variations of the normalized kinetic, magnetic and total energies for $\omega = 0.8a$. \[fig7\]](fig7b.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![Time variations of the normalized kinetic, magnetic and total energies for $\omega = 0.8a$. \[fig7\]](fig7c.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
@Ebadi2012b studied the phase mixing in solar spicules with zero steady flows and vertical magnetic field. At the first case they assumed non-ideal and linearized MHD equations with constant $v_{0}$ and $B_{0}$ in z direction only. Then for comparison they run their simulations for the case $v_{0} =0$ and $B_{0z}$. They cannot found any significant difference between these two cases which is discussed in the mentioned paper. At the presence of transition region between chromosphere and corona and non-linear MHD equations, the damping times are shortened significantly. This is very important because spicules disappear after a few periods, and the efficient damping treatment should result damping times as long as spicule lifetimes. Moreover, the exponential behavior of energies is altered in non-linear case.
Convergence of our numerical scheme
-----------------------------------
In this section we check the convergence of our numerical simulation and the realistic behavior of the functions. For the sake of simplicity we assume $\textbf{B} = B_{0}\hat{k}$ and $V_{0}=0$. The governed equations by these assumptions are as follows: $$\label{eq:mag1}
\frac{\partial b}{\partial t} = \frac{\partial v}{\partial z} + \eta(z)(\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}+\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial z^{2}})b,$$ and $$\label{eq:vel1}
\frac{\partial v}{\partial t} = v_{A}^2(x,z)\frac{\partial b}{\partial z} + \nu(z)(\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}+\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial z^{2}})v$$ where $b$ and $v$ are y-components of the perturbed magnetic field and velocity, respectively. Other quantities have the same definitions which are used in the text. By using the finite diffidence method we arrive at these equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:veloci}
v_{i,j,k+1} &=& \nonumber
\\ v_{i,j,k} +\frac{v_{A_{i,j}}^2}{\Delta z}(b_{i,j+1,k}-b_{i,j,k}) \nonumber
\\ + \frac{\nu \Delta t}{\Delta x^{2}}(v_{i+1,j,k}-2v_{i,j,k}+v_{i-1,j,k}) \nonumber
\\ +\frac{\nu \Delta t}{\Delta z^{2}}(v_{i,j+1,k}-2v_{i,j,k}+v_{i,j-1,k}),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:magno}
b_{i,j,k} &=& \nonumber
\\b_{i,j,k-1}+\frac{\Delta t}{\Delta z}(v_{i,j+1,k-1}-v_{i,j,k-1}) \nonumber
\\+\frac{\eta \Delta t}{\Delta x^{2}}(b_{i+1,j,k-1}-2b_{i,j,k-1}+b_{i-1,j,k-1}) \nonumber
\\+\frac{\eta \Delta t}{\Delta z^{2}}(b_{i,j+1,k-1}-2b_{i,j,k-1}+b_{i,j-1,k-1})\end{aligned}$$ where indices $i$,$j$, and $k$ corresponded to $x$, $z$, and $t$, respectively. $\Delta x$, $\Delta z$, and $\Delta t$ are increments of $x$, $z$, and $t$, respectively.
According to @Vasil1995, $\nu \Delta t/\Delta z^{2}$ and $\eta \Delta t/\Delta z^{2}$ should be smaller than $0.5$ for the convergence of simulations. It is obvious from our selected parameters in section $3$ that simulations are converged.
Conclusion {#sec:concl}
==========
Study of Alfvén waves in solar spicules may represent an efficient heating mechanism in the solar corona. In this paper we consider spicules with steady flow and sheared magnetic field. The non-linear behavior of Alfvén waves and their phase mixing has been studied at the presence of viscosity and resistivity gradients. These gradients are due to the presence of transition region between chromosphere and corona. Our numerical simulations show that the damping is enhanced related to viscosity and resistivity gradients. Moreover, the perturbed velocity and magnetic field amplitudes decrease with height and time in our non-linear model. It is found that the non-linearity of the MHD equations changes the exponential behavior of energies.
This work has been supported financially by the Research Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics of Maragha (RIAAM), Maragha, Iran.
@thebibliography@page=
[18]{}
Beckers, J.M.: **3**, 367 (1968) Botha, G.J.J., Arber, T.D., Nakaraiakov, V.M., Keenan, F.P.: **363**, 1186 (2000) Del Zanna, L., Schaekens, E., Velli, M.: **431**, 1095 (2005) De Moortel, I., Hood, A.W., Arber, T.D.: **346**, 641 (1999) Ebadi, H., Zaqarashvili, T.V., Zhelyazkov, I.: **337**, 33 (2012a) Ebadi, H., Hosseinpour, M., Altafi-Mehrabani, H.: **340**, 9 (2012b) Erdélyi, R., Ballai, I.: Astronomische Nachrichten **328**, 726 (2007) Heyvaerts, J., Priest, E.R.: **117**, 220 (1983) Hood, A.W., Ireland, J., Priest, E.R.: **318**, 957 (1997) Hood, A.W., Gonzalés-Delgado, D., Ireland, J.: **324**, 11 (1997) Karami, K., Ebrahimi, Z.: Publ. Astron. Soc. Aust., **26**, 448 (2009) Kukhianidze, V., Zaqarashvili, T. V., Khutsishvili, E.: **449**, 35 (2006) McLaughlin, J.A., De Moortel, I., Hood, A.W.: **527**, 149 Mocanu, G., Marcu, A., Ballai, I., Orza, B.: Astronomische Nachrichten, **329**, 780 (2008) Murawski, K., Zaqarashvili, T.V.: **519**, A8 (2010) Nakaraiakov, V.M., Roberts, B., Murawski, K.: **175**, 93 (1997) Parker, E.N.: **376**, 355 (1991) Priest, E.R.: Solar magnetohydrodynamics. Reidel, Dordrecht (1982) Sterling, A.C. 2000, **196**, 79 (2000) Tsiklauri, D., Nakariakov, V. M.: **393**, 321 (2002) Vasilyev, O.V., Paolucci, S., Sen, M.: Journal of Computational Phys. **120**, 33 (1995) Verth, G., Goossens, M., He, J.S.: Astrophys. J. Lett. **733**, 15 (2011) Zaqarashvili, T.V., Erdélyi, R.: **149**, 335 (2009) Zaqarashvili, T. V., Khutsishvili, E., Kukhianidze, V., Ramishvili, G.: **474**, 627 (2007)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We model the Fock space for the electronic resonant tunneling through a double barrier including the coherent effects of the electron-phonon interaction. The geometry is optimized to achieve the maximal optical phonon emission required by a SASER (ultrasound emitter) device. PACS numbers: 73.20.Dx, 73.40.Gk, 73.50.Rb'
address:
- 'FaMAF, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, 5000 Córdoba, Argentina'
- 'Instituto de Física, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, and Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói, Brazil.'
author:
- 'L.E.F. Foa Torres'
- 'H.M. Pastawski'
- 'S.S. Makler'
title: 'Resonances in Fock Space: Optimization of a SASER device'
---
,
and
The possibility of generating coherent phonons in a double barrier semiconductor heterostructure was first proposed[@BrazJPhys] a few years ago. This is the basis of a SASER device[@NewSci] which transforms the electric potential energy in a single vibrational mode of the lattice. This is facilitated by the electronic confinement in a double barrier structure. The phonon emission appears when the energy of the resonant state is one quantum $\hbar \omega _{0}$(LO phonon energy) bellow the energy of the incoming electrons. As in laser devices this is enhanced if the first excited state of the well lies bellow the Fermi energy and becomes overpopulated. According to ref.[@JPCM98] the emitted LO phonons decay coherently into a pair of $LO$ and TA phonons the last the useful ones in a SASER device.
In this paper we want to explore the case in which well’s [*ground*]{} state mediates the decay of the emitter states into the collector’s ones [*plus*]{} a phonon. This feature represents a [*resonance in the electron-phonon Fock space* ]{}and is observed as a satellite peak in the current[@Goldman]. This resonant condition is tuned directly by the applied voltage and we expect that its optimization could also provide enough emission of primary phonons to allow for SASER operation. We carry out the modeling of the electronic structure and the electron-phonon interaction to get a minimal structure in the Fock space. Thus, the optimization of the phonon emission for different geometries of the device (height and width of the barriers, field intensity) can be discussed in simple terms.
We consider a one-dimensional model for a double barrier including the interaction with LO phonons in the well, neglecting the effects derived from the accumulated charge. This will give results comparable to the 3-D case when $\varepsilon _{F}$ is small, thus limiting the number of traversal modes; or in the presence of a high magnetic field perpendicular to the plane of the barriers[@Boebinger] which quantize these modes in Landau levels.We do not consider the phonon-phonon interaction that leads to the decay of the LO phonons.
The Hamiltonian is a sum of an electronic contribution, a phonon contribution and an electron-phonon interaction term.
$${\cal H}={\cal H}_{e}+{\cal H}_{p}+{\cal H}_{e-p}$$
$${\cal H}_{e}=\sum_{j}E_{j}c_{j}^{+}c_{j}-%
\sum_{j,k}V_{j,k}(c_{j}^{+}c_{k}+c_{k}^{+}c_{j}),$$ $${\cal H}_{p}=\hbar \omega _{0}\sum_{k[{\rm well}]}b_{k}^{+}b_{k},\,\,\,{\rm %
and\,\,\,\,}{\cal H}_{e-p}=V_{g}\sum_{k[{\rm well}%
]}c_{k}^{+}c_{k}(b_{k}^{+}+b_{k}).$$ where $c_{j}^{+}$and $c_{j}$ are electron operators on site $j$, $E_{j}$ is the site dependent diagonal energy and $V_{j,k}=V\delta _{j\pm 1,k}$ are the hopping parameters. We assume that the potential drop ${\bf eV}$ is linear through the double barrier and limited to it. N$_{{\rm L}}$ and N$_{{\rm R}}$ are the number of sites in the left and right barriers and N$_{{\rm w}}$ are those in the well, the associated lengths are L$_{i}$=N$_{i}$ 2.825Å. There is a single well state in the energy range of interest.
Since the most important interaction between electrons and phonons in polar semiconductors involves longitudinal optical (LO) phonons, only one phonon mode with frequency $\omega _{0}$ is considered. The electron-phonon interaction is limited to the well region and the coupling to the phonons is denoted with $V_{g}$. The model is represented schematically in figure 1.
For simplicity we restrict the problem to the case in which we have either $0
$ or $1$ phonons with no phonons in the well before the scattering process. By modifying $V_{g}\rightarrow V_{g}\sqrt{n+1}$ this also represents a finite temperature emission $n\rightarrow n+1.$ The effective mass is taken to be $0.067$ m$_{e}$, the LO phonon frequency $\hbar \omega _{0}=36$ meV and the value of the hopping parameter $V=-7.1018$eV. $V_{g}\,$is taken $10$meV which gives a typical electron-phonon interaction strength $%
g=(V_{g}/\hbar \omega _{0})^{2}\ \simeq 0.1$. The barrier heights are $300$meV and the Fermi energy $\varepsilon _{F}$ is taken between $10$ and $20$ meV.
This discrete model is solved exactly using a decimation procedure for the sites in the barriers and the well [@Levstein]. The leads are taken into account by adding a proper self-energy. The transmittances are computed from the Green’s functions for the system [@DAmato].
Let us denote with $T_{0,0}^{R\leftarrow L}$ ($T_{0,0}^{L\leftarrow R}$) and $T_{1,0}^{R\leftarrow L}$ ($T_{1,0}^{R\leftarrow L}$) the transmission coefficients from left (right) to right (left) where the subscripts $0$ and $%
1$ denote the number of phonons in the outgoing (first subscript) and in the incoming (second subscript) channel. The total current is a sum of an elastic current $I_{{\rm el}}$and an inelastic current $I_{{\rm in}}$ (with the emission of one phonon during the scattering process). These currents can be calculated from the following expressions $$\begin{aligned}
I_{el} &=&(2e/h)\int [T_{0,0}^{R\leftarrow L}f_{L}(\varepsilon
)-T_{0,0}^{L\leftarrow R}f_{R}(\varepsilon )]d\varepsilon , \\
I_{in} &=&(2e/h)\int [T_{1,0}^{R\leftarrow L}f_{L}(\varepsilon
)-T_{1,0}^{L\leftarrow R}f_{R}(\varepsilon )]d\varepsilon ;\end{aligned}$$ where $f_{L}(\varepsilon )$ and $f_{R}(\varepsilon )$ are the Fermi functions for the left and right leads.
For a given configuration of the system a curve of inelastic current vs. applied bias is obtained and its maximum value $I_{{\rm in}}^{{\rm max}}$ can be extracted. Figure 2 shows $I_{{\rm in}}$-V curves as we change N$_{%
{\rm R}}$. The peaks in these curves correspond to the inelastic contributions to the main peak and to the satellite peak in the total current respectively. This figure also shows that the peaks are shifted to higher voltages as N$_{{\rm R}}$ is increased. This shows a strong renormalization of the resonant energies due to the electrodes. In figure 3 we present $I_{{\rm in}}^{{\rm max}}$ vs. N$_{{\rm R}}$ curves for different values of N$_{{\rm L}}$. These curves exhibit a maximum for $I_{{\rm in}}^{%
{\rm max}}$ as a function of N$_{{\rm R}}$. The optimal configurations correspond to asymmetric structures with wider right barriers. This can be understood by means of the following argument. Increasing the lifetime of the electrons in the well favors the electron-phonon interaction and thus increases the inelastic current. This can be done by choosing wider (or higher) barriers. In spite of this, as an effect of the asymmetry produced by the applied bias, the lifetime is still controlled mainly by the right barrier. On the other hand increasing the length of the barriers increases the reflectivity of the device diminishing the currents, here it is the left barrier which plays the main role. Then there is a trade off between these two effects that maximizes the phonon emission.
In summary, we have used a simple model to show that the asymmetry in double barrier structures plays an important role in the $I_{{\rm in}}$-V characteristics and to predict how it can be controlled to optimize LOphonon emission. In particular we show that the optimal configuration corresponds to a collector barrier with a length which doubles that of the emitter.
We acknowledge finantial support from CONICET, SeCyT-U.N.C., AnPCyT and an international grant from Andes-Vitae-Antorchas.
[9]{} E.V. Anda, S.S. Makler, H.M. Pastawski and R.G. Barrera, [*Braz.J.Phys.*]{} [**24** ]{}(1994) 330.
A. Watson, [*New Scientist*]{} [**161**]{} (1999) 2179, 36.
S.S. Makler, M.I. Vasilevskiy, E.V. Anda, D.E. Tuyarot, J. Weberszpil and H.M. Pastawski, [*J.Phys.Condens. Matter*]{} [**10**]{} (1998) 5905.
V. J. Goldman, D. C. Tsui and J. E.Cunningham, [*Phys.Rev.Lett.*]{} [**58**]{} (1987)1256.
G.S. Boebinger, A.F.J.Levi, S.Schmitt-Rink, A.Passner, L.N.Pfeiffer and K.W.West, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**65** ]{}(1990) 235.
P. Levstein, H.M. Pastawski and J.L. D ’Amato, [*J.Phys.Condens. Matter*]{} [**2** ]{}(1990) 1781
J.L. D ’Amato and H.M. Pastawski, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**41**]{} (1990) 7411.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We describe a highly-integrated CMOS transceiver for active structural health monitoring (SHM). The chip actuates piezoelectric transducers and also senses ultrasound waves received by the same or another transducer. The transmitter uses an integer-$N$ frequency synthesizer and pulse-width modulation (PWM) to generate low-distortion, band-limited waveforms up to 12.7 V$_{pp}$ with center frequency from $\sim$0.1-2.75 MHz. The integrated offset-canceling fully-differential receiver has programmable gain and bandwidth, and uses quadrature demodulation to extract both amplitude and phase of the received waveforms for further signal processing. The transceiver was fabricated in a 0.5 $\mu$m CMOS process and has been validated using (2D) damage localization on an SHM test bed.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'CICC\_2018.bib'
title: A Programmable CMOS Transceiver for Structural Health Monitoring
---
Introduction
============
The health of the world’s critical infrastructure, such as bridges, aircraft, and pipelines, is a subject of increasing concern. SHM enables real-time and continuous assessment of structural health by detecting the existence, location, and severity of potential damage. In active SHM, electrical pulses drive an array of piezoelectric transducers attached to the structure, which convert them to ultrasonic guided waves. These waves are received by another set of transducers and analyzed to determine structural health [@Raghavan2007]. Lamb waves have attractive propagation properties and are thus the most widely used ultrasonic guided waves for active SHM. However, a variety of Lamb wave modes with different velocities can propagate in the structure (see Fig. \[fig:1\]). The excitation waveform is usually designed to only excite the lowest-order modes ($S_{0}$ and $A_{0}$) in order to reduce the complexity of SHM signal processing. SHM systems are typically realized using discrete components. However, the size, weight, and power consumption of this approach makes it unattractive for emerging applications such as monitoring of aerospace structures [@Staszewski2009]. This issue has been addressed using integrated piezoelectric drivers [@Guo2014; @Pierco2015] and flexible sheets that combine integrated circuits (ICs) and thin-film transistors for passive strain sensing [@Hu2014; @Hu2014a]. We propose a heterogeneous microsystem that integrates miniaturized electronics and sensors within a flexible substrate to further reduce system thickness, weight, and power, thus paving the way for scalable large-area SHM. We have earlier i) designed and tested a current-controlled transceiver IC in 0.5 $\mu$m 2P/3M CMOS for this application [@Zamani2016], and ii) verified its ability to *detect* structural damage [@Tang2016]. Here we describe an improved digitally-controlled SHM transceiver and verify its ability to both *detect* and *localize* damage using a SHM test bed.
![Dispersion of Lamb waves in a 1.5-mm-thick Aluminum plate: (a) variation in group velocity with frequency; (b) illustration of plate deformation in the $A_{0}$ and $S_{0}$ modes.[]{data-label="fig:1"}](Figure1.png){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
Chip Design
===========
A block diagram of the proposed IC is shown in Fig. \[fig:2\]. The transceiver runs off 5 V and is digitally-controlled through a standard serial peripheral interface (SPI) port. An integer-$N$ frequency synthesizer generates programmable output frequencies (0.8–22 MHz) from a reference clock, thus allowing a single stable reference to be distributed to the entire SHM network. The synthesizer output is fed into a 4-bit PWM modulator that generates predefined pulse widths based on data stored in on-chip memory (ROM). The widths are chosen to minimize the least-square error between the reference (a 5-cycle Hamming-windowed sinusoid) and the differential PWM outputs after a low-pass filter (LPF). The latter can drive signals up to $10(4/\pi)=12.7$ V$_{pp}$ into the transducer.
The fully-differential receiver uses a low-noise amplifier (LNA) with programmable gain and bandwidth. The LNA outputs are down-converted to baseband using a passive double-balanced quadrature mixer. Two stages of low-pass filters and programmable-gain amplifiers are implemented for further filtering and amplification. The four complex outputs ($I^{+}$, $I^{-}$, $Q^{+}$, $Q^{-}$) retain both the amplitude and phase of the input signal, and are digitized by an off-chip ADC for further processing. The whole receiver is biased through a constant $G_{m}$ current reference and programmed over SPI. It can also be put into a low-power shutdown mode between pulses.
Low-Distortion Programmable Transmitter
---------------------------------------
Modern active SHM algorithms, such as delay-and-sum and matched filtering, are implemented through baseline subtraction. Therefore, low-distortion and highly-accurate excitation waveforms are desired to reduce the false alarm rate (FAR) during long term SHM. Our solution uses (i) an integer-$N$ synthesizer based on a fourth-order loop filter that uses a low-phase-noise $ 32.768$ kHz reference clock; and (ii) a PWM scheme with predefined transitions based on *a priori* knowledge of the desired SHM excitation signal after off-chip $LC$ low-pass filtering. This design allows the center frequency of the outputs to be programmed from 0.1-2.75 MHz, thus allowing a wide variety of structures to be studied. Fig. \[fig:3\] shows the design of the main transmitter blocks in more detail. The synthesizer, shown in Fig. \[fig:3\](a), includes a wide-linear-range transconductor (WLR), 5-bit NMOS and PMOS current DACs, and a current-starved ring oscillator (CCO). This allows the loop bandwidth to be controlled through the N- and P-DACs; in particular, we can make the bandwidth and phase margin independent of the division ratio ($N$). The synthesizer also uses a sequential phase frequency detector (PFD), a cascoded charge pump, and a passive third-order loop filter. The charge pump uses differential switching to reduce charge injection errors. The loop filter contains two high-frequency poles that are placed beyond the crossover frequency of the loop. These poles filter out high-frequency ripples on the control voltage ($V_{LOOP}$), thereby reducing jitter in the output clock while only minimally degrading phase margin. The WLR converts $ V_{LOOP}$ to a current; it combines a well-input differential pair with other linearization techniques to achieve $>1.5$ V input linear range. The loop bandwidth is set to 3.5 kHz (about 10% of the nominal reference frequency) to avoid degradation of phase margin due to the phase lag inherent in a discrete-time PFD; the desired value is set to $ 50^{\circ}$. Fig. \[fig:3\](b) shows the block diagram of the 4-bit PWM. To generate fully-differential excitation pulses, it uses two XOR gates and a $180^{\circ}$ delay circuit. The final pulse widths, as shown in Fig. \[fig:3\](b), for the up-side and down-side are set as multiples of the synthesizer output period ($1$, $5$, $7$, $3$ and $3$, $7$, $5$, $1$, respectively). The PWM outputs are filtered using an off-chip $LC$ LPF in which the $C$ is provided by the transducer itself.
Offset-Canceling Fully-Differential Receiver
--------------------------------------------
The implementation of the SHM receiver is shown in Fig. \[fig:4\]. A trigger pulse $\Phi_{t}$ initiates the measurement. RST and OPER are two non-overlapping clock signals derived from $\Phi_{t}$. During the RST phase, each block resets to the input common-mode voltage $V _{CM}=1.3$ V. Auto-zeroing is used within each LPF and programmable-gain amplifier (PGA) for offset cancellation. The receiver operates during the OPER phase. A fully-differential cascoded low-noise amplifier (LNA), as shown in Fig. \[fig:4\] (a), is used as the first signal processing stage. The circuit uses a simple resistively-loaded differential pair and has an input-referred thermal noise PSD of $\overline{v_{n,in}^{2}}\approx 8kT\gamma/g_{m}$, where $\gamma\approx 2/3$ and $g_{m}$ is the transconductance of each transistor in the input pair. A replica bias circuit generates a reference voltage $V_{ref}$ that is nominally equal to the DC output voltage of the LNA. This voltage is used to set the common-mode input level of a differential buffer. We also use 3-bit resistor and bias current DACs for programmable LNA gain and bandwidth. Typically, at a bias current of 3 $\mu$A and a 40 k$\Omega$ load, the LNA has a simulated small-signal gain of 21.6 dB, a bandwidth of 4.3 MHz, a $1/f$ corner frequency of 10 kHz, and an input-referred thermal noise PSD of 21 nV/Hz$^{1/2}$. The input linear range, defined using total harmonic distortion (THD) $<5$%, is $\sim$60 mV and $\sim$70 mV for input frequencies of 400 kHz and 1.2 MHz, respectively.
The differential buffer isolates LNA outputs from the passive double-balanced quadrature downconversion mixer (see Fig. \[fig:4\](b) and (d)). The buffer uses two common-mode feedback (CMFB) amplifiers, one for each gain stage. A passive mixer design was chosen because of its small area, absence of static power consumption, and high linearity, while the double-balanced topology ensures high isolation between the ports. The typical conversion loss is $-4$ dB. Quadrature local oscillator (LO) signals for the mixers are generated from the same synthesizer used in the transmitter, resulting in a direct conversion (zero-IF) architecture. An external LO input also allows the receiver to be characterized at non-zero IF. A second-order $G_{m}$-$C$ LPF removes the upper mixer sidebands. It uses a fully-differential WLR OTA with continuous-time CMFB, as shown in Fig. \[fig:4\](e). The LPF cut-off frequency can be programmed using a 5-bit current DAC and a 4-bit capacitor DAC (up to 1.5 pF). The PGA circuit reuses the same OTAs as in the LPF, with one acting as a $V$-$I$ converter and the other as a buffered resistor. The voltage gain $G=G_{m1}/G_{m2}\approx I_{Bias1}/I_{Bias2}$ is set by two 5-bit current DACs, where the approximation is valid in subthreshold.c
![Die photograph of the proposed transceiver IC.[]{data-label="fig:die_photo"}](die){width="0.75\columnwidth"}
![Chip measurement results: (a) phase noise for synthesizer output frequencies of 624 kHz, 702 kHz and 1.014 MHz; (b) CCO output frequency range; (c) input-referred noise of the LNA and buffer; (d) THD of the LNA and buffer; (e) measured gain of the LNA at 3.0 $\mu$A; (f) measured LNA gain and bandwidth in different scenarios.[]{data-label="fig:6"}](Figure6.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Experimental Results
====================
A proof-of-concept SHM transceiver IC was fabricated in the OnSemi 0.5 $\mu$m CMOS process. Fig. \[fig:die\_photo\] shows a die micrograph of the proposed IC, which has a active area of 1.1 mm $\times$ 2.2 mm. The chip is powered from a single 5.0 V supply with average power consumption of 875 $ \mu$W. Fig. \[fig:6\](a) shows measured phase noise, which decreases to about -70 dBc/Hz at an offset of 10 Hz, while the transmitter tuning curve is shown in Fig. \[fig:6\](b). Figs. \[fig:6\](c) and (d) show the measured input-referred noise PSD and THD, respectively, of the LNA and buffer. The thermal noise floor and maximum input signal amplitude (defined by THD $<5$) are in good agreement with simulations. Given that the received signal amplitude in active SHM is typically $\sim$0.5 mV to 20 mV (depending on the sensor location), the proposed LNA provides sufficient linear range. Fig. \[fig:7\] shows the IC connected to an SHM test bed (1 foot$ ^{2} $ area). The bare dies were wire-bonded to miniature (diameter = 20 mm) wired sensor nodes fabricated (see Fig. \[fig:7\](e)). Each sensor node also contains a microcontroller (MCU; Atemel SAM L21E) for programming, digitization, signal processing and communicating with the system controller. The PZT transducer ($6\times 6\times 0.5$ mm) is connected to the back of the PCB. Fig. \[fig:7\](b) shows typical receiver outputs ($I$ and $Q$). The reconstructed signal amplitude follows the envelope of the input signals, as expected. Fig. \[fig:7\](d) shows an example of successful 2D localization of structural damage using the custom IC and an array of 8 PZT transducers mounted on a 3 mm-thick aluminum plate. Reversible damage is introduced as an stressed point loaded by clamps (see Fig. \[fig:7\](c)). The damage map was generated by using the delay-and-sum localization algorithm on data recorded from the IC. Fig. \[fig:8\] compares the performance of our chip with recently-reported driver ICs for active SHM applications [@Guo2014; @Zamani2016].
Conclusion
==========
We have i) presented a digitally-programmable single-chip transceiver for active SHM using ultrasonic guided waves, and ii) successfully localized damage on a SHM test bed using the proposed chip and a delay-and-sum algorithm. Future work will focus on i) further miniaturization of the sensor nodes by integrating an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) and custom digital signal processor (DSP) on the chip; and ii) eliminating the wired bus by using ultrasonic power and data transfer.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'It is classical that given any Seifert structure on $N$, Reidemeister-Schreier’s algorithm produces a presentation of all index 2 subgroups of $\pi_1(N)$, described as the fundamental group of some Seifert manifolds. The new result of this article is concise formulas that gather all possible cases.'
address:
- |
Institut de Mathématiques de Toulouse\
Equipe Emile Picard, UMR 5580\
Université Toulouse III\
118 Route de Narbonne, 31400 Toulouse - France\
e-mail: [email protected]
- |
Institut de Mathématiques de Toulouse\
Equipe Emile Picard, UMR 5580\
118 Route de Narbonne, 31400 Toulouse - France\
e-mail: [email protected]
author:
- 'A. Bauval, C. Hayat'
- Anne Bauval
- Claude Hayat
title: 'Reidemeister-Schreier’s algorithm for 2-coverings of Seifert manifolds'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
The index 2 subgroups of $\pi_1(N)$ are kernel of epimorphisms $\varphi : \pi_1(N) \to {{\mathbb{Z}}}_2.$ When $N$ is a Seifert manifold (described by its Seifert invariants) and one needs a list of all its 2-coverings, it is necessary to explicit a combinatoric way to gather together all the data. Theorems 1 and 3 give Reidemeister-Schreier concise answers, [@MKS], [@zvc].
The notations are given in the section after this introduction. Section 3 studies the situation where the morphism $\varphi$ maps the generator corresponding to the regular fiber to 1. This is Theorem 1. Theorem 3 stating the result when $\varphi$ maps the generator corresponding to the regular fiber to $0$ is expressed in the fourth section. The following subsections prove this theorem. In the first subsection, a crucial lemma (Lemma \[lem:killvj\]) proves that if two morphisms from $\pi_1(N)$ to ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$ map $m\geq 0$ exceptional fibres to 1 and all the other generators to $0$ then their kernels are isomorphic. This gives importance to Theorem 11 which explicits the kernel with these hypothesis. The second subsection studies the situation where $\varphi$ maps some generators corresponding to the basis to $1$ and all the other generators to $0$. Theorem 3 is proved.
Each index 2 subgroup of $\pi_1(N)$ is the fundamental group of a Seifert manifold $M$ and an associated free involution $\tau$. The motivation of this study came to us through the study of Borsuk-Ulam type theorem for $(M,\tau)$ [@mat], [@BGHZ].
Seifert invariants for the kernel {#RSS}
=================================
$N$ is [*any*]{} Seifert manifold (orientable or not), as introduced in [@s].
Following the notations of [@orlik], from now on, $N$ will be a Seifert manifold described by a list of Seifert invariants $$\{e; (\epsilon, g);(a_1,b_1),\ldots,(a_n,b_n)\}.$$ We do not need them to be “normalized” (as defined in [@s] or [@orlik]): we only assume that $e$ is an integer, the type $\epsilon$ is detailed below, $g$ is the genus of the base surface, and for each $k$, the integers $a_k,b_k$ are coprime and $a_k\ne 0$.
Such invariants give the following presentation of the fundamental group of $N$: $$\pi_1(N)=\left<{\begin{matrix}s_1,\ldots,s_n\\v_1,\ldots,v_{g'}\\h\end{matrix}\left|
\begin{matrix}
[s_k,h]\quad\text{and}\quad s_k^{a_k}h^{b_k},&1\le k\le n\\
v_jhv_j^{-1}h^{-\varepsilon_j},&1\le j \le g'\\
h^{-e}s_1\ldots s_nV&\end{matrix}\right.}\right>.$$
- The type $\epsilon$ of $N$ equals:
- if both the base surface and the total space are orientable (which forces all $\varepsilon_j$’s to equal $1$);
- if the base is orientable and the total space is non-orientable, hence $g\ge 1$ (all $\varepsilon_j$’s are assumed to equal $-1$);
- if both the base and the total space are non-orientable (hence $g\ge 1$) and moreover, all $\varepsilon_j$’s equal $1$;
- if the base is non-orientable (hence $g\ge 1$) and the total space is orientable (which forces all $\varepsilon_j$’s to equal $-1$);
- if both the base and the total space are non-orientable and moreover, all $\varepsilon_j$’s equal $-1$ except $\varepsilon_1=1$, and $g\ge 2$;
- if both the base and the total space are non-orientable and moreover, all $\varepsilon_j$’s equal $-1$ except $\varepsilon_1=\varepsilon_2=1$, and $g\ge 3$.
- The orientability of the base and its genus $g$ determine the number $g'$ of the generators $v_j$’s and the word $V$ in the last relator of $\pi_1(N)$:
- when the base is orientable, $g'=2g$ and $V=[v_1,v_2]\ldots[v_{2g-1},v_{2g}]$;
- when the base is non-orientable, $g'=g$ and $V=v_1^2\ldots v_g^2$.
- The generator $h$ corresponds to the generic regular fibre.
- The generators $s_k$ for $1\le k\le n$ correspond to (possibly) exceptional fibres.
The subgroups of index 2 of $\pi_1(N)$ are the kernel of epimorphism $\varphi : \pi_1(N) \to {{\mathbb{Z}}}_2.$ The two next subsections describe ${\rm Ker\,}(\varphi)$ as the fundamental group of some Seifert manifold given by a similar list of invariants, when $\varphi(h)=1$ (Theorem \[theo:phi(h)=1\]) and when $\varphi(h)=0$ (Theorem \[theo:phi(h)=0\]).
If $\varphi$ maps $h$ to $1$ {#phi(h)=1}
============================
\[theo:phi(h)=1\]If $\varphi$ maps $h$ to $1$ then its kernel is the fundamental group of the Seifert manifold given by the following invariants: $$\{\frac{e-m}2-m'; (\epsilon, g);(a_1,b'_1 ),\ldots,(a_n,b'_n)\},$$ where $b'_k=\begin{cases}\frac{b_k}2&\text{if $b_k$ is even}\\\frac{a_k+b_k}2&\text{if $b_k$ is odd}\end{cases}$, $m$ is the number of odd $b_k$’s, and $$\begin{cases}m'=0&\text{if $\epsilon=o_1,n_2$}\\m'\equiv\sum\varphi(v_j) ({{\rm mod}}~2)&\text{if $\epsilon=o_2,n_1$}\\m'\equiv\varphi(v_1) ({{\rm mod}}~2)&\text{if $\epsilon=n_3$}\\m'\equiv\varphi(v_1)+\varphi(v_2) ({{\rm mod}}~2)&\text{if $\epsilon=n_4$}.\end{cases}$$
Note that in the non-orientable cases, $m'$ is only determined modulo $2$, which is sufficient to determine the Seifert manifold.
Necessarily, all $a_k$’s are odd, $\varphi(s_k)=b_k({{\rm mod}}~2)$, and $e+m$ is even. Let us choose a presentation of $\pi_1(N)$ adapted to $\varphi$ by keeping $h$ untouched but taking new generators $s'_k$, $v'_j$ mapped to $0$ by $\varphi$: $$s'_k=\begin{cases}s_k&\text{if $b_k$ is even}\\h^{-1}s_k&\text{if $b_k$ is odd}\end{cases}\qquad v'_k=\begin{cases}v_k&\text{if $\varphi(v_k)=0$}\\h^{-1}v_k&\text{if $\varphi(v_k)=1$.}\end{cases}$$ The new presentation of $\pi_1(N)$ corresponds to the Seifert invariants $$\{e-m-2m'; (\epsilon, g);(a_1,2b'_1),\ldots,(a_n,2b'_n)\},$$ where the $b'_k$’s and $m$ are as stated, and $$m'=\begin{cases}0&\text{if $\epsilon=o_1,n_2$}\\
\#\{j~\text{odd}\mid\varphi(v_j)=1\}-\#\{j~\text{even}\mid\varphi(v_j)=1\}&\text{if $\epsilon=o_2$}\\
\#\{j\mid \varphi(v_j)=1~\text{and}~\varepsilon_j=1\}&\text{if $\epsilon=n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4$}\end{cases}$$ (hence $m'$ fullfills the condition of the statement).
Choosing $q=h$, Reidemeister-Schreier’s algorithm produces a presentation of ${\rm Ker\,}(\varphi)$ with
- generators:
- for $1\le k\le n$, $(y_k,y'_k)=(s'_k,qs'_kq^{-1})$
- for $1\le j\le g'$, $(x_j,x'_j)=(v'_j,qv'_jq^{-1})$
- $(z,z')=(hq^{-1},qh)$
- relations:
- $z=1$
- for $1\le k\le n$, $y'_k=y_k$, $[y_k,z']=1$ and $y_k^{a_k}z'^{b'_k}=1$
- for $1\le j\le g'$, $x_jz'x_j^{-1}z'^{-\varepsilon_j}=1$ and $x'_j=\begin{cases}x_j&\text{if $\varepsilon_j=1$}\\z'x_j&\text{if $\varepsilon_j=-1$}\end{cases}$
- $y_1\ldots y_nW=z'^{(e+m+2m')/2}$, with $$W=\begin{cases}[x_1,x_2]\ldots[x_{2g-1},x_{2g}]&\text{if $\epsilon=o_1,o_2$}\\x_1^2\ldots x_g^2&\text{if $\epsilon=n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4$.}\end{cases}$$
Eliminating the redundant generators $z,y'_k,x'_k$ yields the result.
If $\varphi$ maps $h$ to $0$ {#phi(h)=0}
============================
### Results of the two next subsections
Denote by $m$ the number of $s_k$’s mapped to $1$ by $\varphi$ and assume (if $m>0$) that these $m$ $s_k$’s are the first ones. (This reordering of the $s_k$’s may be achieved by an obvious change of presentation of $\pi_1(N)$, using repeatedly the equation $ss'=(ss's^{-1})s$.) The next theorem announces the conclusion of Theorems \[theo:s1smvj\] and \[theo:vj\], which will be proved in the two next subsections. The following notations will be used to state the results.
\[nota:FOCFm\] The notations $F_{OC}$ and $F_m$ will respectively denote $$F_{OC}=(a_1,b_1),(a_1,-b_1),(a_2,b_2),(a_2,-b_2),\ldots,(a_n,b_n),(a_n,-b_n)$$ $$F_m=(a_1/2,b_1),(a_2/2,b_2),\ldots ,(a_m/2,b_m),$$$$(a_{m+1},b_{m+1}),(a_{m+1},b_{m+1}),(a_{m+2},b_{m+2}),(a_{m+2},b_{m+2}),\ldots,(a_n,b_n),(a_n,b_n)$$
\[theo:phi(h)=0\]If $\varphi(h)=0$, denoting by $m$ the number of $s_k$’s mapped to $1$ by $\varphi$ and assuming these are the first ones, ${\rm Ker\,}(\varphi)$ is the fundamental group of the Seifert manifold given by the following invariants:
- (Orientation covers) If $m=0$ and
- if $\epsilon=o_2$ and $\varphi$ maps all $v_j$’s to $1$: $\{0;(o_1,2g-1);F_{OC}\}$
- if $\epsilon=n_1$ and $\varphi$ maps all $v_j$’s to $1$: $\{0;(o_1,g-1);F_{OC}\}$
- if $\epsilon=n_3$ and $\varphi$ sends only $v_1$ to $1$, or if $\epsilon=n_4$ and $\varphi$ sends only $v_1,v_2$ to $1$: $\{0;(n_2,2g-2);F_{OC}\}$
- (Exotic cases) If $m=0$ and $\epsilon=n_2,n_3,n_4$ and $\varphi$ maps all $v_j$’s to $1$:
- if $\epsilon=n_2$: $\{2e; (o_1, g-1);F_0\}$
- if $\epsilon=n_3,n_4$: $\{0; (o_2, g-1);F_0\}$
- (Ordinary cases) In all other cases: $\{e';(\epsilon',G);F_m\}$ with $$e'=\begin{cases}2e&\text{if $\epsilon=o_1,n_2$}\\0&\text{if $\epsilon=o_2,n_1,n_3,n_4$}\end{cases}\qquad\epsilon'=\begin{cases}\epsilon&\text{if $\epsilon=o_1,o_2,n_1,n_2,n_4$}\\n_4&\text{if $\epsilon=n_3$}\end{cases}$$$$\text{and}~G=\begin{cases}\frac m2-1+2g&\text{if $\epsilon=o_1,o_2$}\\m-2+2g&\text{if $\epsilon=n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4$.}\end{cases}$$
### If $\varphi$ maps $h$ to $0$ but maps some $s_k$’s to $1$. {#m>0}
Later on (Lemma \[lem:killvj\]), we shall reorder the $v_j$’s in the same spirit as we did for the $s_k$’s, and show that the isomorphism type of ${\rm Ker\,}(\varphi)$ is in fact independent from the values of $\varphi$ on the $v_j$’s, which reduces the computation of ${\rm Ker\,}(\varphi)$ to the particular case where $\varphi$ vanishes on all $v_j$’s. But before performing such a reduction, we need to show that in that particular case, ${\rm Ker\,}(\varphi)$ is the fundamental group a non-orientable Seifert manifold whenever $N$ is non-orientable.
So, let us first compute ${\rm Ker\,}\varphi$ in the particular case where $\varphi$ vanishes on all $v_j$’s. The following lemma is an intermediate step for this computation: it gives a presentation of ${\rm Ker\,}\varphi$ where the exceptional fibers gently appear, but where the long relation $W$ and the $\pm$ signs may still be of a “hybrid” form.
\[lem:hybrid\]If $\varphi$ maps $s_1,\ldots,s_m$ to $1$ and all other generators to $0$ then a presentation of its kernel is: $${\rm Ker\,}(\varphi)=\left<{\begin{matrix}s'_1,\ldots,s'_{n'} \\v'_1,\ldots,v'_{g''}\\z\end{matrix}\left|
\begin{matrix}
[s'_k,z]\quad\text{and}\quad s_k'^{a'_k}z^{b'_k},&1\le k\le n'\\
v'_jzv_j'^{-1}z^{-\varepsilon'_j},&1\le j \le g'' \\
z^{-2e}s'_1\ldots s'_{n'}W&\end{matrix}\right.}\right>,$$ where
- - $n'=m+2(n-m)$,
- $(a'_k,b'_k)=(a_k/2,b_k)$ for $k\le m$,
- $(a'_k,b'_k)=(a'_{k+n-m},b'_{k+n-m})=(a_k,b_k)$ for $m<k\le n$,
- - $g''=(m-2)+2g'$
- $\varepsilon'_j=1$ for $j\le m-2$,
- $\varepsilon'_{m-2+j}=\varepsilon'_{m-2+g'+j}=\varepsilon_j$ for $1\le j\le g'$,
- $W=\begin{cases}[v'_1,v'_2]\ldots[v'_{g''-1},v'_{g''}]&\text{if $\epsilon=o_1,o_2$,}\\
[v'_1,v'_2]\ldots[v'_{m-3},v'_{m-2}]v_{m-1}'^2\ldots v_{g''}'^2&\text{if $\epsilon=n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4$.}\end{cases}$
Choosing $q=s_1$, Reidemeister-Schreier’s algorithm produces a presentation of ${\rm Ker\,}(\varphi)$ with
- generators:
- for $1\le k\le n$, $(y_k,y'_k)=\begin{cases}(s_kq^{-1},qs_k)&\text{if $k\le m$}\\(s_k,qs_kq^{-1})&\text{if $k>m$}\end{cases}$
- for $1\le j\le g'$, $(x_j,x'_j)=(v_j,qv_jq^{-1})$
- $(z,z')=(h,qhq^{-1})$.
- relations:
- $y_1=1$ and $z'=z$
- $\forall k=1,\ldots,n$,
- $[y_k,z]=[y'_k,z]=1$
- $(y_ky'_k)^{a_k/2}z^{b_k}=1$ if $k\le m$
- $y_k^{a_k}z^{b_k}=y_k'^{a_k}z^{b_k}=1$ if $k>m$
- $x_jzx_j^{-1}z^{-\varepsilon_j}=x'_jzx_j'^{-1}z^{-\varepsilon_j}=1$ ($\forall j=1,\ldots,g'$)
- \(I) $y'_2BCX=z^e$, where $B=y_3y'_4y_5y'_6\ldots y_{m-1}y'_m$, $C=y_{m+1}\ldots y_n$ and $$X=\begin{cases}[x_1,x_2]\ldots[x_{2g-1},x_{2g}]& \text{if $\epsilon=o_1,o_2$}\\x_1^2\ldots x_g^2&\text{if $\epsilon=n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4$}\end{cases}$$
- \(II) $y'_1y_2y'_3y_4\ldots y'_{m-1}y_mC'X'=z^e$, where $C'=y'_{m+1}\ldots y'_n$ and $$X'=\begin{cases}[x'_1,x'_2]\ldots[x'_{2g-1},x'_{2g}]&\text{if $\epsilon=o_1,o_2$}\\x_1'^2\ldots x_g'^2&\text{if $\epsilon=n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4$.}\end{cases}$$
(Note that $X$ and $X'$ allways commute with $z$.) Let us make a change of generators in this presentation by suppressing $y'_1,y_2,y'_3,y_4,\ldots,y'_{m-1},y_m$ and introducing instead new generators $s'_1,\ldots,s'_m$ defined by: $$s'_k=\begin{cases}y_2'^{-1}y_3^{-1}y_4'^{-1}y_5^{-1}\ldots y_{k-1}'^{-1}(y'_ky_k)y'_{k-1} \ldots y_5y'_4y_3y'_2&\text{if $k$ is odd}\\
y_2'^{-1}y_3^{-1}y_4'^{-1}y_5^{-1}\ldots y_{k-1}^{-1}(y_ky'_k)y_{k-1} \ldots y_5y'_4y_3y'_2&\text{if $k$ is even}\end{cases}$$ (in particular, $s'_1=y'_1$ and $s'_2=y_2y'_2$). These new generators still commute with $z$, the relations $(y_ky'_k)^{a_k/2}z^{b_k}=1$ become $s_k'^{a_k/2}z^{b_k}=1$, and the relation (II) becomes (III): $Ay_2'^{-1}B'C'X'=z^e$, where $A=s'_1\ldots s'_m$ and $B'=y_3^{-1}y_4'^{-1}y_5^{-1}y_6'^{-1}\ldots y_{m-1}^{-1}y_m'^{-1}$. Using (I) to eliminate the generator $y'_2$ from (III), which will become (IV) below, we are left with the following new presentation of ${\rm Ker\,}(\varphi)$:
- generators:
- $s'_k$ for $1\le k\le m$
- $y_3,y'_4,y_5,y'_6,\ldots,y_{m-1},y'_m$
- $y_k,y'_k$ for $m<k\le n$
- $x_j,x'_j$ for $1\le j\le g'$
- $z$
- relations:
- $[s'_k,z]=1$ and $s_k'^{a_k/2}z^{b_k}=1$ for $1\le k\le m$
- $[y_k,z]=[y'_k,z]=1$ and $y_k^{a_k}z^{b_k}=y_k'^{a_k}z^{b_k}$ for $m<k\le n$
- $[y_3,z]=\ldots=[y'_m,z]=1$
- $x_jzx_j^{-1}z^{-\varepsilon_j}=x'_jzx_j'^{-1}z^{-\varepsilon_j}=1$ for $1\le j\le g'$
- \(IV) $ABCXB'C'X'=z^{2e}$.
This last relation (IV) may be reordered by a new change of generators (replacing some of the generators by conjugates thereof) so as to become $ACC'BXB'X'=z^{2e}$, which we rewrite $ACC'(BXB'X^{-1})XX'=z^{2e}$. The parenthesis $BXB'X^{-1}$ is the product of $m-1$ elements, followed by the product (in the same order) of their inverses. It can be transformed into a product of $\frac m 2-1$ commutators, by another change of generators given by Lemma \[lem:prodcommut\] below.
Provided that next (classical) lemma, this concludes the proof of Lemma \[lem:hybrid\], up to a renaming of the generators.
\[lem:prodcommut\]Let $F_{2k+1}$ be the free group over $g_0,\ldots,g_{2k}$. There exist elements $h_0,\ldots,h_{2k-1}\in F_{2k+1}$ such that: $$g_0g_1\ldots g_{2k}g_0^{-1}g_1^{-1}\ldots g_{2k}^{-1}=[h_0,h_1][h_2,h_3]\ldots[h_{2k-2},h_{2k-1}]$$ and $F_{2k+1}$ is the free group over $h_0,\ldots,h_{2k-1},g_{2k}$.
Let $U_i=g_{2i}\ldots g_{2k}$ and $V_i=g_{2i}^{-1}\ldots g_{2k}^{-1}$. Then, $$U_kV_k=1\quad\text{and}\quad U_iV_i=[g_{2i}g_{2i+1},U_{i+1}g_{2i}^{-1}]U_{i+1}V_{i+1}.$$
Lemma \[lem:hybrid\] produces a standard presentation of ${\rm Ker\,}(\varphi)$ only when $\epsilon=o_1$, or when $m=2$ and $\epsilon\ne n_4$. In other cases, the following Lemmas \[lem:commutsquar\], \[lem:epsiloncommut\] and \[lem:epsilonsquar\] tell how to normalize both $W$ (which must not be a mixture of commutators and squares) and the list of the $\varepsilon'_j$’s (for which the numbers of $1$’s and $-1$’s are partially prescribed).
\[lem:commutsquar\]Let $F_3$ be the free group over $x,y,z$ and $\varepsilon\colon F_3\to\{1,-1\}$ the morphism defined by $$\varepsilon(x)=\varepsilon(y)=1\qquad\text{and}\qquad\varepsilon(z)=-1.$$ There exist elements $u,v,w$ such that $$\varepsilon(u)=\varepsilon(v)=\varepsilon(w)=-1\quad\text{and}\quad[x,y]z^2=u^2v^2w^2$$ and $F_3$ is the free group over $u,v,w$.
Take for instance $ u=xz$, $v=(zxz)^{-1}yz$ and $w=(yz)^{-1}z^2$.
\[lem:epsiloncommut\]Let $F_4$ be the free group over $x,y,z,t$ and $\varepsilon\colon F_4\to\{1,-1\}$ the morphism defined by $$\varepsilon(x)=\varepsilon(y)=1\qquad\text{and}\qquad\varepsilon(z)=\varepsilon(t)=-1.$$ There exist elements $x',y',z',t'\in F_4$ such that $$\varepsilon(x')=\varepsilon(y')=\varepsilon(z')=\varepsilon(t')=-1\quad\text{and}\quad[x,y][z,t]=[x',y'][z',t']$$ and $F_4$ is the free group over $t',u',v',w'$.
Take for instance $$x'=xyz,\quad y'=z^{-1}x^{-1},\quad z'=(y^{-1}z)^{-1}z(y^{-1}z)\quad\text{and}\quad t'=tz^{-1}(y^{-1}z).$$
\[lem:epsilonsquar\]Let $F_4$ be the free group over $t,u,v,w$ and $\varepsilon\colon F_4\to\{1,-1\}$ the morphism defined by $$\varepsilon(t)=\varepsilon(u)=\varepsilon(v)=1\qquad\text{and}\qquad\varepsilon(w)=-1.$$ There exist elements $t',u',v',w'\in F_4$ such that $$\varepsilon(t')=1,\quad \varepsilon(u')=\varepsilon(v')=\varepsilon(w')=-1\quad\text{and}\quad t^2u^2v^2w^2=t'^2u'^2v'^2w'^2$$ and $F_4$ is the free group over $x',y',z',t'$.
Take for instance $t',u',w',v'$ successively defined by: $$t'=tu^2vu^{-1},\quad t'u'=u^2vw\quad u'w'=uvw^2\quad\text{and}\quad u'v'w'=w.$$
Using Lemmas \[lem:commutsquar\], \[lem:epsiloncommut\] and \[lem:epsilonsquar\], we deduce from Lemma \[lem:hybrid\]:
\[prop:s1sm\]If $\varphi$ maps $s_1,\ldots,s_m$ to $1$ and all other generators to $0$ then its kernel is the fundamental group of the Seifert manifold given by $$\{e'; (\epsilon', G);F_m\}$$ where $$e'=\begin{cases}2e&\text{if $\epsilon=o_1,n_2$}\\0&\text{if $\epsilon=o_2,n_1,n_3,n_4$}\end{cases}\qquad\epsilon'=\begin{cases}\epsilon&\text{if $\epsilon=o_1,o_2,n_1,n_2,n_4$}\\n_4&\text{if $\epsilon=n_3$}\end{cases}$$ $$G=\begin{cases}\frac m2-1+2g&\text{if $\epsilon=o_1,o_2$}\\m-2+2g&\text{if $\epsilon=n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4$}\end{cases}$$ and $F_m$ as defined in Notation \[nota:FOCFm\].
When $\epsilon=o_1$, Lemma \[lem:hybrid\] directly gives the result and $\epsilon'=o_1$, with $2G=g''=m-2+2g'=m-2+4g$. When $\epsilon=o_2$, the number of $\varepsilon'_j$’s equal to $-1$ is $g'=2g>0$ hence by Lemma \[lem:epsiloncommut\], all $\varepsilon'_j$’s can be replaced by $-1$, so $\epsilon'=o_2$ and $2G=m-2+4g$ as in the previous case. When $\epsilon=n_1$, Lemma \[lem:commutsquar\] may be applied if necessary (i.e. if $m>2$) to replace each commutator by a product of two squares (only a weak form of the Lemma is used here, forgetting about the morphism $\varepsilon$ of its statement). Thus we get $\epsilon'=n_1$ and $G=g''=m-2+2g'=m-2+2g$. When $\epsilon=n_2$, applying again Lemma \[lem:commutsquar\] if necessary (in its strong form) gives the result and $\epsilon'=n_2$ with $G=m-2+2g$ as in the previous case. When $\epsilon=n_3$, $W=[v'_1,v'_2]\ldots[v'_{m-3},v'_{m-2}]v_{m-1}'^2\ldots v_{m-2+2g}'^2$ and among $\varepsilon'_{m-1},\ldots,\varepsilon'_{m-2+2g}$, there are two $1$’s, but the number of $-1$’s is $2g-2>0$ and we may reorder these $2g$ $\varepsilon'_j$’s to put the two $1$’s first (by a repeated change of variable, using that $u^2v^2=(u^2vu^{-2})^2u^2$). Lemma \[lem:commutsquar\] again gives the conclusion. When $\epsilon=n_4$ the same method allows to transform $W$ into a product of squares but we are left with four $1$’s instead of two. Reordering again to put these four $1$’s at the beginning, Lemma \[lem:epsilonsquar\] allows to reduce this number of $1$’s to two, hence (again) $\epsilon'=n_4$ (and $G=m-2+2g$).
The next lemma will be used in Theorem \[theo:s1smvj\] to extend the result of the previous proposition to the general case, where $\varphi$ does not necessarily vanish on all $v_j$’s.
\[lem:killvj\]If two morphisms from $\pi_1(N)$ to ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$ map $s_1,\ldots,s_m$ ($m>0$) to $1$ and $h,s_{m+1},\ldots,s_n$ to $0$ then their kernels are isomorphic.
When $\epsilon=n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4$, the idea is to change the presentation of $\pi_1(N)$, using $\varphi(s_1)=1$ to “kill” all the $\varphi(v_j)$’s, one after another. The formulas are simpler if we prepare each of these “murders” by temporarily permuting the $\varphi(v_j)$s’, to put at the end the one whose value we want to switch from $1$ to $0$.
The values $\varphi(v_j)$ and $\varphi(v_{j+1})$ can be exchanged by the following change of generators (leaving the other generators untouched):$$v'_j=v_j^2v_{j+1}v_j^{-2}, v'_{j+1}=v_j.$$
Combining such transpositions, we can [*temporarily*]{} reorder the $v_j$’s (it may affect the conventional ordering of the $\varepsilon_j$’s when $\epsilon=n_3,n_4$, but this is temporary hence harmless).
Then, the value of $\varphi(v_g)$ can be switched from $1$ to $0$ by: $$v'_g=v_gs_1,\qquad s'_1=v_g'^{-1}s_1^{-1}v'_g.$$ When $v_g$ anticommutes with $h$, this is in fact (like the previous one) an automorphism of $\pi_1(N)$, but when $v_g$ commutes with $h$, it is only a change of presentation, since $b_1$ is changed into its opposite. Thus, after “killing” all $\varphi(v_j)$’s and then applying Proposition \[prop:s1sm\], we get the same invariants for ${\rm Ker\,}(\varphi)$ as if all $\varphi(v_j)$’s were already $0$, up to a possible change of sign of $b_1$ in the type $(a_1/2,b_1)$ of the first exceptional fiber. However, this may only happen when some $\varepsilon_j$’s are equal to $1$, i.e. when $\epsilon=n_1,n_3,n_4$. But we see from Proposition \[prop:s1sm\] that ${\rm Ker\,}(\varphi)$ inherits this non-orientability, which allows to replace in the final result such an $(a_1/2,-b_1)$ (if it occurs) by $(a_1/2,b_1)$.
When $\epsilon=o_1,o_2$, the idea is the same:\
the value of $(\varphi(v_{2i-1}),\varphi(v_{2i}))$ can be exchanged with that of $(\varphi(v_{2i+1}),\varphi(v_{2i+2}))$ by: $$v'_{2i-1}=[v_{2i-1},v_{2i}]v_{2i+1}[v_{2i-1},v_{2i}]^{-1},\qquad v'_{2i}=[v_{2i-1},v_{2i}]v_{2i+2}[v_{2i+2},v_{2i}]^{-1},$$$$v'_{2i+1}=v_{2i-1},\qquad v'_{2i+2}=v_{2i},$$ and the values of $\varphi(v_j)$ and $\varphi(v_{j+1})$ when $j$ is odd can be exchanged by: $$v'_j=v_jv_{j+1}v_j^{-1},\qquad v'_{j+1}=v_j^{-1}.$$ The value of $\varphi(v_{2g})$ can be switched from $1$ to $0$ by: $$s'_1=v_{2g-1}s_1v_{2g-1}^{-1},\qquad v'_{2g-1}=s'_1v_{2g-1}s_1'^{-1},\qquad v'_{2g}=s'_1s_1^{-1}v_{2g}s_1'^{-1}.$$ When $\epsilon=o_2$, this again changes $b_1$ to $-b_1$ but it can be cured if necessary in the final result, by the same argument.
From Proposition \[prop:s1sm\] and Lemma \[lem:killvj\] we immediately deduce:
\[theo:s1smvj\]If $\varphi$ map $s_1,\ldots,s_m$ ($m>0$) to $1$ and $h,s_{m+1},\ldots,s_n$ to $0$ then its kernel is the fundamental group of the Seifert manifold given by $$\{e'; (\epsilon', G);F_m\}$$ where $$e'=\begin{cases}2e&\text{if $\epsilon=o_1,n_2$}\\0&\text{if $\epsilon=o_2,n_1,n_3,n_4$}\end{cases}\qquad\epsilon'=\begin{cases}\epsilon&\text{if $\epsilon=o_1,o_2,n_1,n_2,n_4$}\\n_4&\text{if $\epsilon=n_3$}\end{cases}$$ $$G=\begin{cases}\frac m2-1+2g&\text{if $\epsilon=o_1,o_2$}\\m-2+2g&\text{if $\epsilon=n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4$}\end{cases}$$ and $F_m$ as defined in Notation \[nota:FOCFm\].
### If $\varphi$ maps some $v_j$’s to $1$ and all other generators $0$ {#vj}
In this subsection, $\varphi(h)=\varphi(s_1)=\ldots=\varphi(s_n)=0$. Apart from orientation covers and some “exotic” cases, ${\rm Ker\,}(\varphi)$ will have the same description as in Theorem \[theo:s1smvj\], with $m$ replaced by $0$. The two cases $\epsilon=o_1,o_2$ and $\epsilon=n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4$ will be treated separately (Propositions \[prop:vjoi\] and \[prop:vjni\]) and the global result will be rephrased in Theorem \[theo:vj\].
\[prop:vjoi\]When $\varphi$ maps $r>0$ generators $v_j$’s to $1$ and all other generators to $0$ and $\epsilon=o_1$ or $o_2$, ${\rm Ker\,}(\varphi)$ is the fundamental group of the Seifert manifold given by the following invariants, whith $F_{OC}$ and $F_0$ as defined in Notation \[nota:FOCFm\].
- if $\epsilon=o_1$: $\{2e; (o_1,2g-1);F_0\}$
- if $\epsilon=o_2$ and $r=g$ (orientation cover): $\{0;(o_1, 2g-1);F_{OC}\}$
- in all other cases of $\epsilon=o_2$: $\{0;(o_2,2g-1);F_0\}$.
Let us reorder $r$ the number of $v_j$’s mapped to 1 in such a way that $\varphi(v_j)=1\Leftrightarrow j\le r$ (by the same method as in Lemma \[lem:killvj\]). Let $\varepsilon$ be the common value of the $\varepsilon_j$’s, i.e. $\varepsilon=1$ if $\epsilon=o_1$ and to $\varepsilon=-1$ if $\epsilon=o_2$.
Choosing $q=v_r$, Reidemeister-Schreier’s algorithm produces a presentation of ${\rm Ker\,}(\varphi)$ with
- generators:
- for $1\le k\le n$, $(y_k,y'_k)=(s_k,qs_kq^{-1})$
- for $1\le j\le 2g$, $$(x_j,x'_j)=\begin{cases}(v_jq^{-1},qv_j)&\text{if $j\le r$}\\(v_j,qv_jq^{-1})&\text{if $j>r$}\end{cases}$$
- $(z,z')=(h,qhq^{-1})$
- relations:
- $x_r=1$, $z'=z^\varepsilon$
- $z$ commutes with all $y_k$’s and $y'_k$’s, and with $x_j$ and $x'_j$ for $j\le r$
- $x_jzx_j^{-1}z^{-\varepsilon}=x'_jzx_j'^{-1}z^{-\varepsilon}=1$ for $j>r$
- $y_k^{a_k}z^{b_k}=y_k'^{a_k}z^{\varepsilon b_k}=1$ ($\forall k=1,\ldots,n$)
- \(I) $YB=z^e$, (II) $Y'B'=z^{\varepsilon_re}$, where $Y=y_1\ldots y_n$, $Y'=y'_1\ldots y'_n$, and $B,B'$ are described as follows:
- if $r$ is odd, $B=Zx'_{r+1}x_{r+1}^{-1}X$ and $B'=Z'x'_rx_{r+1}x_r'^{-1}x_{r+1}'^{-1}X'$, where $$X=[x_{r+2},x_{r+3}]\ldots[x_{2g-1},x_{2g}],\quad X'=[x'_{r+2},x'_{r+3}]\ldots[x'_{2g-1},x'_{2g}],$$ $$Z=(x_1x'_2x_1'^{-1}x_2^{-1})\ldots(x_{r-2}x'_{r-1}x_{r-2}'^{-1}x_{r-1}^{-1}),$$ $$Z'=(x'_1x_2x_1^{-1}x_2'^{-1})\ldots(x'_{r-2}x_{r-1}x_{r-2}^{-1}x_{r-1}'^{-1});$$
- if $r$ is even, $B=Zx_{r-1}x'_rx_{r-1}'^{-1}X$ and $B'=Z'x'_{r-1}x_{r-1}^{-1}x_r'^{-1}X'$, where $$X=[x_{r+1},x_{r+2}]\ldots[x_{2g-1},x_{2g}],\quad X'=[x'_{r+1},x'_{r+2}]\ldots[x'_{2g-1},x'_{2g}],$$ $$Z=(x_1x'_2x_1'^{-1}x_2^{-1})\ldots(x_{r-3}x'_{r-2}x_{r-3}'^{-1}x_{r-2}^{-1}),$$ $$Z'=(x'_1x_2x_1^{-1}x_2'^{-1})\ldots(x'_{r-3}x_{r-2}x_{r-3}^{-1}x_{r-2}'^{-1}).$$
Assume first that $r$ is odd. Using (II) to eliminate $x'_{r+1}$ in (I), and replacing some of the generators by conjugates thereof (without altering the previous relations) to reorder the subexpressions of the resulting relation, (I) becomes: $$YY'W=z^{(1+\varepsilon)e},\qquad\text{with}\qquad W=ZZ'[x'_r,x_{r+1}]X'X.$$ Transforming $ZZ'$ by lemma \[lem:ZZ’\] below (which is stated informally but whose proof gives explicit formulas), $W$ becomes a product of $(r-1)+1+(2g-r-1)$ commutators of new generators, whose associated $\varepsilon'_j$’s are equal to $1$ for the first $2(r-1)+1$ of them and to $\varepsilon$ for the $1+2(2g-r-1)$ last ones. We thus get the following Seifert invariants for ${\rm Ker\,}(\varphi)$:
- if $\epsilon=o_1$: $\{2e; (o_1,2g-1);F_0\}$
- if $\epsilon=o_2$ (noting that $1+2(2g-r-1)>0$): $\{0;(o_2, 2g-1);F_{OC}\}$.
In the $o_2$ (non-orientable) case, all $-b_k$’s can be replaced by their opposites, i.e. $F_{OC}$ replaced by $F_0$, which concludes the odd case.
Assume now that $r$ is even. Using (I) to eliminate $x'_{r-1}$ and performing similar transformations, (II) becomes: $$Y'YW=z^{(1+\varepsilon)e},\qquad\text{with}\qquad W=Z'Z[x_{r-1},x'_r]XX'.$$ Using lemma \[lem:ZZ’\] again, $W$ becomes a product $(r-2)+1+(2g-r)$ commutators and the first $2(r-2)+2$ $\varepsilon'_j$’s are equal to $1$, the $2(2g-r)$ last ones being equal to $\varepsilon$. Hence the conclusion is the same as in the odd case, except when $\varepsilon=-1$ and $2(2g-r)=0$, which corresponds to the orientation cover case of the statement. This concludes the proof of Proposition \[prop:vjoi\], provided the next Lemma.
\[lem:ZZ’\]In any group, an expression of the form $$(a_1b_1c_1d_1)\ldots(a_kb_kc_kd_k)(c_1^{-1}d_1^{-1}a_1^{-1}b_1^{-1})\ldots(c_k^{-1}d_k^{-1}a_k^{-1}b_k^{-1})$$ is the product of $2k$ commutators.
Let $U_k=(a_1b_1c_1d_1)\ldots(a_kb_kc_kd_k)$ and $V_k=(c_1^{-1}d_1^{-1}a_1^{-1}b_1^{-1})\ldots(c_k^{-1}d_k^{-1}a_k^{-1}b_k^{-1})$. Then $U_0V_0=1$, and $U_{k+1}V_{k+1}$ is the product of $U_kV_k$ (which by induction hypothesis is a product of $2k$ commutators) by $$V_k^{-1}a_{k+1}b_{k+1}c_{k+1}d_{k+1}V_kc_{k+1}^{-1}d_{k+1}^{-1}a_{k+1}^{-1}b_{k+1}^{-1}=$$$$[V_k^{-1}a_{k+1},b_{k+1}V_k](b_{k+1}a_{k+1})[V_k^{-1}c_{k+1},d_{k+1}V_k](b_{k+1}a_{k+1})^{-1}.$$
Proposition \[prop:vjoi\] dealt with the case $\epsilon=o_1,o_2$. The next proposition deals with the other case, $\epsilon=n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4$.
\[prop:vjni\]When $\varphi$ maps some $v_j$’s to $1$ and all other generators to $0$ and $\epsilon=n_1,n_2,n_3$ or $n_4$, ${\rm Ker\,}(\varphi)$ is the fundamental group of the Seifert manifold given by the following invariants, whith $F_{OC}$ and $F_0$ as defined in Notation \[nota:FOCFm\].
- (Orientation covers)
- if $\epsilon=n_1$ and $\varphi$ maps all $v_j$’s to $1$: $\{0; (o_1, g-1);F_{OC}\}$
- if $\epsilon=n_3$ and $\varphi$ sends only $v_1$ to $1$, or if $\epsilon=n_4$ and $\varphi$ sends only $v_1,v_2$ to $1$: $\{0;(n_2,2g-2);F_{OC}\}$
- (Exotic cases) if $\varphi$ maps all $v_j$’s to $1$ but $\epsilon\ne n_1$
- if $\epsilon=n_2$: $\{2e; (o_1, g-1);F_0\}$
- if $\epsilon=n_3,n_4$: $\{0; (o_2, g-1);F_0\}$
- (Ordinary cases) in all other cases: $\{e';(\epsilon',2g-2);F_0\}$ with $$\epsilon'=\begin{cases}\epsilon&\text{if $\epsilon=n_1,n_2,n_4$}\\n_4&\text{if $\epsilon=n_3$}\end{cases}\qquad\text{and}\qquad e'=\begin{cases}2e&\text{if $\epsilon=n_2$}\\0&\text{if $\epsilon=n_1,n_3,n_4$.}\end{cases}$$
Assume, like in the proof of Proposition \[prop:vjoi\], that $\varphi(v_j)=1\Leftrightarrow j\le r$. We shall have to be cautious about a new phenomenon: this reordering of the $v_j$’s may affect the ordering of the $\varepsilon_j$’s, i.e. we shall try to maintain the convention that the $\varepsilon_j$’s equal to 1 are allways $\varepsilon_1$ when $\epsilon=n_3$ and $\varepsilon_1,\varepsilon_2$ when $\epsilon=n_4$, but we shall locally drop this convention inside the present proof whenever it is not compatible with our reordering of the $v_j$’s.
Choosing $q=v_1$, Reidemeister-Schreier’s algorithm produces a presentation of ${\rm Ker\,}(\varphi)$ with
- generators:
- for $1\le k\le n$, $(y_k,y'_k)=(s_k,qs_kq^{-1})$
- for $1\le j\le g$, $$(x_j,x'_j)=\begin{cases}(v_jq^{-1},qv_j)&\text{if $j\le r$}\\(v_j,qv_jq^{-1})&\text{if $j>r$}\end{cases}$$
- $(z,z')=(h,qhq^{-1})$
- relations:
- $x_1=1$, $z'=z^{\varepsilon_1}$
- $z$ commutes with all $y_k$’s and $y'_k$’s
- $x_jzx_j^{-1}z^{-\varepsilon'_j}=x'_jzx_j'^{-1}z^{-\varepsilon'_j}=1$ whith $\varepsilon'_j=\begin{cases}\varepsilon_j\varepsilon_1&\text{if $j\le r$}\\\varepsilon_j&\text{if $j>r$}\end{cases}$
- $y_k^{a_k}z^{b_k}=y_k'^{a_k}z^{\varepsilon_1 b_k}=1$ ($\forall k=1,\ldots,n$)
- \(I) $Yx'_1ZX=z^e$, where $Y=y_1\ldots y_n$, $X=x_{r+1}^2\ldots x_n^2$ and $Z=x_2x'_2\ldots x_rx'_r$
- \(II) $Y'x'_1Z'X'=z^{\varepsilon_1e}$, where $Y'=y'_1\ldots y'_n$, $X'=x'_{r+1}\ldots x'_n$ and $Z'=x'_2x_2\ldots x'_rx_r$.
Eliminating $x'_1$, (I) and (II) join to become (III): $YY'^{-1}X'^{-1}Z'^{-1}ZX=z^{(1-\varepsilon_1)e}$ and $Z'^{-1}Z$ is a product of $r-1$ commutators (of conjugates of inverses of $x_2,x'_2,\ldots,x_r,x'_r$, having the same $\varepsilon'_j$’s).
When $r=g$, $X$ and $X'$ are empty products hence $\epsilon'=o_1$ or $o_2$. Moreover when $\epsilon=n_3,n_4$, since we find $\epsilon'=o_2$, we can replace the $-b_k$’s which occur by their opposites. More precisely Seifert invariants for ${\rm Ker\,}(\varphi)$ when $r=g$ are:
- if $\epsilon=n_1$: $\{0; (o_1, g-1);F_{OC}\}$
- if $\epsilon=n_2$: $\{2e; (o_1, g-1);F_0\}$
- if $\epsilon=n_3,n_4$: $\{0; (o_2, g-1);F_0\}$.
When $r<g$, (III) contains a product of $2(g-r)$ squares and $r-1$ commutators, which can be converted to a product of $2g-2$ squares (using Lemma \[lem:commutsquar\] and taking care of the $\varepsilon'_j$’s to determine $\epsilon'$). Moreover, when the $\epsilon'$ we find corresponds to a non-orientable manifold, all $b'_k=-b_k$’s (if any) can be replaced by $b'_k=b_k$. Hence Seifert invariants for ${\rm Ker\,}(\varphi)$ when $r<g$ are:
- if $\epsilon=n_2$: $\{2e;n_2,2g-2);F_0\}$
- if $\epsilon=n_3$ and $\varphi$ sends only $v_1$ to $1$, or if $\epsilon=n_4$ and $\varphi$ sends only $v_1,v_2$ to $1$: $\{0;(n_2,2g-2);F_{OC}\}$
- in all other cases: $\{0;\epsilon',2g-2);F_0\}$ with $\epsilon'=n_1$ if $\epsilon=n_1$, and $\epsilon'=n_4$ if $\epsilon=n_3,n_4$.
The following theorem is a synthesis of Propositions \[prop:vjoi\] and \[prop:vjni\].
\[theo:vj\]When $\varphi$ maps some $v_j$’s to $1$ and all other generators to $0$, ${\rm Ker\,}(\varphi)$ is the fundamental group of the Seifert manifold given by the following invariants, whith $F_{OC}$ and and $F_0$ as defined in Notation \[nota:FOCFm\].
- (Orientation covers)
- if $\epsilon=o_2$ and $\varphi$ maps all $v_j$’s to $1$: $\{0;(o_1,2g-1);F_{OC}\}$
- if $\epsilon=n_1$ and $\varphi$ maps all $v_j$’s to $1$: $\{0;(o_1,g-1);F_{OC}\}$
- if $\epsilon=n_3$ and $\varphi$ sends only $v_1$ to $1$, or if $\epsilon=n_4$ and $\varphi$ sends only $v_1,v_2$ to $1$: $\{0;(n_2,2g-2);F_{OC}\}$
- (Exotic cases) if $\epsilon=n_2,n_3,n_4$ and $\varphi$ maps all $v_j$’s to $1$:
- if $\epsilon=n_2$: $\{2e; (o_1, g-1);F_0\}$
- if $\epsilon=n_3,n_4$: $\{0; (o_2, g-1);F_0\}$
- (Ordinary cases) in all other cases: $\{e';(\epsilon',G);F_0\}$ with $$e'=\begin{cases}2e&\text{if $\epsilon=o_1,n_2$}\\0&\text{if $\epsilon=o_2,n_1,n_3,n_4$}\end{cases}\qquad\epsilon'=\begin{cases}\epsilon&\text{if $\epsilon=o_1,o_2,n_1,n_2,n_4$}\\n_4&\text{if $\epsilon=n_3$}\end{cases}$$$$\text{and}~G=\begin{cases}2g-1&\text{if $\epsilon=o_1,o_2$}\\2g-2&\text{if $\epsilon=n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4$.}\end{cases}.$$
[999]{}
A. Bauval, D. L. Gonçalves, C. Hayat, P. Zvengrowski, [*The Borsuk-Ulam Theorem for Double Coverings of Seifert Manifolds*]{} Proceedings of the Institute of Mathematics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (Brazilian-Polish Topology Workshop), Vol. 6, no 6, 165-189, (2013) 165-189.
W. Magnus, A. Karass, D. Solitar, [*Combinatorial Group Theory*]{}, Interscience Publisher Wiley, New York London Sidney, 1966.
J. Matoušek, [*Using the Borsuk-Ulam theorem*]{}, Universitext, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 2002.
P. Orlik, [*Seifert Manifolds*]{}, Lecture Notes in Math.**291**, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1972.
H. Seifert, [*Topologie Dreidimensionaler Gefaserter Rume*]{}, (German) Acta Math. **60** no. 1 (1932), 147-238; english translation appears as “Topology of $3$-dimensional fibered spaces” in the book “A textbook of topology” by H. Seifert and W. Threlfall [*Academic Press*]{}, 1980.
H. Ziechang, E. Vogt, H-D Coldewey, [*Surfaces and Planar Dixcontinuous Groups*]{}, Lecture Notes in Math. **835**, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1980.
\
\
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Excited random walks (ERWs) are a self-interacting non-Markovian random walk in which the future behavior of the walk is influenced by the number of times the walk has previously visited its current site. We study the speed of the walk, defined as $V = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{X_n}{n}$ where $X_n$ is the state of the walk at time $n$. While results exist that indicate when the speed is non-zero, there exists no explicit formula for the speed. It is difficult to solve for the speed directly due to complex dependencies in the walk since the next step of the walker depends on how many times the walker has reached the current site. We derive the first non-trivial upper and lower bounds for the speed of the walk. In certain cases these upper and lower bounds are remarkably close together.'
address:
- |
Erin Bossen\
Eastern Illinois University\
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science\
600 Lincoln Avenue\
Charleston, IL 61920\
USA
- |
Brian Kidd\
Purdue University\
Department of Statistics\
250 N University St\
West Lafayette, IN 47907\
USA
- |
Owen Levin\
University of Minnesota\
School of Mathematics\
206 Church Street S.E.\
Minneapolis, MN 55455\
USA
- |
Jonathon Peterson\
Purdue University\
Department of Mathematics\
150 N University St\
West Lafayette, IN 47907\
USA
- |
Jacob Smith\
Franklin College\
Department of Mathematics and Computing Sciences\
101 Branigin Blvd.\
Franklin, IN 46131\
USA
- |
Keven Stangl\
University of California, Los Angeles\
Department of Mathematics\
Los Angeles, CA 90024\
USA
author:
- Erin Bossen
- Brian Kidd
- Owen Levin
- Jonathon Peterson
- Jacob Smith
- 'Kevin M. Stangl'
bibliography:
- 'finalbib.bib'
title: Upper and Lower Bounds on the Speed of a One Dimensional Excited Random Walk
---
Introduction
============
A simple random walk on ${\mathbb{Z}}$ can be thought of as a simple discrete model for random motion where at each time step the ’walker’ tosses a (possibly biased) coin and steps right if he gets a heads and left if he gets a tails. Mathematically, if we denote the position of the walk after $n$ steps by $S_n$ then we can represent the walk as $S_n = \sum_{i=0}^n \xi_i$ where the sequence of random variables $\xi_1,\xi_2,\xi_3,\ldots$ represent the successive steps of the walk. Since the steps are given by the outcomes of repeated tosses of a coin, the random variables $\{\xi_i\}_{i\geq 0}$ are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) with $P(\xi_1 = p)$ and $P(\xi_1 = -1) = 1-p$ (here $p \in (0,1)$ is the probability that the coin the walker is tossing comes up heads).
Simple random walks are very well known and much is known about them, but in this paper we will focus on a different model for random motion called an excited random walk. In an excited random walk, rather than the steps of the walk being i.i.d. the probability of the walker moving right ($+1$) or left ($-1$) from a site on the $n$-th step is a function of how many times the walker has stepped on that site by time $n$. To describe the excited random walk model, we begin by fixing an integer $M\geq 1$ and parameters $p_1, p_2, \dots, p_M \in (0,1)$. When the walker visits a location $i$ for the $j$th time, if $j\leq M$ then the walker tosses a coin with probability of heads $p_j$ while if $j>M$ the walker tosses a fair coin ($p=1/2$) to determine the next step left or right. That is, an excited random walk is a stochastic process $\{X_n\}_{n\geq 0}$ starting at $X_0 = 0$ and such that $X_{n+1} = X_n \pm 1$ and $${\mathbb{P}}( X_{n+1} = X_n+1 \, | \, X_0 = x_0, X_1 = x_1, \ldots, X_n=x_n )
=
\begin{cases}
p_j & \text{if } \#\{ k\leq n: x_k = x_n \} = j \leq M \\
\frac{1}{2} & \text{if } \#\{ k\leq n: x_k = x_n \} > M.
\end{cases}$$
Excited random walks are sometimes also called “cookie random walks” due to the following interpretation of the dynamics. We imagine that initially there is an identical stack of $M$ cookies at each site. At every step the random walker takes the top cookie from the stack at the current site (if there is at least one cookie left) and eats it. The cookie induces an “excitement” or drift which causes the walker to step to the right with probability $p_j$ (or left with probability $1-p_j$). If the walker ever returns to a site where all the cookies have already been eaten then there is nothing to “excite” him and so he steps left/right with equal probability. Due to this “cookie” interpretation of excited random walks we will often refer to the parameter $M$ as the number of cookies at each site and the parameter $p_j$ as the “strength” of the $j$-th cookie.
{width="40.00000%"} {width="40.00000%"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{width="40.00000%"} {width="40.00000%"}
Background and previous results
-------------------------------
Excited random walks were first introduced by Benjamini and Wilson in [@benjamini2003excited]. In the model considered by Benjamini and Wilson, however, there was only one cookie at each site $M=1$. This model was then generalized by Zerner in [@zerner2005multi] to allow for multiple cookies at each site, but with the restriction that all $p_j \geq \frac{1}{2}$; that is all cookies induced a non-negative drift for the walker. Kosygina and Zerner further generalized the model in [@kosyginazerner2008posneg] to allow for the possibility of both “positive” ($p_j > 1/2$) and “negative” ($p<1/2$) cookies in the stack of cookies at each site. In fact, the model of excited random walks is even more general than what we have described here. Certain results have even allowed for placing random cookie stacks at sites (rather than the same cookie stack at each site) and for infinitely many cookies at each site. In this paper, however, we will restrict ourselves to the simpler model described above of $M$ cookies at each site with strengths $p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_M$.
The behavior of simple random walks is quite easy to analyze since as noted above the walk $S_n = \sum_{i=1}^n \xi_i$ is the sum of i.i.d. random variables. In particular, the law of large numbers implies that $\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{S_n}{n} = E[\xi_1] = 2p-1$ with probability 1. That is, the random walk has a deterministic limiting speed of $2p-1$. Thus, if $p>1/2$ then the walk moves to the right and with positive speed while if $p<1/2$ the walk moves to the left with speed $1-2p$ (or equivalently, for any $p \in [0,1]$ the walker simply moves with *velocity* $2p-1$). In either of these cases we say that the walk is *transient* since it only visits any site a finite number of times. More generally, if a random walk is transient with non-zero speed, it is *ballistic*. For one-dimensional simple random walks, transience and ballisticity are equivalent, but as we will see in our discussion of excited random walks, this is not always the case. The case $p=1/2$ is more delicate, but it was shown in 1921 by Pólya [@polya1921rw] that a one-dimensional simple symmetric random walk is *recurrent*; that is, the walk visits every site infinitely many times.
In contrast to simple random walks, the behavior of excited random walks is much more difficult to determine since the self-interacting nature of the walk creates dependencies among steps of the walk that are very hard to handle. Moreover, the behavior of the walk is at times like a biased random walk (on the first $M$ visits to sites) while at other times is like a symmetric random walk (after more than $M$ visits to a site). Thus, even the question of determining whether the excited random walk is recurrent or transient is quite difficult. In spite of these difficulties, a number of characteristics of excited random walks have been determined to depend on a single easy to calculate parameter. $$\label{deltadef}
\delta = \sum_{j=1}^M (2 p_j - 1).$$ We will use the notation $\delta_j = 2p_j-1$ for the drift of the $j$-th cookie in the cookie stack. Thus, the parameter $\delta = \sum_{j=1}^M \delta_j$ can be thought of as the net total drift contained in all the cookies in the cookie stack at each site.
\[ERWtrans\] The parameter $\delta$ determines the recurrence or transience of the excited random walk.
1. If $\delta>1$ then the walk is transient to the right; that is, ${\mathbb{P}}(\lim_{n\to\infty} X_n = +\infty) = 1$.
2. If $\delta<-1$ then the walk is transient to the left; that is, ${\mathbb{P}}(\lim_{n\to\infty} X_n = -\infty) = 1$.
3. If $\delta \in [-1,1]$ then the walk is recurrent; that is, ${\mathbb{P}}(\liminf_{n\to\infty} X_n = -\infty, \, \limsup_{n\to\infty}X_n = +\infty) = 1$.
In [@zerner2005multi] Zerner also proved that excited random walks have a limiting speed. That is, given any parameters $M$ and $\vec{p} = (p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_M)$ for an excited random walk there is a constant $V_{M,\vec{p}} \in [-1,1]$ such that $$\label{LLN}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{X_n}{n} = V_{M,\vec{p}}, \quad \text{with probability one.}$$ Determining the exact value of the speed $V_{M,\vec{p}}$ as a function of $M$ and $\vec{p}$, however, remains an open problem and is the focus of this present paper. While there is still no explicit formula for $V_{M,\vec{p}}$ in general, it is known that the parameter $\delta$ determines exactly when the speed is positive, negative or zero.
\[speedpos\] The parameter $\delta$ determines the sign of the limiting speed $V_{M,\vec{p}}$ of the excited random walk.
1. If $\delta > 2$ then $V_{M,\vec{p}} > 0$.
2. If $\delta < -2$ then $V_{M,\vec{p}} < 0$.
3. If $\delta \in [-2,2]$ then $V_{M,\vec{p}} = 0$.
Note that Theorems \[ERWtrans\] and \[speedpos\] together highlight a very peculiar feature of excited random walks: If $\delta \in (1,2]$ then the walk is transient to the right, but with zero asymptotic speed. At first this might seem contradictory, but in fact it holds because in this case $X_n$ grows to infinity roughly like $n^{\delta/2}$ if $\delta \in (1,2)$ or like $n/\log n$ if $\delta =2$ [@basdevant2008growth; @kosyginazerner2008posneg].
Let $M=3$ and $\vec{p} = (p,p,p)$. Then $\delta = 6p-3$.
1. If $p \in [\frac{1}{3},\frac{2}{3}]$ then $\delta\in[-1,1]$, so the walk is recurrent.
2. If $p \in [\frac{1}{6},\frac{5}{6}]$ then $\delta\in[-2,2]$, so the walk is transient with $V_{M,\vec{p}}=0$.
3. If $p \in [0,\frac{1}{6})$ then $\delta < -2$, so the walk is ballistic with $V_{M,\vec{p}} < 0$.
4. If $p \in (\frac{5}{6},1]$ then $\delta > 2$, so the walk is ballistic with $V_{M,\vec{p}} > 0$.
It should be noted that if $p_i\in(0,1)$ for all $i$, then unless $M \geq 3$, $V_{M,\vec{p}}=0$. If $M < 3$ then $\delta < 4\cdot1-2=2.$ Thus, $V_{M,\vec{p}}$ is non-positive. A symmetric argument shows that $\delta >-2$ and thus $V_{M,\vec{p}}=0$ unless $M\geq 3$
Theorem \[speedpos\] shows that we can identify the speed of the excited random walk exactly when the speed is zero (when $\delta \in [-2,2]$). However, as noted above when the speed is non-zero (when $\delta \notin [-2,2]$) then there is no explicit formula for the speed $V_{M,\vec{p}}$. The focus of this paper is to compute explicit upper and lower bounds for the speed in these cases. For simplicity we will restrict ourselves to the case of positive speed ($\delta > 2$) since the negative speed case can by handled similarly by symmetric arguments. Prior to this paper, when $\delta>2$ the only known upper and lower bounds on the speed were the trivial ones $$0 < V_{M,\vec{p}} \leq \max_{j\leq M} (2 p_j - 1).$$ The upper bound on the right is the speed of a simple random walk which moves to the right with probability $p^* = \max_{j\leq M} p_j$ on each step. Since this simple random walk is always at least as likely to step right as the excited random walk, it is easy to see that the excited random walk has a speed that is less than or equal to that of this simple random walk. We will develop a method below for obtaining much better bounds than these trivial bounds. In particular, in the case of $M = 3$ cookies per site we will obtain upper and lower bounds which differ by at most 0.0194565.
The rest of the paper will be organized as follows. We begin with a brief introduction to the theory of Markov chains to cover results we will use. Then we describe a particular Markov chain related to excited random walks, known as the backward branching process. We discuss known results about this Markov chain and how they relate to the speed of an excited random walk. Afterward, we derive bounds on the speed using properties of the backward branching process. We end with a discussion of how well these bounds approximate the speed.
A related Markov chain
======================
In this section we will introduce a Markov chain that is useful for studying the speed of excited random walks. First, however, we will give a short overview of the notation and terminology of Markov chains and recall a few useful facts about Markov chains.
Markov Chains
-------------
Recall that a Markov chain on a countable state space $I$ is a stochastic process $\{Z_n\}_{n\geq 0}$ such that for any choice of $n\geq 1$ and $i_0,i_1,\ldots,i_n,i_{n+1} \in I$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}(Z_{n+1} = i_{n+1} \, | \, Z_0 = i_0, \, Z_1 = i_1, \ldots, Z_{n-1} = i_{n-1}, \,Z_n= i_n)
&= {\mathbb{P}}(Z_{n+1} = i_{n+1} \, | \, Z_n = i_n ) \\
&= {\mathbb{P}}(Z_1 = i_{n+1} \, | \, Z_0= i_n ).\end{aligned}$$ The transition matrix for the Markov chain is the matrix $$P = (p(i,j))_{i,j \in I}, \quad \text{where } p(i,j) = {\mathbb{P}}(X_1=j \, | \, X_0=i).$$ For ease of notation, if the Markov chain starts at $Z_0 = i$ we will write ${\mathbb{P}}_i(\cdot)$ in place of ${\mathbb{P}}(\cdot \, | \, Z_0=i)$. If the Markov chain starts from a random initial condition given by $\mu = (\mu(i))_{i\in I}$ where $\mu(i)$ is the probability that the Markov chain starts at $Z_0=i$, then we will denote this with the notation ${\mathbb{P}}_\mu$; that is, ${\mathbb{P}}_\mu(\cdot)= \sum_i \mu(i) {\mathbb{P}}_i(\cdot)$. Expectations with respect to the probability distributions ${\mathbb{P}}_i$ or ${\mathbb{P}}_\mu$ for the Markov chain are denoted by ${\mathbb{E}}_i$ or ${\mathbb{E}}_\mu$, respectively.
A special choice of an initial distribution is what is called a *stationary distribution*. A probability distribution $\pi = (\pi(i))_{i \in I}$ is a stationary distribution for the Markov chain $Z=\{Z_n\}_{n\geq 0}$ if ${\mathbb{P}}_\pi(Z_1=j) = {\mathbb{P}}_\pi(Z_0=j) = \pi(j)$ for all $j \in I$; that is, if $Z_1$ has the same distribution $\pi$ as $Z_0$ (and thus, by induction, $Z_n$ has the same distribution as $Z_0$ for all $n\geq 1$). If $\pi$ is a stationary distribution then $$\pi(j) = {\mathbb{P}}_\pi(Z_1=j) = \sum_{i \in I} \pi(i) {\mathbb{P}}_i(X_1=j) = \sum_{i \in I} \pi(i) p(i,j),$$ so that viewing $\pi=(\pi(i))_{i\in I}$ as a row vector we have $\pi = \pi P$; that is, $\pi$ is a left eigenvector of the transition matrix $P$ with eigenvalue $1$. If the state space $I$ of the Markov chain is finite, then computing the stationary distributions is a simple problem in linear algebra. However, if the state space $I$ is countably infinite then computing stationary distributions is much more difficult and in fact, for some inifinite state Markov chains there are no stationary distributions. It is known, however, that if the Markov chain is irreducible (that is, if it is possible starting at any state $i$ to eventually reach any other state $j$) and there is a stationary distribution then it is unique.
Stationary distributions are important for the analysis of Markov chains because they can be used to determine the long run asymptotics of the Markov chain. For instance, if the Markov chain is irreducible and a stationary distribution $\pi$ exists, then it is known that for any initial starting condition that $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^n Z_k = {\mathbb{E}}_\pi[Z_0] = \sum_{j\in j} \pi(j) j, \quad \text{with probability one.}$$
The Backward Branching Process
------------------------------
Because the transition probabilities of the excited random walk depend on the number of prior visits to the present location and not only on the current location of the walk, an excited random walk is not a Markov chain. However, there is a Markov chain that we can study that can give information about the excited random walk. This Markov chain is often referred to in the literature as the “backward branching process” due to some structural similarity with models for population growth known as branching processes. The backward branching process is related to the excited random walk through an analysis of the number of left (or backward) crossings of edges of the excited random walk before the walk reaches some point to the right for the first time. We refer the reader interested in the details of this connection to [@basdevant2008]. Here just provides a description of the transition probabilities for this Markov chain and the relevance to the limiting speed of the excited random walk.
To describe the transition probabilities for the backwards branching process, we imagine an infinite sequence of independent coin flips where for the first $M$ flips we use coins which come up heads with probability $p_j$ for $j=1,2,\ldots,M$ and then for all subsequent flips we use a fair coin. Mathematically we can represent this as the sequence $\{\xi_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ of independent Bernoulli random variables where $${\mathbb{P}}(\xi_j = 1) =
\begin{cases}
p_j &\text{if } j\leq M \\
\frac{1}{2} &\text{if } j > M.
\end{cases}$$ Next, for any $m\geq 1$ we let $$F_m = \inf\left\{ k\geq 0: \sum_{j=1}^{m+k} \xi_j \right\}.$$ Again viewing the $\{\xi_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ as the outcome of successive coin tosses we have that $F_m$ can be interpreted as the number of “tails” before the $m$-th “heads.” Finally, using this notation we are able to define the backward branching process associated to the excited random walk with parameters $M$ and $\vec{p}=(p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_M)$ as the Markov chain $Z=\{Z_n\}_{n\geq 0}$ on ${\mathbb{Z}}_+ = \{0,1,2,\ldots\}$ with transition probabilities given by $$p(i,j) = {\mathbb{P}}( F_{i+1} = j ), \quad \text{for } i,j\geq 0.$$
\[ex:tp\] Some transition probabilities which we will use later in Lemma \[pi0bounds\] are given below. Also we show the full transition matrix for when $p_1=p_2=p_3=p$. When $M=3$ cookies per site we have
- $p(0,0) = p_1$ (no tails before a single heads)
- $p(0,1) =(1- p_1)p_2$ (one tail before a single heads)
- $p(0,2) = (1-p_1)(1-p_2)p_3$ (two tails before a single heads)
- $p(0,k) = (1-p_1)(1-p_2)(1-p_3)/2^{k-2}$ for $k\geq 3$ ($k$ tails before a single heads)
- $p(1,0) =p_1p_2$ (no tails before two heads)
- $p(1,1) =(1-p_1)p_2p_3+p_1(1-p_2)p_3$ (one tail before two heads)
- $p(k,0) = p_1p_2p_3/2^{k-2}$ for $k>3$ (no tails before $k+1$ heads)
In the $M=3$ case where $p_1=p_2=p_3=p,$ (letting $q:=1-p$), the initial entries of the transition matrix (with $i,j \leq 2$) are $$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
p & pq & pq^2 & \\
p^2 & 2p^2q & \frac{3}{2}pq^2 & \cdots \\
p^3 & \frac{3}{2}p^2q & \frac{3}{4}(pq^2+ p^2q) & \\
& \vdots && \ddots
\end{array}\right)$$ and the remaining entries (when either $i$ or $j>2$) are given by $$p(i,j) = \frac{1}{2^{i+j-2}}\left[\binom{i+j-3}{i-3}p^3 + \binom{i+j-3}{j-3}q^3 + 3\binom{i+j-3}{i-2}p^2q + 3\binom{i+j-3}{j-2}pq^2\right]$$
The Markov chain $Z$ was first introduced in the study of excited random walks by Basdevant and Singh in [@basdevant2008]. It is easy to see that the Markov chain $Z$ is irreducible since $p(i,j)>0$ for all $i,j \geq 0$. Moreover, Basdevant and Singh showed that the Markov chain $Z$ has a (unique) stationary distribution $\pi$ whenever the parameter $\delta > 1$ (or equivalently, by Theorem \[ERWtrans\], when the excited random walk is transient to the right). Most importantly, Basdevant and Singh proved that the limiting speed $V_{M,\vec{p}}$ for the excited random walk can be expressed in terms of the stationary distribution for the Markov process $Z$ in the following theorem.
\[speed\] Suppose the parameters $M$ and $\vec{p} = (p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_M)$ are such that the speed $V_{M,\vec{p}} > 0$ (that is, $\delta>2$). If $\pi$ is the stationary distribution for the corresponding backward branching process $Z=\{Z_n\}_{n\geq 0}$, then $$\label{VEZ}
V_{M,\vec{p}}=\frac{1}{1+2{\mathbb{E}}_\pi[Z_0]}.$$
A rationalization for and proof sketch of Theorem \[speed\] comes from the following. Because $\delta>2$ the walk $X$ is transient and almost surely $\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{X_n}{n}=V_{M,\vec{p}}>0$. In such situations, it holds that almost surely $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{X_n}{n}=\frac{1}{\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{T_n}{n}}$$ where $T_n$ is the hitting time of site $n$. Essentially, this identity is just noting that distance over time can be expressed in terms of two different quantities for $X$ and each are equivalent to the velocity of the walk.
Now, the hitting time limit can be expressed in terms of the backward branching process by $\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{T_n}{n}=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{n+2\sum_{k=1}^n Z_k}{n}.$ To see this, we count the number of steps making up the hitting time to site $n$. The number of total steps down from positive site $k$ to site $k-1$ before the walk reaches $n$ is $\sum_{k=1}^n Z_k$. Each of these down steps is cancelled by one step back up to to site $k$ before reaching $n$. In addition, we have the final up step from each positive site $k$ up to $n$ which is $n$ steps. Lastly, $T_n$ contains the total number of steps from $0$ to $-1$ and all the steps contained in the negative half line. Because $X$ is transient to $+\infty$ when $\delta>2$, there are a finite (random) number $L$ of these steps and the limit of $\frac{L}{n}\to0$ almost surely as $n$ goes to $\infty$. Then we have the following equalities which imply the conclusion of Theorem \[speed\]. $$\frac{1}{V_{M,p}}
=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{T_n}{n}
=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{L+n+2\sum_{k=1}^n Z_k}{n}
=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{L}{n}+\frac{n}{n}+2\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^n Z_k
=1+2{\mathbb{E}}_\pi[Z_0]$$
While Theorem \[speed\] expresses the speed $V_{M,\vec{p}}$ in terms of the stationary distribution of the backward branching process, unfortunately, this doesn’t give an explicit formula for the speed since there is not yet an explicit formula for the stationary distribution $\pi$ (solving the infinite system of equations $\pi P = \pi$ is too difficult). In the following section, however, we will develop some methods which can be used to obtain rigorous upper and lower bounds on ${\mathbb{E}}_\pi[Z_0]$ and consequently upper and lower bounds on $V_{M,\vec{p}}$.
Reduction of the formula for the speed
======================================
In this section we will show how some recursive formulas for the probability generating function of the distribution $\pi$ can be used to get useful approximations (upper and lower bounds) of ${\mathbb{E}}_\pi[Z_0]$. The starting point of our analysis of the speed of the excited random walk is a recursive formula for the probability generating function $G(s) := \sum_{k=0}^\infty \pi(k) s^k$ of the stationary distribution $\pi$ for the Markov chain $Z$. Basdevant and Singh [@basdevant2008] showed that $G(s)$ is the unique solution of the functional equation $$\label{Grec}
1 - G\left(\frac{1}{2-s}\right) = A(s) [1-G(s)]+ B(s), \qquad s \in [0,1]$$ where $$ A(s) = \frac{1}{(2-s)^{M-1}{\mathbb{E}}_{M-1}[s^{Z_1}]}, \\$$ and $$\label{Beq}
B(s) = 1 - \frac{1}{(2-s)^{M-1}{\mathbb{E}}_{M-1}[s^{Z_1}]} + \sum_{k=0}^{M-2}\pi(k)\left(\frac{{\mathbb{E}}_k[s^{Z_1}]}{(2-s)^{M-1}{\mathbb{E}}_{M-1}[s^{Z_1}]} - \frac{1}{(2-s)^k} \right)$$ While the recursive equation is still to hard to solve explicitly, using the fact that $\frac{1}{2-s} \approx s$ when $s \approx 1$ Basdevant and Singh were able to use to obtain asymptotics of the function $G(s)$ near $s=1$. This is particularly useful because of the property of probability generating functions that $$\label{Gprime}
G'(1) = \sum_{k=1}^\infty \pi(k) k = {\mathbb{E}}_\pi[Z_0].$$ By careful analysis of this recursive equation near $s=1$ and using the formula for the speed, Basdevant and Singh were able to deduce the following implicit formula for the speed of an ERW.
\[speed2\]\[Basdevant & Singh [@basdevant2008]\]\[speedB\] When the speed is nonzero (i.e. when $\delta > 2)$, then ${\mathbb{E}}_\pi[Z_0] = G'(1) = \frac{B''(1)}{2(\delta-2)}$ and consequently the speed is is equal to $$\label{speedform2}
V_{M,\vec{p}} = \frac{\delta - 2}{\delta - 2 + B''(1)},$$ where $B(s)$ is defined in .
In deriving the representation for the speed, Basdevant and Singh were primarily interested in determining when the speed $V_{M,p}$ was positive. However, an additional consequence of this formula is that it comes much closer to giving an explicit formula for the speed. While computing ${\mathbb{E}}_\pi[Z_0]$ using the standard formula in requires knowing all of the stationary distribution, Theorem \[speedB\] shows we can instead compute this using only the $M-1$ values $\pi(0),\pi(1),\ldots,\pi(M-2)$. This is because all of the probability generating functions ${\mathbb{E}}_k[ s^{Z_1}]$ can be computed explicitly so that the only unknown terms in $B(s)$ are $\pi(0),\pi(1),\ldots,\pi(M-2)$.
\[ex:pgf\] In the general case of $M=3$ cookies, the formula for $B(s)$ involves ${\mathbb{E}}_k[s^{Z_1}]$ for $k=0,1,2$. These can be explicitly computed using the formulas for the transition probabilities $p(k,j)$ for the backward branching process. $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}_0[ s^{Z_1}] &=p(0,0)+sp(0,1)+s^2p(0,2)+\sum_{k=3}^\infty s^k p(0,k)\\
&=p_1 +s [(1 - p_1)p_2 ]+s^2[(1 - p_1)(1 - p_2)p_3]+ (1 - p_1) (1 - p_2) (1 - p_3)\sum _{k=3}^{\infty } \frac{s^k}{2^{k-2}}\\
&=p_1+s[(1-p_1) p_2 ]+s^2[(1-p_1) (1-p_2) p_3]-\frac{(1-p_1) (1-p_2) (1-p_3) s^3}{s-2}\end{aligned}$$ Similar explicit calculations show that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}_1[ s^{Z_1}]
&=\frac{s (2 p_2 (s-1)-s) (2 p_3 (s-1)-s)-p_1 (s-1) \left(p_2 \left(2 p_3 (3 s-4) s-3 s^2+4\right)+2 s (s-2 p_3 (s-1))\right)}{(s-2)^2},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}_2[ s^{Z_1}] &= \frac{(2 p_1 (s-1)-s) (2 p_2 (s-1)-s) (2 p_3 (s-1)-s)}{(s-2)^3}\end{aligned}$$
As noted above, Theorem \[speed2\] shows that the speed $V_{M,\vec{p}}$ for an excited random walk can be expressed in terms of only the unknown values $\pi(0),\pi(1),\ldots,\pi(M-2)$. The following lemma, however, gives a linear relation among these parameters so that we can actually eliminate one of the unknowns.
\[genabc\] The unique stationary distribution $\pi$ of $\{Z_n\}_{n\geq 0}$ satisfies the following equation. $$\delta - 1 = \sum_{k=0}^{M-2} \pi(k) \left({\mathbb{E}}_k[Z_1] - k - 1 + \delta \right)$$
Note that for any fixed excited random walk parameters, $M$ and $\vec{p}$, the expectations ${\mathbb{E}}_k[Z_1] = \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} j p(k,j)$ appearing in Lemma \[genabc\] can be explicitly calculated.
Due to properties of the stationary distribution we know: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}_\pi[Z_0] &= {\mathbb{E}}_\pi[Z_1]
\end{aligned}$$ or equivalently $$\label{EZ0EZ1}
\sum_{k=0}^\infty k\pi(k) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \pi(k){\mathbb{E}}_k[Z_1]$$ In general, the expectations ${\mathbb{E}}_k[Z_1]$ have to be calculated individually using the transition probabilities for the Markov chain $\{Z_n\}_{n\geq 0}$. However, Basdevant and Singh showed in [@basdevant2008 Lemma 3.3] that the following pattern emerges when $k\geq M-1$. $$\label{EkZ}
{\mathbb{E}}_k[Z_1] = k+1-\delta, \quad \forall k\geq M-1.$$ (We provide a proof of in the Appendix.) Using this, and splitting both sums in into $k\leq M-2$ and $k\geq M-1$ we obtain $$\sum_{k=0}^{M-2} k\pi(k) +\sum_{k=M-1}^{\infty} k\pi(k) = \sum_{k=0}^{M-2} \pi(k){\mathbb{E}}_k[Z_1] + \sum_{k=M-1}^{\infty} (k+1-\delta)\pi(k)$$ Noting that $\sum_{k=M-1}^{\infty} k\pi(k)$ appears on both sides, we reduce this to $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^{M-2} k\pi(k) &= \sum_{k=0}^{M-2} \pi(k){\mathbb{E}}_k[Z_1] + (1-\delta)\sum_{k=M-1}^{\infty}\pi(k) \\
&= \sum_{k=0}^{M-2} \pi(k){\mathbb{E}}_k[Z_1] + (1-\delta) - (1-\delta)\sum_{k=0}^{M-2} \pi(k)\end{aligned}$$ where in the last equality we used that $\sum_{k=M-1}^{\infty}\pi(k) = 1-\sum_{k=0}^{M-2} \pi(k)$ because $\pi$ is a probability distribution. The statement of the lemma is then obtained by simplifying.
As a special case, when there are $M=3$ cookies Lemma \[genabc\] gives a simple linear relation between $\pi(0)$ and $\pi(1)$.
\[abc\] For $M=3$ cookies with strength $\vec{p} = (p_1,p_2,p_3)$, the following linear equation follows from above: $$a\pi(0) + b\pi(1) = c$$ where (recalling the notation $\delta_j = 2p_j-1$) we have $$\begin{aligned}
a &:= p_1(\delta_2 + \delta_3) + p_2\delta_3(1-p_1) \\
b &:= \delta_3p_1p_2 \\
c &:= \delta - 1
\end{aligned}$$
When $M=3$, the equation in Lemma \[genabc\] becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{abc-unsubbed}
\delta - 1 = [{\mathbb{E}}_0[Z_1]+\delta-1]\cdot \pi(0) + [{\mathbb{E}}_1[Z_1]+\delta-2]\cdot \pi(1)
\end{aligned}$$ Next, note that $E_0[Z_1]$ and $E_1[Z_1]$ can be explicitly calculated from the known transition probabilities for $Z$ (compare with Examples \[ex:tp\] and \[ex:pgf\] above). For example, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}_0[Z_1] &= 0(p_1) + 1(1-p_1)p_2 + 2(1-p_1)(1-p_2)p_3 + (1-p_1)(1-p_2)(1-p_3) \sum_{k=3}^{\infty}\frac{k}{2^{k-2}}\\
&= (1-p_1)p_2 + 2(1-p_1)(1-p_2)p_3 + 4(1-p_1)(1-p_2)(1-p_3)\\
&= 4-4p_1-3p_2-2p_3+3p_1p_2+2p_1p_3+2p_2p_3-2p_1p_2p_3,\end{aligned}$$ and similarly it can be shown that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}_1[Z_1]
&= 5-2(p_1+p_2+p_3)-p_1 p_2(2p_3-1) = 2-\delta-p_1p_2\delta_3.
\end{aligned}$$ Substituting these formulas for ${\mathbb{E}}_0[Z_1]$ and ${\mathbb{E}}_1[Z_1]$ into (\[abc-unsubbed\]) and simplifying we obtain the statement of the corollary.
Bounds on the Speed
===================
Theorem \[speed2\] and Lemma \[genabc\] combined show that the speed $V_{M,\vec{p}}$ of an excited random walk with $\delta > 2$ can be computed in terms of only the unknown values $\pi(0),\pi(1),\ldots,\pi(M-3)$. Actually computing this function, however, is rather involved as especially computing the $B''(1)$ is a tedious task. Thus, for the remainder of the paper we will restrict ourselves to the case $M=3$ so that explicit computations can be done. With the aid of Mathematica to compute the derivatives in $B''(1)$, we were able to show the following.
\[Vpi0\] For an excited random walk with $M=3$ cookies of strengths $\vec{p} = (p_1,p_2,p_3)$, if $\delta>2$ the limiting speed is equal to $$\label{Vpiform}
V_{3,\vec{p}} = \frac{f_1}{f_2+f_3\cdot\pi(0)},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
f_1 &= 2 p_1 + 2 p_2 + 2 p_3 - 5\\
f_2 &= 9 + 8(p_1p_2 + p_1p_3+p_2p_3) -10(p_1+p_2+p_3)\\
f_3 &= 2(2p_3-1)(p_1+p_2-3p_1p_2)
$$
The formula in equation doesn’t quite calculate $V_{3,\vec{p}}$ explicitly since we do not known the value of $\pi(0)$. However, the following lemma shows that we can easily use this formula to compute upper and lower bounds on the speed.
\[monotone\] Let $f_1,f_2$ and $f_3$ be as in Theorem \[Vpi0\]. Then, if $\delta = \sum_{j=1}^3 (2p_j-1) > 2$ the function $x \mapsto \frac{f_1}{f_2+ f_3 x}$ is strictly positive and increasing for $x \in [0,1]$.
If $g(x) = \frac{f_1}{f_2+ f_3 x}$, then $g'(x) = \frac{-f_1 f_3}{(f_2+f_3 x)^2}$. Thus, to show that $g(x)$ is decreasing we need only to show that $f_1 f_3 < 0$ when $p_1,p_2,p_3$ are such that $\delta > 2$. Note first of all that $\delta > 2$ is equivalent to $p_1+p_2+p_3 > \frac{5}{2}$. Therefore, $$f_1 =2(p_1+p_2+p_3) - 5 > 0,$$ and so it remains to show $f_3 < 0$. To see this, note that since $p_1,p_2$ and $p_3$ are each at most one then the condition $\delta>2$ implies that they are all strictly larger than $1/2$. Thus, $f_3=2(2p_3-1)(p_1+p_2-3p_1p_2)<0$ if $p_1+p_2-3p_1p_2 < 0$. When $\delta>2$, it follows that $p_1+p_2 \in (3/2,2)$. Therefore, if we fix $t \in (3/2,2)$ and if $p_1+p_2 = t$ then $p_1+p_2 - 3p_1p_2 = t-3 p_1(t-p_1) = 3p_1^2+(1-3p_1)t$ and we wish to show that this is negative for all $p_1 \in [t-1,1]$. However, since $ 3p_1^2+(1-3p_1)t$ is convex in $p_1$ we need only to check the value at the endpoints $p_1=t-1$ and $p_1=1$, and at both endpoints this evaluates to $3-2t < 0$. This completes the proof that $f_3 < 0$ whenever $\delta>2$ and thus also that $g(x)$ is decreasing for $x\in [0,1]$.
Since we have already shown that $f_1>0$ and $f_3<0$ when $\delta>2$, it will follow that $g(x)$ is non-negative on $[0,1]$ if we can show that $f_2+f_3>0$ whenever $\delta > 2$. This will be accomplished by showing that $$\label{sumpos}
f_2+f_3\geq 0 \quad\text{when } \delta = 2,$$ and $$\label{partials}
\frac{\partial}{\partial p_i} (f_2+f_3)>0, \quad \text{for } i=1,2,3 \text{ whenever } \delta >2.$$ To show , note that if $\delta=2$ then $p_1+p_2+p_3 = \frac{5}{2}$. Therefore, substituting $p_3 = \frac{5}{2} - p_1-p_2$ into $f_2+f_3$ and then factoring we have $$\begin{aligned}
(f_2+f_3)(p_1,p_2,\tfrac{5}{2}-p_1-p_2)
&=-16+28p_1-12p_1^2+28p_2-40p_1p_2+12p_1^2p_2-12p_2^2+12p_1p_2^2 \\
&= 4(1-p_1)(1-p_2)(3p_1+3p_2-4). \end{aligned}$$ However, if $\delta=2$ then $p_1+p_2 = \frac{5}{2}-p_3 \geq \frac{3}{2}$ and thus $3p_1+3p_2 - 4 \geq \frac{9}{2}-4 = \frac{1}{2}$. From this, the claim in follows.
To show , note that direct computation of derivatives yields $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial(f_2+f_3)}{\partial p_1} &=-12+14p_2+12p_3-12p_2p_3 = 2p_2 -12(1-p_2)(1-p_3) \\
\frac{\partial(f_2+f_3)}{\partial p_2} &=-12+14p_1+12p_3-12p_1p_3 = 2p_1 -12(1-p_1)(1-p_3) \\
\frac{\partial(f_2+f_3)}{\partial p_3} &= -10 + 12p_1+12p_2-12p_1p_2 = 2-12(1-p_1)(1-p_2).\end{aligned}$$ For the partial derivative with respect to $p_1$, $\delta > 2$ implies that $p_3 > \frac{3}{2} - p_2$ so that $$(1-p_2)(1-p_3)<(1-p_2)(p_2-1/2) \leq \frac{1}{16}.$$ Also, since $\delta>2$ implies $p_2>1/2$ then we have that $\frac{\partial(f_2+f_3)}{\partial p_1} > 2(1/2)-12(1/16) = 1/4>0$. Similar arguments show that $\frac{\partial(f_2+f_3)}{\partial p_2} > 1/4$ and $\frac{\partial(f_2+f_3)}{\partial p_3} > 5/4$ when $\delta > 2$. This completes the proof of and thus also the proof of the lemma.
Using Lemma \[monotone\], it follows that we can obtain upper and lower bounds on $V_{3,\vec{p}}$ by using the simple bounds $0 \leq \pi(0) \leq 1$; that is $\frac{f_1}{f_2} \leq V_{3,\vec{p}} \leq \frac{f_1}{f_2+f_3}$. However, we can get improved upper bounds on $\pi(0)$ by using the fact that $\pi$ is not just a probability distribution but also a stationary distribution for the Markov chain $\{Z_n\}_{n\geq 0}$.
\[pi0bounds\] For an excited random walk with $M=3$ cookies of strengths $\vec{p} = (p_1,p_2,p_3)$, $$\frac{c\cdot p_1p_2}{b\cdot (1-p_1)+a\cdot p_1p_2} \leq \pi(0) \leq \frac{c}{\frac{b\cdot (1-p_1)p_2}{1-((1-p_1)p_2p_3+p_1(1-p_2)p_3)}+a},$$ where $a, b$, and $c$ are defined in Corollary \[abc\].
Since $\pi$ is the stationary distribution of a Markov chain with transition probability matrix $P = (p(i,j))_{i,j\geq 0}$, then we know that the (infinite) matrix equation $\pi = \pi P$ holds. That is, $$\pi(i) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \pi(k)p(k,i), \quad \text{for any } i\geq 0.$$ If we drop all but the first two terms in the sum on the right we then obtain the inequality $$\pi(i)
\geq \pi(0)p(0,i)+\pi(1)p(1,i) \label{piiLowerBound}$$ where $p(i,j)$ is the transition probability from state $i$ to state $j$ in the backward branching process. For a lower bound on $\pi(0)$ we use $i=0$ in and then Corollary \[abc\] to get $$\begin{aligned}
\pi(0)&\ge p(0,0)\pi(0)+ p(1,0)\pi(1)\\
&= p(0,0)\pi(0) + p(1,0) \frac{c-a\pi(0)}{b}.
\end{aligned}$$ Then, solving for $\pi(0)$ and using the formulas for the transition probabilities yields the lower bound $$\label{lowerPi0}
\pi(0) \geq \frac{c\cdot p(1,0)}{b\cdot (1-p(0,0))+a\cdot p(1,0)} = \frac{c\cdot p_1p_2}{b\cdot (1-p_1)+a\cdot p_1p_2}.$$
For an upper bound we repeat the same process this time using $i=1$ in and applying Corollary \[abc\] to get $$\frac{c-a \pi(0)}{b} \geq \pi(0) p(0,1) + \left(\frac{c-a \pi(0)}{b} \right) p(1,1)$$ Solving this for $\pi(0)$ and then using the formulas for the transition probabilities yields the upper bound $$\label{upperPi0}
\pi(0) \leq \frac{c}{\frac{b\cdot p(0,1)}{1-p(1,1)}+a} = \frac{c}{\frac{b\cdot (1-p_1)}{1-((1-p_1)p_2p_3+p_1(1-p_2)p_3)}+a}$$
By applying Lemmas \[monotone\] and \[pi0bounds\] to Theorem \[Vpi0\], we can obtain explicit upper and lower bounds on the speed of excited random walks with $M=3$ cookies. The upper/lower bounds are obtained by substituting the respective upper/lower bounds for $\pi(0)$ in Lemma \[pi0bounds\] into the formula for the speed in . In the special case of $p_1=p_2=p_3 > \frac{5}{6}$ this gives the following explicit formula for upper and lower bounds on the speed. $$\label{V3pbounds}
\frac{(6 p-5) \left(p^2-2 p-1\right)}{24 p^4-42 p^3-3 p^2+28 p-9} \leq V_{3,(p,p,p)} \leq \frac{(6 p-5) \left(2 p^4-7 p^3+5 p^2+p-3\right)}{48 p^6-156 p^5+180 p^4-61 p^3-53 p^2+51 p-11}.$$ As is seen in Figure \[boundplot\], these upper and lower bounds are remarkably close together. In fact, using NMaxValue and NArgMax (Mathematica’s numerical optimization functions) one sees that the maximum difference between the uppper and lower bounds is at most $0.010326$ and is obtained approximately at $p=0.86649$.
In the general case with $M=3$ cookies, the upper and lower bounds are again explicit rational functions in $(p_1,p_2,p_3)$, but these rational functions are extremely long and so we leave it to the interested reader to compute these upper bounds explicitly (with the aid of Mathematica or some other computer algebra software). We note, however, that even in this more general case the upper and lower bounds are remarkably close together. Indeed, again using Mathematia’s NMaxValue and NArgMax functions we obtain that the upper and lower bounds differ by at most $0.0194564$ and that this maximum is obtained at approximately $\vec{p}=(0.913811, 0.666396, 1)$.
![On the left is a plot of the upper and lower bounds for $V_{3,(p,p,p)}$ given in . The upper and lower bounds are so close as to be nearly indistinguishable, and so on the right we plot the difference between the upper and lower bounds.[]{data-label="boundplot"}](BestBoundsPlot "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![On the left is a plot of the upper and lower bounds for $V_{3,(p,p,p)}$ given in . The upper and lower bounds are so close as to be nearly indistinguishable, and so on the right we plot the difference between the upper and lower bounds.[]{data-label="boundplot"}](BoundDiffPlot "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
Conclusion
==========
Basdevant and Singh showed that the speed of an excited random walk with $M$ cookies per site can be expressed in terms of the expected value of the stationary distribution $\pi$ of a certain Markov chain on ${\mathbb{Z}}_+$. By using some recursions on the probability generating function of $\pi$ that were obtained by Basdevant and Singh, we were able to show that for any fixed values of the parameters $p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_M$, the speed can be expressed as an explicit function of only the $M-2$ unknown values $\pi(0),\pi(1),\ldots,\pi(M-3)$. In the case of $M=3$ there is only one unknown parameter, $\pi(0)$ and we can therefore obtain bounds on the speed by obtaining explicit bounds on $\pi(0)$. The bounds we obtain in the case $M=3$ are very close together, but an exact computation of the speed is at this point still out of reach.
We conclude this paper by stating some remaining open questions related to the results in this paper.
1. Can one implement the methods developed in this paper to obtain explicit upper and lower bounds on the speed $V_{M,\vec{p}}$ when $M\geq 4$? The main difficulty here will be that instead of optimizing a function of one variable over an interval one will need to find the minimum and maximum of a function of $M-2$ over a $(M-2)$-dimensional region.
2. For any fixed $M$, is the function $(p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_M)\mapsto V_{M,(p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_M)}$ differentiable in the region where $\delta = \sum_{j=1}^M (2p_j-1) > 2$? It was shown in [@basdevant2008] for critical $\vec{p}= (p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_M)$ (that is where $\delta = 2$) the speed function $\vec{p}\mapsto V_{M,\vec{p}}$ has a positive “right derivative” (that is, the directional derivative is positive in all directions $\vec{u}$ pointing toward the interior of the region where $\delta > 2$). For instance, this implies that $p\mapsto V_{3,(p,p,p)}$ has a positive right derivative at $p=5/6$. Since the explicit upper and lower bounds in have the same derivative at $p=1$, our results show that $p\mapsto V_{3,(p,p,p)}$ is differentiable at $p=1$ (with derivative equal to 2). It remains open, however, to show that $V_{3,(p,p,p)}$ is differentiable in $(5/6,1)$.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
This research was conducted during the 2016 Purdue Research in Mathematics Experience (PRiME) undergraduate math REU. All of the participants are grateful for the support of PRiME provided by NSF grant DMS-1560394 and by the Mathematics Department at Purdue University.
Proof of {#k+1-delta}
=========
We will now give a proof that ${\mathbb{E}}_k[Z_1]=k+1-\delta$ for all $k\geq M-1$.
We will compute ${\mathbb{E}}_k[Z_1]$ by conditioning on $S_M =\sum_{j=1}^M \xi_j$ (the number of successes in the first $M$ Bernoulli trials). $$\label{EkZcond}
{\mathbb{E}}_k[Z_1] = \sum_{i=0}^M {\mathbb{P}}\left(S_M=i\right) {\mathbb{E}}\left[ Z_1 \, | \, Z_0 =k, \text{ and } S_M = i \right].$$ Recall when $Z_0=k$ that $Z_1$ is the number of “failures” before the $(k+1)$-st “success” in the sequence of Bernoulli trials. Given that $S_M = i$ we know that there are $i$ successes and $M-i$ failures in the first $M$ trials, and thus $Z_1$ is $M-i$ plus the number of failures before the $(k+1-i)$-th success in a sequence of Bernoulli($1/2$) trials. Since the number of failures before the $(k+1-i)$-th success is a NegativeBinomial($k+1-i,1/2$) random variable which has mean $k+1-i$, we can therefore conclude that $${\mathbb{E}}\left[ Z_1 \, | \, Z_0 =k, \text{ and } S_M = i \right] = M-i+(k+1-i) = M+k+1-2i.$$ Plugging this in to we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}_k[Z_1] &= \sum_{i=0}^M {\mathbb{P}}\left(S_M=i\right)\cdot(M+k+1-2i)\\
&= M+k+1-2 \sum_{i=0}^M i\cdot{\mathbb{P}}\left(S_M=i\right)\\
&= M+k+1-2{\mathbb{E}}\left[S_M\right] \\
&= M+k+1-2\sum_{j=1}^M{\mathbb{E}}\left[\xi_j\right]\\
&= M+k+1-2\sum_{j=1}^M p_j\\
&= (k+1)-\left(\sum_{j=1}^M 2p_j-1\right)\\
&= k+1-\delta.\end{aligned}$$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.